yay! got my uni-time #dell laptop back in action again. and it’s such a beautiful machine compared to my #chromebook in all respects.
even the band!
🙂
not to mention the scones …
#happymil #ontheroadto anyways
#stockholm #sweden
♥️💐♥️😎♥️🇸🇪
and this is what has taken me nineteen years to understand … but understand i now clearly have … and without your persistence c, none of this myself i’d ever been able to have seen.
so thank you, deeply; for your sacrifices and pain in the name of absolute truth, where not universal: maybe my innate utility and compassion and natural instincts for friendship and life will begin to expand duly again, out of the hole i soon found myself in way-back-then:
the #poem in the screenshots below is a total of fourteen pages long in its original a4 format.
if you want to read the rest of this post, i suggest you read the poem first. but, really, i’m only suggesting. and this sincerely … actually, really, sincerely.
the work itself is shaped by my ongoing desire to accept that reconciliation is desirable, always.
one thing i must say, however. forgiveness for me can only take place when the act which generates the original cruelty has stopped. you can’t leave anything in the past and proceed to easy forgiveness when that past still has you by the scruff of your neck, and is shaking you deliberatedly, just as if you were a child’s rag doll.
another thing, too: whilst forgiveness is what one person does, reconciliation requires the agreement of two parties or more to follow the same process: not one act, then, but a play in at least two parts.
part 1: truth made patent to the whole world. absolute truth; not universal but absolute — absolute in the sense that in any sequence of events there is unequivocal reality. there may also be universal truths … ‘not saying there can’t be. but they don’t always exist. absolute ones, meantime, there always are.
so whilst i can forgive you for what you did in the past to me without you having to do anything in exchange, we cannot achieve a state of reconciliation without moving to this state where we ALL accept the existent absolute truths as such: as being existent.
for example, vukovar doesn’t lend itself to reconciliation until and unless the clear aggressors accepted that they did what happened:
part 2: so, once we agree on the realities committed, being the absolute (not relativised) truths i discuss above, we can then ease ourselves with sensitivity — never with the same aggressions, presumptions and/or violences that led to the original abuse (really no) — into what should be a probably long, but never necessarily interminable, process of reconciliation.
however, here too, where the injuring parties continued to act as they have been doing all along, neither this second process leading to final reconciliation nor the first where an injured party (no longer being actively injured) finds it in themselves to forgive unilaterally and unconditionally (as all true forgiveness actually is) … well .. honestly … neither CAN make any sense whatsoever, can they? not if the wounds are still being salted …
you forgive when you feel safer, surely. when you don’t have to look over your shoulder all the time.
and you agree the truth when you feel honesty is the best policy. when you feel certain that others share minimally your view of what’s really important in the world.
and you finally reconcile when you reach a bedrock — that truth you feel capable of agreeing on with another — which you can then inhabit with someone who, indeed, may never become your friend again, but who at the very least becomes someone you begin to inhabit that same rock with in a way that is ok and comfortably enough.
well.
so much for the words.
if someone wants to discuss the above with me face-to-face at last, ‘am happy to; eager in fact.
but if your method of choice is to impose your physicality covertly on me instead of overtly, invading my personal space knowing you are instead of taking ownership for what you are doing, you are just using brawn (even when nominally brains) over your undoubted brains.
that ennobles no one, imho.
and if truth be told, neither injured nor injuring parties.
no?
the original cover slides of my research proposal to study tech-driven longitudinal gaslighting: what i call #neoterrorismontheindividual / the latter slides are my latest idea to create neurodiverse software and hardware architectures: #nevermeetagain and #complexifyme
The real nub of the issue is this: in the absence of data, we can only use data that is present. Here, it’s clear when someone commits a crime and we catch them after the event with a certain number of mobile train security personnel on our payroll. That’s measurable: the ratio of events to arrests, for example. What’s not measurable by automated data science and analytics half so easily is when something doesn’t happen because a permanent guard is present to act as deterrent.
Mil Williams, Stockholm Sweden, 21st April 2023
Introduction:
There are strikes on the commuter trains — the otherwise fabulous pendeltågs — here in Sweden: even the occasional wildcat ones. The frustration is patent: more so, because the strikers are right.
