I wouldn't be surprised by a drop in security postings. Quite a few companies view security as an "overhead" so the siren call of reducing that overhead by introducing AI is a thing.
Also for a lot of jobs in security it's pretty hard to measure how well it's being done, so if the AI based solutions are worse, that might not show up for a while
> for a lot of jobs in security it's pretty hard to measure how well it's being done
Nothing going wrong: “What are we paying you for?”
Everything going wrong: “What are we paying you for?”
It’s a no-win situation unless you manage to score a division manager who understands security and understands the reports a good security division produces. And most importantly, understands that no news is good news.
We also need to consider the confounding effect of corporate performance and recession expectations.
Cost centers in businesses are early canaries of expected pain, and a reduction in security roles may reflect belt-tightening irrespective of AI impact.
Security products and practitioners are the classic snake oil salesmen. They are actually sales and marketing roles for help closing deals by emphasizing some security aspect. True security comes from general IT practices followed by engineers themselves.
I would be wary of making categorical claims like this, but it's unfortunately true that "security" field hasn't been doing well in a long, long time now.
Half the field is B2B "magic bullet" solutions like CrowdStrike and all the associated sales tactics - with pitches that boil down to "you give us money, we make your security issues go away". Half of what remains is mandatory certifications and other flavors of checklist-obsessed cargo cultists - often CYA-driven, often demanding the adoption of the fancy acronym of the day, regardless of the real threat profiles. Then you get the "security snake oil" - "magic bullet" systems that don't work, never did and never will, but are supported by the right influence groups and get the right pockets lined, and so are used anyway. DRM systems like WideVine and PlayReady being the prime examples. Then there are the corporate "security of our business model" shills - who pay lip service to "security", but have the true aims of "prevent anyone we don't like from doing anything that can harm our revenue streams" - with Apple being a common example.
And about a fifth of the field is people who do actual security work, and keep the sky from falling.
I agree with you totally, although I'd venture to guess 20% is way too high. I'd say you have about 10% people doing security work, 15% doing compliance, and the rest are consuming oxygen.
It's a growth field, so you have lots of idiots getting certifications and stupid jobs. Reminds me of the 90s when I started, and companies were paying MCSE's (ie read a book, hit next-next-finish in Windows NT) more than software engineers in some markets.
> True security comes from general IT practices followed by engineers themselves.
I have yet to meet an org whose engineers care about security, or who would not compromise security if secure practices got in the way of shipping a product or feature.
I consistently see this commenter making a single comment, of questionable relevance, expressing a strong opinion which isn't particularly thoughtful or interesting or true. Then they ignore the pushback and move on to the next thread, where they post another tangential hot take. I'm not at all surprised at the result. Those comments attract a lot of downvote because they aren't very good.
This thread is a microcosm of that. They went on a tangent from a tangent to express how little they think of their colleagues working in security. It wasn't out of curiosity, it didn't raise interesting questions or provoke interesting debate. They didn't defend or substantiate their opinion so that they and we could learn something from it. It was just a drive-by flamebait to stir the pot and express derision. It should be downvoted; it's a bad comment.
Perhaps that pattern is difficult to see when their hot takes align with your own takes.
On the continuum of approval, where at one end there is endorsement and at the other disapproval, it's somewhere in-between. Even I who made the observation don't know exactly where. Sometimes something jumps out at me and I don't yet why.
It could be an incorrect observation. Some of what they said seems true, some false. I don't know enough about security specifically to say. I know a lot about other things to know he said some things that are true.
It's astonishment at perhaps some kind of law of the universe that things that seem one way may be a different way.
It's an exclamation at the poetic irony of someone expressing there's gray area in some things gets downvoted and their comments are in gray colour.
It's a way to introduce myself, to say hi Mr Monero user, and pass a super secret note.
I meant no disrespect.
Perhaps my reply here is astonishment at how interpretation of words may depend on imagination. As if words alone aren't enough.
I post my view that is against the HN hive mind and don't always feel like rebutting the same hive mind talking points again and again. I like to post to prove there is an alternative view out there
I'm also guilty of what they accuse you of. Sometimes my internet comments are not made for the purpose of sparking discussion, but more of a "vent" where I know my take is not popular but I feel the need to throw it out there anyway. The comment is more for "me" than anyone else. And, yeah.. that makes it a bad comment lol.
