I work for government organization that is constantly audited and I've seen this play out over and over.
An important aspect I never see mentioned is most Cyber Security personnel don't have the technical experience to truly understand the systems they are assessing, they are, like you said, just pushing to check those compliance boxes.
I say this as someone who is currently in a Cyber Security role, unfortunately, as I'm coming to learn cyber roles suck. But this isn't a jab at those Cyber Security personnel's intelligence. It's literally impossible to understand multiple systems at a deep level, it takes employees working on those systems weeks to months to understand this stuff, and that's with them being in the loop. Cyber is always on the outside looking in, trying like hell to piece it all together.
Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to add on with my personal opinions on the cyber security framework being severely broken because I deal with it on a daily basis.
> It's literally impossible to understand multiple systems at a deep level,\
No, it's not. It takes above average intelligence, and major investment in actual education (not just "training"), and actual depth of experience, but it's not impossible.
Do you think it comes from a fundamental misconception of how these roles should be structured? My take is that you just can't fundamentally assess technical elements from the outside unless they have been designed that way in the first place (for assessability). For example I educate my team that they have structure their git commits in a way that demonstrates their safety for audit / compliance purposes (never ever combine a high risk change with a low risk one, for example). That should go all the way up the chain. Failure to produce an auditable output is failure to produce an output that can be deployed.
I know of an important company currently pushing to implement a redundant network data loss prevention solution, while they don't have persistent VPN enabled and multiple known misconfigurations of things that prevent web decryption working properly.
The entry level market is getting more and more over saturated. It is bleeding upwards to mid level slowly. But if you are a skilled senior you are still in high demand. If not your resume probably sucks or you are not as skilled as most seniors.
Ironically, your posts are a perfect example of the utter derision some (most of society) give when discussing problems men are facing. This is one reason men are suffering from so many problems women aren't such as way higher rates of depression, suicide, and drug overdose.
There is a crisis with men. But it stems, I believe, from not being as coddled as they once were in terms of privilege. An equal playing field is not something men seem to be able to deal with. A solution will not be obtained by misidentifying the causes. What women and minorities have dealt with for centuries in America is far greater than the perceived slights white men deal with today. It is pathetic that they seem unable to deal with an equalization of the playing field.
It is beyond me how you can write these words and not recognize that they are bigoted.
You keep saying, over and over again, that as a broad generalization you simply believe white men are inferior to everyone else. That in itself is a racist and sexist statement - you're asserting that all people of a particular race and gender are inferior, because of their race and gender.
It doesn't matter if you believe this is the case because of some historical occurrence, it's still discriminatory and just as offensive as stereotyping and discriminating against anybody else would be.
It's not good to assume anyone is inferior and in your words "pathetic" because of their race and gender. I can't believe we still have to tell people this in 2024.
I seen a job posting for the FBI that blatantly stated you will work well over 40 hours a week, and all but made clear your job will be your life. So, yeah, it's not a job for someone that wants work/life balance.
Yeah, I think he missed the part where it discussed the swarm would have to be mostly autonomous since communicating back to earth for any sort of management commands is completely out of the question.
It's amazing they can still do it with voyager which is roughly 24 hours for one way traffic, 48 for round trip.
Game development is in a really weird place. Insanely over-saturated but almost all AAA games are extremely derivative, stale, bland games with a coat of pretty graphics
Indie games are awesome right now, but they don't have the budgets to produce AAA games. So there is a huge gap. Innovative indie games with cool, new gameplay concepts, but always simple or retro graphics, and AAA games with shiny graphics on the other end but gameplay that hasn't changed in over a decade.
I'm just waiting for any AAA studio to provide something new with the AAA games. Maybe AI to improve NPCs in an open world game? Anything besides the same old gameplay with new skins on it.
It's just risk aversion. Companies want to turn video games into a factory line golden goose, but struggle to reconcile that each iteration through that factory line makes the final product relatively worse and worse, even if it continues to look better and better. Now even Call of Duty can't find a Call of Duty killer. But these same companies are terrified of trying anything new because new things do, on occasion flop. It would also entail scrapping the factory line, because creating a new game, instead of reskinning and old with a few new tweaks, is a way different beast.