This is why:
An aside:
As a brief by the by before I continue, I think the train companies are able to claim the numbers of security and safety staff would remain the same, and yet still want to go ahead with it all, because they’re changing the type of workforce: you still need to go through with rightful and rigorous measures to vet and upskill non-train guards of all sorts it’s true, but with a train guard it’s less easy to change and chop their working locations, conditions and so forth. Or outsource the workforce, even. Change overnight who employs them and how.
No?
So …
How a data-driven world can deceive:
The thing is, here we have a perfect example of when a “data-driven world” actually needs academia more than it needs an automated data analytics and data science as we usually understand them.
The train companies in Liverpool and Sweden both I am sure will have had long-term strategies to re-engineer the structures of their employees and related re in-house and outsourcing options, and whilst taking guards off the trains in the circumstances described wouldn’t deliver immediate economic advantage, as indeed they underlined in Liverpool for sure, long-term if I’m right it definitely would.
The real nub of the issue is this: in the absence of data, we can only use data that is present. Here, it’s clear when someone commits a crime and we catch them after the event with a certain number of mobile train security personnel on our payroll. That’s measurable: the ratio of events to arrests, for example. What’s not measurable by automated data science and analytics half so easily is when something doesn’t happen because a permanent guard is present to act as deterrent.
And this is the challenge here. It really is a challenge around what we do when the evidence base is incomplete: that is, how it leads us to take quite the wrong decisions.
To the solution:
There is a solution too; I alluded to it above. Straightforward academia gives us tools to codify absences, in for example qualitative data such as an interview transcript or video, so that what isn’t said is as significant as what is.
If we could create an equal set of tools for strategic decision-making when deciding if to take train guards off trains or no, perhaps we would avoid the strikes we’re having everywhere: and at the very least, we could validate, in a less conflictive way, the common sense most users of public services have that a “bobby on the beat” engenders an incomparable feeling of safety even where a car in the neighbourhood can be evidenced to deliver on objective data relating to quantitative crime events.
Summarising:
In crime and public safety, what doesn’t happen is as important as what does: and the “why” of both these matters, too.
So.
Let’s do something after the evidence bases for both aspects of the truth: that which has a visible side and the invisible events as well.
And then let’s achieve delivery of these aspirations sooner rather than later.
Another by the by: the promoters of today’s information are a further example of why we should act on the basis of what is not visible, as well as what is.
The Sweden Democrats started out as fascist and redolent of nazism of the very worst sort — at least according to the English version of Wikipedia. They themselves claim to have re-engineered their political DNA, which is not impossible but highly unlikely. Even so, medical professionals claim bespoke DNA of the human kind is very close to becoming a reality now; so we could argue that in politics it’s not unthinkable any more.
Let’s just say, however, for the moment unlikely and hard to do.
So. The risk from relying on present datasets instead of datasets relating to both what’s present and absent too? We allow people to hijack in bad faith what needs to be promoted in good faith.
The train personnel are right. Guards on trains deliver safety and security. This Swedish political party — in the current security conditions which China and Russia together have been stealthily laying out for decades together — are also correct to highlight the dangers of such, separate, narratives.
But they are wrong to a) conflate two issues like this; and b) lever the abuse and violence of both nation-states and their outliers in the fields of geopolitics to then promote an immigration narrative of their own re Sweden which delivers total obfuscation of our all too human reality and a zero confusion around their racist truths. Unless you choose to remain confused.
Sometimes it’s right to be firm: China — not all Chinese people — is a toxic regime. Putin’s Russia, too, has absolutely no redeeming qualities. But firm doesn’t mean we have to give fascism a place at the table of a wider collective progress.
Don’t besmirch the truth of the train staff by taking political shortcuts. And if this is what changing your political DNA leads to, change is what clearly you are NOT delivering.
Just occurs to me, too: even more reason to proceed with #intuitionvalidation.
poets learn to codify linguistic systems and use precise forms of ambiguity very quickly. this makes them ideal for making or breaking code more widely.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 19th april 2023
poetry and #espionage have close connections. i won’t link to the article again; but it was either the #nyt or the #newyorker i read a while back which evidenced the fact in a #longread post.
poets learn to codify linguistic systems and use precise forms of ambiguity very quickly. this makes them ideal for making or breaking code more widely.
for all we know, the most ambiguous sorts of leaders — those who show themselves to be dictators, for example — might be frustrated literati. i wouldn’t be suprised.
when i post out-of-the-box thinking on #linkedin these days, i get a message basically instructing me to give a tip or ask a question to get a conversation going. this is all well and good for basic networking and personal branding. but there are deeper things we can use language for. and i want to prove this longitudinally. a #poet interested in code: not software only, though this of course as well.