I also just love playing devil's advocate, and I'm adverse to hivemindy-feeling opinions (even when I share them). Maybe this all describes you, too.
I don't have a problem with people doing that as long as they don't pretend that every other commenter holds the same contrary opinion and that the downvotes indicate they're too sensitive to discuss such things, or other similar rationalizations. If you want to leave some drive-by snark without rationalizing it as being about other people, it's not my favorite kind of comment but I'm not going to object to it either.
The downvoting functionality here and in other forums can mean many things. It isn't a precise thing. If it is precise I'm not finding a clear definition. It can mean I disagree, this is boring, this is false, this made me sad, I don't like reading this, I don't like this user, I'm tired, etc.
One plausible interpretation of a downvote without a comment is drive-by snark without rationalizing.
I don't know your motivations but I know the "HN hive mind" isn't the problem. When you do engage with people who disagree with you, it usually becomes evident to me that there isn't much substance behind your views and that you struggle to disagree amicably. I also see lots of people on HN with a similar perspective to yours who don't have the same problems or engage in the same patterns of behavior.
The facts are that HN has a diverse set of perspectives with many conservative/libertarian commenters who would align with you, but that your comments are frequently shallow flamebait. Though I have seen a couple good points you've made, as well. Do with that information what you will.
I disagree entirely, I don’t even post very frequently so it’s surprising I have someone tracking my posts. The shorter a comment the better it is, if the same opinion that takes an essay can be distilled into a sentence
My first comment on this whole thread was how security in tech is theater, and the sellers mostly snake oil salesmen. I’m not the first to make this observation and I don’t think it’s wrong. Which is why employment in the sector is down, full circle to the OP
Go ahead, take that slim, speculative, tangential connection and interpret it as permission to inject your hot take into the discussion. Decline to elaborate when your supposition is challenged. You've every right to do that.
Just don't pretend that it's for our benefit or that we downvote it because we're unthinking drones, or that you decline to elaborate because we're simply not capable of having the discussion.
I tell you this because if I were insulating myself inside a bubble and rationalizing my interactions with those who disagree with me as being the reflexive behavior of a hive mind, I would hope someone would point that out to me. So here it is; again, do with the opportunity what you will.
This website is full of unthinking drones acting with hive mind behavior, that is my contention, and I think very differently, not just on here but with almost everyone I engage with. However I succeed over and over with asymmetric bets on a wide variety of things, including and especially tech and making money in tech, so if we compare bank accounts and career trajectories, investments, etc. it would be wise to let me speak
Overweighing people's opinions on matters they demonstrate a shallow engagement with on account of their success in other areas is cargo culting. Maybe you should worry less about HN and more about your own reflexes to accept bad ideas from yourself and others based on their wealth. Maybe succeeding in contrarian bets doesn't make you "correct" in some moral sense, but only successful in the trade.
It's easy for me to believe you're an intelligent person who's accomplished impressive things. But it wouldn't contradict anything I've said.
I own a software business with hundreds of employees I built from nothing. I know all about tech security, hiring security guys, etc. It is a cost center, the directors / VPs / CSOs are overpaid salesmen, 99% of the products you want are features from cloud vendors or provided by standard tools like device management or password managers. I totally get the patina desired by large corporations who need to show wall street they care about security. When I box check I use a super cheap cut rate firm who can check boxes for me at the lowest cost because it is total bullshit. I'm sorry this is the reality
It's understandable to have sour grapes after having some bad experiences, but what I'm hearing is unrelated to any impact AI is having on the job market. You're talking about security products you think are snake oil and executives you think are overpaid; that is unrelated to trends in job postings for security professionals, working at software companies, and how that might be impacted from AI.
This is what I've been saying. You've got some random grievance, you want to take this discussion as an opportunity to get it off your chest. But you don't want to engage with people challenging your ideas. And when for whatever reason you do explain yourself to me, your explanation is "I am wealthy and successful, so I must be right. Those who disagree with me are an undifferentiated mass of imbeciles that I have nothing to learn from."
If that's how you want to live, it's your right. You're only cheating yourself, so maybe I'll just shut up and let you get on with it.
