A reasonable requirement which leads to "run everything in VMs" is the need to support on-premise deployments. Often data-security and compliance requirements can be handled most reasonably (or at all) by allowing the enterprise client to pick where to deploy a single-tenant copy of the service. For this, I think the most reasonable approach is to only require VMs and do all the configuration yourself (preferably in some scripted / automated manner).
Of course, in this case, (unless you install a private cloud), you forgo all the convenience and advantages of a cloud infrastructure (so one can argue that this wouldn't really count as 'cloud agnostic'), but since such on-premise deployments should only be required by big enterprise clients, they should have deep enough pockets to pay for it.
You make the owner responsible. I.e. if the driver can be identified (or the owner identifies the driver) then you can fine the driver, otherwise you fine the owner.
The type of ventillators required by the most serious cases are much more complicated: as I understand it, it involves push a tube down to the lungs, and the machine breathing instead of the patient, i.e. it has to carefully monitor and regulate the pressure etc. Already the "push tube down to the lungs" part is quite a challenge: avoiding damage to the vocal cords, or to the lungs, etc.
Should we then not be damn sure that there are shitloads of the simpler ventilators so that the complicated ones can be fully reserved for the serious cases?
In the hospital they’re all complicated cases. The simpler vents are for home care use. The hospital doesn’t typically do noninvasive ventilation because it’s meant for patients who are awake and outside of a hospital setting.
Tubes down the lungs is definitely a bit tricky, not all patients will require that model though. As for careful monitoring, that is something the machine does on its own, as long as it has been configured correctly for the individual patient.
This is incorrect on many levels. A ventilator always requires intubation. Sometimes that's through the mouth, sometimes through the nasal passage (both cases are referred to as endotracheal), and rarely through a tracheostomy. Ventilators do have some monitoring capability, but require consistent attention from respiratory therapists. The chances of infection (VAP), pneumothorax etc are serious without careful monitoring by a trained, experienced medical professional. These aren't plug and play devices.
Some patients might need supplementary oxygen delivered through a canula, or through a mask, but that's nothing like the procedure used for a vent.
When treating bilateral interstitial pneumonia, you're almost always intubating. Patients presenting BIP require higher oxygenation than a CPAP style mask can provide. Using a limited availability ventilator with just a mask is a waste at this time.
Any suggestions for MDM for Linux laptops? Most device management solutions I have seen are for either Windows or Mac, but is there one that is accepted by auditors and is not utter garbage UX wise for the user on Linux, where the user is most likely going to want and have full admin access to their own laptop? (I.e. since the user in question is a developer, I feel a strong aversion to not trusting them to do system administration on their own laptop.)
osquery is great and, while it does not tick precisely the same checkboxes as Jamf or Fleetsmith, it'll almost certainly suffice for evidence generation for compliance (osquery is in fact much better at producing "evidence" than most MDM tools are).
Just a shameless plug we've written thousands of queries to automate many compliance checks against major frameworks such as: NCSC-CE, CIS, SOC and ISO. https://www.zercurity.com/product/compliance/ It'll even collate all the evidence for you and help your employees improve their own cyber security posture based on your corporate policies.
I would assume the "engineers vs accounts" is due to the output not being intended for the coders, but the managers. I.e. you only have accounts for the managers, but you price based on how large a team they are monitoring.
(This is just a guess, I have no connection to haystack)
About the accident in Hungary: the police investigation has been apparently closed, and the cause was ruled to be pilot error (If I understand it correctly, they did a too severe turn too low). There was no sign of a fire before the crash, so even though the wreckage burned out, the crash was not due to electrical issues or fire. A hungarian news article: https://hvg.hu/itthon/20190401_magnus_aircraft_elektromos_ki... (Unfortunately I couldn't find an English article, and the accident investigation of the transportation safety organization might not be finished yet, since they only issued a preliminary report for now.)
Every experiment will be based on some sort of theory: without that, you can't design the equipment, and you wouldn't be able to interpret the data that is generated.
If by "so far have shown nothing for all their effort" you mean that no new results were found, that isn't due to the current theories being bad: in fact, it is due to them being too good: they describe the results too well and thus there is not enough difference between the current theories and current results that would require a new theory.
The counterpoint is that if we were more eager to ditch theories as soon as they fail to explain absolutely everything in the universe, we'd have tossed Newton's laws in the early 1800s because they didn't accurately predict the orbit of Uranus.
(turned out they did, but nobody at the time knew to account for perturbations caused by the as-yet-undiscovered Neptune)
And depending on how far you want to take this, the neutrino probably would've been dismissed, too, before eventually being detected.
Someone mentioned before (in a comment on another similar news item) that although the rocket is tall, after landing most of its mass is at the bottom: the engines are heavy, while the rest of the rocket is mostly empty fuel tanks. Hence it is feasible to keep it upright with the relatively small legs.
Of course, in this case, (unless you install a private cloud), you forgo all the convenience and advantages of a cloud infrastructure (so one can argue that this wouldn't really count as 'cloud agnostic'), but since such on-premise deployments should only be required by big enterprise clients, they should have deep enough pockets to pay for it.