but really, how to both reverse- and forward-engineer those #crimes being committed — like #thepurloinedletter — under our very noses. the things we call random which aren’t.
this.
i think by pushing the human #brain in the directions i look at first sight to be waywardly doing is intelligent: and capable of delivering outcomes that will defend us from future #ukraines. outcomes in war and peace. outcomes in engineering and politics. outcomes everywhere.
i think where i am going with this #intuition thing is in expanding the envelope of the possible to the once considered impossible. my brain has downsides: it can be unstable. but like the #eurofighter in its origins, instability duly channelled by #tech can deliver fabulous results.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 19th april 2023
the #poem below was written an hour or so ago. it’s by a foreign user of #castellano who only lived there some sixteen years. but it has some huge merit for me because of what it strives to communicate. and it may have a minimum merit even for #spanish speakers themselves.
i think this is interesting.
my own #brain is, you see, much better now that it was when i was in my twenties.
so.
i think where i am going with this #intuition thing is in expanding the envelope of the possible to the once considered impossible. my brain has downsides: it can be unstable. but like the #eurofighter in its origins, instability duly channelled by #tech can deliver fabulous results.
why not begin to join me in this?
i mean … the #soldier as #poet … and the #poet as #soldier.
introduction to my rationales for a new #neurodiverse-#it in order to solve #complexproblems:
my real concerns around being #secrecypositive, or not at all, have lately had nothing to do with governments and what they do with our right to #secrecy. after all, many citizens buy #secrecypositive reading- and sharing-machines of highly controversial content quite legally in all #european countries: we call them books, and they are made of paper. nothing more #secrecypositive than this millennium-old way of sharing and spreading, both in good and bad faith, information of all kinds.
so if it’s legal on paper, with pencil or ink, and has been for centuries, why not repeat in digital — and sooner than later?
you see, the problem isn’t discovering a digital burglary has taken place. because the removal of a digital privacy or object or piece of content like this is possible to achieve by copying exactly. the removal is consequently effected without removing. but its potentially prejudicial removal is a fact all the same. just as if in a life more conventionally real:
my problem is never a government access to my bedroom, and always instead a criminal usage of similar accesses:
no.
i don’t mind — really don’t mind — knowing good governments can see what i do. i wouldn’t mind, for example, the #swedish government watching me in this way, because they are a state which strives to legitimate itself always.
meantime, i have minded the british doing the same to me since they incarcerated me improperly back in 2003, using #mentalhealth legislation to achieve #nationalsecurity objectives: there really is no way the homeland of boris johnson, even now as it currently stands twenty long years later, can be called a legitimate world player of any standing whatsoever.
and certainly not for the rest of #europe. because in order to erect and democratically sustain a hierarchy of surveillance, you have to robustly aspire in an ongoing way to manifesting that same democracy of legitimation.
to challenges, then, which i’d like to answer with the project “complexify.me”:
but even governments and governances as immensely competent as the #swedish ones manifestly show themselves to be can’t respond wholly cogently to the following set of quandaries i and many others find ourselves both intellectually and emotionally suffering from right now:
yes, the governments of good nation-states like #sweden must act deeply to preserve the delicate balance of their societies which evidence this goodness: and more intelligently as a result of their delicacy.
for they, more than say the british (and not just now but, in hindsight, for much longer than we pretended was ever the case), are entirely vulnerable — out of choice … and rightly so! — to such ecosystems of goodwill being upturned by outsiders and insiders who prefer to take advantage of these profoundly democratic freedoms for their own criminal gain. for in the freedoms of such constituted trusts lie the essences of their wisdoms.
the quid pro quo, or the caveat if you like, is this: we must as essentially democratic peoples accept that sometimes in order to protect our treasured states there will exist a need to do less democratic acts. but for a limited period of time clear to all, and even then to proportionate measure.
because being this kind of democracy doesn’t mean you cannot maintain yourself with insight and firmness. you don’t have to limit yourself to rolling over and thinking of the northern lights because you are good and mustn’t defend yourself with decision on occasions. and so to deliver on this, you do need to have the ongoing capacity to gather any information and datasets that preserve these laudable states of fragile coexistence, without at the same time puncturing them.
