That's certainly a response you could take to developing a better insulin when people could still buy the old type for much cheaper but something tells me it's an overreaction.
We can help derp about capitalism all we want but this wouldn't change in a government run program. An organization is only as ethical as the people that make it up. The military question was an inflection point where the organization was really forced to deal with the question of how to define evil.
Suddenly every person in that organization was forced to answer some questions. Is the existence of a military evil? Is it evil if I don't directly support those solutions? What if something I build is used to develop it indirectly? Even if it is not, am I now complicit?
Now, I'm a Soldier so I have a massive bias here. I personally cannot see why anyone would intentionally want to contribute to us getting killed or losing a war. Tech products are already used in the process. Toyota is not complicit in terrorism just because their trucks are the trucks of choice for insurgent logistics. That being said, if they started accepting contracts with them, there would be an issue.
A lot of it comes down to the thoughts on the war on terror at the time. The funny thing is that the solutions that they built are focused on Eastern Europe right now in a conflict that most people support and were not completed in time to do counter insurgency.
The funny thing about the COIN fight is that information products simply made things more accurate with better intelligence. It meant less terrorism due to less insurgents and less civilian casualties resulting in blowback. If poorer information resulted in higher civilian casualties, are the pacifists complicit in that?
Again, I'm biased so my perspective is one of this issue being a detractor to doing my job better. In the end, defining evil is not black and white, even if you could theoretically come to a specific answer for a specific circumstance with the magical power of all the knowledge in the world. It broke the culture of the company.
I commented on if the accusations were worth the military's time. It is apparently worth the military's time more than the civilian justice system's time.
Statement -> rebuttal
You can take your ignorant self and go fuck yourself. You don't even know how little you know about this issue yet you opine pretty strongly about opinions you THINK I have.
While I wholely support a civilian controlled military, your attitude towards this is why civilians make horrible military governance.
I addressed specific points. You have leveled an accusation without addressing my point. What are you expecting in response?
I have had this command authority before. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that ucmj is perfect but it's the best we can do and it is better than the civilian sector. That should end the conversation right there. Your comments are like the pot calling the kettle black. If you have a better suggestion, why has it not been implemented yet literally anywhere?
Complaining about the way things are without a suggestion is worse than unhelpful because it increases discontent which leads to more conflict.
Thinking you know better than literal experts speaks for itself. I hope you see the irony in that.
I was commenting on if it is worth their time. I find it to be a wholely unjustified statement given the fact that they actually conduct justice unlike civilian juridictions. If it wasn't worth their time, they wouldn't be addressing it.
We have been consolidating electronics and making them smaller by volume for a couple decades now. Things are getting significantly better at an individual unit level. Reusing and recycling are also good options and should be made more effective. Lowering global populations soon should also help.
The civilian justice system is absolutely not better at executing justice and is arguably worse on many ways when comparing similar cases. At least the rape kits get actually tested and processed in the military.
That would be the US EPA and whomever influenced them in the Carter administration to classify trucks as regulated differently than other passenger vehicles. It unironically financially encourages SUVs over vans and bigger bodied trucks over smaller ones.
It's killed the work truck, the small truck, and literal pedestrians.
Their intentions were fine at the time and it has resulted in average miles per gallon within their class going way up but it needs to be amended. The shifting of sales eats into any fuel efficiency gains. Regulate them the same as any passenger vehicle and give me my utility back.
I'M SO ANGRY. I WAS BAMBOOZLED INTO WATCHING A VIDEO I ENJOYED.