The government Americans have is one Americans freely chose. But not everyone voted for it, and expecting them to hang around and fix the errors of the majority is dubious logically. Where does this duty to risk life and limb to save others (many of whom hate you already and would hate you more if you tried) from the consequences of their own actions come from?

If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you feel a responsibility to jump after them?

Baby steps.

All private ownership of land is deeply morally suspect. Nobody made that valley, someone was violent enough to make a claim stick. Usually several people, over a long period.

As a business case, I do have to admit that money spent on advertisement is rarely wasted and should be looked at seriously. It’s not rare to see a 10-1 ROI as long as you don’t go completely overboard. There are a lot of good indie titles that nobody has heard of or played because they had no hype.

Those are fine ideas, but most people are really not even that picky.

Make it good, price it even halfway reasonable, people will buy it. Lots of games are selling well.

(Maybe stop spending half a billion on the budgets if you want to be profitable, instead of trying to squeeze more out of the players.)

Start making better games.

There’s no perfect system. Patches are not perfect and can add security holes. The old code is imperfect too, and if you do not patch those holes will remain. One needs to weigh the risks against each other. It’s an optimization problem.

If and when security is a primary objective, limiting patches to what’s necessary is a good idea. Best of both worlds.

Dead bodies are not people and don’t have rights. If there’s a harm done, it has to be to someone else. Like surviving relatives or something.

Legally, technically: no.

Philosophically, practically: if you believe it’s murder when you do it, you are a murderer mentally. You decided to kill a person, then followed through with it. And the first time is always the hardest.