Category: design philosophy

design philosophy, rationale

A roadmap for thinking #complexproblems out of existence in 7 years using #neurodiverse IT-tech

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.

complexify.me

• complexify.me | sverige2.earth/complexify

complexify.me

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.

Comments, as always, welcome.

Email contact here:

milwilliams.sweden@outlook.com

definition, design philosophy, rationale

#ai: a #neurotypical #it to the max?

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?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

complexify.me: an example roadmap

how #neurodiversity can save our humanity

yep!

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:

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

why i am not fit for working in crime and security … but why #complexproblems is a quite different matter

crime is a domain i have pretty good knowledge of at #autoethnographic and #academic levels, but it is always going to be a subset of #complexproblems: #complexproblems are NOT a subset of a generally creative #criminality.

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 14th april 2023

i just want this to be clear. i’m happy for others to work with my ideas in security and so forth. but i am going to focus on developing systems for #neurodiverse #thinkingspaces that begin to solve #complexproblems our species needs resolving, above and beyond #criminality.

things like #climatechange and #foodsecurity for example.

crime is a domain i have pretty good knowledge of at #autoethnographic and #academic levels, but it is always going to be a subset of #complexproblems: #complexproblems are NOT a subset of a generally creative #criminality.

what’s more, i don’t have the confidence of people in #lawenforcement and #security. never have: never will. i’m a free-thinker, above all. this doesn’t make me better, at all. but it might mean it makes me incompatible with good #security and #lawenforcement praxis.

so this is what i am now thinking and strategising. i may be able to acquire the necessary confidence to do these things in other fields of human endeavour. at the very least, the potential for a decent engagement is more likely in other areas now.

if there are people in some allied country who work, even so, in crime and related, and still are interested in what i propose, do come forwards and show yourselves.

but even here, let’s propose that anything we do starts with the principle and framework of #complexproblems, not creative #criminality.

contact me on the email below, if you do want to explore.

just explore.

just see the reality. examine the truth. and maybe, just maybe, do something usefully different for a change:

milwilliams.sweden@outlook.com

complexify.me | #neurodiverse software and hardware architecture for solutioning #complexproblems

(because i’m really really really NOT as fierce as you have been led to believe by the people back home …)

definition, design philosophy, rationale

creativity and neurodiversity: what do we think?

introduction:

do we agree that creative people have neurotypical brains or neurodiverse ones?

let’s say, without any evidence being presented to hand, that they are more than likely to be tending to neurodiverse.

so.

what about creative criminals?

will they more than likely be neurodiverse — or just plain old simple neurotypical?

will they prefer to conform or disconform? will they keep things ticking over collaboratively and constructively? or do they prefer to break things when doing so serves to reward them with ill-gotten gains?

you know i’ve been right all along. and it’s hurting so much you’d rather leave me in the hell of your denial than accept i am right, in order that then we could do something about it by changing some of the direction of law enforcement and national, regional and global security.

though not necessarily the whole of the process at all. i’m not advocating this; never have either.

more of this in a bit.

neurodiversity, criminality, crimefighting and the real problem

if criminals — like artists — are more often than not neurodiverse, and machines — like #it-#tech more generally — deliver neurotypical environments where rules and regulations aggressively must regulate and rule everything we do when we inhabit and work in them, how on earth will what we do in global, regional and national security and law enforcement ever completely be capable of preventing even a minimum of creatively criminal acts of the highest criminal order?

the ones, i mean, that shake civilisations and their historical development …

traditional it-tech … what do you think?

this is the big question of today’s post:

is traditional it-tech made in the image of the freedoms of neurodiversity or the strictures, rules and regulations of neurotypicality?

