1500 scientists and science-supporters rally state capitol
March 09, 2025
By Alan “Lorax” Hirsch
About 1500 people attended the science rally Friday March 7th at the Sacramento state capitol — 1/3 carrying unique home made signs. Who says scientists are not creative?! Evidence of people from UC Merced, Sac State, government agencies and of course UC Davis.
Davis’s Beth Bourne seemed the only counter protestor. She was escorted off capitol grounds to the street side sidewalk by CHiP officers because of her disruptive chanting.
What is the purpose of this rally? Science is a process, not a conclusion. Is this not bringing politics into 'science', rather than the other way around? So many issues that were banned as 'misinformation' during the pandemic turned out to be true, for example. If the left shuts down discussion on issues, how is that not 'anti-science' ? It appears to me that this rally is more like, 'we support scientific studies that support our belief system, and want discussion that threatens our belief system shut down'.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | March 09, 2025 at 08:38 PM
ACM asks:
> What is the purpose of this rally?
It is to show support for scientific studies that support the current belief system and keep the money flowing to the people getting rich working on things that are "settled science" like every kid needs a Covid booster every year until they die and if we don't replace every gas stove and water heater in Davis the climate will change and we are doomed.
Buying "Billions" of new appliances to buy votes (saying you are saving the climate) makes the "Millions" spend on free Obama phones to buy votes look like chump change.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/stacey-abrams-slammed-defending-2-193718625.html
Posted by: South of Davis | March 09, 2025 at 09:51 PM
I wasn’t escorted to the sidewalk for my “dispute chanting” - I was quietly standing on the capitol steps with my signs. The Capitol Police said the organizers didn’t want me anywhere on the west lawn with my signs - but once I was moved to the public sidewalk I started chanting because the police said I was free to do so. If people want to see my signs, I made a post on Reddit r/ucdavis. Thank you!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/UCDavis/s/i2pptKGBA7
Posted by: Beth Bourne | March 09, 2025 at 11:19 PM
Support the Science except if you believe that COVID came out of a Wuhan lab and that the COVID shot does not prevent you from getting COVID. Then you must be silenced.
Posted by: Keith | March 10, 2025 at 06:59 AM
Beth, you are brave. I watched your video of the event and some of the people who approached you were downright obnoxious and vulgar.
Posted by: Keith | March 10, 2025 at 07:52 AM
For those here who critique rally as response to cutting of research funding, what is your alternative for people to show there disapproval?
Posted by: lan Hirsch | March 10, 2025 at 01:38 PM
Regarding cutting of research funding - that's the real issue.
As such, it's a "save our jobs" rally, for the most part.
But I don't think that Trump is listening, nor are Republican representatives in general.
As I tell everyone these days (who never were Trump supporters), "why did you vote for that guy, anyway"?
Actually, you could ask that question in a more-serious manner regarding Federal employees, since I believe a lot of them were Trump supporters. Approximately 30% of Federal employees were in the military, since Federal hiring procedures provide an advantage to them as I recall. (I usually think of those in the military as being more conservative, on average.)
Posted by: Ron O | March 10, 2025 at 04:09 PM
"As I tell everyone these days (who never were Trump supporters), "why did you vote for that guy, anyway"?"
Because the other choice was way more abhorrent.
Posted by: Keith | March 10, 2025 at 05:48 PM
I had higher hopes for Biden (as a more centrist president), but he seemed to embrace "wokeism" more than I expected.
I thought that Trump's most impactful line (during his speech the other day) had to do with immigration. To paraphrase: "Turns out you didn't need more laws - you needed a new president". (Bam!)
But I don't recall Trump telling everyone (prior to the election) that he was going to fire a bunch of federal employees.
Meanwhile, a bunch of people can't figure out how he got elected again. So all they can do is mount inept protests.
Posted by: Ron O | March 10, 2025 at 07:04 PM
I am going to assume all of you Trump supporters agree with Trump's morality or lack there of and will teat you as such. If there is anything Trump is doing that you are not on board with - well you better start screaming about it now and fighting for change.
Posted by: Colin Walsh | March 11, 2025 at 06:18 PM
For what it's worth, I'm no Trump supporter (though I agreed that something needed to be done about illegal immigration). I also like his claimed interest in "America First" (e.g., fighting for fair deals, though I'm less-sure if that's what he's actually pursuing).
