stephen01king

Seems like you're not the only one in this thread that fails to even read the title correctly.

Unfortunately, flat earthers don't think satellites don't exist, they just think they use balloons to keep them up there. Shocking, I know.

The actual solution in that case is just don't watch a Disney show. You won't die from not watching shows.

See, I could understand you just find despite you writing "If course", but if you try to say to me that is not a mistake simply because I could understand you, I cannot at all agree with your logic of what makes it the language "correct".

I don't know everything about what happened during the Crowdstrike fiasco since it didn't directly affect my company, so I'm asking questions. I don't really care about being right. If you were talking about something I don't know, I'm glad to learn new things about that incident. Why get defensive on something like this instead of just clarifying your point?

Ok, but what lesson was Microsoft supposed to learn from the Crowdstrike fiasco that have to do with the implementation of Bitlocker in personal devices?

Are you suggesting that OS drive encryption should never be implemented due to the fact that computers might sometimes need to be accessed without the OS booting up? That doesn't really make sense. That's what Bitlocker keys are for, to unlock the drive if needed.

Well, most people do have a secondary device, and of those that don't, in most cases they can just use someone else's.

What does Crowdstrike have to do with Bitlocker?

Wel then, either get a Microsoft account that you remember the password to or don't use Windows since they are pushing hard for this type of security. Linux is completely free for people who don't like the way Windows is heading towards.

I believe you can find them in the first Microsoft account that you registered to that windows install.

Then what's the point of your previous comment talking about the narrator being reliable or not? Sounds like you just had no actual point and wants to use inconsistent logic whenever you want by calling it wisdom.

All I'm saying is that a corrupt individual is not a reliable narrator, therefore it's illogical to use their corruptness as proof of their reliability at calling out corruption. Your counter examples are not relevant because their qualities does not directly make their statements unreliable.

And again, I'm not calling out the truthness in this matter, since I also believe the IBA is corrupt, but I'm calling out your use of bad logic to support that position. I'm sure if you actually read my comments properly you'd understood that I never questioned the truth in your statement about IBA, only one of the logical reasoning you used.

Is the IOC a reliable narrator, then? Being a corrupt organization would put them in the category of being unreliable to me.