It's arguable that they only have themselves to blame for not doing better audits. A lot of malware comes from ads, which end up in botnets, which end up clicking ads to make money.

Or, you know, a genetic flaw, exposure to a disease, or environmental contamination. Also, allopathic medicine is a technically incorrect nomenclature that would probably not accurately apply completely to any kind of doctor except for an anesthesiologist.

That's not even what I claimed. I claimed that they the CIA and NSA are bigger threats than anything they protect us from. They very rarely actually protect us, the CIA has nearly ended the world a few times, and the NSA records everything all the time with worse internal security than a Chuck E. Cheese. Terrorism is not a threat (and the incompetence of most terrorists is more effective at stopping terrorism than the NSA). There is not an existential military threat, just a great degree of political dick waving. Thus, the threat of our unchecked TLAs is greater than the threats that justify the existence of said agencies.

And that the information was obtained by torture in no way indicates that the information could not have been obtained without torture.

If you want to make us safer, shut down the CIA and NSA completely. They are more dangerous to us than any threat they claim to protect us from.

The manner in which you state it seems far more common in strawman arguments than the actual arguments being made. Most claims regarding FOSS security are rooted in averages in situations with all other factors being roughly equal.

They apparently use code that's two decades old, as this bug was only recently fixed

An unmanned vehicle made of light yet strong biological material? So, a bird?

We shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to government institutions that won't do likewise. That they are harmless now is inconsequential. We should be outraged that anyone in government even suggest a censorship regime.

Because pretty much the only jobs that are exempt from overtime are medical professionals, managers, salesmen, and IT. Medical is likely to remain that way because of how hospitals work, managers pretty much have to have OT on big projects, and, salesmen often work in a manner that makes tracking actual hours of work impractical. IT is pretty much the only one that could change.

This isn't armchair engineering, this is just doing their fucking job. Police get distracted from doing their job because they deal with bullshit revenue generation tasks like seizing anything that could plausibly be tied to drugs and predatory traffic tickets with no ties to actual road safety. Violent crime has been going down for decades, so the actual job should be getting easier.

As Firethorn pointed out, we can track it in both the increases and the decreases with adoption, banning and differing usage patterns, and the effects of lead on the brain have been known and studied for millennia. It's also generally considered unethical to introduce a known toxin to an entire population just to see what it does, especially if the suspected effects are harmful.

You mean, doing their actual job instead of trying to make a quick buck? That is actually a very easy technical problem, it's just that there are a lot of politics to it that get in the way of just doing their job.

I believe that it's been shown to have correlated with the areas that removed it with a certain amount of delay, making it most likely either have a causal relationship or that there was some factor that caused both to change on extremely similar, yet delayed time frames. Given that lead would be a reasonable causal factor here, and that IQ scores also increased, it seems likely that brain damage from leaded fuel is the culprit..

The last generation of Americans that were affected by leaded gas were probably born in the early seventies, most street crime is committed by younger people.

And street crime went down since then with a very strong correlation to the timeframes of removing leaded fuel.