It also appears that Trump is less-interested in wars, than the Democrats these days. Though his motivation is not always clear.
Not too crazy about anything else he's doing.
But I've never seen anything accomplished by "screaming" - even in local elections.
For that matter, there was a pretty big protest the last time Trump was elected (involving "cat hats"). Lots of good that did (says "I", sarcastically) - not to mention the convictions, the assassination attempts, etc.
Seems like this time, Trump is more focused. He knows that he only has (less than) 4 years, as well.
Truth be told, I still think Trump has done less damage than Bush/Cheney.
And with the potential budget cuts to UCD, maybe we won't hear about fake "housing crises" anymore.
Posted by: Ron O | March 11, 2025 at 07:11 PM
KO say: "Because the other choice was way more abhorrent."
Way more abhorrent . . . and thus are our choices these days :-|
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | March 11, 2025 at 09:38 PM
I don't agree with everything Trump is doing, for instance his stance with Canada. But Trump is doing way more good than bad. I'm fully on board with America first, his push to stop wars, cutting the federal budget, DOGE, getting men out of women's sports, shutting down DEI, etc...
Posted by: Keith | March 12, 2025 at 06:00 AM
I don't know anyone that "likes" Trump or think he is "moral" but I had to laugh when more than one Harris supporter told me that I should vote from someone that got her start in politics as the mistress of a married politician because the guy she is running against is imoral since he had a mistress when he was married.
Posted by: South of Davis | March 12, 2025 at 08:46 AM
Even if one thinks that government agencies are too big and spend too much money, it's hard for me to understand how anyone could support changes being made:
1) by someone who was appointed by the Executive branch when these agencies and their funding are, according to the Constitution, supposed to be under the purview of Legislative branch
2) in a matter of days (per agency) with a slash and burn approach that couldn't possibly be taking into account which employees and programs are effective and which are not, especially since Musk and his workers lack relevant expertise in the various areas that the agencies represent. (Note that "probationary" workers are often people who have just received a promotion -- the last people that you probably want to be cutting). That Musk and crew have had to try to bring people back, e.g., those who know how to handle our nuclear weaponry, is just the most visible indicator that he's not acting in the country's best interests.
So, I don't think anyone who cares about the constitution or separation of powers or the good of the country should be supporting Musk and DOGE. To bring this back around to the topic at hand: Musk and co have likewise slashed and burned funding for science and health research, including research for cancer and other serious illnesses. This is not creating "efficiency". It's creating chaos and harm.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 08:51 AM
I'm hoping that the people that were supporting all the "unelected" people that were closing small business five years ago will sit down and think of the reason that they are not upset that "unelected" people are closing government offices.
Musk fired 80% of the staff at Twitter and nobody noticed a difference. We could do the same at most big companies and with government (where few do "actual work people care about")
https://www.productthinking.cc/p/the-messiness-of-doing-the-work
P.S. This is not a right left or red blue thing and right leaning big companies and local governments are just as inefficent as the left leaning big companies and local governments and the only difference is a little less DEI...
Posted by: South of Davis | March 12, 2025 at 01:14 PM
Who said anything about unelected? I said unconstitutional, in violation of the separation of powers.
Twitter has gone down the toilet since Musk took it over, both in terms of the service and in terms of its stock price.
Most government agencies are far more complicated, with many programs and initiatives, than a relatively simple (in comparison) micro-blogging platform. And they cover a vast range of expertise.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 02:58 PM
I'm not sure (and apparently, the courts haven't fully weighed in) regarding whether or not the Executive branch (Trump) can fire Executive branch employees.
So far, he apparently "can" fire employees.
Congress provides funding, but that's a different issue.
Apparently, Trump can appoint someone like Musk (so far), as well.
Posted by: Ron O | March 12, 2025 at 03:04 PM
I don't know what "so far" is supposed to mean. All of these things are being litigated right now.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 03:13 PM
Why are democrats against cutting waste and trimming the budget? If we don’t do something we’re going bankrupt as a country. Have you seen some of the ridiculous stuff democrats were funding?
