This is what I don't get: saying they are theoretically good but problematic (without necessarily saying "police are a net bad"), and then saying it's unethical to do business with them for routine products.
If there is logic there, it's very subtle and I'm not getting it. Can you elaborate or compare it to a precedent?
If there is logic there, it's very subtle and I'm not getting it. Can you elaborate or compare it to a precedent?