summarising my thoughts on these matters a little:
understand me: i’m not saying don’t watch your citizens. i’m saying as citizens we have to watch each other, all of us to all of us: but as KEEPERS of each other’s human souls, so that necessary violent actions of the state are always, always, kept to a bare minimum.
finally, digital burglary — as described above — inconveniently can happen without us ever being aware of it: and in this “us”, i mean the state, its best professionals and its most intelligent citizens … all of us.
my issue, therefore, with deep surveillance is that if my government does it, even where immensely cleverly, in it will exist people with two dangerously connected roles:
a) rights of legal and proper access to state surveillance tools, datasets and infrastructures; and
b) illegitimate obligations, for whatever reasons, as humans possessed of covert and completely illegal relationships with an ever more embedded, organised, and creative criminality.
conclusions to the above:
if my state says it needs to surveill me to the extent that it can even see and hear me whilst i have sex, in order that it may protect me in more relevant matters, it will already exist as a capability of the aforementioned criminality years before. and so, as mil’s theorem suggests:
“in an almost infinitely malleable digital environment and world, if i — with my limited intellect and financial resources — can imagine a new crime, someone else with far more money and brains will already be doing it. i don’t need to prove this #neocrime exists to know it does.”
the consequences being …? we can’t fight this kind of crime only with good #neurotypical people who are naturally comfortable with such #neurotypical-#it platforms and tools.
we must include equally good people with #neurodiverse abilities and brand new kinds of #neurodiverse-#it, so they can then start to construct and tell the stories that describe the #darkfigure increasingly being committed out there in some of the ways i now describe.
stories which the existent #neurotypical professionals — properly and usefully so, too — can then begin to chase down and stop in whatever sanctioned ways the states of good faith in our #europeanunion judge to be necessary, at each historical moment in our collective future-presents.
so #it-#tech must come afterwards: it must come when the rest of us have designed the problem as robustly as we can without knowing if what we design is practical or not. only then will we not censor our ideas whilst we still have the capability to be ambitious and aspirational: only then will we only think of the real world.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 16th april 2023
from my iphone’s notes app just now:
i’m open to being hired as employee or consultant or business. any of; any combination of. all too.
absolutely.
if it means i can stay in #sweden but not have to do it with the traditional kind of simplifying and incremental #tech ecosystem … well, then yes. even more so.
because i’m defo NOT looking for that if i stayed here. i’m not looking for it anywhere. wherever we took the #hq.
the #hq is a starting point but not an envelope of participation, anyway. we do live in a hybrid-working and effervescently connected world.
but i get the concerns, too.
now.
i still think best process would involve, first, an empathetic #consulting organisation; only after this, a single #tech corp (once the problem was scoped by us, i mean); and finally, an intimately connected #security complex and infrastructure, too … but always, in this field, independently managed by the country’s own existent domain experts. me only ever going so far as delivering a participation that consisted of being a consultant, ever.
if a #tech ecosystem of local and regional is preferred here, or anywhere else, it must be absolutely and heavily vetted to filter out those people and companies who won’t see/can’t see the virtues of the different architectures i am proposing. this we could do on the basis of historical behaviours and pronouncements; products and digital service rollouts over the years; and other data which could help us drill into company and individual cultural dna.
because i’m not prepared to accept intellectual and technological trojans into the projects and workstreams. and i recognise them easily enough these days, when i meet them. so no pulling any wool over my eyes on this. on other matters, maybe still. this, no longer.
i need to be firm in this. i really do. you will probably never understand why: but here i don’t budge. not any more.
and so this is why i’d prefer to scope with a #nontech ecosystem before going to #tech partners, in order to only then finally begin to implement.
so this is what i propose (though i am always open to evidenced counter-proposals):
1. a chosen #tech partner — a single organisation or a vetted ecosystem — can start by implementing already drawn-up specs, created outwith their thinking-spaces; just as liverpool did for me back in 2019, with almost fabulous effect.
2. only once they understand and embrace emotionally and intellectually the new #secrecypositive ideas, and the consequent #it implications, do they then start to have the right and duty to input at deeper and more conceptual scoping stages.
if you want to do a #consulting corp in #sweden for example, that’s obviously good and in line with my existing ideas.
or any #swedish entity in any endeavour which is not #it, of course …
yup. this as well. (engineering and most manufacturing and retail are now #tech too, but not #it-#tech for example).
so #it-#tech must come afterwards: it must come when the rest of us have designed the problem as robustly as we can without knowing if what we design is practical or not. only then will we not censor our ideas whilst we still have the capability to be ambitious and aspirational: only then will we only think of the real world.