Posted by: Keith | March 12, 2025 at 03:21 PM
It is simply false that Musk has cut waste and trimmed the budget. DOGE has been taking huge salaries and has spent more in the last month than any other administration. He is not cutting "waste," he is just cutting indiscriminately, as I have already mentioned, including cutting the only people who knew how to work and maintain nuclear equipment. (and then having to try to get those workers back). No one goes in and in two days evaluates what is waste and what isn't. Meanwhile Trump still wants massive tax breaks for billionaires, which will blow out the budget far more than any savings Musk manages to achieve.
Again: slash and burn is not efficiency. It does not save significant money. It just cuts services that people depend on, like Medicaid, Social Security, and IRS refund processing.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 03:26 PM
Roberta says: "I don't know what "so far" is supposed to mean. All of these things are being litigated right now."
"So far" means they've been fired, per the national and local news I've been seeing every day.
Posted by: Ron O | March 12, 2025 at 04:09 PM
Yes, people have been laid off/let go/fired. Whether those were done legally still remains to be seen.
Here is a summary of the many thousands who Musk has summarily dismissed: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/03/12/heres-where-trumps-government-layoffs-are-targeted-as-education-department-cuts-nearly-50-of-workforce/
I'll let someone else add it all up if they have the time.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 05:07 PM
The thing is, it's very quick to do something illegal, but then courts move much more slowly, especially with appeals, etc.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 05:08 PM
From the Forbes article linked to above:
"Are The Terminations Legal?
At least for many probationary employees, probably not, according to U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ordered the Office of Personnel Management to rescind firing directives at the heart of the probationary government employee layoffs, The Wall Street Journal reported. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is facing multiple lawsuits over some of the more high-profile firings. An appeals court ruled in March Trump had the authority to remove head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, while his case plays out in court, though Dellinger dropped his lawsuit after the ruling. Dellinger’s office also filed a lawsuit to block Trump from firing probationary employees, arguing the mass terminations are in violation of federal protocol that only allows probationary employees to be fired for “individualized cause.” Several labor unions have also sued the Trump administration over the mass firings, and at least two judges have sided with the Trump administration, ruling the unions didn’t show necessary harm to justify the lawsuits. Eight inspectors general also argued in a lawsuit filed in mid-February their terminations violated federal rules that require the executive branch to give Congress 30 days notice before firing them, plus a justification for the terminations. The administration is also facing lawsuits from former National Labor Relations Board Chair Gwynne Wilcox, who was fired by Trump on Jan. 27 but reinstated in March via court order, and former Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, who was fired Feb. 10. A federal judge ruled in March Harris’ firing was “unlawful,” reinstating her for the remainder of her term expiring in 2028."
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 05:09 PM
I'm pretty sure that (given the genius that is Musk) he's already figured out where the waste is, and did so on "Day One". And has also reviewed the performance appraisals of all federal employees, using artificial intelligence.
And that the waste has absolutely no connection to federal support for Space X and its exploding rockets.
Yes, that's a joke.
But in some ways, I'm not sure that Americans were "previously" satisfied when they try to contact the local social security office, for example. (Don't get me started on the state DMV office, though the one in Davis isn't too bad.)
Nor have I seen that many park rangers travel more than 20 feet from their vehicles (unless trying to ticket someone). Let alone build trails, pick up garbage, etc.
There is a difference between preserving public land, vs. using employees to "manage" it. (Pretty sure that the Native Americans never had this dilemma, nor did they have any parking problems.)
Truth be told, services are a "human" need. And at this point, I'm sort of hoping that artificial intelligence replaces all humans (myself included, though I've only got another 30 years or so anyway).
Posted by: Ron O | March 12, 2025 at 05:20 PM
Right, the SSA is already not very responsive, so cutting employees (drastically) isn't exactly going to help. Now it's even more understaffed.
Park rangers have all kinds of roles. I've seen plenty on the trails but that's not all they do. Some are educational, some help save people in trouble, and yes, some do trail maintenance. Let me put it this way. I have seen people on this blog (can't recall if you were one of them) complain about the dangerous encampments around town. Now picture the parks if there is no one there to prevent unapproved campgrounds from going up anywhere in the park and people doing whatever they like -- starting fires in a dry summer, cutting trees, killing animals. So yeah, monitoring the parts does actually does affect the natural world too.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 05:45 PM
As a country we're at the point where we're spending almost as much servicing our national debt as we pay for our country's defense. It is not sustainable. But democrats want to cry when Trump's administration is trying to do something about that. Trump is acting responsible trying to get our debt under control.
