Thoughts on Observing Remembrance Day

We recently had Remembrance Day - a day that started in remembrance of the Armistice that saw the end of the active fighting on the Western Front and many other areas (not all) that had been drawn into World War (part) One.

For the first time, we had a post on our internal company version of social media about Remembrance Day.

That’s good - I personally observe a minute’s silence on that day, and was pleased that the design review workshop I was in was paused for a minute’s silence at 11 am . . . but my observance of that day differs from what was covered by the post.

The post referred to “the brave fallen”, and mentioned their sacrifices “for our nation”.

I replied - and got an acknowledgement - that we should also honour those who returned who had been affected (I had referred to PTSD, so the acknowledgement wasn’t limited to those who had been physically injured), but I also referred to civilians who had been injured, which wasn’t responded to.

There are a few problems I have with honouring those who “bravely fell for our nation”.

Firstly, people rarely neatly “fall”.

I have relative who have fought and returned with physical and psychological scars (and others similarly scarred by peacetime events such as this), I have talked to others who have served, I’ve read the accounts of those who have witnessed or taken part in war, and I’ve seen photos and videos (especially some of the French film from World War One, which used to be shown on TV on Anzac and Remembrance Days when I was a kid in the 60s).

People who are killed may be literally blown to pieces, or they may die in agony (bullets don’t come with little sachets of anaesthesia), or from things like the soldier who was shot and paralysed in World War One just outside his side’s trenches: his comrades couldn’t get to him because of the enemy’s machine gun fire, but they could see him - and took photos - as he slowly slipped down the shell hole he was in and was swallowed by the mud (not water).

Then there’s the deaths and incapacitation caused by disease - and the abuses.

My Uncle Clive who was one of the choco’s in Papua-New Guinea (PNG) (watch the film “Kokoda” and read Peter FitzSimons’ book “Kokoda” to get and understanding of that - and read this post of mine [and this one] ) hated the Japanese throughout his life because of what they had done to prisoners.

But then again, he readily admitted they didn’t necessarily take prisoners back to base, either.

It’s partly fashionable, partly - in my opinion - a deflection of praise that feels unmerited for those who have survived a war, to say the real brave are those who fell. My opinion is that dealing with the physical and psychological scars may require greater courage, but I understand not wanting the glib superficiality of “oh you must be brave”.

If you want to know what war’s like, talk to someone who was actually there - and I have, including - as mentioned - relatives who served in PNG, Somalia, and Bougainville, and vets who served in northern Africa (in the British Eighth Army), Viêt  Nám and Afghanistan - and there are the words of many others who have served, including Erich Maria Remarque, who wrote “All Quiet on the Western Front”, and several generals who have also commented on the terribleness of war.

The other point that needs to be made here is that people change.

Some people who were “brave” can become exhausted and overwhelmed, and thus no longer be “brave”. If you start waffling on to someone who reached their breaking point (I understand the US Army had evidence that for most people, that happened after around nine months [possibly less] ), whose last memories of their involvement was of breaking, talk of being brave would, at best, seem mocking, and at worst would seem an attack.

Others can go the other way - as illustrated, for example, in the book “The Red Badge of Courage” and the episode “Carentan” of the miniseries “Band of Brothers”.

On top of that is the profound difficulty of killing.

In World War (part) Two, a (controversial) survey by the USA found no more than 25% of their soldiers fired their weapons - and many of those didn’t try to kill the enemy. I think it was the British Army that found - particularly in the Falkland Islands war - that most killing is done by around 2% of all soldiers. (I couldn’t find the link I wanted [which I think was in a video], but this informal blog post outlines the issues / suspected issues) In the days of muskets, one problem was soldiers just loading their weapon with more and more balls and powder but not firing them.

These soldiers were often doing brave things - dragging wounded comrades back into safety, for example - watch the film “Hacksaw Ridge” for an idea of that.

In fact, the issue of conscientious objectors raises the issue of courage having different forms - the conscientious objectors having moral courage, and some of those, as illustrated in the film just mentioned, also quite clearly having physical courage.

I wish to mention Gandhi here - a deeply flawed person who raised and was part of an “ambulance company” (what we would perhaps refer to now as stretcher bearers) during the Second Boer War, the time when he still saw India as being self governing but still part of the British  Empire. Later, after the Amritsar Massacre, Gandhi turned towards true independence, and guided India on a remarkable campaign of non-cooperation that included provoking sometimes physically violent reactions from the British but having the courage to not retaliate.

