It seems dishonest to leave out Windows 11 when talking about how MS is for announcing in advance what support will be. They did not give anywhere near proper notice about the TPM/UEFI/Secureboot requirement ahead of time.
> They did not give anywhere near proper notice about the TPM/UEFI/Secureboot requirement ahead of time.
Nearly all machines, DIY included, would have met these requirements. Intel PTT has been built into their processors since 2013. AMD for at least a few years.
This is actually a more apt analogy than I think you intended.
We do have planes that can fly similarly to birds, however unlike birds, those planes do not fly on their own accord. Even when considering auto-pilot, a human has to initiate the process. Seems to me that AI is not all that different.
Because they either received bad inputs that defeated failsafes, or the pilot was not properly aware that handling characteristics had changed that and doing things the old way would put the plane into a bad state.
Specifically, there were no failsafes implemented. No cross-checks were performed by the automation, because a dual sensor system would have required simulator time, which Boeing was dead set on not having regulators require in order to seal the deal. The pilots, as a consequence, were never fully briefed on the true nature of the system, as to do so would have tipped the regulators off as to the need for simulator training.
In short, there was no failsafe, and pilots didn't by definition know, because it wasn't pointed out. The "Roller Coaster" maneuver to unload the horizontal stabilizer enough to retrim was removed from training materials aeons ago, and a bloody NOTAM that basically reiterated bla bla bla... use Stabilizer runaway for uncommanded pitch down (no shit), while leaving out the fact the cockpit switches in the MAX had their functionality tweaked in order to ensure MCAS was on at all times, and using the electrical trim switches on the yoke would reset the MCAS timer for reactivation to occur 5 seconds after release, without resetting the travel of the MCAS command, resulting in an eventual positive loop to the point the damn horizontal stabilizer would tilt a full 2 degrees per activation, every 5 seconds. while leaving out any mention of said automation.
Do not get me started on the idiocy of that system here, as the Artificial Stupidity in that case was clearly of human origin, and is not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand.
That's because planes aren't self-sufficient. They exist to make us money, which we then use to feed and service them. Flying around on their own does not make us money. If it did, they would be doing it.
> I'd also argue that being sold at a big box store is not really indicative of much in the 21st century.
If you haven't already, I'd recommend spending some time reading about what it takes to get a product on the shelf at Wal-Mart/Target/Costco. When a companies reputation relies on what it is selling, the bar becomes a lot higher.
> Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate
controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here. From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented.
Are these filings typically full of quips? This seems pretty damning but I don't read enough court filings to know whether this sort of language is typical
What he's really saying is, these guys had no back office accounting operation.
Usually, in a bankruptcy of a financial enterprise, there's a general ledger of transactions to look at. Some may be fraudulent, hidden amongst the legit ones. FTX does not seem to have had that. Much of the history is missing.
So it will have to be reconstructed, often from the other side of the transaction. Banks will be asked (ordered) to provide their transaction history for all relevant accounts. There will be heavy analysis of the blockchain, which is less anonymous than many people in crypto think. Whatever records FTX has will be analyzed. People identified as having dealt with FTX will be subpoenaed for their records.
Gradually, cells on spreadsheets saying "On DATE transferred AMOUNT denominated in COIN to UNKNOWN" will have UNKNOWN filled in. This is forensic accounting.
In bankruptcy, that happens in public. Over time, the PACER filings for the case will fill up
with details of where the money went. Some will be trackable, some won't. A lot of effort will go into finding out where big amounts went. The numbers are big enough to justify the effort.
Then come clawbacks, arrest, trials, civil litigation... A huge pain for everyone involved, but if you screw up at the 10-digit level, it gets done.
Thanks, that is a good analysis. Considering the mix of (often bespoke) coins and tokens, seems like a sure bet that some legal minded forensic techies are going to be able to build careers off this too.
I think this is it - he's looking for publicity as reputational CYA (which is a big part of his job).