> Just don't pretend that it's for our benefit or that we downvote it because we're unthinking drones
The reason many comments are downvoted on HN in general is most often unknown to me. One interpretation is that it's a major flaw in HN.
This design decision by HN could be intentional, as a trade-off to achieve something else. For example, it could be done to have high velocity of discussion. High velocity could preserve an invariant of keeping or pulling users on the site.
If it's a trade-off, which would suggest something is given up for it, it might be worth exploring what's given up.
I could easily see those just running tool and then printing report being replaced by script running the tool and passing results to LLM and then sending report.
I'm not sure how true the stigma is for GLP-1 based drugs. There are lots of online options for getting it from major orgs in the UK including things like Asda who aren't really a well-known pharmacy brand here (https://onlinedoctor.asda.com/uk/weight-loss-treatment.html).
As to advertising, my perception is that it's wrapped in a "weight loss clinic" style presentation but you don't have to be on all the sites long before you get to the "buy $GLP-1" here :)
Unfortunately I don't think they're going to get involved there. There are already multiple "official" images on Docker Hub that are unmaintained and have plenty of CVEs (e.g. Centos https://hub.docker.com/_/centos/tags)
I think the most they'd do is add the DEPRECATED note to the Docker hub page as they have done for things like Centos
I think that's not quite the way consulting should, and to some extent does, work.
The ideal goal of consultancies like Deloitte's is that they hire a small number of people with experience and combine them with a larger number of young bright people and have them come in to review and advise organizations. The people with experience (so who have worked in that field before) direct the engagement and the leg work is done by the juniors, producing a report for the customer.
As to why companies would choose to use consultancies, there's a variety of reasons, some good, some less than good.
- Outside perspective & experience. The consultancy has done engagements with other companies in your field and can provide that experience.
- Neutral point of view. The consultancy should be neutral to any internal politics within the organization.
- Appeal to authority. Many times organizations use consultancies to provide evidence to external stakeholders that the thing they want to do is the right thing.
Now that's not to say that it always (or even often) works out that way, but in theory at least, there are some not terrible reasons.
Ah, OK, so there are actually people with real industry experience there? What happens with the young bright people when they are not young any more though? Are they expected to leave the company to gather real world experience or are they just promoted to "experts" without seeing anything outside their consultancy?
The trick is they pay the young bright people peanuts relative to what they bill them out for, so then market forces rotate the majority of them out of the consulting org automatically, often into positions at the companies they consulted for or into their own businesses.
So why do the young bright people do it to begin with? They get to work with experienced people, broad learning experiences in diverse industries, networking (= future job prospects), etc.
Well they get some experience doing the consultancy work of course, and yep lots go off to industry after 2-3 years.
IME (Worked for E&Y some years back) about 80% of people who started as juniors would have left after 3-4 years with the other 20% staying to try and make partner.
I have a few acquaintances who grew in consulting to become partners who have never, ever, ever worked in the field they consult for. They've only done consulting, only looked through the lenses they were required to for the job they were asked to do with no real experience in the industry.
The only person I know who ended up at a high-ish position at McKinsey with proper industry experience had as their only job being the founder of a company they worked quite hard for 15 years to build, and sold it. Still, it's someone who only had a narrow experience in their industry which is now advising companies in very unrelated fields.
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...).
Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech.
The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a really bad argument unless you're very unfamiliar with the body count and terror and the public perception of that period in British history. (it included some fifty thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings)
An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.
Can't say as I agree there. I was in the UK at the time (lived here all my life) and I'm fairly familiar with the horrors of the time.
My point is we were able to get through something like that, which was very serious, without needing to proscribe free speech in the way that's being done now for some people putting paint on planes.
So if we didn't need it for something that serious, we don't need it for this.
Maybe those people are trying to make the point that if the government can, without public scrutiny, declare any organisation as terrorist and then arrest anyone who wears t-shirts mentioning that organisation - then the government has way too much power.
... "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
No. It's. Not.
But even if you disagree with the dictionary and me. These kind of nuisance resistance acts have happened countless times in the past without serious punishment.
They're taken for what they are. It's only recently, as we move towards something darker, and laws created for actual terrorism begin to be used against the citizens.