That was a remarkable exercise in combining courage with discipline (and training, incidentally), a lesson that the US Army finally cottoned on to around seven decades later when its troops in Iraq realised that their reactions were being filmed on mobile phones and streamed (shades of the influence of television and the media in Viêt Nám), and started ensuring they were taught restraint under provocation during interactions with protesting civilians.

The US-led and initiated invasion of Iraq also raises the issue of why people fight. Since the Boer War and, to some extent, World War (part) One, I would argue soldiers generally fight for those about them - their comrades / buddies / mates - rather than for “noble ideas”.

In Australia, the ridiculous concept of noble sacrifice for the British Empire could be said to have been seriously wounded at Gallipoli, and finally killed off on the even bloodier Western Front.

When someone you have become close to is at risk of being injured or killed, you are more likely to take action than for a wealthy capitalist member of the social elite proselytising about “the nation” - or even when you are being threatened (a matter some kidnappers in the tumultuous period after the Iraq War were aware of, and thus threatened people off camera to get hostages to make videos of apparently being distressed and fearful - they were, but for their friend at risk, not themselves).

And for another layer of complexity, consider the role that drugs have played in some wars - not the murkiness of wars about drug profits, but things like the “rebels” on Bougainville fighting to end the desecration of their environment and society by the Panguna copper mine. I’ve talked to someone who was part of the Australian military there, and they told me of some of those rebels having arms nearly shot off or shot off, applying a tourniquet, and then continuing to fight.

They were, in their eyes, independence fighters struggling for their society and land’s integrity, and were doing what can quite rightly be considered brave (and terrifying their enemies - our soldiers) - but using traditional drugs.

How does that fit into the notion of being brave?

Other soldiers used alcohol as self-medication. When they continued fighting, were they brave?

And German soldiers - in the early parts of World War (part) Two at least - used crystal meth (I also understand hitler was a drug addict).

The Allied campaign against nazi Germany and imperial  Japan in World War (part) Two is what I would consider a necessary or justifiable war - albeit one that is flawed, as it could possibly have been prevented (or minimised), and there was the whole issue of some of Allies having colonial  empires.

Wars against invasion are generally wars that can be considered justifiable - which means that, if we honour those who fought in World War (part) Two on those sorts of grounds (i.e., to free invaded lands), we also should honour indigenous warriors such as Pemulwuy, Jandamarra, Musquito, Yagan, Windradyne, Tarenorerer (she was sometimes referred to as “an Amazon”), Tunnerminnerwait (nicknamed “Napoleon” - there is a memorial  commemorating the execution of him and Maulboyheenner), and Multuggerah for doing same in Australia against white invaders.

Some wars (or, at least, our involvement in them) are clearly questionable - e.g., those that we took part in to cosy up with the British Empire (Sudan, Second Boer, World War [part] One) or USA - e.g., Viêt Nám, and Iraq.

Other wars are partly questionable - for instance, the early stages of the Malayan “Emergency” (not called a civil war so business owners could claim insurance . . . ) was clearly objectionable, the later stages perhaps less clearly questionable. Also, if the Korean War had stopped when South Korea was freed, it would have been justifiable - and would possibly have weakened the Kim regime, which, instead, has been cemented into place by the USA’s longest unended war.

To sum up, war, courage and sacrifice are complex topics - largely because of the complexity and fluidity of being human.

The issue of remembering is also either complex, or at least too often contentious. Properly, it should be partly about helping all those (military and civilian) harmed (directly or indirectly) by war to heal (some of this is the concept holding space with victims), and partly about learning from history so wars are not repeated (or are less devastating where they do occur).

Thus, “Lest We Forget” is not - or should not be - about honour nor glory: it is an exhortation to learn and avoid glib superficiality.

It is never - or should never be - about “honouring those who bravely fell for our nation”.

A quick test of ethics

I've often thought that a quick way to test how ethical people are would be the following series of questions: 

1. Are you on facebook? 
2. If yes, are the personal details (address, date of birth, etc) you provided actually correct?
   

I know quite a few people who - in response to valid privacy and online security concerns - don't provide the correct details, or change the details after they join. 

In terms of privacy and online security, that is good, but facebook has a question where you specifically have to state that your details are true and correct / accurate (it's been a long time since I started joining up to facebook, so the wording may be different, but the intent of the question is not). If you lie to that, you are showing that there are situations where you place personal convenience about strictly ethical conduct - don't forget, you can do as I did, and choose not to sign up. 

