It might be a hallucination, or it might be a real problem. And there are other possibilities. (E.g. earlier it was suggested that MS noticed a bad bug *somehow* and the government didn't want the bug to be fixed.)

If you want to be fair, it's been headed that way ever since the 1860's. And prior to that the individual states were headed that way.

People in power like to make their jobs easier.

"Security by obscurity" doesn't work by itself. It's a necessary component of every security policy, however. You can't just pick one. (It's called "defense in depth", but that's not really a good metaphor.)

By "everyone" I assume you're referring to "conspiracy theorists?" Humans were there because the only thing that can actually secure an area are boots on the ground. The C-130s were there to bring the MH-6s. This is pretty simple, and in order to complicate it you have to really want it to be something else.

As someone who's been using Samsung phones for about 15 years, I had no idea there was a thing called "Samsung Messages". I tend to tune out all the shovelware that phones come with (and take steps to remove or disable them).

I really like Samsung phones, but their software ecosystem is abysmal. Everything they provide is inferior to other options.

..which doesn't support 486s, so the OP's statement that OS/2 still supports 486s is still not true.

This is just plain not true. Microsoft has about 1/4 of the global cloud computing market and, if nothing else, the number of things that just use Entra for auth is insane. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, I'm just saying your claim that Microsoft is some kind of edge case in "internet service" is ridiculous.

"Entertainment purposes only" Note that they don't say *whose* entertainment.

Half the world runs on VBA for Office applications (or used to, it's probably less now), and VBA for Office has never been officially supported by Microsoft. You're on your own if you choose to use it.

"Support", not "in use". IBM sure as hell doesn't support OS/2 any more.

No, they only found the cow tools.

But you've got to do both. Doubting oneself is "critical thinking". Doubting other sources of authority is "independent thinking".

The thing is, nobody has enough expertise to be an independent thinker in every area. So you essentially MUST delegate your ideas in some areas (variable between people) to external authorities. At which point what you "believe" depends on which authorities you choose.

A related question is "how firm is that belief?". This also tends to vary wildly with little apparent (to me) reason behind it. This is one feature that *can* be related to IQ, but isn't always.

It's not just widespread, it's universal. What varies from person to person is the domain that they apply thinking to, and how they validate the authority they choose to trust.

Nobody is an "independent thinker" on every topic. Wherever one is an expert, one tends to be an "independent thinker" in that domain. Where you don't feel knowledgeable, you tend to accept an authoritative source...possibly after doing some amount of checking to see whether others think it reliable.

I don't think it's directly related to IQ. I also don't think it's restricted to chatbots. A lot of people are willing to accept the opinion of any authoritative source that they've accepted. Think religion or political party. Once they accept it, they stop questioning it's proclamations.

Note that this also applied to those who accept the proclamations of scientists or compilers. Once you accept an authoritative source, you pretty much stop questioning it. It's been multiple decades since I really argued with a compiler...unless it was a known bug from a source I trusted. I generally just assumed that I misunderstood what the language meant by that construct. (Of course, the few times I really didn't accept it, I eventually turned out to be wrong. Oh.)