One of our techies, engineers to be precise, wrote that if they’re any good, they do not need to be managed, just pointed at the task.
Tech types all know this, as many of us have either noticed it happening or can understand the mechanisms, while most others can barely conceive it.
To get down to it:
Anyway, the insider told me much more. I do not know how much already is public but I do think that if the source is correct, President Trump and a lot of others in powerful positions will be extremely angry with some of the internet players who already have hired half of China.
The amusing thing is that those of us who are dev-savvy already knew this was how it worked. An algorithm is not an excuse, it’s just a series of rules. So, blaming bad behavior on “the algorithm did it” is simply pointing the finger at the programmers of the algorithm.
This has wider implications beyond tech of course and I don’t just mean that Google can stymie your search and have you labelled, nor that the machine is inside every email you send, suggesting words you can reply with. No one seems to think that that is jawdroppingly intrusive or at least, no one makes a big deal of it … and no one was asked.
The thing though which gets to me is the age-old question of incompetence versus intent, or put another way – ‘scenarios put in place deliberately which ‘might’ go wrong and have a good chance of’.
The people who allow it to happen, then fall back on the old ‘glitch’ or ‘incompetence’ cover story. sure it was a glitch, no question – but a glitch they knew could well happen.
For example, an engineer knows of cascade failures. He knows that a rival engineer might know diddly about X, Y, Z. The first engineer knows how it will go down. He does nothing for his own reasons.
Key point – I’m not suggesting that this is necessarily bad in itself, not every time – sometimes one can only bring down a genuine threat using its own means.
The worst scenario is where nothing at all can be sheeted home because the plausible explanations are stacked against that – and yet it still ended up happening that way. Plus those analysing are essentially good people who don’t think as the perps do.
A host of ‘coincidences’ happen but from experience or from a knowledge of how things panned out through history, it’s allowed to happen – no one directly intervened, it was just ‘allowed’ to happen, to take its natural course.
There’s something very wrong in that.
The one in my book no one will read was when the protagonist Hugh went north after a security breach had resulted in deaths. I [the author] engineered it that way because I knew the north-east and wanted to use it in the book. Also, there had to be a scene where it was looking mightily as though the protagonist was going to be ‘overwhelmed by circumstances’ and ‘understandably’ bed a young operative:
But a clever young woman, Sophie, herself a rescuee from the dark side, was awake to him.
‘All right,’ she said, looking at both, ‘now let’s deal with Hugh. My question to you, Nikki – do you think Hugh engineered it to go north to Julia now?’
‘Give me a minute to think about that.’
‘While you do that,’ continued Sophie, ‘let me mention the afternoon you first met Hugh. Whose strategy was that? Your Mademoiselle Genevieve’s of course. But you went to meet him with your own little strategies in place, didn’t you – you would of course look magnificent,’ Nikki smiled, ‘but you ran straight into a Hugh strategy and you were not expecting that.’
‘I wasn’t expecting it.’
‘I don’t mean the obvious strategy of wall-to-wall compliments, all confirming what you had worked so hard to produce – he’s sneaky and he knows how to play on those, he’s done it with me. And they’re always lovely but there is more. Go back in time – Hugh came to France and the women’s defences were down.
And so it goes on. Nothing this Hugh did was openly wrong but he did know certain things might go wrong, or at least go a certain way. That motif over and over.
I think many people do that. I know a few people whose job it is to run hypotheticals and he or she sometimes does things just for the heck of it … because it’s possible. None of that is nefarious in itself … but to formalise it is, because it’s for nefarious purposes:
Time and again I see someone who doesn’t understand what’s going down mouth the words ‘conspiracy theory’. harrumphing that he ‘doesn’t do them’ and yes – there certainly are things called Sod’s Law and Occam’s Razor … but not always in the long game. Them have the entire world’s history at their disposal – they know what always tended to happen, they know what didn’t, they’re not bad on percentages.
They’re currently engineering a civil war or revolution or just a war and they’re playing on certain weaknesses they know they can exploit for their agenda. Their agenda itself plays on kindhearted people’s ‘love for everything from the environment to caring for the bird with a broken wing’ and any who dare oppose that are just haters, rotters, unfeeling cads.
Whereas those opposing it might just be like a parent who says no because he or she knows the cad is trying to waylay the damsel for nefarious purposes, self-interested purposes. One of the parents’ responsibilities is that duty of care and circumvention.
This deeply cynical, well-versed instigating of trouble through ploys is, frankly, wicked, in that it originates from bad purposes. But only bad if you can see through them. Otherwise, it’s a stage five realisable utopia in the SJW’s mind.
And every one of us is at a different point on that road to understanding, straggling back for miles, in clusters. Them even use that scenario to say to people – well here are the Adepts at the high end, the Illumined, the Wise Ones, the light at the end of the tunnel, the 1000 points of Light, listen to Us, we are the Ancient and Sacerdotal.
But they’re not – not in a good way – they’re evil muvvers and it’s a trap. It was a cookbook.