At the time I declined to continue, I also objected in principle to a for-profit company having the level of information they sought - I still object to providing any more information than is actually necessary. There have been some truly dreadful breaches of privacy - including charities that gave utterly specious lies about reasons for wanting (they had the utter gall to say "needing"!) personal information such as birth dates and then put the online identity of those people at risk by incompetent security. 

This also, incidentally, applies to digital signatures - and the reckless incompetence of those who use them carelessly is something I've written about before. A lot of people mistake basic level of information on online security, including liking simple options that superficially seem potentially good (e.g., putting all emails into the junk folder unless you've personally okayed the email address), for competence. 

Similarly, a lot of mistake conforming with societal/parental biases / expectations for "having thought deeply" on matters - which is an affliction particularly prevalent in many transphobic/homophobic bigots I've known. 

And people who think cheating an online system is "good" in some way are guilty of one or more of many such flaws, including being unethical. 

The standard you walk past is the standard you endorse. There is no credible alternative to facebook in terms of market penetration, and little apparent interest in trying to promote an alternative (whereas there is such interest with regard to Microsoft's market penetrations of operating systems, for instance), so not signing up will cost you (not being on facebook has certainly limited my access to online resources - including publicity for my blogging, etc), but that is the price that has to sometimes be paid for being ethical.

Activism and "shock" tactics

When I was a primary school aged kid, we would occasionally have trips to the beach. It wasn't far - a mile or so, to use the distance measure of the times (that's about one to two km now), and they were often family trips, or trips with family friends. 

They were also usually horrendous because of the expectation of getting changed behind towels that idiot aunts/adult "friends" would drop. Their glib responses after that along the lines of "your privacy doesn't matter" (which is what their words amounted to) were, in my opinion (IMO), abusive - and, frankly, stupid to the point of being cretinous. This was the time of my life when I started to realise some adults were not all (or even mostly) wiser, all-knowing, informed - or even observant: they were clueless morons (particularly when fishing - landed fish were obviously distressed, and to seemingly be so unaware of it or uncaring really struck me [and there are the sadists who claimed shellfish couldn't feel pain as they were boiled alive . . . ] ). These abusive events weren't helped by sexist differences in attitudes - sexist differences that showed internalised sexism, misandry, belief in stereotypes, and fear of not doing/being the same as others (even if that was at best stupid and at worst harmful), which was an endemic problems (still is, to some extent).

There were other problems as well - including me having the buoyancy of a rock. I struggled to stay afloat and swim in freshwater swimming pools, and it was worse in salt water where waves made staying above wherever the water surface was and breathing even harder. The casual dismissiveness of my dislike of that showed the equally cretinous and endemic attitudes over being "tough and fearless or brave" (if you have no fear, you don't need the courage of being brave).

If I was to sum it up, I'd say it was people socialising for the sake of human connection in ways that were formulaic or, frankly utterly stupid (or, at the very least, seriously flawed)  - but everyone was so desperate for human contact and connection that they ignored or overlooked or didn't even notice the problems. This was the 60s, so this era included unthinking things like "serving your time" until you were promoted (no matter how talented) and being promoted when it was your time (no matter how untalented), and things like the initiation abuses of apprentices (which sometimes caused injuries or left scars [sometimes for life] or were fatal), etc. But it all provided "a way" to form human connections . . . even if the connections were with abusive people (and the 60s and the previous decade [and no doubt others] were the era of keeping domestic violence [DV] hidden behind white picket fences and an illusion of "nothing to look at here - we're all TOTALLY the same as everyone else" . . . which was probably true, sadly).

Unfortunately, we still have the problem of people so desperate for human contact and connection ^{[Note 1]} that they ignore or overlook or don't even notice problems and stick to socially conditioned, formulaic values and ways of being, doing, and thinking. At least we're more open about issues such as DV, depression, the effects of abuse, etc - even if we're still struggling to find a way to manage and, ultimately, prevent that. (And, on a lighter personal note, when I got into sailing I developed a love of water - but I'd rather swim in 50 feet of salt water than five feet of salt - or any fresh water.)

But those problems are not the problems I want to cover in this article. 

