That sounds good but makes little sense. Makes just as much sense as the people claiming there is a cure for cancer that works 100% with no side-effects but that "they" hide it because it is so profitable to treat sick people.

▲

caseysoftware 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think the strongest counter-signal that there's a "secret cure for cancer" is that rich, powerful people still get it (in various forms), go through debilitating treatment, and often still die.

Unless, of course, they're faking their deaths and transplanting their consciounesses into younger, healthy bodies. Then I got nothing.

▲

victorbjorklund 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or for a more HN-example. If IT-security wasnt so valueable as an industry we would have solved IT-security long ago.

	▲	lesuorac 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Well, I think the general counter for a "cure-for-cancer" is the same as electric cars. The Big4 never wanted EVs with there being a documentary [1] on how much they hated them. However, a company that isn't the big-4 has no issue with creating one. Same with a cure-for-cancer. Sure, maybe Pfizer doesn't want to cannabalize their market but anybody that isn't Pfizer would love to. I don't think IT-security fits into the same model though. There's a lot of money in theft so you need a lot of money into anti-theft to counter-act it. Poverty imo fits the IT-security model more-so than cure-for-cancer. Each dollar you don't pay somebody in Madagascar to farm vanilla is a dollar you get to keep. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F