this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35222 readers
711 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As an IT guy, start a ticket.

Those update messages are likely from an automated system, and the updates are probably controlled by a completely independent system that nobody looks at regularly.

By submitting exactly what you did here as a ticket to the IT team, you're pushing them to check in on those systems and approve updates that haven't been approved.

Yes, it's dumb. The updates should be automatically approved. Obviously they're not, or something has prevented them from approving it.

Personally, as IT, if I get a ticket about this, I'd want to dig into why the update wasn't approved and make sure future updates get approved without delay; solving both the immediate issue and all related issues in the future. However, if I'm not aware of the issue, I can't really fix it. From their view, they likely only see a dashboard of all devices and yours (along with others) are probably flagged as needing an update. This is extremely common and probably entirely ignored under normal circumstances. Almost every one of the systems I administrate at work have updates that are pending. Either the system hasn't been restarted (mainly desktops and servers and such) or, if it's reliant on a user taking action, I assume the user doesn't care enough about the update to bother running it.... The idea that the update hasn't been approved or that there's a problem getting or applying the update, doesn't even enter my brain as a possibility until someone complains. Simply put, I don't have time to investigate every pending update that has not yet been applied. You'd almost need a dedicated person just to keep an eye on updates in order to keep on top of them, and nobody pays an IT person solely to look after updates.

So I'm busy fixing Debbie's printer, and Joe's scanner, and Frank's email that's slowing the date in that strange format again because he somehow changed his regional settings to the UK again....

Do your IT team a favour and send them this. I promise you that they'll be grateful, even if they don't seem like it. Bluntly, this is a perfect amount of information.

I get requests that range from "please call me when you have a chance" to "this specific function in this specific program is doing a thing that's different from what I see on a coworker's screen and I like how their screen shows it better because it reminds me of my grandchild's grade 3 school play where they played a tree." Ok Linda, thanks, I really didn't need to know about little Timmy's school play.... Users either give us nothing, or way too much irrelevant data. So this image shows exactly what is required for a diagnosis. Either the messages will be stopped or the update will be approved.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If updates are approved automatically, why have a system where approval is required?

[–] cyberic@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago

Because an iOS change might break existing corporate software? Just a guess.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago

I’ve had IT bug me about this at my company for the past several updates. For some reason their software never picks up that I’ve updated my machine, maybe because I literally do it only hours after the update has come out. Every single time I’m like “I’ve been on that version since the day it released. They then do something on their side and are like “oh it’s showing up as up to date now, thank you”… smh

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Software nagging as a whole is mildly annoying for me. If, for whatever reason, I don't want to follow whatever action it's "suggesting" me to do, stop me bugging about it!

Also fuck off with the "MaYbE LaTeR :-)". It's simply "no".

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Or more specifically, if it's a controlled IT environment and you rely on centrally vetted and controlled software updates (which makes sense in a lot of contexts), then, well, control them centrally.

As in, either they update on their own, or every weekend the devices stay with IT anyways and get updated.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, most of the time those updates are trying to patch security vulnerabilities haha

Like iOS and Android both had a few critical CVEs a few months ago that were a really big deal since the vulnerabilities required no user input.

Anyway, those updates are pretty important more often than not and not just meant to annoy you :)

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

More important than what devs "try", those patches do often address vulnerabilities...

...however, sometimes, shit breaks. It's perfectly possible that a specific user does not want that patch, for multiple reasons:

  • the patch is botched, the dev fucked up, and the user knows it
  • the patch doesn't even work on the user's machine on first place
  • the patch works fine, but it tanks the performance in an unavoidable way
  • the patch introduces some bugs due to interaction with something else
  • addressing the security vulnerability kills a feature that is more critical for that user than the security issue
  • et cetera.

Devs have no way to know it. And they shouldn't code software as if they did.

Furthermore, regardless of what they "mean", this sort of nagging sends a message to the user, that they shouldn't be allowed to choose the software of their own machines.