Posted by: Keith | March 12, 2025 at 05:49 PM
Remember when democrats were taking away coal mining jobs and said that the coal miners would have to adapt and maybe learn to code or something. It's the same thing now, federal laid off workers are going to have to adapt.
Posted by: Keith | March 12, 2025 at 05:52 PM
My point being that there is a place for technology, and that the government typically lags behind in implementation.
And yes, technology often replaces people.
As a side note, I'm NOT referring to the situation which often exists these days, when you already know that you're going to need to actually speak with someone at a company (despite their consistent, time-consuming attempts to discourage you from doing so). What's actually happened is that "you" are now doing the work that they used to do, as a result.
In other words, they're often using technology to actively discourage you.
"Please listen carefully as our menu options may have changed". (My eyes immediately glass-over whenever I hear that.)
Of course, "if you want to make a payment, press 1". (That's usually an exceedingly-easy process.)
Posted by: Ron O | March 12, 2025 at 06:09 PM
What are the objections to what Beth Bourne was saying, or that her sign(s) said?
Posted by: Yolo Woman | March 12, 2025 at 07:26 PM
Keith, you keep comparing apples to oranges. First, Trump is not trying to reduce the debt because he is looking for a tax cut for billionaires which will blow out the debt far beyond any savings that could possibly be had by squeezing the turnip of what government workers earn and what the agencies spend. Second, the many thousands of people who have been indiscriminately laid off far exceed the number of minors who were laid off. And one was done with a specific reason in mind, the other one is just slash and burn.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 12, 2025 at 07:54 PM
"First, Trump is not trying to reduce the debt because he is looking for a tax cut for billionaires"
This is total democrat rhetoric. When tax cuts come it will be for everyone of differing incomes.
"the many thousands of people who have been indiscriminately laid off far exceed the number of minors who were laid off."
So, what's your point?
"And one was done with a specific reason in mind, the other one is just slash and burn."
Wrong, "the other" is being done to get our national debt more under control. And if Trump gives some of the savings back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts or a one time stipend that will help families out. Better than taxpayers seeing their money being spent on needless things like:
"These DEI grants funded painful and deadly transgender experiments that forced lab animals to undergo invasive surgeries and hormone therapies at universities across the country. For example, the Biden-Harris Administration spent $2.5 million taxpayer dollars to study the fertility of transgender mice."
Posted by: Keith | March 13, 2025 at 06:15 AM
"Depending on the details of these proposals, our rough estimate is that a package of this nature would:
* Reduce revenue by $5.0 trillion to $11.2 trillion over ten years.
* Lower revenue by 1.3 to 3.0 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
* Boost debt to between 132 and 149 percent of GDP by 2035, if not offset, compared to nearly 100 percent today and 118 percent under current law."
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/trump-tax-priorities-total-5-11-trillion
There is NO WAY that those trillions of dollars for tax cuts could be made up by cutting government services. Trump's proposals would blow out the budget. The services are being cut so that they can be privatized -- e.g., instead of getting your weather information from NOAA, you have to pay for it. Great scenario for when there is a weather disaster coming, eh?
There were no experiments on "transgender mice." That's written by someone who doesn't understand the difference between transgender and transgenic. And I will say again that Musk isn't going through studies or programs or employees, analyzing and determining what to get rid of. It's just slash and burn.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 13, 2025 at 10:35 AM
Roberta says: "The services are being cut so that they can be privatized -- e.g., instead of getting your weather information from NOAA, you have to pay for it."
Either way, you have to pay for it.
But there's other reasons to keep it funded through taxes.
As a side note, it seems to me that weather forecasts have become increasingly-accurate over the years. (Though I haven't looked into it further.)
Posted by: Ron O | March 13, 2025 at 11:04 AM
$455,000: “A Mouse Model to Test the Effects of Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy on HIV Vaccine-induced Immune Responses”
$2,500,000: “Reproductive Consequences of Steroid Hormone Administration”
$299,940: “Gender-Affirming Testosterone Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk and Treatment Outcomes”
$735,113: “Microbiome mediated effects of gender affirming hormone therapy in mice”
$1,200,000: “Androgen effects on the reproductive neuroendocrine axis”
$3,100,000: “Gonadal hormones as mediators of sex and gender influences in asthma”
Posted by: Keith | March 13, 2025 at 11:45 AM
Posted by: Keith | March 13, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Right, so none of the studies that you mention are about "transgender mice" or about "making mice transgender." They are, however, about "the effects of certain medical interventions on mice." Note that hormone treatments are used on both cisgender and transgender people -- in fact, they are more widely used on cisgender people. So, they are testing for safety using animals as a analogue (which some might object to because they object to all animal testing, but that is a different issue).
