I don't see how the title or the concluding statements are justified by this story whatsoever. And publicly blasting a former manager for this when their described behavior doesn't support it at all? I don't know who the author is so maybe there's some context I'm supposed to know, but this just seems distasteful, on top of the confusing writing
The story describes a bureaucracy -- an organization of people averse of risk and therefore irresponsible: they did everything to be able to say "it is not my fault". They didn't tried to find a way to stop attacks.
Big bosses were paralyzed by the threat of becoming responsible for a coming failure, and were unable to think straight. They didn't even try to think about avoiding failure. They though about keeping themselves away from risk of becoming responsible of failure. Completely incompetent people.
The story with FBI shows that she did try to solve the problem, and that she took the risk of million years in a jail.
> this just seems distasteful, on top of the confusing writing
I agree, it is confusing. It is not enough to read the article, one needs to stop after reading and think. It took to me five minutes to understand. The title is the most confusing thing: it meant to be a generalized question from an average person, not a question the author asks about her boss, but it is not obvious.
reply