Phileosopher

Conceptually, it represents the same as any other illegalization:

1. A government has authority for a geographical "box".

2. The government succeeds if it can plug all the "holes".

3. Rogue anti-government behavior punches new holes all the time, which is an endless battle.

In the case of the internetwork, we're two underwater cable cuts away from severing the planet asunder and effectively patching most of the "holes", but that would also destroy most of the economy, so no government really wants to do it.

I guess my political statement/point is that as long as there's too much to track, we're all safe, so making more things across more domains makes everyone safer.

It's brutal the way reading lawyer interrogatory questions is brutal. Facts, details, and specific data that hold people accountable. The language is also in legitimate government probes and incident response reports.

I'd like to say it's how journalism works as well, but that ship sailed decades ago.

I think you're correct that people are trying to deny facts. However, I also believe your assertion of their beliefs is inaccurate.

History proves that new technology makes people twitchy in every direction. My anecdotal memory of X-rays is entertaining (we can use them to beam knowledge into brains!) and apocalyptic (X-ray guns will make warfare terrible!).

I have a rule for everything: the information is valid in inverse proportion to its political value. This is a bad exploit, and it happens from time to time. There's also an IPO connected to AI that is very political for many people who threw a lot of money at it.

Can it alias to `--no4`?

That was my broken sense of humor. The memes around it have been golden.

The trouble is that an expert group is a selected group of people, so it becomes the same "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" issue.

I'd say it's a social mechanism more than anything else.

While I haven't used the service myself, I expect the UX steers people to generate video-based content themselves, which is an evolution from the Twitter-era "spontaneously text as many tweets as you want" vibe.

The "human" value of things versus the "computer" value of those same things are vastly different:

1. Text data may be one of the highest forms of human perception, but computers find storing it as trivial beyond enterprise-scale needs. Of course, it becomes important to a computer as soon as it's interpreted as code. 2. Photos are often on the level with text, but the data takes megabytes of information. 3. Video data typically adds a marginal increase in human value, but is typically data-heavy. 4. Interactive software packages with high-falutin' UX, most notably things like games, are the pinnacle of conveying human meaning, but also cost quite a ton of data.

I anticipate the next evolution in 10 years might be the development of shareable game-based experiences, with the deluge of amateurish production values we see in today's videos.

A huge part about whether honesty hurts or helps is the framing that revolves around it.

In this case, it's a matter of social expectations driven by the timing of that honesty:

* If someone is a completely unfiltered person and says the information audaciously and openly, the interviewer may simply see they have nothing to hide.

* On the other hand, if the person looks anxious (which could literally be nothing more than PTSD), then awkwardly blurts out the information, they may be interpreted as having more to hide, making that honesty appear worse than it is. Ironically, that was probably the optics that got my felony in the first place.

NOTE: I'm in the USA, so it may only apply here.

It all depends on the framing of the situation. For myself, I frame it as a few of the following, context-depending on how it's asked:

* (on a webform) "not applicable" in writing * (do you have a felony?) I do, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my role (because it really doesn't). * (will the background check yield anything we should know?) you'll see something, but it has nothing to do with the job.

If they keep pressing, and seem simply hesitant, I refer them to a webpage that articulates the story for them. It's behind me, I've grown from it to where it doesn't define me, and I'm proud that it's behind me.

If they get weird for the rest of the interview, I simply say "thank you for your time, but I don't believe this will be a good fit, please let me know if you change your mind", and I walk out of there to avoid wasting another minute with their bigotry.

Once I hit the 7-year mark, that background check won't yank any database association to my legal fiction unless they wish to dig. At that point, I can simply say "nothing will show on my background check" and it's completely honest.

The reason this continues to be a problem in the USA is because people aren't confident in what they've come through. The stigma exists because employees fold over and continue letting employers feel they have the right to discriminate over what happened, irrespective of how that person changed from their experience. I see my opposing any condescension as an effort to resist a social structure that creates a second-class citizen.