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 13th april 2023

if machines are more neurotypical than not, and creative criminality is more neurodiverse than anything else, where’s the judiciousness we will have demonstrated to be operating here when we choose to use machines plus more than likely neurotypical humans — that is agency operatives who are focussed on applying rules and laws (and quite rightly, too)?

how will we be ever able to fight neurodiverse creative criminality of the 9/11 sort — especially when now applied to the deepest digital cyberspace, to dark figure, and to neocrime — if we don’t use newly neurodiverse crimefighting humans enabled by the radically neurodiverse software and hardware architectures i am now advocating in the complexify.me workstream?

and to be delivered in the following order — humans (maybe neurotypical and neurodiverse) first in the workflow, supported by machines in second place; not in the traditional order — machines which spot and spit out largely neurotypical (even when obviously mega-) insights to support equally neurotypical humans …

look.

don’t get me wrong, please. we need neurotypical: we need conformists more than any time in our history. we need people who just love to pursue those who don’t follow the rules and laws that provide the best foundations for civilisations and societies we’d all wish to be proud of again. people who love to apply these legal figures with due and appropriate process. people you’d trust with your youngest children. people you’d trust with your life.

but we need neurodiverse colleagues; so much, too. nonconformists in every breath we draw, so we may all become better able to pursue bad actors imaginatively, and therefore finally — on equal terms and learning how to properly fight fire with fire — we properly police this space we call digital: a space which has become almost infinitely malleable … and so intimately present in our lives now that we are not even safe when we drink a coffee in our local coffee shop …

definition, design philosophy, rationale

“coffee-shop cctv hacked to gain intel with military value”: EXACTLY why our security needs different tech philosophies

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/11/russian-hackers-target-security-cameras-inside-ukraine-coffee-shops

and these freedoms for us all. not just the inhibiting hierarchies enjoyed by those who own — in more ways than one — this thing we know as tech. and therefore our democracies.

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 12th april 2023

there is so much #darkfigure being delivered by people in tech, and our law-enforcement and security agencies have given up on developing systems which could counter such #neocrime:

• crimehunch.com/neocrime

the agencies rely heavily on machines plus humans — in that order — because their tech partners are interested in the monetisation virtues of this order of priorities:

• sverige2.earth/complexify

meantime, the bad hackers use humans plus machines — in this order — to creatively imagine, imagineer, and only then engineer new and covert ways of committing crimes that remain as invisible as possible for as long as possible.

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/11/russian-hackers-target-security-cameras-inside-ukraine-coffee-shops

and it’s not even that our agencies are criminal in the main (though some take advantage of #darkfigure extensively to bend, or sometimes go so far as to break, the law), but their ongoing inability to recognise the importance of humans over machines is negligence of a sort:

and even more so, the illegitimate criminal power of the human+machine workflows and deals over the agency machine+human combos is utterly ignored, in the absence of truthful criteria re innovation and procurement. and yet it would be so easy to begin a process of repurposing, with integrity, of existing technologies to ensure people are made bigger by machines and not diminished.

i’m sorry. but it has to be observed, painful though the recognition, if a given, will be.

because this next one has to be taken on the chin, if we are to improve our capacity to fight creative criminality in a collective future-present:

9/11 came about because horribly creative humans used machines as tools to kill other humans, who failed to prevent it from happening because their tech partners had consistently recommended using machine+human workflows.

not because they really believed this was true; that is, that human intuition was a lesser value than the incremental thinking engendered by machines.

no.

rather, because machines+humans make more money, more easily, than workflows that consist of humans+machines … that is, humans expanded and enhanced by machines.

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 12th april 2023

• crimehunch.com/terror

and so the only way we can prevent such horrors in the future — particularly the invisible ones such as the recent us defense leaks due to bad hackers and web actors, some of which date back to october 2022 and are only just now discovered, as well as the cctv hacking reported in the guardian newspaper article above — is to begin to reverse the order and purpose of tech.

this — what follows now — is what i suggest and advocate most firmly: humans always first, enhanced and expanded by tools whose primary rationale no longer remains monetising a tech partner into obscene levels of technological wealth whatever the wider human cost but, instead, delivering without exception on making a safer and more secure, more legitimate, more socially responsible, and more honest world all round.

and these freedoms for us all. not just the inhibiting hierarchies enjoyed by those who own — in more ways than one — this thing we know as tech. and therefore our democracies:

• sverige2.earth/complexify

definition, design philosophy, rationale

complexify.me – done simply well

introduction:

last night, speaking with a member of family, who professes a faith that includes a deity called god and its counter-element being the devil, i realised that society is full of bad people. not weak people: deeply bad people.