Perhaps you're the kind of wanker who welcomes that.
That’s because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
The legislation which causes anyone expressing support of a proscribed group is the authoritarian thing I'm talking about. The Terrorism Act 2000 as implemented is the problem.
Having a law that means merely expressing support of a group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think should be in place in any country that pretends to support freedom of speech.
That's an argument for arresting and imprisoning a bunch of people for criminal damage, not an argument for proscribing an entire organisation and limiting their free speech.
The argument here is not the PA should be let off scot free. The argument is that proscribing them as an organisation is a massive and authoritarian overreaction to their actions.
Is that inaccurate? Unless the goal was to strike terror into the hearts of some insurance companies, in what way does the scale of the damages affect whether this organisation should be proscribed? Should we be proscribing Bernie Madoff next?
"chuck some paint" is a deliberate misrepresentation.
It misleadingly describes the scale, coordination, and intent. It uses a minor detail to trivialize an act explicitly intended to reduce military capacity.
Is there any scale of paint chucking that can realistically represent a terrorist threat? Is there any scale of paint chucking that should lead to proscription? Because that's the key point here. It's not "can they be prosecuted for paint chucking?" (yes, obviously), or "can their paint checking escapades have serious costs or ramifications?" (sure, lock them up!) it's a question of whether their actions constituted such a grave threat to the safety of the United Kingdom that the only way of dealing with that was to make it illegal to even support their group.
If we as a country are so at risk from paint chucking that we're resorting to proscription as our tool of defence, then we have some serious issues.
Although PA was bundled in with two other organisations in the vote, the vote did pass 385 votes to 26, so it seems there was broad support across MPs, not just the cabinet.
I'm actually very pro israel and i agree with you on this. It's "two tier" kier at his finest. Labour have demonstrated they have no problem using the police and judiciary to go after anyone who causes them problems. And they somehow convince themselves they have the moral high ground from which to lecture everyone else. Even conservatives with all their indifference and contempt for the British public were never so dishonest.
The thing is, to me, the powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID. We already have to identify ourselves in a variety of circumstances (e.g. mortgages, bank accounts, voting, using "adult" websites etc), and the gov. can get the information from various third parties on demand already.
Implementing those requirements didn't depend on there being a digital ID system. Instead we have a hodge podge of bad requirements (like "wet" signatures on specific documents, using of non-UK based private providers etc).
Implementing a digital ID system could reduce inequalities (for example, people who don't have passports and driver's licenses have more difficulties in some circumstances) and also reduce dependencies on non-UK orgs who may not do that well with privacy.
That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
I would really agree with you, as a person who was born into the underclass I know full well the barrier to entry of getting a “first person in the family” passport and a drivers license has somehow lower hurdles (but those are well known).
However, as mentioned, I can’t in good faith argue for the government to have an easier time categorising people. Such a system is so ripe for abuse. I have even advocated for it based on the Estonian eID system and the Swedish BankID (though I am aware of Danish and Norwegian BankID- I never used those).
I’m still fully convinced that the British “Online Safety Bill” is actually a ploy to ensure that they have linked accounts to identity on any site where comments can be made; so they can prosecute people for expressing opinions[0]. Why else go for Wikipedia, and why else focus on sites with public commentary. You can’t say it’s to prevent pedophiles when with the right hand you imprison people for saying things online while with the left hand releasing actual pedophiles into society[1]
To be fair, they did say it wasn’t primarily about protecting children[2], but then I guess I should figure out what else the OSA is for.
The online safety act is a terrible piece of legislation, along with a variety of other ones promoted as being for "child safety" but having serious external consequences.
But they implemented that act, without needing a digital ID. I don't think they need a digital ID to push authoritarian policies.
And I think a digital ID has possible benefits for people who can't easily fit in to current setups, thus my point about it being orthogonal.
The conservatives didnt need digital id to make id a requirement for voting, labour didnt need digital id to introduce the online safety act. Im not convinced that lack of digital id will deter authoritarian tendencies in uk govs…
Possibly, although they don't seem very slowed down at the moment...
My feeling is though that digital ID can have benefits which shouldn't be discounted when considering it. Specifically some people have problems with current age verification due to lack of things like passports and driver's licenses which are often used as stand-ins for digital ID.
Also it can make a lot of very nonsensical processes better. Things were companies still insist on physical signatures as though those are good security measures, that could be replaced with digital signatures tied to an identity, which might actually provide some security benefits.
Is there something about digital IDs that make them easier to issue than passports? I understand what you are saying that they could have benefits but is that an inherent problem with passports or just bureaucracy?
UK passports cost almost £100, so a lot of people aren't going to get one unless they need to go abroad. I'd expect a required UK digital ID to be free at point of issue (otherwise there's not much point in it).
> UK passports cost almost £100, so a lot of people aren't going to get one unless they need to go abroad.
Sounds like the UK government doesn’t have a history of making it easy to obtain identification.
> I'd expect a required UK digital ID to be free at point of issue
Where do you expect this point of issue to be and why do you expect it to be free? Is there any precedent to support your assumption?
It sounds like you’re advocating for cheap or readily available government ID. I see no reason why digital ID is uniquely or even well suited for either purpose.
> (otherwise there's not much point in it).
Well the point of the digital ID could be to further marginalize vulnerable communities by not providing easy access to the ID while also making it a requirement for participation in society.
Take a look at the southern United States for inspiration on that approach.
This is exactly the reason Americans (as students of history) are generally resistant to the idea of government identification.
Getting a passport is extremely expensive for the underclass, think of it as being worth half a month of your wages to get an idea.
That’s before you include the mandatory security screening which will cause you to travel half of the UK (on our expensive travel infrastructure!)
If I didn’t have a job lined up I wouldn’t have gotten on, my mum didn’t have one her whole life until after I had gotten mine. It’s an arduous and expensive process for the bottom 20% of society in the UK.
Yep I was disappointed with that, but it does show that both of the main traditional UK parties have the same problems here (haven't looked into the LibDem position on this one)
TBH the mobile duopoly isn't a problem specific to the UK gov, and plenty of the systems already in use which have a mobile component already have that dependency, so I don't think it really gets any worse if you had a digital ID.
Indeed if done with physical smart card + reader, it would reduce the requirement for mobile devices, allowing for people unhappy with their presence to avoid them :)
I currently live in the UK, and I am not significantly restricted from anything (banking, ISAs, investments, healthcare, etc) for refusing to use a Google approved build of Android.
Moreover, I actually on principle refuse to make myself dependant on my phone for these things, which means that (at a small convenience cost) I don't have any banking apps, or investment apps, or healthcare apps, or whatever).
My phone is strictly a general computing device and I on principle only permit a technology into my life if it doesn't impose special restrictions on the hardware/software it works with.
So if the UK government creates a digital ID app which only runs on a phone and which potentially only runs on google/apple approved phone (this is e.g. the requirement imposed by google pay), then that would be unprecedented.
Oh I agree a system, if implemented, should not depend on a tie to Apple or Google, however, I'm not aware that detailed implementation guidance has been produced as yet which would require that tie, although I could have missed that.
I'd hope that a system as implemented is as technologically neutral as possible.
Good on you for avoiding the smartphone tie on banking though, it's getting increasingly hard for decent MFA not to tie to it in some way or another, and travel's a right pain without the smartphone apps.
They haven't specifically said anything, but they have directly compared the ID to phone based payment card systems, which on the google side do rely strictly on a google-blessed android build[0][1][2].
It's also incredibly popular in the security industry (I know, I work in it) to claim that every possible app in existence must:
* Obfuscate
* Do root detection and refuse to work
* Detect attempts to attach a debugger, and refuse to work
* Detect running from a VM, and refuse to work
* Do certificate pinning (although as an industry we've stopped recommending this bullshit practice, although we still insist on it for some things)
* Prevent screenshots from being taken
* Force you to re-authenticate using biometric ID every time you look away from the app
* and... break at the slightest hint of a non-standard build of android
So I don't have high hopes, because the company I work for does work for the UK government, will likely be picked to review this app, and inevitably all that shit is what we'll recommend (although I hope I won't be working here by then because I'm just sick and tired of cargo cult / checkbox security).
[0]: Not because of any specific feature, but solely based on signing keys.
