EDIT: Replacing "if there's any truth to it" by "assuming it's true". I did not mean to imply that the author made up the whole story and thought both expressions were equivalent.
EDIT: Replacing "if there's any truth to it" by "assuming it's true". I did not mean to imply that the author made up the whole story and thought both expressions were equivalent.
His Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Earnest
Anyway, it is important to recall that with every move that is made, it will disturb someone else. Impudence should be avoided, but the trivialities and whims of Englisch are of little concern.
But if you explicitly add "if there is any truth to it" to your post, then it suggests to the reader that the story is probably false and that's not a very useful premise to start from.
This is a general comment that is in no way related to this particular case, of course.
To lean on "good faith" is just another way to lose your nerve and fling yourself on the mercy of blind belief.
The safe side is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Possibly made up, sure, but your "if there’s any truth to it" gave a most probably made up vibe. Not only is that uncalled for, it’s pretty inaccurate.
Some pretty amazing stuff in there including his comments before the four color theorem was proved
If he had been a 30 years old Japanese weirdo that likes to keep "codes" in his wallet I am pretty sure the story would be very different.
If you say so.
Of course, you would have to completely disregard any concept that people would have a freedom to privacy to do that, and you would also have to account for natural changes over time.
People make new friends, get exposed to new ideas, and gradually change no matter how hard you try to lock them in a box. The data storage and processing requirements to monitor America's 350 million people would be understated as staggering, the man hours for perfect enforcement incalculable, and even if you reached Pareto parity (monitoring 80% of the highest-risk individuals 100% of the time) you're still going to have people slip through the cracks.
I would place a $100 bet on this already being the practice of the 3 letter agencies and if they haven't fully rolled it out I would hazard an extra tenner on that they're within 5 years of completing it as long as their funding isn't disrupted.
The only defense most of us have against it is that we're not individually interesting so we probably never register as more than a blip on a hard drive somewhere under most circumstances, human eyes never prying into the worlds we make for ourselves.
Suddenly cross-referencing pockets of activity in the giant trove of permanently stored data can be done for every citizen, not just ones of interest.
You can start modeling and simulating behavior off that data to predict future actions like in Minority Report.
But if you look far enough into the future on that trend and link it into Microsoft's recent patent on resurrecting dead people as AI chatbots from social media data, the treasure trove of all online activity for every citizen becomes a curious anthropological artifact as the people in it die off.
Did you have a nuclear scientist on the verge of a fusion breakthrough die before they could finish their paper? Just feed the entirety of their digital life into the system and extrapolate the non-digital using generalized "human experience" models built off everyone else to resurrect a copy of them (or many copies) in a simulated continuation of their day to day thinking and working.
Very few people fully understand the extent of the digital footprints we are leaving behind in the context of trends in big data.
The data we are leaving behind in mass collection will eventually take on (literally) new life.
And honestly, when was the last time of any significant duration when the US was not involved in a military conflict?
In other news, North Korea says they're a democratic republic, so that's another thing we don't have to worry about.
All they have to do is mark everything as secret, aggressively pursue whistleblowers, and if they happen to get caught, just have the secret court admit guilt without consequences and let the public assume all is well again. Rinse and repeat.
After all, it isn't like they didn't know what they were doing, they explicitly ignored the restrictions placed on them by relying on secrecy and legal loopholes.
You show some clear misgivings and biases that tell me it's not worth my time discussing.
Let's agree to disagree. :)