Honestly, the bulk of the author's paper seems to contradict the trollish title he uses. I don't know if that's intentional, or simply a case of him having all the right data, but still reaching the wrong conclusion. The author is hampered by the same flawed logic that anti-vaxxers use when they convince themselves that things like disease parties "provide adequate levels" of protection against preventable illnesses. Just because we have not yet suffered a catastrophe doesn't mean we're doing an OK job. A proper scientific approach would be to gather data and make predictions. And there's plenty of data out there that demonstrates that systems are becoming increasingly fragile. Even on my own little corner of the Internet I have a firewall that grows every day because of attacks that come in from insecure networks that are run by organizations that aren't truly interested in stopping the ongoing abuse. Just in the time it took to write this post I had two new attacks come in from India (IN) and Georgia (GE). Cybersecurity is basically awful. It's essentially a festering pile of countless diseases. Don't make the mistake of thinking things are fine just because you're not getting hit by the deadliest one of the bunch. Don't wait until you become a statistic to learn about statistics. 0adcca529f0bf6ea4fe944e686d81a5b3d88c2d2437be5dbbb469ccd3ab0a253