Is there even a reason for an emergency exit to not be treated as a regular, auxiliary exit? I.e. not labeled as regular, but also not an issue if people use it.
> Is there even a reason for an emergency exit to not be treated as a regular, auxiliary exit?
Absolutely, ex:
1. When that exit may be used as an entrance to a prohibited or fee-only area. Someone inside opens the latch for people waiting outside, either intentionally or accidentally, allowing them to enter without being noticed.
2. To supplement other things which may trigger an alarm, or for situations that can't be detected in a simple standard automated way. (E.g. violence, unusual chemical spill, wild animal.) It also means you don't need to plant as many alarm-panels around the place which panicked people are unlikely to use on their way out anyway.
The reason is often the opposite: you don't want people coming in that door (maybe it's a limited-access building and you don't want to staff security/ID checker at more locations). Sure, you can lock it from the outside, but if people are regularly leaving from that door, randos outside are going to sneak in before the door shuts.
If the facility has any need to control access, they need to be more aggressive than just one way doors, since fire-code compliant one-way doors are trivially defeated with a doorstop.
If you're an employee, and a member of the public is in your workplace, then you have a reasonable expectation that they will behave according to the rules of that workplace. Often these rules are for safety, and for sure it is absolutely reasonable to scold strangers if they have zero situational awareness.
I work in a medical practice. We have an expectation that people will obey rules for their and our protection. For example: we had a sign that, at our reception desk, that people should stay behind a line and not approach too close.
There was a thick, clearly visible tape line on the floor.
There was a two large signs on reception desk asking patients to stay behind the line.
This is during the heightened awareness of the pandemic. People were asked to change their behavior in many ways.
Patients would just come up to the reception desk and lean over the desk.
Damn right I "scolded" them for it. I mean, I didn't roast them, but I used a tone of voice, and asked them to step away from the desk, and pointed out the signs. Some of them were cranky about doing so ... when SARS was rampant!
So if one of your peers pulls a fire alarm or blasts an air horn in your work place, while you're on a call or engaged in some other highly focused task, the appropriate response is to just shrug and think "I need to be such a highly emotionally controlled person that I can only passively deactivate the alarm, contact an authority who won't even be here before the culprit leaves and just move on with my day"?
Fine, I didn't "scold" this person, I called out a peer for their shitty, antisocial behavior. Or is holding someone accountable even in words for the painful consequences of their decisions unacceptable too?
>So if one of your peers pulls a fire alarm or blasts an air horn in your work place, while you're on a call or engaged in some other highly focused task, the appropriate response is to just shrug and think "I need to be such a highly emotionally controlled person that I can only passively deactivate the alarm, contact an authority who won't even be here before the culprit leaves and just move on with my day"?
why are the two options angrily telling someone off or silently and submissively accepting the situation?
the way mature adults react to interpersonal trouble is by quelling instinctive emotions and calmly communicating
I didn't light into him like a drill sergeant. And I didn't go off on every person who walked through that door. I just turned off my customer-service obsequiousness for once and directly stated (without yelling) what I thought: that his only mitigation, that it was an innocent mistake, reveals that he has absolutely no business attending a university.
But apparently, my comment (just checked, I never even used the word "scold") suggests to you that I must have been shouting him down, calling him a lazy, stupid asshole, for not walking the extra 100 feet through the correct exit, like everyone else had been doing, for months. Lord knows a part of me wanted to, but I am not the unhinged psychopath you clearly think I am.
the definition of scolding is "angrily rebuking or reprimanding someone". in my understanding of human psychology, that is something people do not do to people they see as equals. more specifically it's a behaviour a person is extremely unlikely to participate in if they feel the other person has enough social, physical or economic capital to punish them for it.
I see your point and you're definitely right about that. If you're going to publicly scold someone in front of their peers, you better be ready because it's going to personally insult them in very deep ways, to say nothing of their social standing.
If you're scolding someone you should probably be a badass drill sergeant, literally made of muscle, many times their superior in rank and with enough balls and testosterone to unblinkingly look them in the eye while heaping abuse right at their faces without one shred of hesitation, so that the sheer audacity of it all shocks and intimidates them into total submission. And you would also do well to remember that at least one movie depicts exactly one such drill sergeant getting shot in the chest when a certain scoldee went postal over it.
it's going to personally insult them in very deep ways,
That's exactly the point of scolding. To help people calibrate social behavior outside of the judicial system. We do 10,000 things per day that are now necessarily laws but are carefully tuned social behaviors.
I didn't really understand this until I had a 2 yr old and had to explain all of them.
Sure, there are more tactful ways to scold but sometimes when people are too far gone you just have to publicly shame. They've already missed a few dozen subtle cues before making it to this point
I dunno how much time you've spent around fire alarms, but they're required to be painfully loud. Not "permanent damage" loud, but loud enough to trigger e.g. migraines in people who suffer from them. This door had a fire alarm on it.
The university needed to control access to the facility through one secure checkpoint (that I had worked at in the past, but at this time no longer did so). They didn't want (for instance) random townies to be able to come and go via the side doors without filling out the relevant liability waivers, because it turns out screwing around in a weight room carries some risk. To say nothing of the consequences of some rando wandering in off the street and posting up in the locker room.