Here it's worth noting that studies aren't approved or rejected on the basis of their titles. NSF and NIH applications are long and detailed. They are reviewed by a panel of scientists with expertise in the relevant fields. The grant process is extremely competitive and far more grants are rejected than accepted. It is foolish indeed to determine from the basis of the name of the study whether it is worthwhile to fund it. And I would not want politicians to be making those decisions.
But I will repeat again that this is all moot because Musk and his crew did not go through, read the study proposals, and select particular ones for rejection. They took a hatchet job to the whole thing, as when they tried to cut so-called "indirect costs" (like the costs of the lab, the lab equipment, the staff, the maintenance, etc.) ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL NIH GRANTS.
Then a few people looked at a few titles and tried to make some after the fact justifications.
This is all very bad for health and science research.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 13, 2025 at 02:28 PM
"Roberta says: Here it's worth noting that studies aren't approved or rejected on the basis of their titles."
Seems to me that titles summarize the purpose of a study. And since three of the examples that Keith provided included "gender-affirming" in their titles (an additional one included the term "gender" - separate from sex), one might conclude that's their purpose.
Posted by: Ron O | March 13, 2025 at 03:39 PM
Posted by: Keith | March 13, 2025 at 03:53 PM
Roberta says: "Twitter has gone down the toilet since Musk took it over, both in terms of the service and in terms of its stock price."
Twitter/X is workign better than ever (unless you are sad that every post that is even slightly right of center is not imediatly deleted).
I'm hoping that Roberta can tell us what the "current" Twitter/X stock price is today (compared to when Musk took over).
P.S. To Keith I hear that if we don't spend $735,113 to study “Microbiome mediated effects of gender affirming hormone therapy in mice” we will have more "Climate Change...
Posted by: South of Davis | March 13, 2025 at 03:55 PM
Have you ever read a newspaper headline, only to find out that the article is actually quite different? You cannot judge a study by its title. And having judged proposals for the NSF myself, and seen what is required, I know that it is expected that reviewers will give detailed feedback, meaning that they actually read the proposal and give reasons if they are rejecting it. And science being like everything else, sometimes people will use a title if they think it’s catchy. You have to actually read the proposal to know what the research is.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 13, 2025 at 08:50 PM
“As of October 2023, one year after Musk took the company private, Fidelity valued X at $19 billion, down from its acquisition value of $44 billion. By October 2024, Fidelity’s valuation had plummeted even more, all the way down to $9.4 billion. That represents a decline of almost exactly 50% to 50.5%, to be exact.”
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/if-you-bought-1k-twitter-elon-musk-took-over-heres-how-much-youd-have-today
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 13, 2025 at 08:53 PM
Keith, I am approving all your comments, but I don’t know why they’re showing up blank. There must be something about your comment, a weird code or the link or something.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 13, 2025 at 08:55 PM
"Twitter/X is working better than ever (unless you are sad that every post that is even slightly right of center is not immediately deleted)."
SOD, that's my experience too. Musk greatly cut its work force but Twitter didn't seem to show any effects.
Posted by: Keith | March 14, 2025 at 05:40 AM
And while we're on the topic of Twitter, its stock is down from when Musk purchased it. Not because of performance of the website, but because many advertisers left because of being pressured by the left so its revenue is down. Just like Tesla stock is down where you see crazed leftists setting Tesla cars and charging stations on fire, protesting and shooting up Tesla dealerships and harassing Tesla owners. It borders on terrorism all because Musk is trying to help the country get its budget under control.
Posted by: Keith | March 14, 2025 at 05:52 AM
Keith & Roberta Twitter/X has been a private company since Musk bought it so nobody "knows" the value. Anyone is free to "guess" the value but they have no idea of the actual value since there are no "sale comps" (and all the financial information is private).
