Yeah, like the cops have never gotten caught claiming someone accidentally fell on 43 bullets before. Or like there haven't been numerous cases of misattributing COVID deaths because they were inconvenient for the genocidal robber nihilists we have passing for a major political party. And that's just malfeasance, there's plenty of just plain error involved.
Having a deaths count -- which itself definitely has error bars, otherwise what the heck are missing persons estimates -- doesn't mean you have a correct attribution of those deaths. Never trust data in the absence of auditing how it got there.
Users trying to kill kernel_task sounds like an uncaught design problem. Replace the kill options in context drop-downs with "Why can't I kill kernel_task?" and have it pop open a short explanation, do the same as a feedback message if anyone tries to kill in the terminal.
If the system doesn't do that already, either nobody considered that users would try that particular nonsensical thing, or nobody cared enough to let users find out immediately instead of wasting their time thinking the computer was at fault.
"Are highly effective" is a massive understatement; they finance their campaigns and provide their unofficial retirement plans. The reward structure is what it is, and the behaviors that optimize for that reward structure are unlikely to change without somehow demolishing it and replacing it with one where the rules and their many workarounds aren't written by the beneficiaries.
"A politician is talking" should also at a minimum be treated with the same skepticism as when you encounter any other form of advertising. Even assuming the person speaking is completely ethical and aligned with your specific interests, it's literally their job to convince people of things. Assuming their job is "making laws" or "governing" is a lies-to-children version, they have to get a group of people to agree on some specific set of laws or policy for any of that to happen.
It's often worth parsing "people would like" as "marketers think people would like."
Or even, "although people would like, someone's trying to maximize profit margins."
And that second one is notably is taken within the scope of that quarter, or the next few years that they expect to work there, or even the next few decades before they expect to retire. Which often conflicts with longer-term sustainability problems like retained biodiversity.
Having a deaths count -- which itself definitely has error bars, otherwise what the heck are missing persons estimates -- doesn't mean you have a correct attribution of those deaths. Never trust data in the absence of auditing how it got there.