This is not a bank, it's a *future* bank.

This is not an existing bank, suddenly cutting off ATM cards and PC access. This smells more like a rushed launch in which not all the components (ATM and PC) are ready yet.

I'm glad to hear they aren't typical, though they *are* laying off a bunch of people in the name of AI, so there's that.

What kind of developer doesn't have a computer of his own? That would be really weird.

Bank managers are neither developers nor IT employees. So I'm not sure we have an actual disagreement.

Sure, it's not always true for house flippers, and it's not always true for PE companies. But in both cases, it is the norm. VERY few builders, even of new houses, use the best materials and processes, unless the buyer is willing to pay upcharges for it.

Really? What was this guy thinking? Clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

This is absolutely true. Developers (or IT employees) should never have direct access like that.

This particular attack used a low-priority system as the entry point. The initial goal was to find out who int he company had access to wallets. They then directly targeted that person with a more sophisticated attack.

Look, I agree with you! But it's just not common practice.

That's not how PE usually works.

House flippers, using the analogy, want to buy low and sell high. They typically buy a house that needs help, fix it up, and sell it. When they fix it up, they don't typically use top-notch materials or methods, they fix it up as cheaply as they can, making sure that the house *cosmetically* looks great. But they might well ignore serious, but unseen problems, like repeated sewer backups. When they sell, the house is genuinely in better shape than when they bought it. But it is not likely in *great* shape. The new owners may well find out that the house has hidden problems.

This is more like what PE does. They may genuinely improve the business. But their goal is not to make the company great. Their goal is the exit strategy: to sell for as much as possible. They will often cut staff that aren't urgently needed, but their loss will be felt over time. It's all about short-term profits rather than long-term sustainability.

Let me address the real meat of your comment.

Do *you* believe that this layoff is only about "AI is so good we don't need so many people?" Do *you* believe the layoff has nothing to do with the PE buyout?

Sure, there are good private equity firms. Berkshire Hathaway is one excellent example. But that's not how most work. I say this from personal experience, having worked in four of them. They each followed the same pattern: buy the company using heavy reliance on debt, fire some executives, bring in some of their own, take a chopping block to costs, especially employees, try to sell in about 5 years.

I bow in reverence to your six-digit ID.

This is all you really need to know.

The entire job of private equity, is to buy a business that is in trouble, cut staff to make the company appear more efficient than it is, and then sell it. This is the entire business plan of private equity, the house-flippers of businesses. Why would they NOT blame AI?

Very few development shops lock down engineer desktops. And I say that as someone who works for a company that does endpoint security. The problem is, engineers need to install so many different tools, IT can't keep up with clearing all of them through security, so they just punt and trust engineers to be scrupulous. If they DID lock down engineers' machines, they'd be kept so busy validating software, that they wouldn't be able to do the rest of their IT jobs. Oh, and then there's the fact that software developers...create new executables as part of their jobs.

Yes, I certainly am a clueless idiot, just ask my wife! :-) You have no idea what I qualify for. And if your "moving airplanes" project was "simple" it's because you didn't actually have to deal with time zones, likely because you just trusted the DateTime class that was already built for you.

You're forgetting that impeachment requires a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. Democrats may win both chambers, but not by that margin.

And even if he's impeached and convicted, that just means the Vice President takes his place. Do you really think Vance would be any better?

Republicans aren't as sick of Trump as you seem to think. If they were, candidates across the country would be distancing themselves from Trump. But mostly, they're still clinging to him like groupies.