If I write “As of March 2025, two months after Trump moved into the White House, the Davisite was valued at $39,873 down from $4 million when Biden was President. That represents a decline of almost exactly 99.003% to be exact.” It has as much value as a left leaning writer "guessing" what X is worth.
P.S. Happy that Roberta is approving Keith's comments (unlike the old Twitter and the Vanguard that would delete any comment that "off message" from the DNC talking points. We can all learn a lot from hearing how people with different world experience look at things differently (as a guy that grew up poor and who worked while paying his way through a public college I look at things differently than most in town like my wife whose parents paid for their fancy college undergrad and grad degrees).
Posted by: South of Davis | March 14, 2025 at 08:11 AM
I've been sending the link below to my left of center friends who are going crazy that Trump and Musk are cutting waste reminding then that they were happy when Obama and Biden were cutting waste.
https://x.com/ModernityNews/status/1900520483285532979?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1900520483285532979%7Ctwgr%5Ee2a42fc85c35caccbb7882d60202d0bec3b5de1d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fomg-obama-was-also-nazi
It is sad that the government takes about 1/3 or more of everyones money and still can't balance the budget. The real problem is that in politics (in BOTH red and blue states) there are layers and layers of people getting paid (and paid back) to do everything. It probably costs more than $100 per Pop Tart that poor kids get in "school breakfast program" (that also gives free Pop Tarts to rich kids who sign up since they don't verify income and in Placer County teachers were actually asking rich parents to sign up since the school gets more money if they have lots of kids in the free school breakfast and lunch programs).
Posted by: South of Davis | March 14, 2025 at 10:26 AM
"SOD says: "It is sad that the government takes about 1/3 or more of everyones money and still can't balance the budget."
If you include California state and local governments, it's a lot more than 1/3. (The latter of which is largely for schools, I understand.)
Property taxes, for example, ARE a housing cost.
Posted by: Ron O | March 14, 2025 at 02:56 PM
“Federal workers’ salaries represent less than 5% of federal spending and 1% of GDP”
https://www.marketplace.org/2025/03/06/federal-workers-salaries-represent-less-than-5-of-federal-spending-and-1-of-gdp/
And I will say again that coming in and slashing and burning, laying off and cutting programs indiscriminately (in a matter of days!), is not reducing waste. It could actually in the long run makes things less efficient, more expensive, and less in citizens’ interests.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 14, 2025 at 03:30 PM
Re: The glitch several days ago when Twitter/X went offline, apparently due to what is called a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack:
"And considering some glaring technical oversights, the hackers seem to have had a surprisingly easy time taking down the social media platform. Security researchers told Wired that several X origin servers, which are designated to respond to web requests, weren't secured by the company's Cloudflare protection.
Cloudflare offers services allowing websites to automatically detect and mitigate distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, like the most recent cyberattack targeting X.
"The botnet was directly attacking the IP and a bunch more on that X subnet yesterday," independent security researcher Kevin Beaumont told Wired. "It's a botnet of cameras and DVRs."
Put simply, X was ill-prepared, despite DDoS attacks being an extremely common threat to virtually all services on the internet. The company's loose protections may have even allowed the incident to be far worse than it would've been otherwise. [emphasis added]
It'd be far from the first time X has been thrown into chaos due to questionable decision-making and a bevy of bugs."
https://futurism.com/reason-twitter-went-down-embarrassing
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 14, 2025 at 04:56 PM
I just read where many companies that used to advertise on Twitter are returning.
https://techstartups.com/2024/11/15/major-advertisers-including-ibm-disney-and-comcast-return-to-x-amid-fcc-scrutiny-of-newsguard/
Posted by: Keith | March 14, 2025 at 05:31 PM
"The glitch several days ago when Twitter/X went offline"
Name a website that hasn't had a glitch or hasn't gone offline.
Posted by: Keith | March 14, 2025 at 06:26 PM
Keith, did you even read my comment, much less the article? The point wasn’t that there was an outage. The point was that the cause of this type of outage
is well known and easily prevented by those with the relevant technical knowledge. It doesn’t take much to surmise that Musk’s indiscriminate firing when he joined Twitter went just a bit too far. And that seems pretty analogous to what he is doing to the government, as when he dismissed the people who knew how to maintain nuclear equipment and then had to try to hastily hire them back.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 14, 2025 at 09:10 PM