florkbork

You are going out on a limb there to pretend the justice system cannot prosecute, jail people engaged in criminal activity.

Or a trail of documentation can add to a future criminal prosecution.

Hypothetically if you were running an organisation that was corrupt and the political winds turned against you, would you carefully preserve accurate records that documented crimes you or your underlings performed and provide an accurate handover? Or would you shred, obfuscate and destroy as much information as possible on the way out?

If the latter, would detailed map of your command and control structure as understood by your IT department / HR be a risk to you?

And why are you asking?

You can reasonably assume it will be demoralising to do so. Will the answer change anything material in the world aside from that?

It's not a terrible take.

What do you call an expert knowledge worker system with access to vast troves of knowledge, a sophisticated text to speech loop and empathy, that empowers others? That could reshape your knowledge infrastructure to a usable system?

A librarian.

If there were a huge number of jobs that were able to be automated/these skills solved them, why hasn't society paid librarians LOTS and hired one at every company?

The answers are probably it costs too much, the work is too niche

"We're designing/running the lottery. You get to pick the winning numbers, in secret, obviously so no one will know. There are millions of numbers you can pick from, using a random system so it's all trustworthy. Instead of drawing a random ball out, and another and another, you write down the number 4 on a bit of paper and go home for the day thinking it's a job well done. No one noticed because they all expected it to take up to a million guesses, until someone just asked if it was 4"

Mealie supports this with some rules, and you can set up a crontab to randomly plan your week and tweak.

Shows up a lot of limitations about data captured, but as a starter for humans to tweak it's not bad.

No, it's your source; you prove your claims.

I'll give you a hint though - the article doesn't even quote him, it just puts out a spicy headline.

What he actually said and the context:

"Ban social media. Keyboard warriors can anonymously say anything at all. Without any fear.", with regard to a misinformation bill.

Considering the sources deliberately stripped everything of context and you've repeated it without checking, would you say we have a misinformation problem with media in general, or social media?