That said, I don't really think the stereotypes of indie games are very valid anymore. Valheim looks great, has a massive open world, and is multiplayer. [1] It also started entirely as a result of one guy's pet project, until he grabbed a coworker and then set off to make it what it became. The graphics are stylized, but I think in a broadly aesthetically appealing way, as opposed to e.g. pixel graphics which are very off-putting to many people, myself among them. Pixel graphics came from an era of CRTs with interlaced scanning, and various other visual artifacts, that naturally blurred, antialiased, and blended them. Sharp jaggy edges never really existed, and I fail to understand why that's a popular style now.
Some game concepts are fairly well developed. A shooter like Call Of Duty is such a concept, so making a competitor is far more difficult. Sure, you can make up with setting and presentation.
But otherwise very true, true innovation happens in the indie world and the maximal complexity of these type of games is steadily rising due to better tools and maybe soon AI support.
For me indie gaming is going through its own aggravating phase right now, but it seems most people aren't bothered by it. The quality of the games is better than ever, but every indie title now goes through Early Access, sometimes for several years. By the time the game is released the hype cycle has already finished.
For people like me who play games just a couple of hours a week, I have no interest in playing an unfinished game. I have a library of games bigger than I could ever play and I will always skip the EA stuff.
>every indie title now goes through Early Access, sometimes for several years.
That mostly shows the realities of indie development. These games have less staff and need less sales to succeed, but they take much longer as indies lack the time (some do development on the side to a full time gig), manpower, or (sometimes) talent to get things done quickly.
>I have a library of games bigger than I could ever play
Well that proves the point. we also get more indies than ever. I don't think EA would give us more finished games. We'd just get less released games full stop. Even if you never play them I'm not sure if I'd call that a good thing.
Insanely over-saturated but almost all AAA games are extremely derivative, stale, bland games with a coat of pretty graphics...
People have been saying this for decades at this point. I'm not seeing it.
Innovation is largely overrated. It can be a good thing, but the vast majority of games, whether AAA or indie, can't be truly innovative. And innovative doesn't translate directly to a game being enjoyable. Conversely, a game being "derivative" doesn't automatically make the game not fun to play.
Agreed. In video games, "innovation" quickly becomes "niche". Microsoft actually has a wider variety of games and genres represented on the Xbox, many highly praised, but frequently gets lambasted for having no games because the the overwhelming majority of players aren't actually interested in them. Sony on the other hand is dominating, and yet its biggest titles are all somewhat similar to each other and none of them really do anything new or interesting, they simply have a lot of polish.
If past history is any indication, TES6 will be to Skyrim fans what Skyrim was to Oblivion fans which was what Oblivion was to Morrowind fans. Daggerfall fans are split about Morrowind though and i'm not sure there are any Arena fans.
AAA basically just means nice graphics at this point. You can't dump more money into a piece of art to make it better, that's why all the innovation comes from indie games. Look at Balatro, a guy made a poker roguelike and became a millionaire overnight. I think if big game studios, rather than dumping their copious amounts of money into single, giant-scope games, dealt it out amongst a variety of smaller teams for smaller-scoped projects, they'd be way better off.
Everyone keeps suggesting AI NPCs. I'm sure someone's gonna take a crack at it and it'll go about as well the Humane AI pin or the Rabbit R1 before everyone realized how horrible of an idea it is. If anything it'll make for a silly novelty like the VR games where you clumsily try to perform basic tasks with VR motion controls. But in this case you argue with an in-game LLM and see how quickly you can make it get defensive or start gaslighting you with made up facts about household cleaners you can combine to make a delicious cocktail.
Thing is 2M doesn't quite get you as far as you think. You get 10 devs (let's say, 4 programmers, 4 artists, 2 designers), pay them 100k each (which is lowballing it in med/high COL areas), and work 2 years. That's 2.4m just from labor, before advertising and other duties like community outreach. Sell for $30 (which is basically the top end of an "indie) and you need 80k copies to break even, more after platform cuts.
