A Week Has Passed, Still No Details About What Sainsbury's Called an 'Accident' (Likely Microsoft)
"Accident, in Law, is equivalent to casus, or such unforeseen, extraordinary, extraneous interference as is out of the range of ordinary calculation."
Extraneous is defined as (per 1913 Webster): "Not belonging to, or dependent upon, a thing; without or beyond a thing; not essential or intrinsic; foreign; as, to separate gold from extraneous matter."
The tenth part in this week-long series [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] intentionally comes much later. It was a good idea to wait and see if they, after all, phone back (no, they did not) or bother to clarify to the press what the "accident" (they repeatedly used this word on the phone every time I said "incident") was, after they had said they applied an update that broke the system (they didn't say which update or which part).
It has now been a week since the "accident".
The public still does not know what exactly happened. They kept assuring me there was no data breach (like the one they suffered years ago), but without going any further to even the most minor/shallow technical details, who knows? Should I trust what they tell me? They also said they'd call me back (several times, several people), but they never did.
A friend's suggested approach: "In a week or two it might be helpful to revisit the Sainsbury's subject as they seem to just be quiet and hope that it all blows over and dredging up the ongoing problem is not what they would want."
Poor Sainsbury's. No money to pay staff to phone customers back... (as promised) █