What I want to cover is the day when, after I got through the compulsory nudity abuse, I was passing time, and found a stick on the water's edge. I picked it up and tried to throw it back into the sea - for no reason other than it was something to do to pass the time until I could back to something I wanted to do (read books). However, the stick was slimy, and slipped out of my hand as I threw it - and splashed just in front of a girl of similar age, who was obviously terrified by that. I ran to Mum and said the stick had slipped and nearly hit someone, so what do I do, and she told me the obvious "go and apologise". I did and my unfortunate near-victim was eventually reassured enough to start including me in the play that she and her friends were doing, but I told her it was OK, she didn't have to do that. (I was glad she felt better, and relieved that she wanted to demonstrate that to me, but a fake friendship wasn't necessary.)

That day was the start of my "safety" journey (which has included being Safety Officer in what was technically an operating mine site, although it was actually a cattle property where exploratory drilling was being performed ^{[Note 2]} , employee representative, and other roles - including inclusion & diversity roles, which are - in part - about mental & emotional safety), but it was also an early experience with the topic of shock. 

Let's move on several decades, to when I came across people who think the sole purpose of art is "to shock" -  not to cause increased awareness or even change (which requires a sight more than just shock!), or to give people relief from the desperation of their lives through beauty, but just to cause shock. 

That has always struck me as being a bit like children trying to justify some pranks that their parents caught them doing and told them off for. Much of the art that has been intended to cause shock has NOT caused an inspiration to me to change the world, nor has it increased my awareness - it has just seemed to me to be puerile (and, in some cases, it assumes that, just because the artist doesn't know about something, I couldn't possibly know about that either *eye roll* ). 

But that has not always been the case - for instance, Picasso's Guernica ^{[Note 3]} conveys the horror to a reasonable extent (but not to everyone). 

Personally (which means the effects on others may be different, and some MAY be inspired as I have not by such art), I find reporting more likely to have a positive impact than art intended to shock - and that applies, IMO, to many others, as well. 

As examples, consider that: 

• the (shocking) news reporting on the Holocaust helped lead to the Nuremberg  trials; 
• public protests triggered, in part, by (shocking) news reports led to an ending of western intervention in the Vietnam war; 
• the (shocking) public murder of George Floyd led eventually to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement; 
• Tarana Burke's sharing of her (shocking) experiences led to the Me Too movement; and 
• (sometimes shocking but often toneless & factual [the facts being the cause of the shock]) reporting has eventually led to pressure enough for some (belated and inadequate) action on the climate crisis.
  

On a personal note, the shock of discovering, while still at school, the brutality on both sides of the Indian  "Mutiny" (from a TV documentary) and in wars in the 20^th Century (from Purnell's history series) was a key step in me becoming a peace activist. 

So it seems to me that "shock" can be:

• personal and beneficial (the slipped stick led to learning and activism for me, for instance);
  
• personal and harmful (this category includes assault, abuse, etc - including being on receiving end of discrimination, which [in my case, including sexual assaults I've been subjected to as a child and adult, including rape] has left me with complex trauma);
• societal and harmful or meaningless (e.g., the puerile art intended to shock for the "artist's" personal gratification and not much more [if the audience doesn't understand/comprehend the message, there won't be any useful impact - and some "messages" are incredibly obscure] ); or
  
• societal and beneficial (e.g., art that prompts genuine reflection [e.g., Guernica], news/photos of atrocities [there is a risk that one can become desensitised, but it can also be personal & beneficial [e.g., the effect of learning from history for me], and some political campaigns).

I'd like to examine the issue of campaigns for political change and shock a little further. 

IMO, some use of shock for political change is good - or at least effective. In this category, I would include: 

• Gandhi's use of civil disobedience (non-cooperation), with an aim to provoke a response using non-violent methods that would lead to the oppressing British being shamed in the eyes of the world and their own people back in the UK; 
• actions during the US civil rights campaigns of the 50s and 60s such as sit-ins (when white people were "shocked" by the experience of sitting beside people of colour in food stores), the freedom riders (which also showed the issue of white support for civil rights - and the murder of two of the white and one coloured campaigners shocked a great many people into realising the extent of the depravity of racists), and Dr Martin Luther King Jr.'s great speeches - which informed white & black people and challenged racist stereotypes & internalised racism  - and the marches of that era (e.g., here); and 
• modern movements such as BLM and Me Too.
  

The use of "shock" by some forms of political activism may be considered somewhat controversial (generally by those in power - and their sycophants - as it is a threat to their worldview), but still be effective. I include Extinction  Rebellion in this category (and note that some comments in response to their activism has been utterly nonsensical - e.g., the comments mentioned in this post of mine), but also a fair bit of other community activism (such as campaigns against domestic and sexual violence), where I consider the denialist reactions of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy / conservatives / elites (and their sycophants) is the problem, rather than the actual activism.