If you take a look and go "I can do this" and can't, then you look sketchy. If you take a look and go "nobody will ever be able to do this completely, but I'll try" then you look like a hero.
On the other hand how could these guys have fucked up any more than they already did? I think it's clear that he's earnest and not trying to win points simply based on that fact... did they do anything right?
Look at the title again. This is the guy who cleaned up Enron and he is calling it "unprecedented" and says "never in my career have I seen such a complete failure..."
This is not typical language. John Ray III is a serious person.
The key are words like "unsophisticated". Enron was sophisticated, well documented, audited and done with Wall Street firms signing on. They could point to where every dollar had gone. It was an immense fraud, but no one was "unsophisticated".
A company filing for a chapter 11 reorganization starts the process with a story about how they came to be in some temporary trouble, and how a renegotiation with the debtors will allow the firm to continue and thrive.
But in this case, FTX filed with a blank page where that story would be. Now the new CEO is explaining to the court that nobody knows how they came to be here, he has no idea if there is a viable company, and he has no idea if the money was spent, stolen, lost, or smoked. He doesn't even have a list of employees, or a reliable list of the bank accounts. He is aghast, and in no position to tell that kind of story.
I don't understand if there is any path for FTX that doesn't end in chapter 13. I certainly wouldn't bet on it.
I don't' know, but I suspect its an attempt to put distance between the CEO running the bankuptcy and previous leadership. Essentially signalling to the court and debtors "serious people are in charge now. Things were messed up, but I'm not like that".
The new CEO (John Jay Ray III) was the one put in charge of Enron to clean up that whole mess. I don't think anyone doubts his legitimacy at this point, so there would be no need for him to be on the defensive. He was placed here specifically for that reason, I think.
This is a situation where lawsuits will be flying and a lot of very wealthy people who can afford lawyers and lost lots of money will be casting about for any deep pockets they can find and any scapegoats they can blame.
It is likely that nobody will sue this CEO, but a nontrivial part of that is precisely that this guy is correctly covering his bum. By being ready for this battle, he will probably never have to fight it. And that's only "probably". I wouldn't guarantee it. I would have some clauses about this written into my contract before I took the job.
This guy has no reason to need to do that, his career is already rock solid - and if even 1% of the stuff coming out is true, this is an epic cluster of malfeasance and incompetence.
Usually small businesses are terrible at accounting and finance, but even they typically have some idea where their bank accounts are and what is in them
> Essentially signalling to the court and debtors "serious people are in charge now. Things were messed up, but I'm not like that".
He's not trying to save or run the company. He's a liquidator with an unimpeachable reputation. From the instant he took over that distance became an ocean. I think he's just genuinely aghast, Enron was at least "clever" about their fraud, SBF and accomplices were brazen.
It is not typical. I think in this case the extreme language is meant to signal to judges and stakeholders, "this is going to take a long time and be really messy, your usual expectations of the timeline of this process do not apply".
You could replace "money" with any specific area of human expertise. I don't need to fully understand how my body works because my doctor does. I don't need to fully understand how my car works because my mechanic does. I don't need to know how to build my home because my contractors know.
The information is available to those who are interested or want to further that area of human expertise, but the collective knowledge of humanity is too great for all of us to know everything. That's why we pay (mostly) regulated experts to handle these things for us.
(1) Knowing how to use crypto safely is hardly "expertise". It's something that can be learned quite quickly from experts.
(2) Having a general idea of many areas in life is important for a functioning society and becoming a healthy human being.
I really dislike this narrative that we must not think for ourselves. Always delegate. Always leave it to the experts. I see the same anti-intellectual sentiment in programming communities.
- Don't write assembly, compilers are smarter than you.
- Don't think about building your own networking stack. It's too complicated.
- Don't write your own OS. Do you think you can outperform Linux? Lol
I mean Google obviously thinks it is otherwise they wouldn't be paying Apple $20 billion a year.