ricecake

Pretty sure bullets are copper jacketed weed nuggets. Grain is a measurement of how seedy the weed is, and hence how much damage it does. 115 grain means it's a weed nugget with the weight of 115 seeds being fired.

exactly as many as the quantity of numbers you can count between 0 and 1

I specified countable to keep them in the same class of infinity. :) not about to make that mistake when bringing pedantry to a silly fight. .

Since it's implied that they have names, I'm going to use that as my argument for there being a countably infinite number. If you want to argue that only certain special angels have names, like Michael or π, then I'd say they're uncountable.
If you wanted to argue that omnipotence means a deity could defy logical restrictions and allow contradictory truths to coexist, then I'd say I'm far too sleepy for that discussion but I love where you're heads at. :P

Precisely as many angels as there are whole numbers, or exactly as many as the quantity of numbers you can count between 0 and 1 (0.5, 0.2341, etc).

The original context of the question was more about if angels and the afterlife were physically manifest or intangible, and early thinking about how infintesimals work.

Given that most of the comment thread was about if the lawsuit was justified or not, you can understand how a sudden shift to systemic justice and the morality of corporations might be a little unexpected.

So it sounds like you're saying the people who have been hurt shouldn't recoup their damages, since that just stalls the continued fucking over without consequences, and instead they should... Let them get away with it, embrace getting fucked over, and take the consequences of the company onto themselves? The exact same outcome, except the corporation has even fewer costs?

You're talking systemic change. A lawsuit doesn't need to cause systemic change to be worth it for the person who was wronged.

The justice system isn't always about correcting grand social inequities. Sometimes it's literally just conflict resolution and balancing things out. If I break my neighbor's fence, the judge isn't going to try to bankrupt me or have me give money as a punishment to keep me from breaking other fences. They're going to have me pay for fixing my neighbors fence because that's what's fair.

If your goal is to hurt the business, there are certainly better ways than the justice system. If your goal is for them to pay for the damage they did, the justice system is pretty much the only game in town.

CS didn't have at the time, an option to disable channel file updates

Yes, that's the crux of the accusation. Given the large number of people who seemed to be under the impression that selecting a staggered release cadence would protect them from a faulty update, it's not unreasonable to think that people were caught off guard by a second autoupdate system that they couldn't configure that could also tank their system.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/falcon-content-update-preliminary-post-incident-report/

Might want to let crowdstrike know.

Rapid Response Content Deployment

Implement a staggered deployment strategy for Rapid Response Content in which updates are gradually deployed to larger portions of the sensor base, starting with a canary deployment.

Improve monitoring for both sensor and system performance, collecting feedback during Rapid Response Content deployment to guide a phased rollout.

Provide customers with greater control over the delivery of Rapid Response Content updates by allowing granular selection of when and where these updates are deployed.

Provide content update details via release notes, which customers can subscribe to.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/23/crowdstrike_lessons_to_learn/

Maybe you're thinking of changes that they made as a result of the incident?

That doesn't really sound like an argument that it's frivolous, it sounds like an argument about why the company shouldn't need to pay much. What if the onions weren't obvious? I don't know if they put their onions in a sauce, in the bun or something else.

It's entirely plausible that lifting the bun would have revealed the onions, even most likely. I wouldn't, however, say that the concept of difficult to spot onions is so unreasonable as to say the case is frivolous.

It's absolutely not required behavior! Software for servers has very different requirements from software for end users, and if you have a lot of them you also want to manage your end user machines differently.

Updates can go wrong, and if you roll out a bad update to everything at once you can crash everything and lose a lot of money. As aptly demonstrated by cloudstrike.

That's why Delta and many other companies disabled the auto update functions: so they could control the rollout cadence.
They reasonably believed that disabling autoupdates disabled them. They didn't expect a second autoupdate system that wasn't documented, wasn't controlled by the autoupdate system settings and couldn't be disabled.

There was an additional auto update function that wasn't disclosed. Delta had disabled the auto update because, like many large companies, they prefer to deploy changes incrementally so that an issue doesn't blow-up all their systems at once.

So...

Isn't autoupdating software by definition an authorized backdoor by virtue of enabling it?

Yes. Which is why they contend disabling it makes it unauthorized.

Ah, didn't know that. I guess they need to fertilize the soil occasionally to get some lost nutrients back in?

Most rail areas where I am have gravel except at road crossings, so I extended that to "if you don't have gravel, it must just be dirt". :)

I'd be curious why you think it's frivolous. Why shouldn't people use a lawsuit when another hurts them? The civil court system is literally there for disagreements and "you hurt me, make it right".