It gets worse! This sort of nagging is not present only for security patches. It's every bloody where. Including things that clearly do not benefit the user, with data harvesting being just the tip of the iceberg.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I mostly agree with all of your points, but I think you're failing to see the forest for the trees. The vast majority of users are ignorant as fuck about their tech. They couldn't give a shit about anything other than their own convenience. If the devs allowed everyone to opt out if it meant no longer getting annoying messages, a huge majority of them would do exactly that, caring little for what that actually means in the long-term for their own security and others' (yes, a vulnerable device is a danger to others, it isn't always only impacting just that user).

So they opt for this collective, utilitarian approach, despite it meaning less user control. If you don't like it, get an android device and root it. Again, I don't disagree with your points, I just thought it worth pointing out the larger picture.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

[Note for readers: my top comment was rather off-topic, as I focused on development. OP has two additional layers of complexity - IT bureaucracy and corporate environment.]

I don't think that I'm failing to see the forest for the trees. I think that the key difference is that I'm not willing to give the stupid a pass to cause harm; and because of that I don't think that devs should go out of their way to protect those [in your words] "ignorant as fuck" users, even if they're the majority.

Once the devs provided the security patch, informed the user about it, and informed the user about the consequences of not applying that security patch (in clear and layman-friendly words), their job is done. Going past that to ask the user over and over about it, with no way to turn it off, is 1) patronising, 2) assumptive, and 3) belittling.

Exaggerating it a bit, it's a lot like someone knocking at your door and asking:

  • [Person] "If you have knives, I'll get rid of them for you. You're assumed to be too disgustingly stupid to not cause itself harm with them."
  • [You] "Sod off! I'm not getting rid of my knives. Also if I hurt myself it's my problem, not yours."
  • [Person] "Ah, so you said «maybe later»! Ok! I shall visit you tomorrow and repeat the request. Remember, I care about you~"

If the devs allowed everyone to opt out if it meant no longer getting annoying messages, a huge majority of them would do exactly that

Advanced settings, sane defaults, and automatic updates exist for this reason. If the user is so ignorant that they're unable to realise why they should at least consider to apply the sec patch, they're also too ignorant to turn automatic updates off.

yes, a vulnerable device is a danger to others, it isn’t always only impacting just that user

Again, not the devs' fault. The user shouldn't be treated as something unable to be held responsible for the harm that it causes. And when they cause someone harm, they should be blamed.

That backtracks to the OP, with the IT nagging the user to update the software but not allowing them to do so. In those situations, the IT shouldn't be acting like those shitty devs, who think "if you annoy the user enough it'll obey you"; they should be asking the user/employee why they're not updating their software, even if it causes a risk for the company.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'll use this analogy: Do you hate seatbelt reminders in cars? It's the same concept. You're putting a lot of trust in people that just isn't going to work out well in the long run, as was seen with countless people continuing to ignore seatbelt safety for generations until it was forcefed into the culture. I view cybersecurity reminders the same way, where lots of people ignore it until it's forcefed into the collective to be taken seriously.

Those who hate it because they already take it seriously, will just figure out how to quiet the alarms/notices and/or move on. Again, I get that you're essentially saying, "but it's the principle of the matter!" I just don't think it's that big of a deal, as I'd rather be comforted knowing that my friends and family who send me videos/pictures/random crap are doing so from a device that isn't as likely to be completely compromised.

[–] yemmly@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

MDM is a scourge upon the earth

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

While you're not wrong, and the only thing worse is possibly printers; just like printers, it's a necessary evil.

It's bluntly the only way to manage a fleet of devices. It sucks, but it's required.

[–] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As opposed to completely unmanaged devices with software and hardware that I have zero idea what exploits are available for it?

If it’s because you’ve had some dumbass BYOD policy then that’s a you problem. I always tell my users to not put company policies on their private devices. On company devices, and especially government, I want my capacity to control my domain better.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

Exactly.

Also be aware that if you add an Outllook account to iOS, IT may be able to wipe your entire phone.