If those denialists were actually intellectually honest enough (or at least open-minded) and had better emotional competence, then shock tactics would not be necessary, IMO. 

The resistance to the reality of the climate crisis (which was not a crisis when activism started, decades ago) is an even more apt example of the problem of denialist reactions of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy / conservatives / elites (and their sycophants). 

More generally, it has to be said that some of the reactions to activism are truly appalling. Examples of that include: 

• the Amritsar massacre by the British in India in 1919; 
• police brutality and violence (including the use of attack dogs, projectile and other weapons, fire hoses, chemical warfare, etc - see, for instance, here, and here) against the civil rights movement in the USA (and elsewhere), which eventually led to BLM; 
• the abuse of power that has enabled sexual and other  violence against women throughout the 20^th Century and further back in history; 
• persistence in problems known to be causing problems - such as maintaining high GHG emissions.
  

But on top of that, some activism is "poorly conceived". 

Some of that is lack of political expertise (there's a steep learning curve - hopefully aided by someone more experienced, but then, circumstances and times can change as well so mentors may not be able to help as much as they wish), some of it losing sight of "the bigger picture" (such as using arguments that you like but which harm other groups), some of it lack of awareness (e.g., various parts of the LGBTIQ+ communities not being aware of their impacts on others, or "forgetting" about or directly/indirectly discriminating against other sections of communities - I had a list of examples, but decided to omit that for brevity [and in case I'd left someone out] ), some of it as a result of the trauma of being in a discriminated-against-group who are forced to fight their own battles, and there are no doubt other causes.

But, as I'm writing about "shock", it is important to remember that the shock (and other forms of harm) of discrimination DOES actively cause harm serious enough to cost lives in a range of ways - including suicide that I consider the discriminators (who are sometimes from other discriminated against groups) are directly and personally (but probably not legally) responsible for.

None of this is helped by the shock of discriminators thinking that them stopping their active discrimination results in instant friendship - that's a bit like a rapist stopping the act of rape and then saying "there you are, I've stopped, so stop your caterwauling and we can all be friends now" (and, incidentally, I have been raped).

There can be a tendency to blame "being on the receiving end" of discrimination as "making one 'more' [read: 'unreasonably / excessively'] sensitive", but my experience - including discussions with others - of that situation/experience is that any problems are due to such experiences making one more aware of the abuses that others experience (and if you have doubts about that, look up intersectionality). 

Thus, if a member of a discriminated against group says something is offensive or unacceptable, it almost certainly is.

And if you think that things shouldn't change, think back to the times when slavery was widely accepted - and the fact that you were more likely to be the slave being flogged, raped, or otherwise abused (I won't repeat other examples) than the owner.

If you have the opportunity to learn from someone who has been on the receiving end of discrimination, then - as I did with the girl who was nearly accidentally hit by me clumsily throwing that stick I was a child - do so, and try to be a better person making the world a better place in whatever way you can.

Notes 

1. A related issue is "what do I do with my time?" Parental figures' responses to that can be formulaic and based on "fitting in". In my case, I recall - a couple of years before the events I'm about to describe - asking my adoptive mother "What do I think about while falling asleep?" I no longer recall what Mum said, but such things are opportunities to help children break out of social conditioning, and better live who they really are. 
2. We had more than our fair share of accidents with inexperienced drivers in 4WDs on heavy black soil (I had a 2WD Gemini, which was light enough to just skate over the surface rather than sinking in to the axles), and, after talking to some older, more experienced people about how to fix the problem, was able to organise some advanced off-road driving lessons for everyone. I missed those as my assignment ended a few days beforehand, and a few people were quite surprised I didn't find a way to stay out the extra few days, but that would have been unethical. (And I was not a perfect Safety Officer - I generally had little to no support, and was on a steep learning curve.) 
3. I'll probably think of a better example about five minutes after I publish this. 
   

An informal demonstration project: what the UN could be

The United  Nations (UN) does an amazing amount of - largely unknown - good in the world. 

Typically, most people think of the UN in terms of avoiding war, and consider it sceptically - and true, the UN has not eliminated war, but we have not had a third physical-conflict world war (although the "balance of terror" of nuclear weapons in the Cold War may have had more to do with that), and there have been steps along the way that improved the chances of peace. Those include UN organisations such as the International  Court of Justice (a revamp of the League of Nations' Permanent Court of International Justice), the ICC - and the UN's work on promoting and achieving human rights has been major (e.g., see here, here). 

