3 ms·
Just because you didn't prevent your opponent from scoring doesn't mean you can't score yourself.
by dylan604 8mo ago
Just because you didn't prevent your opponent from scoring doesn't mean you can't score yourself.
- wheelerwj 8mo agoCan you elaborate on that?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- dylan604 8mo agoLook at every single sportsball event where the losing team had > 0 points. Same thing. Has there ever been a "war" with 0 casualties on the winning side? There's also a quote from Prez in The Wire, "Nobody wins. One team just loses more slowly"
- edgyquant 8mo agoAnglo-Zanzibar war lasted about 40 minutes and saw 0 British casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War
- Barrin92 8mo agoexcept this isn't a game of sports and a private company doesn't gain anything from attempting to "hack back" a foreign adversary. It just costs them resources and makes them an even larger target. And given that those adversaries are in all likelihood state sponsored the actual opponent is the US government, which is abdicating their responsibility. It's like saying "the police doesn't care any more citizen, so you know just punch back". It's also incredibly dangerous btw to tell private firms they have the authority to engage in what is basically an act of warfare.
- grogenaut 8mo agoWhy do you think they are likely state actors versus script kiddies.
- conductr 8mo agoWhat are you “scoring” though. US firm loses data, has downtime, lost revenues, etc. If they attack back, what damages are they doing that they even care about? Seems to me they just are asking to be continually targeted. Also, why burn the resources? Attacking isn’t free.