3 ms·
What's your point? Your comment doesn't really address anything relevant regarding the US's goals and positioning to achieve them. For instance, if the US want
by tivert 2y ago
What's your point? Your comment doesn't really address anything relevant regarding the US's goals and positioning to achieve them.
For instance, if the US wants to to secure its networks and be able to respond effectively to hacking threats from its geopolitical rivals, it may have to invest proportionally more of its human resources in infosec to remain competitive. I see no good reason why it can't do that.
Also, noting that one reason China may be ahead in infosec is because it may have many more people working in that area was to rebut claims that "China is ahead in infosec" was "fearmongering."
In short, China having a larger population may be one reason why they're ahead, but that why is not very relevant to decisions about what to do about it.
- medo-bear 2y agoIm just offering you an explanation about evolution of powers in the world, and human resources is a huge factor. Already in his last mandate Trump was constantly talking about the power of US military, much like Russia does about its nukes. These sort of things are done out of weakness, not strength
- tivert 2y ago> Im just offering you an explanation about evolution of powers in the world, and human resources is a huge factor. Sorry, that wasn't an explanation that was needed nor asked for. And its sounds like weird sort of demographic determinism, which is kinda so oversimple to be obviously not true.
- medo-bear 2y agoI'm sorry I didnt realise you think Im only allowed to respond in the way you find appropriate. If you do not want to take into account China's huge and relatively well educated and quite capable working class that is your issue