I teach cybersecurity. And I genuinely don't know what to tell my students after this one. Federal reviewers spent years trying to get basic encryption documentation from Microsoft for its GCC High government cloud. They couldn't get it. One reviewer called the system a "pile of spaghetti pies," with data traveling from point A to point B the way you'd get from Chicago to New York: a bus to St. Louis, a ferry to Pittsburgh, and a flight to Newark. Each leg is a potential hijacking. They knew this. They said this out loud in writing. Then they approved it anyway in December 2024, because too many agencies were already using it. 🔐 That's not a security review. That's a hostage negotiation. Two things in this story should make every CISO and CIO uncomfortable:

🧩 Microsoft built its federal cloud on top of decades of legacy code that it apparently can't fully document itself
👮 "Digital escorts" often ex-military with minimal software engineering backgrounds are the firewall between Chinese engineers working on the system and classified U.S. networks 🤦🏻‍♂️

The scariest line in the whole ProPublica investigation isn't the "pile of shit" quote. It's this: FedRAMP determined that refusing authorization wasn't feasible because agencies were already using the product. Read that again. The security review process reached a conclusion based on sunk cost, not risk. Ex Post Facto Fallacy

If that logic holds, the compliance framework is just documentation theater. And right now, CISA is being hollowed out, so there are fewer people left to even run the theater.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2026/03/federal-cyber-experts-called-microsofts-cloud-a-pile-of-shit-approved-it-anyway/
#Cybersecurity #Microsoft #FedRAMP #Leadership #RiskManagement #security #privacy #cloud #infosec

FUN FACT: the "nano" prefix ultimately descends from Ancient Greek "nanos", which means "dwarf".

Consequently, translating "nanotechnology" as "dwarven machinery" is arguably defensible.

Something a bit worrying to note about using Ai in healthcare.

I’ve had two specialist appointments recently, both using ai to transcribe. Both sent report letters with inaccuracies about my diagnoses and past medical history. Even my GP was like, “huh, that directly contradicts what I put in the referrals.”

I have followed up both and requested amendments (which were done) but if I hadn’t, these inaccuracies could have significantly damaged ongoing care, further treatment or insurance claims.

Human error has always been a factor, but both doctors were clearly using the ai software and assuming what it spat out was correct. They made no other notes during the appointments to cross-reference and double check. This is how Very Bad Things can happen.

just came across this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVzeHTlWIDY

the *actual* reason why DRAM is expensive (as it does this price thing every decade ish and they always blame whatever thing du jour for it)

also in case youtube isn't good enough of a source there's also a wikipedia page on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal