It's almost a HN meme at this point (and you might be referencing it ;-)). But for anyone unaware, SQLite's test coverage is _outstanding_ and well worth reading about[0].
While I actually sympathize with your position, I think your argument has a significant flaw: the "unregulated pharmaceutical industry" you reference is actually quite regulated.
My company can put a GRAS compound like turmeric in a pill and sell it over the counter, but the moment I stop calling it a spice and make a treatment claim about it I face enforcement action. And I certainly can't put in an active ingredient that might actually /do something/ - like those gas station "sex enhancer" pills that, surprise, have sildenafil - because then I'm distributing an unapproved/mislabeled drug.
CBP, maybe not - there’s a lot more leeway for things that happen at the border, for better or worse.
But in general US law sets a high bar for claims of incitement. Your hypothetical statement would certainly be considered protected speech. That is, of course, not to say that you would not be a victim of vindictive prosecution ;)
> The US had APKWS (anti-drone guided missiles) operational in the 2010s and these have been widely deployed
... on 4th/5th gen fighters that cost tens of thousands per flight hour[0] based on current evidence of deployment. We're still killing mosquitoes with hand grenades.
Iron Beam/the US systems are certainly interesting, but haven't been scaled up to meaningful deployments yet.
Meanwhile, those "considerably less sophisticated" systems were fielded in exercises by the Ukranians against NATO doctrine and won handily[1].
This leans towards my belief that the US is fundamentally fighting last century's war against adversaries that have _massively_ evolved.
Look at the Ukranians: they are currently fielding an entire suite of counter-drone tech: fast pursuit systems to hit Russian drones on launch, cheap FPV drones for last-mile intercept, integrated radar/acoustic monitoring to target and respond to launches... and of course, the Russians are responding with IR floodlights and air to air launchers on their drones, or even just launching a bunch of cheap foam decoy Gerbera's in the middle of their Shahed's to soak up intercepts. Meanwhile, the front lines are basically static -- any infantry from either side that tries to go into the kill box gets picked off by loitering drones.
And the best the US can field today is "$1mm per Patriot" or "cover a tiny area with Land Phalanx (which also costs something like $4k/second burst)".
Your first option comes with the major caveat that each interceptor you fire comes from a limited stockpile whose replacement rate[0] today isn't sufficient for even going 1:1, let alone accepting that multiple interceptors are required.
I'd say the real options in the near term when faced with an inbound missile is a) deciding to deplete your stockpile of interceptors with an incredibly limited replenishment rate; or b) risking a hit to a lower-value target.
Could the US go to a war economy footing and scale production? _Maybe_? I'm not entirely convinced the US can stomach the costs.
Two more sobering axes to introduce: cost and manufacturing capability.
Numbers are hard to find for obvious security reasons, but using the numbers most optimistic to the defender[0] suggests an adversary using a Fatah type hypersonic is spending 1/3rd the cost of an Arrow interceptor, and is launching missiles that are produced at a much faster rate. Interception is deeply asymmetric in favor of the attacker.
A friend of mine interested in model rocketry demoed a sun tracking model rocket at a state convention. Pretty soon after, he had a chat he described as "terrifying but friendly" with "a few dudes in windbreakers" who wanted to know what he was up to. He didn't get into any trouble but decided he'd stick to unguided rockets from then on.
Between that and playing spot the fed at the local machine gun shoot, I was surprised at just how much attention the state pays to these kind of hobby conventions, but I guess I shouldn't be.
Knowing when to stick and when to twist is a vastly underrated skill.
A mentor of mine told me about his dot com bubble experience: he was in a company that was in trouble - leadership changes, the mission became diluted, and top talent started planning exits. Rather than leave, he stayed, they improved, he became CTO.
I took his advice when my last job was going through a "digital transformation": read "downsizing and outsourcing". I knew where the winds were blowing but took his advice because it was a large enterprise and these changes move slowly. Waiting gave me a measurable impact in terms of salary, bonus, and title – and that impact carried over.
> Penny pinching and then dying a millionaire sounds awful, because what's even the point of having all those millions if you lived like you had nothing the whole time?
Building generational wealth for your progeny.
GP said their grandfather died a multimillionaire. That money can go to his children; managed well over their lifetime it will double several times over. And learned frugality on their part means they have an even greater sum to hand to any children they have (like GP!)
And if a catastrophe struck - be it a local one like joblessness or divorce, or a global financial crisis, whatever - grandfather knows that his austerity guaranteed his children shelter, food, and education in the future. That's a powerful reason to make decisions. Hell, in our animal brains, that's probably one of the most powerful drivers of decisions: what should I do to benefit my family?
[0] https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html