But on top of that, it is all the unseen things that the UN does that are important - international agreements on international air travel, international postal services, international weather forecasting, the World health Organisation, etc (see here). 

Humanitarian aid to areas in need is another. 

Overall, I consider the UN to be essential - largely because of what it does outside public scrutiny. 

But there is no doubt that there are problems at the UN - some organisational, but many in the category that people are concerned about: politics and peace. (I've written about this before - see here and here.)

There are major problems there largely because of one of the inbuilt flaws that allowed the UN to come in to being: the veto power in the UN. That in turn reflects the problem of international power politics.

HG Wells, in "The Rights of Man", proposed an organisation of "the parliamentary peoples of the world" be created after World War (part) Two. We didn't get that - and, while what we got is, in some ways, better (the dictatorships have a seat at the table, rather than being excluded - which will only mean something if they are constructively engaged in a way that edges their nations towards a better state of being), in other ways it isn't (the smaller dictatorships are too often used as props for bigger nations). 

To help illustrate that, what if some rich billionaire or organisation founded an open, without power, "shadow" version of the UN, but limited to nations that are reasonably free (based on Freedom  House  ratings of free/partly free or consolidated/semi-consolidated democracy) and reasonably respecting of human rights (typified by signing up to and ratifying the major international human rights treaties)? 

We could see how decision making would go on a range of topics, how the Human Rights Council could really function, and we could see more clearly how bigger nations are abusing their power. 

It would take some spending to set up - do it online to avoid needing physical infrastructure, but people to be credible representatives of those nations in an exercise of this nature would probably need to be paid for their time, and there would have to be a considerable publicity mechanism for this to have much impact. 

What would that impact lead to? 

Hopefully public pressure for nations to do better. 

In a word, accountability. 

Some other reading that may be of in interest on that includes: 

• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-13/chinas-rise-exposes-the-myth-of-the-liberal-global-order/12974390; 
• my posts here, here, and here; and 
• this article, which led to this post: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/legal-case-defending-taiwan.
  

Computers and the Internet: a question

When the Internet started becoming accessible to more people, one of the problems that also developed was that of getting viruses and other malware. 

Now, a lot of that is due to what is referred to as PEBCAK ("problem exists between chair and keyboard") - or, in other words, user error (insecure passwords, being vulnerable to social engineering, clicking on suspect links, not applying patches promptly / automatically, etc). However, there's another aspect that I have wondered about from from time to time. 

Now, consider these two points: 

1. when PCs start up, they go through a sequence of actions, and, for some of that, the PC can't proceed to the next action unless the preceding essential steps have been completed; 
2. when a PC is running, there is typically some indication of whether the anti-virus/anti-malware programme is up and running properly - there have been some times (not for the last five years, and this was actually only on work PCs) when the indicator said the the anti-virus/anti-malware programme was NOT active. I responded by restarting the PC (that was the official advice from the company I worked for at the time), and next time round the the anti-virus/anti-malware programme worked correctly.
   

So . . . given that the PC is capable of enforcing sequences where subsequent actions do not occur unless the previous essential actions have been performed, and that the PC is obviously aware of the status of the anti-virus/anti-malware programme, wouldn't it be possible to prevent the PC automatically connecting to the Internet if the anti-virus/anti-malware programme is not operating correctly? 

I personally set my PCs up so they don't connect automatically (although I've found my current OS has a dangerous tendency to change that when they want to push something down my throat), and I have gone to the extent of getting an up-to-date anti-virus/anti-malware programme on a disk (yes, this was a long time ago) so I could install it before I went online (the current software packages are much better in that regard), but . . .

. . . is there a case for a legal action on the basis of poor PC software design on that matter? 

Given that nothing has happened over the last two and a bit decades I suspect the answer is no (e.g., problems defining legally what is a suitable package / state, too many problems with PEBCAK mean focus is better applied elsewhere, fact that this does not cover all possible sources of PC infection, and likely screams from millions [billions?] of users who want to not have to think or take an extra half second before getting to the latest goss, etc), but it was an entertaining few minutes to ponder this, consumer law, responsible design, human flaws, etc.

Cross posting: Post No. 2,074 - More on "Star Wars"

This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/10/post-no-2074-more-on-star-wars.html. 

*** 

Further to my recent posts on "The Star Wars films" and "monsters and the risks of becoming one", I have come across a very interesting and well thought out video on the politics of the Star Wars prequel period - well worth a look, if you have a spare 1 ¼ hours.