Fair point but I think the argument is still that, even after, it is the judges job to say they are operating illegally and must therefore cease such operations and/or take the penalty, no?

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.” Isn’t this premise just blatantly wrong though? A judge is to uphold the law, and aren’t there laws governing how the military operates that, if violated, could be have legal consequences?

At least, isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

(Edit: I’m genuinely asking because I’m questioning my understanding of how these things are supposed to be balanced without giving absolute authority, as if in a dictatorship)

Yes 100%. They’re not giving them the keys to the financial systems without being certain they’re not going to abuse it. But they might pay them to find exploits in it. It’s all about being assessed for the job you’re being evaluated for.

While your sentiment is valid, the hiring practices for the sensitive information dealt with by individuals in government require intense scrutiny. The point you raise is true, but when someone finds a valid exploit, they can ignore it, report it to get fixed before someone exploits it, or they can exploit it themselves.

Regardless of how small the exploit, a person who does not choose to report it maybe doesn’t need any harsh penalties, but do you want them to have access to a database with your personal information including SSN, and the ability to freely access systems that control trillions in financial transactions?

Background checks for clearance purposes don’t simply look at your history and say no if you have anything on your record. They look at what is on your record, conduct interviews with you, your close contacts, identify where potential risks may lie. They compare those findings with the level and access you’d be granted and determine a risk level associated with granting you that access.

Bypassing those checks, for the systems in question, opens up the entire population to an unknown, unquantified risk, which has not been assessed. This means the risk must be assumed to be the highest level.

Seeing this posted right after reading this: https://apple.news/AulzFvgTVRTugNCCva61OjA New speaker of the (US) house thinks it’s best we cut back on climate funding.

I’ve been on the lookout for a game like Wolf ET, but I have never seen any game like it. Putting aside that it’s free, which definitely contributes to its ease of access, is there any other game with the diversity of objectives in a large online setting?

All other multiplayer games that I’ve tried are enjoyable, but follow very similar repetitive formulas of capture the flag, team deathmatch, etc. Games like CoD added some interesting game modes, and many games went the route of Battle Royale, but those are all the same as each other.

Wolf ET has a very good play style coupled with maps that each have their own objectives as if you’re playing single player campaigns but are actually online with real players, not npcs. It requires teamwork in the way I’ve only seen MMORPGS implement. But those RPGs are usually team work against NPCs.

Then there’s the custom maps and the community of mods that have expanded the game so much over the years that the only other games that come to mind to match this to me are (Open)RCT2 and Minecraft, which are already a games about building. So WolfET having such an extensive library of custom maps with custom objectives is just incredible and furthers the playability. I’m still coming across maps I’ve never played before after 15 or so years of playing myself.

So while I am surprised people still play it, I’m just as excited to keep playing periodically. But I also hope to find a modern game that implements the aspect Wolf ET implemented 20 years ago. Anyone find anything like it?