nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq5tvv6c5rdcj2z03r5sw5dzl36qx2kkpqe47yscckve5a2h0psstsa9skc4 (nprofile…skc4) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqwy2hmcgl8numjzcmgg9ff86j03pax978qhhhe0vuhyj0dyzxx6hsd3umyr (nprofile…umyr) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq2lxtr540euchz3wpu4l745spze9fesue5lcentzceegq04ftzzxspnr0kn (nprofile…r0kn) I'm going to take a slightly different stance. This isn't hard. It's just nuanced.
The problem is that the current dominant understanding of fiduciary responsibility focus on short/medium term gains. It *never* focuses on long term, sustainable operations.
There's an easy argument to make that "I support Chris Krebs because we can't have a meaningful cybersecurity industry if we're subject to political revenge" is in the best long term interests of all parties... companies, shareholders, and the general public alike. It's just not in the best short/medium term interests.
Rob O :verified:
npub1ys…884lc
2025-04-16 20:34:36 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…swwl
Author Public Key
npub1ysa8h9z5xpnqmnc7xxr74vrjl8hjgfsx025ctqsg88kwmtpk3hqs8884lcSeen on
wss://relay.mostr.pubPublished at
2025-04-16 20:34:36 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "a1b46df511f547c30b2912826b9dade8d008460934352d77ecbc01b7b16cb0f1",
"pubkey": "243a7b945430660dcf1e3187eab072f9ef2426067aa985820839ecedac368dc1",
"created_at": 1744835676,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"a2d8cd62836e24a13e23a41d468bf1d00cab5820cd7c4863166669d55de18417",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"71157de11f3cf9b90b1b420a949f527c43d317c705ef7cbd9cb924f6904636af",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"57ccb1d2afcf317145c1e57fead201164a9cc399a7f199ac58ce5007d52b108d",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"04669fddd5a44e78bb86e7752275a8b46190c6ad3e97baaceccd56fe311df27a",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"3775586e78b0ed49924fd390a09d9d76fb88666a763d1042f2a86dadf09fe430",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"a69cac96fd8b825a67e39aa0aa526220f64b5fff88d3e49d7cfa45d54d3ea842",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"5f4c17bbf02d22435435eace8aeac333d68f74f9dad320e13d3de08ba3805645",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/users/nerdpr0f/statuses/114349550899862495",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq5tvv6c5rdcj2z03r5sw5dzl36qx2kkpqe47yscckve5a2h0psstsa9skc4 nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqwy2hmcgl8numjzcmgg9ff86j03pax978qhhhe0vuhyj0dyzxx6hsd3umyr nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq2lxtr540euchz3wpu4l745spze9fesue5lcentzceegq04ftzzxspnr0kn I'm going to take a slightly different stance. This isn't hard. It's just nuanced.\n\nThe problem is that the current dominant understanding of fiduciary responsibility focus on short/medium term gains. It *never* focuses on long term, sustainable operations.\n\nThere's an easy argument to make that \"I support Chris Krebs because we can't have a meaningful cybersecurity industry if we're subject to political revenge\" is in the best long term interests of all parties... companies, shareholders, and the general public alike. It's just not in the best short/medium term interests.",
"sig": "65b9fa8b2b90118546d2d89806a370903729d6ff0c5823c65df89b9b525fa590ac5bd118b5a8726f488fbaac6633b88c42838f8b810405b6c5d2e105d5be0b98"
}