Zero-Click Spyware Delivered via Targeted Ads: AdFection

Re:Zero-Click Spyware Delivered via Targeted Ads: AdFection by ajsnigrutin on Thursday October 15, 2026 @03:32PM (#50109031)

But that's mostly true because those countries are rich and fly half the world away to attack poorer countries and usually by bombing them from far away. Eg syrians can't realistically gather enough money and weapons and planes and bombs to bomb paris. Or iraqis london. Etc. On the other hand, they can gather a few fanatics, give them guns and have them shoot a bunch of people, or bomb something, or worse. But then we get the "why did those people get radicalized? was it GTA?" articles.

TBH, considering the number of dead in palestine and the number of people in europe/us who literally lost everyone who ever mattered to them, the number of "terrorist" attacks seems relatively low.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zero-Click Spyware Delivered via Targeted Ads: AdFection by bawolff on Thursday October 15, 2026 @04:33PM (#50109805)

Why is that relavent? The point is that some countries have more immediate security fears then others. It doesn't matter what structural factors lead to that. Countries with realistic security fears are going to invest differently than those that don't. Countries like people do whatever they think is in their best interest.

If your point is the world is unfair, then yes obviously that is true, nobody disputes that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zero-Click Spyware Delivered via Targeted Ads: AdFection by ajsnigrutin on Friday October 16, 2026 @08:33AM (#50117593)

If france decided they needed to exert their "political pressure" over eg. germany, they'd have the same problem and all the realistic security fears, because germany is a rich country and they share a border. Same for the opposite direction with a few more historic events related to that. Same with france vs uk wars, and many many other wars in europe.

But hey, having your capital cities bombed is expensive, transport is cheap, and so it's easier to bully countries in a different continent, eventually bomb and invade them, becuase you're pretty sure they won't be able reach you back home with conventional war means (planes, rockets, tanks,...).

And yes, it's relevant, some politicians in one of those "safe" countries decided to bomb some country in a different continent, and you, a normal football fan or a party goer get killed when those people come and fight back in "unconventional means" (eg 2015 in paris). Somehow no one treats those as "we're at war with them, we bombed them first, they're just fighting back".

[ Parent | on HN ]