• first we design the problem. always. the real problem
• it’s NOT NOT NOT going to slide into being “how to get paid soonest”
• it’s going to be how to reverse climate change. that’s the first #nontrad #security #complexproblem i want to deal with. that’s what will be my day-to-day. and i want citizens who don’t know what’s impossible to achieve to be scoping the envelope of the necessary over the possible
and that’s then when #tech comes in and starts to implement. and once it sees our new #neurodiverse #software and #hardware architectures work in practice is when it will also get freely enthusiastic about a totally different panorama from the #neurotypical #it they so firmly and universally believe in atm.
and so that’s when — but only then! — they’ll also be able to deliver #neurodiverse principles in their praxis. equally deeply as we will show ourselves capable of delivering in problem design. and so then, equally convincingly.
without reluctance any more.
without back-pedalling at all.
without thinking the problem needs to be reduced stealthily to how to get paid above and beyond how to save the species.
Today I’m posting in full an example 7-year roadmap for ultimately delivering #secrecypositive #neurodiverse-enabling #thinkingspaces I produced the other evening: in this case, specifically focussing on #climatechange but easily lending itself to being repurposed to #security and so forth. Here’s the introduction to the first presentation and online whitepaper of the series I published a few days ago:
why simplifying problems means we have been ignoring the biggest ones
We have a global startup ecosystem which, for decades, has delivered a capability to simplify problems from a complicated journey to a set of easy-to-understand “pain-points”.
It’s solved many problems we needed solving — though sometimes has caused others which have delivered a much less happy set of outcomes.
This presentation, shown in four parts below, has the goal of beginning to stir a debate around whether the concept of incremental progress is useful for us, by itself, any more.
The question I would like you to take away from this online whitepaper is whether you think humanity can incrementally save itself from its past.
Contact details are contained within the presentation itself, as well as in clickable mailto: format at the end.
Otherwise, if you can at least reflect, I’d be really grateful.
I have been working on making the timelines practical, comfortable and safe for all stakeholders — whether #climatechange- or #lawenforcement/#security-focussed.
We now take things step-by-step, over the proposed period mentioned, evaluating the results of the four workstreams A-D in turn in firm but responsive ways.
Here’s the second presentation in the series, which offers an initial roadmap for #neurodiverse-solutioning #thinkingspaces to solve #complexproblems such as that which #climatechange now presents humanity on all fronts:
My suggestion is now that:
we locate — with #swedish, #us, #irish and #uk stakeholder engagement — the core #complexproblems HQ in #dublin #ireland, in close and permanent collaboration with one large consulting corporation and one preferred tech corporation;
that all IP generated by anyone be #govtech only;
that the project management and related responsibilities for #security and similar belong freely and entirely to domain owners in each participating country;
that tech partnerships and other frameworks for #security etc will also be freely entered into by the respective domain owners in each country (that is, military, agencies, and others);
that any of the #govtech thus created belongs in the future only to these stakeholders above-mentioned;
and that as everyone who contributes will have access to everything everyone else contributes, we will need to establish contribution KPIs that ensure contributions by all equal the usage we all make of others’ contributions.
I’ll be thinking more on these matters in the next couple of days and may post more here or elsewhere as a result.
Let’s see if by my concentrating on having direct responsibilities only for #complexproblems-solutioning with #neurodiverse approaches, and then acting only in a consultancy capacity in the field of #security etc when and if the separate country projects see the need, we can finally unleash all these projects in a due, proper and deliverable manner.
i said the other day i probably wasn’t suited to the fields of #lawenforcement and #security: i’m a free-thinker, a nonconformist in some serious senses, and almost certainly neurodiverse in others. people who work in the aforementioned fields need to be attached to rules, regulations, procedures and tasks. that makes it hard sometimes for them to appreciate the kind of person i often can be.
generally, not them. which makes me no better than them at all. nor them anything but different from me.
but that doesn’t mean we mightn’t be able to connect the two ways of being to better catch a creative criminality:
it’s my assertion and firm belief that we’re missing out on neurodiverse ways of seeing for understanding better the world of #complexproblems around us. and this is, partly, by using technologies which, perhaps unconsciously, have become firmly neurotypical — but are no less neurotypical for that. technologies which, as a result, reinforce the ways of seeing and doing that most of the world’s professionals need to share, rather than encourage them to have a broader take on that world.
