As an over-explainer I never got the mindset of being mad at more information. Regardless of whether I know something or not I would never get upset that someone shared knowledge with me. The more information the better. If I already knew, what’s the big deal? If I didn’t, great learned something new. If I disagree, I’ll say why and try to understand their point of view and maybe end up with a better understanding based on their knowledge/perspective.

Genuinely curious why it is so upsetting? Why would we not want to encourage knowledge sharing? Seems like the person thinks you are calling them dumb by telling them things, but how are you supposed to know what other people know? Personally I think it says more about the person getting mad than the person sharing information, but I know I’m in the minority for that.

Larian made comments after Hasbro laid off a bunch of Wizard staff that pretty much everyone they worked with had been fired. Probably doesn’t sit too well seeing the people that you worked together for years with to make a huge success were fired as soon as the job was done. All to prop up other sides of Hasbro that aren’t profitable.

Larian is independent for a reason. It allows them to actually be able to walk away from a lucrative deal when they don’t agree with the practices of their partner. Why should they make more money and content for a company shitting on the people that made them what they are. BG3 is great because of Larian not Hasbro or DnD. Whatever they make next will be successful either way so why not make something they own.

RAID is redundancy. It saves your data if a or two drive fail, but does not help you if the entire RAID system dies (power surge, fire, water damage). Generally if it is on the same system it is not a backup.

Did you have a counter argument for calling bullshit? Because he probably had a point, there is definitely a niche for that level of security. It just generally involves state secrets.

Certain classifications of documents require access only from physically secure locations, called SCIFs, where all access is monitored and logged. Things like phones and cameras aren’t allowed to prevent any data leakage.

That’s not too say you can’t be secure remotely, but really only against outsiders. Good luck stopping an employee from taking a picture with their personal phone of classified blueprints off their monitor at home. Good luck even knowing they did it before the data is gone.

When you factor in social engineering being the most successful type of “hacking”, an office setting is undeniably more secure. However, most offices don’t need that level of security, because data breaches aren’t a matter of national security, so remote is an acceptable risk.