I agree and this is what I was hinting at with the last point. I think in the end there is no way to update our understanding to a world filled with acts of con

I agree and this is what I was hinting at with the last point. I think in the end there is no way to update our understanding to a world filled with acts of conflict that are difficult to attribute. We've lived in an attribution luxury until now. So this Hippocratic of attribution will probably continue. I do think in the end the public will just learn to take attribution with a grain of salt. This is why I think cyberwarfare represents one of the most fascinating areas of exploration for political science students. In addition to the collective psychological affect from attribution complexity (further discussion if interested https://medium.com/@cyphunk/the-nature-of-conflict-is-changing-f9ef39709cab https://medium.com/@cyphunk/the-nature-of-conflict-is-changi...) there is also the breaking down of the 2 state/coalition actor assumption. The actor could be from a known state enemy, an unclear enemy just disturbed by your trade/sanctions policies, some activists with a cause or a bunch of people from b/chan doing it for the lulz. The absurdity of the US response and attempt to protect some lousy hollywood comedy only illustrates this change of environment all too clearly.