this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
195 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59600 readers
3776 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago (17 children)

That’s strange. Southwest Airline’s ancient IT actually saved them from crowdstrike.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/southwest-cloudstrike-windows-3-1/

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 47 points 3 months ago (15 children)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (14 children)

Ironically it debunks it by saying, yes, Southwest has key scheduling applications running on 3.1 and 95.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No it doesn't, nowhere does it say that.

SkySolver and Crew Web Access, look “historic like they were designed on Windows 95”. The fact that they are also available as mobile applications should further make it clear that no, these applications are not running on Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

The fact that they are also available as mobile applications should further make it clear that no, these applications are not running on Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.

That kind of language will get you kicked in the balls by engineers. Sure. It should make it "clear" that they're not running on *this OS or that OS.

And what should also be made clear is that statement is an assumption. A probable one, IMO, a reasonable one, but an assumption nonetheless and therefore no one can call it a fact unless they just want to pretend to be right.

I ojbect to using language like "it looks like a thing so it's OBVIOUSLY a thing, you morons" being presented as irrefutable evidence of some sort.

The fact that it's an assumption should further make it clear that no, this is not a fact, and stating it as a fact is bullshit or deliberate misrepresentation.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)