i think we can do much better: i think we can bring the neurodiverse and neurotypical together: not just from the point of view of company inclusion policies and so forth; much more by engineering different #it-#tech architectures.
exactly as what follows, in fact — here, in a separate field, a proposed roadmap for dealing with the #complexproblems of climate change:
so to finish this post, something that happened to me today just to show i might — as a different kind of thinker from those who usually work in such fields — be able to usefully contribute, in some capacity of due utility even as i remain such a thinker, to the reality that has become deeply creative criminality: what has been called #darkfigure since the 19th century; and which, for a couple of years now, i’ve preferred to call #neocrime.
the anecdote in question:
here’s an example of my intuition in action. and i might be totally wrong. what i want to do is not prove i am right but absolutely clearly be able to share, without anyone being able to disagree, that i am wrong …
“that gangster-looking guy wanted three things at least potentially, when he asked me to use my card in exchange for his cash, for a pizza order he said he wanted to make:
1. get my card number from his mate at the pizza place.
2. give me counterfeit cash so i’d get into trouble when i tried to use it.
3. see if he could identify the name of my iphone with an excuse to approach me (i was tethering to my laptop at the time) in order for him and his mates to be able to sniff when i was using it in the future.
if i am right about him being a gangster, he had already inhibited me (tried to) by standing near the wall and not moving an inch as i tried to get by behind him, when he was looking at his phone in front of the lift on the landing on floor 1 yesterday.”
as i say, i might be wrong totally about him. he might be a humanitarian of the very best.
but what if we could create systems which didn’t prove we were right … but validated whether or not we were wrong! that is, that i was wrong.
and just to frame it better:
• he was at the hotel i am staying at
• i was working for hours at my laptop in a darkened corner: so he had every reason — seeing me wrapt up so intently in my work — not to approach me
• the receptionist (according to the guy) had already refused to take his cash
• no one uses cash in stockholm
and so for all these reasons, i actually think this might have been an example of #darkfigure waiting to happen.”
of course i could be exhibiting a dreadful prejudice. but this, precisely this, is why i want us, together, to develop systems where we can enter into our deepest thoughts and make it possible for us not prove what we think true — but validate (an utterly different matter altogether) whether true or no.
if i work with a big corp, it must be a free-thinking big corp capable of having its own, totally independent, criteria in respect of innovation
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 15th april 2023
introduction:
i’ve begun to re-strategise how projects like #complexifyme might reach direct clients:
first, identify convinced #neurodiverse company cultures where such thinking processes are already considered potential — or actual — skillsets
second, filter in those organisations that already evidence, publicly and proudly, innovation criteria clearly independent of those big tech partners might offer
i’m talking here of following what we might term the “ronald reagan approach”: go over the heads of an establishment and speak directly with an interested set of parties
finally, address such potential clients’ existent concerns in relation to whether the implementation of current #it-#tech serves their #neurodiverse business cultures, philosophies, beliefs and evidence-base
why this proposed approach:
this is the conclusion i arrived at yesterday: “if i work with a big corp, it must be a free-thinking big corp capable of having its own, totally independent, criteria in respect of innovation.” that is, be its own jury passing an informed and independently sophisticated judgment on what the tech barristers are laying out as the truth.
and then, via a final judge also independent of such process, deliver a final, robust and game-changing sentence.
meantime, is the above — as i assert — really true, do you think?
is #ai probably the most #neurotypical construct in the digital world? and given its widespread use, what does this mean for the problem-solutioning space we offer #neurodiverse thinking and their thinkers?
before you answer the questions posed, look at the example roadmap and its rationales below:
full presentation here:
summarising:
so. what do we think?
is #ai actually — in its broadly accepted automation implementations, at least — the most #neurotypicalising modern tool currently being used by humanity … and maybe misused at that?
just that … as i move from considering #lawenforcement and #security to the wider challenge of #complexproblems which may already be affecting our very survival.
which is not to say the first two don’t, but my thinking now assumes that if we can crack #complexproblem-solutioning first, we’ll then be in a position to give those in #security and #lawenforcement the opportunity to access such tools in a freer and more “pick & mix” way, which then may be far more suitable for their specific domains and wider ways of thinking than all my thought-experimenting has been to date.
the presentation itself in image and pdf formats
the presentation itself can be viewed below as a gallery, and can be found in downloadable pdf format here:
mil's page 