I'm not sure if you lack comprehension, or if you are just really paranoid and can only see things in absolutes, or if I'm writing poorly. But yet again you've taken what I've written and somehow twisted it into something ridiculous.

> It might surprise you to learn that some people in the military, congress, the DoD, and even important individuals in significant companies play video games.

Anyone in this scenario who is using the same computer to run any untrusted software (like all games) as they are using for their national security work is already compromising themselves.

> "Some vulnerabilities exist, therefore any new vulnerabilities should be ignored or not discussed."

This would be a more productive conversation if you addressed my points at face value, and made your own without twisting my words into whatever convenient position you want to argue against. That's the part I find tedious.

Everything is degrees.. you seem to only be willing to consider extremes.

Of course if you work in a sensitive position or are a likely target of foreign spying, you should take many more precautions. But that's not most people, in fact that's almost no one, statistically speaking. So if we're going to discuss likely compromise scenarios, the risk-reward on using a high-profile video game company as a vehicle for APT state-level actions starts to fall into "movie plot" territory, in my opinion.

And I never said that new vulnerabilities should be ignored or not discussed . Again, possible <> plausible.

In fact, you are basically contradicting yourself at this point because I first brought up way more plausible vulnerability scenarios (your underlying operating system being compromised) and you dismissed that in favour of some narrow and much more implausible scenario (a US-based video game company as a deep-state plant for a foreign government).

Keep moving those goal posts..