21st century third-decade societies — whether british, irish … wherever … oh yes, there are good people … but power in a tech-riven digital world, a world where tech of all kinds of levels rules, is insidiously criminalising every effect we once were reasonably able to assert was random. there are plenty of good people it’s true; but only the bad exert the power that makes the world run and administers what actually happens.

an anecdote from yesterday:

a young woman said to me yesterday evening: “it’s just stuff.” she was either facile & naive or dangerous. but probably dangerous in any case, because in the face of such embedded criminality, she chose to claim it was random.

re dark figure, law enforcement and security globally:

and so we come to this conclusion: law enforcement and security across the world find it much easier to deliver on their kpi structures by chasing and incarcerating those who don’t know what they’re doing than the covert digital-based criminals at all levels of tech who do know what they’re up to — and more importantly, how.

why i will no longer look to work with security-related citizens:

i’ve already signalled on these pages and others that i will no longer work on projects related to these kinds of professions: let me now explain why.

they depend on modern tech; on modern tech partners to explain what’s possible and what’s not. in a system where legitimately we have always separated out judge and jury, when it comes to procurement of tech we connect judge and jury both so they’re in the same bag as the criminals themselves.

tech is corrupt from top to bottom. it shouldn’t be trusted with advising what’s possible in respect of innovation.

but hey … who am i to say?

my next steps:

i’m no longer going to bang my head till it bleeds. i’m going to repurpose ALL my #secrecypositive ideas — this time with zero elements of #totalsurveillance compliance — in order to begin to implement tools to solve the #complexproblems the #leanjourney toolkit has chosen to filter out all these years:

• sverige2.earth/complexify

because modern tech only primarily aims its crosshairs at ONE problem: how to ensure the customer pays. everything else is how to cherry-pick out of solutioning-process what’s not relevant to a bottom-line.

great for the individual company’s balance-sheet; but sincerely catastrophic for a wider society.

as climate change — just one example — now shows.

complexify.me – done simply well:

i’m now going to concentrate all my forces on creating a tech ecosystem and set of tools which tech doesn’t care to invent; has chosen, in fact, just about criminally not to all these years.

an ecosystem and tools where #neurodiversity FINALLY delivers as a skillset, not a touchy-feely inclusion impulse.

and to the extent that #diversity becomes the new norm; and so normality returns to being just one more arrow in our society- and species-saving quivers …

definition, design philosophy, rationale

complex problems vs security and law-enforcement: how to square the circle of my ideas

let’s say i have to do something to be allowed to live:

i have a no-no or two, though …

not meeting family: not anyone. maybe one exception … but not a demand i make again; not even implied. not even wishing for. i won’t presume.

re family, i’m happy with my mother and the one sibling i get on with, but no one else on any other side. there’s always my children and so forth, but that’s never been your business. that will begin to work again in the future if it does; and if it doesn’t, i will share responsibility for any eventual failure.

‘problem is, you lost me this morning when you didn’t follow up — here no going back, because you were playing with me cruelly: no irish, no croatian, no other english — forget it.

talking realistically, in order to square two circles:

let’s talk realistically — what can i do to have a life more or less reasonably without your surveillance and neo-terrorism, everywhere i turn?

remember: i will, after what you failed to deliver on this morning, never meet with family nor anyone with a relationship to, whether personal or business, whom i don’t already get on with. you lost that opportunity today, just to underline.

but other things within my capacity … well, these things, for sure … more than happy to, actually really eager to.

you want to undermine the capacity of the tech i want to see in security? this can be resolved easily. you have your reasons i know: i can see why of course, though i will never share the criteria because i am far more a purist in these matters than you ever will be. but for us to proceed — for you to proceed — there is a solution which i now put before you all.

one caveat: one condition. as long as i get enough to have a comfortable rest of my life, we can talk about this but it requires you first to evidence that “neo-terrorism on the individual” will not be committed against my person again. and that is not an easy call to evidence.

some minimums, first:

