This was definitely a fuckup from Slack but as I’ve understood it, the “AI training” means that they’re able to suggest emoji reactions to messages.

Not sure how to think about this, but here’s some additional info from slack: https://slack.engineering/how-we-built-slack-ai-to-be-secure-and-private/

Edit: Just to pick main point from the article:

Slack AI principles to guide us.

• Customer data never leaves Slack.
• We do not train large language models (LLMs) on customer data.
• Slack AI only operates on the data that the user can already see.
• Slack AI upholds all of Slack’s enterprise-grade security and compliance requirements.

Likely not, but definitely depends on the situation.

And how do you know the backup is not compromised?

I think it’s not as clear cut. It’s always a risk assessment and depends on context.

I have to say that I’m not a security expert, just an amateur with conceptual understanding of the topic and some opinions.

I think that’s rather odd comment. Naturally nobody wants ransomware. And there are good reasons.

Backups may exist, but do they work properly? Or are the backups encrypted too?

How old are the backups? They might be less than a day old. But less than a day might still mean a lot of extra work and financial loss.

There might be a lot of work restoring the backups. You might have a lot of different systems.

In one of the largest ransomware cases in history, Maersk worked for months to get systems back up and running and data up to date. The insurance payout for it was 1,4 billions. Which is at least indicative of the cost.

And Maersk had recent and working backups.

That’s generally a good idea, however, there can be reasons not to do it.

The device could be infected in a way that it won’t turn on again.

You might have an isolated management network that allows you to monitor the device and traffic (naturally ripping all cables also disconnects the management network).

And whatnot. But generally I agree.

Depends. If you’re at home with a single endpoint, maybe.

But in cases like the image there’s a lot of internal traffic and you’d want to stop the malware spreading internally. There might not even be internet connection at all.

Most serious infections are able to work within isolated internal network. You can stop data breaches by cutting external traffic but if you have ransomware you might want to cut internal connections too.

You might be able to stop the ransomware from triggering on some devices. That of course depends on the type of ransomware and whether it’s triggered based on time, external command or something else.

I’m wondering what was the email usage like in the first place if you can just choose to stop sending to most people.

But to be honest, I’ve only sent handful of emails from my personal account within the same number of years.

Yeah, an incorrect cleaning procedure can cause a error that requires maintenance personnel to reset the error. They don’t need to do anything else though, it’s completely fine to just do the cleaning again. Stuff like that.

It’s probably not an arbitrary explicit limitation just for the sake of it, they’re likely using a cheaper component for the port.

He did say “HOPEFULLY just innocent mistakes…” Which we all should hope whether we think all allegations are true or not.

There’s different kind of “memories” when talking about metals but this is probably not related to that. What I suspect happened is cold fusion in a very clean environment without oxygen (or very low oxygen) where oxidation doesn’t happen, allowing the very very small fractures to reattach.

Yeah and preventing that from happening in space is rather complex task. Especially on parts that grind against each other causing the existing oxidized layer to wear off.