There is no fine, no prosecution, no consequences of any sort. Essentially, they're just asking the executive to "implement an information security program" at any companies they head.
This seems to send the message that there are absolutely no consequences for getting caught hiding an extremely negligent data breach. Was that the FTC's intent?
> Recognizing that reality, the Commission’s proposed order will follow Rellas even if he leaves Drizly. Specifically, Rellas will be required to implement an information security program at future companies if he moves to a business collecting consumer information
I'm not aware of any other decree following the CEO to other companies.
I have 1:1s every 2 weeks with my engineer manager... and that's basically 99% of the contact I have with them. My eng. manager rarely attends my team's sprint plannings (or any other Scrum ceremony like retros, standups, etc.). We rarely (if any) discuss long-term technical planning/ideas/solutions. They know which products we maintain and in what we are working on, but not much more.
In the 1:1 we are very open, but it always feels like "this is something we have to do, let's carry on with it". They always recommend me some blogs, conferences, sometimes books... but to be honest I'm quite past that phase in my career: it's not that I don't appreciate recommendations, it's that I have been working for more than 10 years in the industry and I have pretty much clear what's my "career path", and it doesn't depend on engineer managers (my "career path" is to keep being an IC, doing a good job, not getting too attached to companies... and switch jobs every 3 years or so).
Seems to me that the job of the engineer manager is just too lightweight. We hire them people because they have two things: a) good people skills, and b) a good track of experience working on tech. We never get to "use" my engineer manager for point b, and point a is summarized as "let's have a good chat every 2 weeks".
International airport, large rail depot, extremely low cost of living and a city/region that has more good restaurants and activities than might be expected. Ohio State University is in the city and is a huge school that is rapidly growing in academic standing. Road transit in the area is also very good allowing access to any part of the city from any other part in rapid fashion. Good schools, relatively low crime, etc. Probably the only drawback, from a lifestyle point of view, would be the winter and that's not even that bad, compared to other winter regions.
A bit off your "real" point: No company should ever spend more mitigating a risk than the potential cost they could incur from the risk. That is just good business, but the reality is that companies generally won't spend more on cybersecurity than their peers (either as a percentage of revenue or percentage of IT spend). Whether that is the proper balance for a risk/spend calculation is the real topic.
The problem is that we can't accurately calculate the probability of a cyber event and the cost impact of that event. So the company is stuck waiting for an attack on themselves or one of their cohorts so they can adjust.
Bolstering the recommendation is the fact that the proliferation of supply chain attacks recently is adding pressure for companies to perform more thorough diligence on their vendors. The certification helps check all the boxes.
Like, "if you won't trust the voting public enough to give them the whole truth and instead treat them like blubbering fools, how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?"
So instead of compliance, they'll bring the whole damn thing down in protest. I don't think the plurality of those who refuse the vaccine actively deny the existence of the virus, or even the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. I feel they're just absolutely sick of the hypocrisy and pandering by "leaders" who refuse to lead by example on much of anything.
As many before me have said, you'll always have the kooks that deny science but I honest-to-God think those are the minority.
Mr. Politician replies, "I trust the individuals that voted for me. They're smart. Its the public in general that can't be trusted."
The blog post isn't about self-reported cognitive ability getting stronger (or not declining). It's about the job marketplace.
Maybe it's instructive to compare/contrast different professional careers that depend on mental abilities and how age affects marketability:
- computer programming : oft-reported industry bias against age 40+ and active recruitment (especially by software companies) for 20-somethings.
- corporate executive manager (e.g. CEO, COO, CFO, etc) : age 40+ is typically the target hire age. Being a younger 20-something actually works against being hired for these roles. (To be CEO at age 20, you'd have to be the founder of a startup.)
- surgeon : age 40+ doesn't seem to bother patients. They may rather have a 55-year old do their heart bypass rather than a young 30-year old just out of residency.
Why is experience valued for outside hires of CEOs but not as much for programmers? In other words, a 55-year old programmer would have 35 more years of experience than a 20-year old but that "extra 35 years of programming" doesn't seem to be valued as much as the "extra 35 years of managing" that a 55-year CEO candidate has. Why?
I have pet theories on that but I'd rather hear what others think.
And it is not like my work from 1990-2000 wasn't valuable. I worked on a complex large scale analytics system in the early 90's and migrated to large scale web-based applications in the later half of the decade. I'm proud of that work and have some interesting lessons and stories from that time period, but they are telltale of my age and were working against me.