Corrected, but missing word was honest mistake and not intentional. I still believe that point stands - as a software engineer I can see a lot of technical challenges in weapon systems too.
And this is just from thinking about *potential* things, as in system design interview. Reality, I'm sure, is much more complicated and hard.
Some will find offense in every word one can say, it doesn't mean that they're right. Because to some that message may mean "If it's good enough to use to save people, it's good enough for your business". Are they less right?
There were two assertions in the original, I was not responding about the complexity piece. Sure, DoD requirements are no doubt fascinating and complex.
What I was responding to was the assertion that "there is nothing political to say..."
As I said, the topic is political. Trying to move from "political" to "offensive" (and omitting "weapons") suggests to me that you're not seeing this as a political issue because you're just seeing this as "normal" from your POV. That doesn't make it not political.
And this is just from thinking about *potential* things, as in system design interview. Reality, I'm sure, is much more complicated and hard.
Some will find offense in every word one can say, it doesn't mean that they're right. Because to some that message may mean "If it's good enough to use to save people, it's good enough for your business". Are they less right?