I was answering phone calls, helping people rent outdoor equipment. My job was not at all watching the door. But I had to deal with 19 year olds who (and I did watch this a couple times) would look directly at the sign, pause to read it, push the door open, then have an utterly shocked expression that the PAINFULLY LOUD alarm was going off. And I'd have to drop whatever I was doing, go turn off the alarm, then recompose and return to the customer that I was helping.
Please explain to me what is so objectionable about a school controlling access to its facilities.
I'm working my way through the HandsOnRust book that guides you through creating a simple roguelike using Rust and Legion ECS. It's a really enjoyable experience so far, and I'm looking towards trying out Bevy ECS afterwards to compare the two.
I think if I were concerned, I'd try creating a honeypot account on some service that notifies me when someone new logs in (like google). Then I'd log into that account sometimes while playing the game and monitor it for any new logins. It still could have a keylogger even after all that, though.
That's upsetting! I got 3 alerts so far within the last 5 months about suspicious logins (from Twitter, Facebook & Google). I was dismissing it telling myself I am being paranoid. Now I think my employer itself is spying on me?
The first alert was from Twitter. I am an H1B from India employed by a WITCH type Indian company working for an US client (probably top 3 in the world in what they do). One day, I saw some Twitter posts about how greencards for Indians would take decades or even 100 years. I was talking about this to a colleague on client's Microsoft Teams. Just as I mentioned this, teams got disconnected. Later that day, was talking to another colleague through same teams about same topic, again got disconnected. I thought it was odd, but dismissed. Then around 9 pm same day, I get an alert from Twitter that they prevented a suspicious login from an IP address in US.
4 weeks ago, I was talking about how my WITCH company manager is not letting anyone take vacation (from Sep-Dec, they are not letting any one take vacation unless absolutely necessary) to another colleague, through client's teams. 3 days later, I get an alert from Facebook that someone accessed by account, this time from Turkey.
Then 1 week later, got an email from Google with a security code that someone had requested for accessing the same Google account.
Don't know if I should just pack up and leave US at this point, lol!
First, why are you accessing personal accounts on a company computer? That's reckless all by itself. Your personal information is up for discovery if the company gets into any legal problems. Keep your professional and personal computer uses separate. There's absolutely zero reason you need to be logged in to your personal Facebook and Twitter accounts at work.
Second, Twitter, Facebook and Google all provide enhanced account security options like Passkeys and MFA and it's clear you're not using them. Turn them on (and using your personal devices, not your work provided items) and your employer or any other random hacker is going to have a substantially harder time accessing your accounts.
If the accusation is against the employer, how would anyone at the employer know anything about their account details for personal websites otherwise? The Teams chat snooping is possible and even above-board but it's very unlikely they're chasing down and using your Facebook and Twitter credentials as part of any official company policy or action that's not being disclosed.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think they have legal grounds to access an employee's personal accounts even if they have captured the credentials over their property. Accessing a third-party computer without authorization (i.e. accessing Facebook using someone else's credentials without permission and just discovered on company networks and/or hardware through normal logging and monitor) is likely a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the US. A company has rights to read any and all data stored on their property but conditions have to be met before they could use that information for any purpose (i.e. a judge orders it because a lawsuit is in progress because you're sending company secrets through personal accounts or something).
I would enable cryptographic 2FA on all of my accounts where it is possible and run the 2FA on a discrete device (token dongle or an old phone with wifi and Bluetooth off, no sim)
I made a FB account to change a client's Page settings, and now I pretty regularly get emails from FB along the lines of "Having trouble signing into your account?" because there's been tons of failed repeated logins. I think it might just be a normal part of having a FB account? Can't speak for the other services.
What would your employer's motive for spying on you be?
Might an external attacker be interested in the work you're doing for the client? For example, are you working with cryptocurrency? Countries like North Korea like to steal that stuff for sanctions busting.
If I were you I would bring this up with your boss. If that conversation leads you to believe that your employer is trying to hack you, I would probably quit. Otherwise your employer should know; this could be a good time to invest in countermeasures against an external attacker.
Sorry, the assumption I left out is that whoever is running the keylogger would see you logging into a "valuable" account during their logging and then try to access it. Since it'd be a new account with nothing on it, there's nothing for the attacker to really compromise, but you could get a notification letting you know someone new logged in, which would let you know that someone successfully captured you logging in.
I actually just switched all our default search engines to Bing yesterday. Google is showing "Sponsors" that link directly to a full screen page with tons of warnings telling you to call some 800 number so you can get scammed. And that's after nearly downloading a fake Blender install a few weeks ago. I'm done with it.
I came across this a few months ago (several ads offering their own downloads for blender from copycat sites). All their downloads were hosted on GitHub and had known viruses when uploaded to VirusTotal. I reported 3 of them to GitHub, but they only removed 2 of them immediately. Checking now, and the 3rd was finally removed, but it was left up for a while. Seems like searching for blender doesn't show me any ads until I scroll down for a while, so maybe they're temporarily fixing the issue by just not showing ads for blender? shrug
