Live data from Hacker News

CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

techcrunch.com

101–110 of 182 posts

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#102

Huh, so, not only clueless at security, but also clueless at customer relations. Also, their commercials are stupid, so clueless at marketing. I find it funny that their name, CrowdStrike, sounds like an anti-personnel reaper drone. Now metaphorically fits.

50 years from now, unclassified documents reveal that crowdstrike was secretly a CIA controlled business which was operating an offensive botnet created for the anticipated cyberwar, with a peacetime cover story of being security software with automatic updates. Everybody rolls their eyes and asks how anybody ever fell for that when the name openly says what it is. Probably bullshit, but honestly... Wtf is up with th…

Why do you think this is BS? It perfectly explains the name and also why something like this is installed so ubiquitously and still installed despite such a massive screw up. Also offensive capabilities need wide deployment just as much as defensive. Cybersecurity and cyberwar is a real thing, and surely DDOS botnets are a core part of that.

Maybe it's controlled by the CIA, or maybe just has a quiet contract with USCYBERCOM and/or ARCCYBER.

I mean, people don't seem that concerned about all of the nuclear missiles and submarines, aircraft carriers, and US military bases everywhere. Computers and the internet are now part of that and have been for quite awhile. If you are invested in this system then you probably want that dominance to continue (otherwise you should probably start learning Chinese). In which case we probably need something like a "crowd strike" widely deployed on the monopoly OS so that we have offensive capabilities.

If you don't like that idea then why use Windows at all? Use Linux at least.

I don't think this is really conspiracy theory territory unless you are in denial that cyberwarfare exists or that the US must participate in it.

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#103
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows that CrowdStrike is irredeemable.

Maybe their gift card list got hacked

I'd wonder if this was a hack. Seems like a decent attempt at phishing.

Actually that'd be far better than if it were really Crowdstrike thinking $10 would resolve this.

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#107

This gives me early career PTSD. I once reduced monthly operating cost by six figures and the company responded by buying the office a pizza from Sam's Club as a reward.

lmao, what a joke. The rest of the reduced monthly operating cost went into the company executive pockets

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#108

It's a deliciously insulting amount because it's not quite enough for a meal on Uber Eats.

£7.75 GBP, ill admit i haven't used Uber eats in years because the prices are insane but im not sure that covers much more than the delivery fee.

(Also, people who want McDonalds 20 minutes after it was remotely edible and shaken to shit on the back of a moped, who are you? I see the bikes everywhere but have never met one of you irl)

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#109
Think about this: Someone came up with that idea. A group of people probably approved it. Someone else had to purchase those cards or set up the job to send them to customers.

At no point did anyone think "this doesn't seem like the right response, I should warn someone further up the chain". Probably due to the idea coming from further up the chain.

And those ubereats/doordash/grubhub cards are worthless because $10 won't get you a thing, you'll need to spend another $30. Which is why corporate always buys those because I am guessing they're much less than $10 to buy.

What an utter clown strike.

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#110
post #9

This reminds me of something that happened at a former employer. After I had been employed there for a couple of years, someone in HR or Legal noticed that the programmers had never signed any "our code belongs to the company" agreement. So they asked us to sign a paper to that effect, and gave us each a check for $20. My thought was that I always assumed the company owned this code, but if they were going to pay for…

Here's what I suspect happened: Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20. I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive,…

Salary in this case would serve as the consideration for the work they perform, but lawyers love making things as explicit as possible (understandably).
Post reply on HN