Remember when Crowdstrike crashed half the computers on the planet for a full day? Well, if you do, you're one of the few, because people are still using Crowdstrike, and the stock is still doing well overall.

It’s still one of the best antimalwares on the planet.

Thank you for reminding me of the phrase "damning with faint praise"

That’s a phrase like “the most enjoyable cancers” or “the quietest seagulls”

The only one that has 100% protection rate: indeed you can't get any malware if you can't turn on your PC.

That's fair. In fact, you might say that for a competently set up fleet of computers, nothing beats it.

Which means, people don't care. Is this a sign of a cultural shift to the idea that sometimes things don't work and that's fine?

I'm guessing there are surveillance features (I don't know) and companies put up with it for that reason.

That's logical reasoning, not corporation reasoning.

Nobody involved in the decision making cares about the customers. They only care about the potential hit to the bottom line, and if that's perceived as callous silence, they don't care. Unless, of course, they decide that appearing to care and being responsive results in less of a hit.

Silences like these are strategic and dependably predictable - engaging with customers on average costs more than remaining silent for whatever metric they've applied to the fix. If it takes longer than they thought, they might feel compelled to speak out, or they could just depend on the issue to fade into the 24 hour news cycle. Engaging with a customer runs the risk of them interacting with some threshold of people that will keep the negative story in the headlines for longer than it might otherwise be.

> They only care about the potential hit to the bottom line, and if that's perceived as callous silence, they don't care.

I don't think that is true. I think people care a lot... just not about the consumers. People care about themselves - they also don't want to be fired. So the decision is punted up the chain, all the way to executives. And executives want to mitigate the damage to themselves first, their orgs second, maybe consumers third.

Which is ultimately another way of saying they don’t care about customers and only care about their bottom line (?)

Law is not logical and rarely makes sense. I'm not suggesting at all that they are doing the morally correct thing, but there are a bunch of ways that you can legally admit liability without meaning to.

For example, little life pro-tip, never directly pay for a loan that you aren't liable for. Proxy it through the debtor, or not at all and get a lawyer if the debtor is deceased.

Depends, radio silence will cost you money compared to just fixing the problem if that's feasible but it will save you money compared to accidentally admitting to liability in a rushed press release.

Sounds like we need to increase liability for witholding information from customers when that causes damages to make the result of that equation align with consumer interests.

As soon as there is any hint of a lawsuit, it immediately switches to CYA mode: "don't apologize, don't admit guilt, keep PR on a tight leash with a legal team watching every word and punctuation".

Only if you connect the soundbar via Bluetooth /s