[1]: I believe specifically you have to license GMS integrate them into the build, which e.g. GrapheneOS does not do.
[2]: And no, GOS's sandboxed google services don't fix this problem, Google Pay will still refuse to work.
I agree that reliance on non-UK based companies (Apple/Google) is a problem, but to me that's not specific to digital ID. We already have age verification relying on mobile apps, via the online safety act, just not ones implemented or managed by the UK gov, instead managed by non-UK corps with the data going offshore
For me having ones managed by the UK gov filling those functions would be preferable to the current situation, and that's not to say I want more privacy intrusions but to say I'd rather have more UK control over the data people have to give up for various services and functions.
Whilst more tech/privacy/security focused people will opt-out of that as much as possible, the realistic fact is that probably 95%+ of the UK population don't care about concerns around Apple/Google, they just want the functionality provided, so for that group it would be better if the apps were run from the UK, ideally by an org not motivated by making more money from them every quarter :)
The fact that 95+% of the population is unaware of the problems with this doesn't make it okay. There are lots of things 95% of the population don't know or think about which we don't just throw our arms up and ignore.
Moreover, age verification is trivial to circumvent or opt out of. The only way to opt out if this thing will likely be to leave the country. Which certainly increasingly seems like a good idea to me.
> ...powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID
> That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
Yet also: a country's requirement for identification is orthogonal to it becoming a totalitarian police state.
In British politics, there is a strong current of opposition to international institutions and treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights[1][2] and the International Criminal Court[3]. The UK's commitment to human rights is enough in doubt that one encounters situations such as German courts being unable to extradite a suspected criminal because of the poor treatment of prisoners in Britain[4].
Countries like Germany and Belgium are able to have mandatory ID cards without too much issue because of characteristics including their written (and actively litigated) constitutions, judicial independence and proportionally representative election systems. ID cards might be make them lean more or less totalitarian - but it doesn't matter as much, as the rules about identification make up only a small part of a huge and robust framework of law and human rights.
With few constitutional protections for UK citizens, and what independent institutions there are under constant attack from various political parties, I don't think those who object to digital ID can be blamed for being suspicious of the government's motivations.
Yeah i don’t disagree about the UK government tendencies, my point is more that they can be authoritarian without digital id and our current systems are not fit for purpose and a digital ID can help people who have problems fitting in with current system requirements like passports and drivers licenses which are not free or universal.
If they're trying to strengthen security, this feels like an odd way to go about it.
Making unplanned unexpected changes to GitHub ownership and removing people with lots of experience and institutional knowledge with little notice (based on the original story) and presumably no great hand-over, feels risky and not a great way to improve people's trust in their governance.
Slack seem to be doing this to a wide range of groups. The Kubernetes project and CNCF were told by Slack that they would lose access to the paid version with quite short notice.
In their case the change was reverted (I think it caught the eye of someone sufficiently senior at Salesforce), but if you're running a non-profit on Slack and not paying full price, I'd strongly recommend looking at alternatives...
I've never understood why a part of our community goes with this walled garden to host their chat. We're literally an open data project
Edit: fwiw, I know that moving communities is extremely hard, not to say impossible to achieve completely intact, but those who care could choose to join two chat systems. Eventually, the one people gravitate towards will win. E.g. I'm still in the Telegram chats and use those on occasion (also because, as a moderator, I get regular pings), but primarily share content on Signal or Matrix
> UPDATE: We’ve received notice from Salesforce that our Slack workspace WILL NOT BE DOWNGRADED on June 20th. Stand by for more details, but for now, there is no urgency to back up private channels or direct messages.
> if you're running a non-profit on Slack and not paying full price, I'd strongly recommend looking at alternatives...
Is the concept of "full price" well-defined in this kind of situation?
I assumed price was always a matter of negotiation for enterprise-y sales. I'd think a "full price" would just be an attempt at anchoring by the vendor.
If all the systems were in place and working correctly then indeed there would be no effect, but the point of the article was that many countries have entirely suspended shipments because they have not got the relevant systems in place to handle the tariffs and regulations required.
Also for a lot of jobs in security it's pretty hard to measure how well it's being done, so if the AI based solutions are worse, that might not show up for a while