No, they argue for defense in depth which is a valid strategy.
Obscuring the attack surface could delay detection of exploits for the "outside" people while the "insiders" have it easier. In theory.
Would it really matter in this case? I doubt it would make a practical difference.

$50 isn't enough for some articles and still zero of that $50 goes to those doing the actual work: researchers and reviewers.
It's not piracy as the "provider" makes a lot of money on other peoples work, it's civil protest against an institutionalized form of slavery.

Not you though, we don't want you out IRL.

But the problem here doesn't seem to be espionage or anything like that? It's understandable if the Chinese government or private companies choose to co-operate with people having the appropriate language and cultural skills.

Forgot:
Maybe you have a cosmetic defect that means you'll not be hired for your dream job. Welcome to real life.

Yes but expecting it to be delivered as a solution fully covering all cases is ridiculous.

Large number of registers isn't a defining characteristic of RISC and the internal format of instructions are guaranteed not to be RISC-like. This from decoding and executing data, some things simply isn't possible if the internals weren't partially complex. However the internal format is less complex than the x86 ISA however the hardware being simplified compared to instruction is the case for everything except VLIW, some early or very simple RISC, or strange things like TTA.

The decoder? There are many types of decoders and part of it is microcoded so you are simply wrong. Simple instructions are decoded in hardwired logic while complex ones and/or those not important for anything but compatibility is pushed into the slow microcode path .

So you don't understand the differences and the impact. Sad. Many such cases.

If cheating is taking steroids optimizing is hard targeted training.

... but that's you being an idiot.

Ridiculous. I'll just counter your last issue with the fact it isn't possible to just add "genetics" to the study and that it isn't relevant here. For a follow-up study, sure, but here it would be of no use.

I think you mean gun.

So it's an investment. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean others don't and just because you want to invest in something you deem more reliable doesn't mean others want to. As long as they have their eyes open and understand they needn't be idiots - just less risk averse.

Cute.