Third parties don't belong in the kernel even on Linux. There IS an alternative.

That is up to you as the administrator to reject vendors who don't use the alternative and want to send you a custom kernel driver instead.

However... It's still possible for Crowdstrike to do something stupid that brings a system to its needs.

The software is able to block a file from being opened or read, for example. Now what happens if Crowdstrike suddenly detects _EVERY_ file as malicious and starts preventing the system reading any files at all? For example.. the Browser.. the Windows manager.. the Launcher, Desktop, etc.. Any programs that have to run in order for the user to successfully log in and use their system.

With proper auditing, you can use NPM just fine, pin a specific version

So Insecure by default then.

What we really need is to have catered repos which default to a pinned version, instead of requiring the user to pin one. And the version pin does not update until that version has been audited by a sufficient number of trusted authorities.

If no version has been audited and pinned, then new packages should simply be unavailable to anyone who is not running in a "dangerous insecure mode"

I mean that some system of package review is obviously necessary for all updates, and that which has not been reviewed should not be available. Otherwise it's worse than geocities -- a convenient malware distribution channel.

There's a difference between a "hazardous protein" and a "protein that doesn't cause damage until three generations into the future."

Eh? What about a protein that 3 generations into the future causes Production of a related protein that obliterates all life on the planet.
I would say these 3rd generation cases Cannot be safely ignored.

Given the program that takes inputs vector x named P(x); write a function f(x) such that f(P) is true if and only if P halts for all possible inputs.

The only difference is we're asked.. given a protein that interactions with molecules vector x named -- P(x). Write a function such that f(P) returns true if and only if P for all possible inpuit vectors is not capable of causing a catastrophic failure or serious impediment upon a complex biological process resulting in the Injury to, Or loss of any basic senses or intelligent capacity, or the end of the life to a human organism.

Perhaps you should put your Proteins in a simulator of some kind and require the simulations run through without simulated biologies or ecosystems dying before allowing the designed proteins as a design.

You'd think, if someone is managing a group of detectives, they would be regularly discussing progress on their cases

I would say not. They should stop trying to micromanage detectives and their work flows, as that is only to frustrate them.
Detectives are senior mental workers much like writers, or designers in certain engineering, or art fields.

They are bound to spend a lot of time on the clock making no progress at all, And in addition spend a lot of time thinking while not on the clock, in the shower, etc, the subconcious organizes thoughts when conditions are right -- which can be attributable to 90% of the progress you ever can even get. Which kind of also means that having them log hours or monitoring their computer usage as some kind of proxy to amount of work done, is also complete bullshit. Especially for any detectives who may have to go out into the field and look at places to stimulate their intuitive senses sufficiently to come back and make progress. There are necessary activities for thought workers which can't be categorized as work by corporate standards, but which are necessary to the process. Including being lazy and procrastinating from time to time. The keyjamming is not necessarily a flaw - for all we know they may be a high-performing detective within a system that has ignorant executive management and stupid policies.

One does not Ping Sherlock holmes or Fox Mulder, every 4 hours for a status update on his thought process, or even every day for that matter. One does not harass the graphics designer every hour about when they are going to get past their art block on creating such and such, and forward movement, etc. You wait, and as professionals it is upon them to report once they are organized and ready to report.

The progress on cases is a glacial thing; even with hardworking detectives--you don't more regularly have progress to discuss, than perhaps a monthly or bi-weekly update on case files they've taken. If the day is spent reading reports and other necessary activities: most of the time they simply won't have anything to give you. It also does not make sense for a detective to write reports about reports. And as a mental discipline the detectives would need time to organize their thoughts. It's not a good idea to disrupt peoples' workflows and ask for them to make extra reports just to have a proof that they are working. Reports like that do not cause progress, and quite the opposite. More unnecessary work and a slowing down the process is the result of inserting additional problems for the detectives to solve.

Also; I don't believe controlling where the detectives work is a solution to this problem -- the whole keylogger thing or caring about where they work shows a misguided approach. Th detectives are presumably just as likely to spend time pretending to read reports while goofing off at a central office.

This should not necessarily be a huge deal either. Progress can be stalled on many cases for reasons that are outside detectives' controls.

Fresh leads may be lacking. Those forensic samples the labs are going take months to get back can be pivotal to the direction of the cases, etc. Detectives are going to be appraised eventually by whether or not they solve the cases, and how many they do manage to close. That is where the performance measurements exist, And it is the detectives' jobs to make certain they deliver. A detective's manager's jobs is not to micromanage detectives' case work,

Doesn't reading Slashdot articles count as reading?

In fact.. Not only are we reading here, but we are writing here as well. Guess we are amongst the dinosaurs in modern society... We're supposed to be glued to TikToks and Youtube shorts. Makes us more controllable by the government.

