Asking for myself circa 2016...

Hiding a massive mobilization is virtually impossible in this day and age. That doesn't mean that other information sources aren't necessary, it means that, for this particular datum, they are somewhat redundant (although, technically in the intel world, having multiple independent sources confirming the same bits of information is something that is ALWAYS smiled upon). We may have only needed OSINT to know that the invasion was happening, but I guarantee that the powers-that-be are desperate for good HUMINT on topics like "How long will Putin's cronies put up with this crap?".

How do they envision this working, 'using more than one cloud provider' ? Replicate resources and infrastructure in each? Use the 'cheapest' individual resources (db, compute, storage) in whichever provider, and make them work together? Have competing teams working on different platforms?

You can't just divide up the work between providers like you're shipping packages or building roads. If I were assigned to do this, I'd have all my infra in one provider and perhaps a CDN endpoint in another or something, because that's about the only way this could come within a mile of not being a complete money pit and train wreck. Even if the infra could be easily replicated, you're doubling the management cost and the team required to maintain it.

"This is ageism - you're literally generalizing about people with experience based on a very limited data-set. It's just as bad as insisting on X years of experience, which discriminates against the young."

So the specific person I had in mind on this was a Cisco certified something or other installing switches, who not only insisted that unencrypted telnet was still appropriate for managing the switches because 'it was on a management VLAN' (this installation was at a public high school with multiple trunk lines, certainly nothing someone like me in high school would EVER tap into and sniff) but was also unable to get the firewall appliance (don't remember the brand) to trunk properly with the Cisco gear.

Dude was mid-thirties and had gone to local tech college for his certification. His age wasn't at issue, it was the fact that he treated (and in fairness, was probably trained to) IT like a checklist job.

The words were 'static enough', although I agree that's possibly not the best way to describe what I had intended. I am aware AD has been extended and the way it is managed in the modern era is quite a bit different, I was more trying to imply that experience gained on 10 years ago isn't totally obsolete, and may actually prove useful in the modern environment, whereas some other techs have changed so completely that same experience of ten years ago would be useless, if not counterproductive. A sort of backward-compatible nature to the experience I guess is what I was trying to imply?

Asking for X years of experience in most techs is just laughable. Active Directory administration? Postgresql? OK, those have probably been static enough where a decade of experience means something (although I would never impose such a ridiculous requirement). Kubernetes? Ceph? Lamba? What's going on now is barely recognizable compared to what was going on years ago. Sure, there are people who spend 15 years working on exactly one product, and that product might even still be in use in some recognizable form, but those in that category that I have run into generally fail to keep up with modern techniques and procedures.

If employers would stop treating IT like a static enterprise and more like the dynamic, constantly-shifting environment that must be constantly re-learned, they might have better luck. Just about anyone worth their game in IT that I work with could be given something completely foreign that they've never worked on before and be proficient enough to administer it through most scenarios in a matter of weeks, if not days. That's not some superpower, that's just how IT IS.

1) 'Stratum One' isn't a product, it's a reference for how far you are away from an authoritative time source. (i.e. a GPS, what most 'Stratum One' boxes use). You can, and always could, make one with even obsolete hardware.

2) They aren't in the least proprietary, any number of open source packages from multiple vendors can get you a 'Stratum One' server

3) Those servers are still NTP servers. The clients connecting to them use the NTP protocol.

4) virtually every piece of desktop or server computer hardware has one of these that 'doesn't rely on the internet'. It's called....wait for it...a clock. a 'Real-Time Clock' . While some embedded systems do not have these, virtually every other system does, and has had, since at least the IBM PC/AT.

5) If you are looking for INTERNAL timekeeping, which can have sub-nanosecond accuracy and implications, there are other systems already built in to manage that as well, such as the 'High Performance Event Timer' (basically, just a more accurate built-in clock)

Whoever wrote this article knows nothing of the source material. Garbage from the first word,

Is Bandwidth seriously the problem facing WiFi? Has gigabit+ home internet become so commonplace that the wireless connection is now the bandwidth limit? Are there really admins out there running 50+ wireless clients per access point that think that everyone videoconferencing at the same time with great quality is something that can happen if you just get ENOUGH bandwidth?

Am I the only person in the world who's problems with WiFi are easy hand-off roaming? Multiple AP overlap management? An authentication scheme that doesn't rely on passwords stored in plaintext or a preexisting PKI? Ability to penetrate a sturdy houseplant? Smart spectrum allocation that doesn't flip-flop constantly? Hell, how about just a high-certainty quality of service?

Wake me up when the next WiFi sales pitch is '100Mbps, with a QoS of Fast Ethernet. THAT would be revolutionary.

It's become the go-to way for tech to fight things they lose money on. If they would spend 1/10th of their lobbying and marketing budget on actually fighting child exploitation we might actually do something about the problem! But no, it's just another reason to slow down any consumer-friendly tech legislation.

"However, the OS maker didn't specify if the Windows-related files that are being removed from its downloads center on Monday will be replaced with new download links signed with SHA-2, leaving many too wonder if they'll ever be able to download some of Microsoft's old tools."

So much this. Easy excuse to get rid of anything that could be helpful or supportive of your older products and force more people against their will to your new not-ness.

MS has done horrible things but this article, really? an exerpt:

Typically, a crash caused by this update will give you the following error codes. If you see any of these after your computer crashes or restarts, it’s probably related to the buggy update:

        PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA
        CRITICAL_PROCESS_DIED
        ACPI_BIOS_ERROR
        INACCESSIBLE BOOT DEVICE
        MEMORY_MANAGEMENT
        DPC_WATCHDOG_VIOLATION
        Portals.sys

That covers a lot of area, I would find it hard to believe someone screwed up so hard as to have a single update that was associated with even half of these.

Personally/professionally, it hasn't hit me yet, but apparently the update in question is KB4549951. Go ahead and delay it if you have the ability.

Is this seriously the K-cup version of a PCR test? Does this thing actually do.testing better, or use some novel process, or really be better or faster or cheaper than what I can do with a stepper and a spread of test vials?

Legitimately asking if anyone who isn't an investor would be willing to explain the technology here.

...I find this to be an actually useful feature. Hypoxia is insidious, and while there are regs, it's still possible to start losing decision-making capabilities well below required minimums for onboard oxygen. It would be nice to have a built-in alarm function to at least inform you of.the situation and maybe take action. Combine that with the everpresent iPad in just about every GA cockpit to run foreflight and you've got yourself something useful.

Sure, you could do it for loads cheaper other ways and I'd never get one, but it's not a completely useless feature.

Did they make another BSD fork or are they switching to an x86-based architecture?

I have a stack of PC Magazines back for ages at the top of my closet. On one of them, there is a caricature of Bill Gates as an octopus, fighting off attacks from fighter jets (the lead of which was Netscape) because Microsoft had the audacity to ship Internet Explorer as the default browser in their operating system. Let me repeat that: The fact that an operating system used it's influence to set the DEFAULT WEB BROWSER was front page news. And people were upset.

And now....Microsoft has the stones to involuntarily change the operating system (and the license agreement) that it's users run on. What is the response? Sure there's outrage, but what are the real consequences to Microsoft? Maybe a class-action lawsuit at best for a few people? An apology for 'not being clear enough' about the upgrade process?

If you really want to be serious about how much control people have over your systems, you need to be a little bit more vocal, and a little bit more upset than this. The fact that the 'Internet Outrage' only caused the ad agency to double-down should probably clue you in to the level of action you really need to take here.

If you're not willing to defend against a company that is literally threatening your job security (I have clients with Windows 10 PCs), what threat are you to a fast food chain?