FromOmelas

How would you decide what is legitimate ?

Better would be a "this site is suspiciously new" warning in browsers.

At $WORK, newly registered sites are blocked by default by the network appliance.

often they're trading things with externalities

Yes. you're thinking of https://www.wiz.io/blog/chaosdb-explained-azures-cosmos-db-v...

rather then ban, I would prefer posts/comments are labeled as such.

with features:

- ability to hide AI labeled replies (by default)

- assign lower weight when appropriate

- if a user is suspected to be AI-generated, retroactively label all their replies as "suspected AI"

- in addition to downvote/upvote, a "I think this is AI" counter

the "If you owe the bank 1M, you have a problem. If you owe the bank 1B, the bank has a problem" adagium scaled up ?

The 250bn figure is one pushed by the private owners, trying to defend their high yields. It's likely inflated with bonuses and short term schemes to juice returns. Meanwhile, they've extracted 85bn in dividends since privatization began. Privatizing them cost approx 7.6bn - that's a 12x return over less then 40 years. Pretty nice if you can get it.

Not if they might become a competitor, or thrive (proving that the sale was a good idea). Better to keep them weak and likely to fail.

Sweden is part of the expanded 5 eyes (now 14 eyes). As a workaround for restrictions on domestic spying, they subcontract their dirty work to each other. Hence, you can expect the US to assist in pressuring them (ostensibly on behalf of Sweden)

No, that's not right. Public health insurance in the EU does not use that concept. Participating insurance companies are not allowed to set rates that way, since it doesn't serve the public good.

presumably it has a semantic model of sorts, defining intrinsic relationships between entities (parent-child, composed-of, sibling-of, and so on)

A bit similar how certain joins in SQL can be very straightforward with the "USING" clause, or when it can rely on extra information such as analytic views to derive materialized views (vendor specific)

Its support and security posture could very well be better than average. Looking a other breaches (Qlik Attunity, Microsoft AAD, ...) indicates that being better then average is not enough if you're a sufficiently attractive target.

I'm not sure it does, perhaps it violates the spirit but not the letter.

You need a way to give your employees access to customer data; for support cases. So you build a "request access" form in your ITSM. Now you can tick off every box related to certification: There is a process. Only authorized persons have access. Every aspect of it can be audited.

Later, perhaps sales people (the 1000's of new joiners) start using it as well for lead generation. It's a lot easier to sell if you know how your product is used by other companies in the same industry.

Much later, someone's account is compromised, makes the same requests and it gets waved through. Why wouldn't it ? It is a valid request made by a current employee of the company. What other criteria would apply ? This is not a bank.

No, that sounds about right. This is a new, agile, cloud-first company that grew very quickly and has faced significant turnover. You don't get such growth by doing everything right.

Looking at linked-in, the unlucky employee could be someone in a sales role, with only 7 months of tenure. Every company has a few sysadmins with a scary amount of reach, but that's not what happened here.

Edit: A ServiceNow access request flow with poor internal controls would explain it.

3. A reversion to in-person interaction for anything important (exams, certifications, payments, loan applications, ...)

Society benefited from a productivity gain by moving everything online, in a (relatively) high-trust environment. That is now becoming more expensive (due to higher % of frauds), or even infeasible.

So, a drag on economic growth for years to come.

  1. After $EVENT, we are in a horrible state of affairs. Something must be done.
  2. $THING is something.
  3. Therefore, we must do $THING.

(We don't examine whether $THING could've prevented or alleviated $EVENT - there is no time.)

not quite the same, but Iain M. Banks is in my top 5, along with Vernor Vinge.

LIDL famously burned around 500M € on a SAP rollout before pulling the plug.

seconded. it would provide an on-ramp to get familiar with the software without forking over 500k

Current wisdom was that higher interest rates would be good for a bank (after all, deposits are sticky). That didn't turn out to be the case for SVB (high concentration of risk, ...) but is more true for a more diversified bank, especially with a lifeline like the BTFP.

More importantly, the actions of the FED after SVB signaled they'll do whatever it takes to keep the system stable.

If a single bank was getting close to your hypothetical scenario, you'd probably see a forced merger. If the majority was at risk, you'd probably see actions to ensure higher margins (such as using reg Q to impose maximum rates on deposits)

yep. Due to the SVB failure, large banks are now backstopped by a guarantee that they can loan from the FED at 100% of the value of the bonds at redemption time (even though they're worth less right now, due to rates hiking). That would have been enough to save SVB, if it had already been in force at the time. see: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...