.Flying objects that can't detect stationary obstacles that size shouldn't be flying.

Human-piloted aircraft cannot reliably detect them either. Unless the cranes have proper markings and lighting, they can be very difficult to see from the air and are a menace to all aviation, not just drones. On the other hand; Human-piloted aircraft would also not be flying that low other than during takeoff or landing. Formerly only structures more than 200' above ground had to be specially marked and lighted, but under new FAA regulations anything above 50 feet has to be marked, so there can be an argument that the cranes are to blame If they haven't been cleared.

This is not proven an issue with the drone until they finish the investigation. It may very well be the crane ended up lacking the proper beacons to identify the hazard to aviation.

I don't care if that's illegal. Prove I was the shooter.
Firing at aircraft is a felony. You'll be wearing orange within a week, And you will very quickly lose the right to possess a shotgun or any firearm ever again.

The drones have live video feeds, and any crash would be investigated thoroughly by the authorities who will very quickly find the evidence that the thing has been shot at and by whom.

These are solved problems (e.g., 1+1, 1:1),
These are Only solved problems if the customer is willing to pay the price tag on the solution.
So few subscribers to comm services are willing to pay that the Default is zero redundancy.

Like I said: You can order a protect circuit from your telecom provider, and you will have a level of redundancy for your service.
But you are looking at three to four times the amount on the customer's monthly price for each of those protected lines.

Of course that still does not help you when your internet provider goes down due to a fiber cut. One of the required parts of the solution
for internet connectivity is that you have multi-homed IP address space and connect through redundant pairs of circuits to multiple upstream Internet Service Providers via BGP route exchanges.

Leasing individual lines or an individual internet connection does not come with an expectation Nor the price of any layers of redundancy.

If that's true then a lot of software was broken a year ago when WMIC became an optional feature, not installed by default.

Look.. I know of companies that use WMIC commands in their Windows user login script. The commands are used to save some diagnostic info during login and to perform some "System verification checks" - some are for security purposes and a failsafe check to make sure certain options and software is in place and running, before the user can gain access. For example if Windows defender is disabled, then accessing the system will be disallowed. In short; if the WMIC command fails, then the user will be unable to login to Windows. Even the Administrator may be unable to login to the network if the wmic command fails.

Except it did not actually become "Not installed by default". It became a feature-on-demand for new Windows install media from Microsoft.
Every company I know of downloaded Windows 11 media years ago to build their Install image. You don't wipe out your company image and start from scratch every time Microsoft puts out a new Windows ISO. Partly because Microsoft shut down their VLSC portal and makes it a pain in the butt to download new VL media these days. Partly because it takes a long time to prepare and deliver the perfect company image when a new version of Windows comes out.

So all the new systems you install still have the WMIC feature. The feature is not actually being removed until microsoft pushes out this update Retroactively deleting it from systems that have already been installed. The most likely outcome is your software vendors would have detected that WMIC was missing and updated their own Installer/Updater to copy over the WMIC binary from a previous version of Windows.

but the negligence of not having any redundant connection

I don't think you can really say it is negligence, when it is design. Carrier backbone links do not have redundancy, and that has long been the general rule that these were never redundant. A single fiber break or line cut can break anyone's internet service, and has always been the case. That isone of the major reasons it is recommended for customers to have multihoming in the first place.

Your home phone lines are the same. You are always one broken cable away from your service going down. That has just always been the fact, because it costs more than double the amount on every piece of infrastructure to run a second line to you, But also it can't just be a second line-- It has to be a second line that does not ride any of the same conduits or locations as the first line and does not shaer any either dependencies either. Typically only a very large enterprise customer with highly specialized needs would entertain paying whate it costs

This is also a really really bad idea, because WMIC can do a lot of things easily that are not so quick and easy in Powershell.

The other thing is a lot of existing software programs launch WMIC for different purposes And many legacy system management scripts use WMIC. Many admin manuals contain WMIC commands to run for certain tasks.

It's just stupid to delete a simple vital utility that does what it's supposed to do and has no issues.

I guess I would be fine with it if Microsoft had first removed WMI Services completely from all variants of Windows several versions ago, so the client would become irrelevent in that case. But as it stands today; wmic is the tried and true method to query certain system attributes such as Windows updates, etc. And it's going to be what every Windows admin already has in their pre-canned scripts, so Microsoft will be creating a ton of unnecessary work for a lot of people now, Or giving another reason to not adopt Windows 11 on the client.

Given the decline in network viewership do they still have a monopoly? None of the networks have a monopoly

They have essentially a monopoly over the market for broadcast TV news.

Network viewership is only declining because TV viewership is declining in general.
It is not no longer a monopoly; just because the medium as a whole is losing share.

The Social media and Streaming services viewers have migrated towards are large monopolies as well.