"Not doing everything to prevent hijacking" is not the same as "encouraging hijacking". Semantics and formal logic matters.

From the guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith

The person's core argument was obviously that "airlines do what they can to keep people safe rather than financially benefiting from criminal activity" which distinguishes Tornado from airlines and web browser developers.

As an aside, it was less important to prevent hijacking before 2001 because the end result of most hijackings before then was that nobody got hurt if pilots complied, so there would be no reason to place a cockpit door. That strategy obviously changed after 9/11.

Ironically, I find your interpretation of the parent comment uncharitable, because I never would have framed the core argument the way you did.

I don't think the behavior and results of airplane hijackings pre 9/11 fall into common knowledge, even on hacker news. That's a pretty niche, specific collection of 20+ year old historical facts.