That's definitely a scale a AAA studio can afford, but far from what we associate "indie" with in our heads.That's where the exploitation begins.
The original games in the 90's? Yeah, probably. But cost of living was very different (so even if they made > 100k after adjusting for inflation, it went a lot farther), and the standards of games were much lower.
You can definitely make Doom 1993 with 1-3 people today (and without crunch). Making Doom 2016 levels of fidelity (even if we ignore the excellent optimization) would still be a very lofty task for 10 people. We still don't really have that many "full stack game devs" that can work at that scope and fidelity to bring the team size down.
> I think if big game studios, rather than dumping their copious amounts of money into single, giant-scope games, dealt it out amongst a variety of smaller teams for smaller-scoped projects, they'd be way better off.
This is what game publishers do, and many of them are struggling too. It’s harder than it seems to pick winning horses. (Though in this case, it may be partially because more and more skilled teams are opting to self-publish.)
> I think if big game studios, rather than dumping their copious amounts of money into single, giant-scope games, dealt it out amongst a variety of smaller teams for smaller-scoped projects, they'd be way better off.
Big publishers tried and did not succeed much. EA, Square Enix, T2 with Private Division and so on.
Some independant studio or publishers have their fans base : Amanita Design, Playdead, Zachtronics, Devolver Digital, Annapurna Interractive are for me the folk to watch.
Oh for sure. AAA games require too much effort and too much returns while indies can spend 1 year and 1 person and deliver hit being multiple time more profitable.
I use hyper-v regularly and never even heard of windows admin center. Another example of Microsoft changing something that isn't broke just for the sake of change.
I'm glad I've been building a homelab and can move all my studying too that since it seems hyper-v is being shoved out the door by Microsoft.
Windows Admin Center was created because everyone wanted to manage Windows from a web browser. The current result is it works, but it's far from an optimal GUI solution for managing Windows machines.
Windows Admin Center was created because Microsoft thinks sysadmins want to manage Windows from a web browser. Instead, most of them would rather use desktop apps over RDP, which is why the deprecated Microsoft Management Console (MMC) is still widely used. WAC adoption is nowhere near what it should be in practice at this point.
Or are they wealthy because they don't have kids....
But in general poor people have more kids, and as unpopular it will be to say, they can have more kids because the government subsidizes it. One parent doesn't work and gets all the benefits, so: no daycare costs, free medical care, welfare income, and food stamps/WIC.
Not saying we shouldn't have those things, but when only poor people get the government assistance when it comes to having kids, they'll be the ones who have the most kids.
Working class and above it costs a fortune to raise kids, not so for the non-working class. Now people will probably come say how wrong I am, but I live in a poor area and see this play out on a daily basis.
If they got rid of all the deductions and loopholes most people wouldn't need to file as the only thing they'd have to put on their taxes is their W2 income.
I believe the IRS is even informed of things like 401k disbursement and stock sales. Meaning most people wouldn't have to submit for those either.
The gains of simplify the tax code are gargantuan, but unfortunately, the wealthy and powerful organizations benefit from the current system, and would be hurt financially by simplifying it. So, it will never be simplified.
Part of the problem is that the main way the government knows how to give people money is through tax deductions. It doesn’t have to be that way. Covid checks demonstrated that grants are possible. That in and of itself would simple things, since there would just be a list of things you can apply for.
An important aspect I never see mentioned is most Cyber Security personnel don't have the technical experience to truly understand the systems they are assessing, they are, like you said, just pushing to check those compliance boxes.
I say this as someone who is currently in a Cyber Security role, unfortunately, as I'm coming to learn cyber roles suck. But this isn't a jab at those Cyber Security personnel's intelligence. It's literally impossible to understand multiple systems at a deep level, it takes employees working on those systems weeks to months to understand this stuff, and that's with them being in the loop. Cyber is always on the outside looking in, trying like hell to piece it all together.
Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to add on with my personal opinions on the cyber security framework being severely broken because I deal with it on a daily basis.