  • i want european residence from this month.
  • i want an official, even if only cover, role that suits my skillset, in my judgement.
  • i don’t care if it’s employment or self-, but if either or both, i must be very difficult to fire. i want the kind of job security i’ve never had in my life, mainly because of british interventions to date.
  • i commit to targets everyone must commit to, but no opportunity for “noi” again, for this reason. (whether uk/irish influences — or within sweden itself, the latter of which has also already manifested itself.)
  • the legal side: i want a position of institutional power to deliver on “noi” as a robust legal figure, in the three years i scope; and thus the seven years i have as my goal to regular and widespread prosecutions.
  • i want to be in charge of complex problem-solutioning programmes, but completely outwith security.
  • i want to be able to exclusively license to all fields relating to security, the strategising and development of which i shall play zero part in the future.
  • loopholes, however, will remain part of my side of the deal: a complex problem to be eliminated eventually in the 20-year timeframe i propose. “noi”, too, as previously mentioned.
  • no conditions can be placed around the tech my side chooses to repurpose or begin to develop further. any developed tech will be developed exclusively for complex problem-solutioning, and then any reuse for security will involve new licensing agreements.
  • c is fine if she wants. it’d be cool and fair if she did, but that’s her choice. she chooses.
  • no other family contact, not after today.
  • no people or companies from my past in what i am responsible for: they may, if it is judged appropriate, however, freely participate to any level at all in respect of security workstreams i have nothing to do with in the future.

distribution of existing workstreams:

  • websites:
    • i license ideas from crime hunch, citizen hunch, and omiwan to security.
    • platform genesis is complex problems, not security.
    • the philosopher space is complex problems, not security.
    • secrecy.plus where applied to complex problems belongs to this stream. where security, it belongs to security from the start.
      • we negotiate the details of the division and separation, as expected would be the case.
      • examples: fire is clearly to be licensed to security, and will not be my responsibility in the future.
      • digital pencil & paper is my workstream.
    • i want hmagi for complex absolutely, but maybe it can be a common workstream. i doubt you will eventually want it; but i’m up for a common workspace for it, myself.
    • never meet again: that i keep entirely for my workstreams. nothing to do with security.
  • complex problems: where do they sit and who do they work with?
    • my initial thoughts: swedish interests, agencies and unis; the eu, particularly the ec; the un; and so forth.
  • security: that’s up to you. not my job. but i’d suggest:
    • the italians first, who are historically firm in the integrity of their pursuit of organised criminality.
    • in the uk, the met’s internal affairs department might be another good place to start.

locations:

  1. complex problems obviously then to be located in sweden and europe.
  2. this means it’s very easy for security to definitively locate to the us.

wdyt?

is this now possible?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

how to combine three brains to fight the fire of creative criminality with the fire of a newly creative crimefighting

introduction:

this post contains thoughts from a fortnight’s thinking processes more or less; plus the content of a synthesising presentation which is the sum of years of thought-experimenting on my part. i’ll start with the presentation, which is now where i want us to go:

fighting creatively criminal fire with a newly creative crimefighting

i created the slide below for a presentation i was asked to submit to a european digital agency pitching process, by the uk organisation public. the submission didn’t prosper. the slide, however, is very very good:

the easy answer is that obviously it benefits an industry. the challenging question is why this has been allowed to perpetuate itself as a reality. because real people and democratic citizens have surely perished as a result: maybe unnecessarily.

here is the presentation which public failed to accept for submission to the european digital process last october 2022, and from which the above slide is taken:

• presentation submitted to public in october 2022 (pdf download)

where and how i now want us to come together and proceed to deliver on creative crimefighting and global security

the second presentation which follows below indicates my thinking today: no caveats; no red lines; no markers in the sand any more. if you can agree to engage with the process indicated here, no conditions on my side any more.

well. maybe just one. only western allies interested in saving democracy will participate, and benefit both societally and financially from what i’m now proposing:

• www.secrecy.plus/fire | full pdf download

following on from the above then, thoughts i wrote down today — in edited format to just be now relevant only to the above — on my iphone notes app. this constitutes a regular go-to tool for my thought-experimenting:

on creating a bespoke procurement process for healthy intuition-validation development

step 1

pilot a bespoke procurement process we use for the next year.

we keep in mind the recent phd i’ve had partial access to on the lessons of how such process is gamed everywhere.

we set up structures to get it right from the start.

no off-the-peg sold as bespoke and at a premium, even when still only repurposed tech for the moment.

step 2

we share this procurement process speedily with other members of the inner intuition-validation core.

they use it: no choice.

but no choice then gives a quid quo pro: this means total freedom to then develop and contribute freely to the inner core ip in ways that most fit others’ cultures.

and also, looking ahead, to onward commercialise in the future in their zones of influence where they know what’s what, and exactly what will work.

and so then, a clear common interest and target: one we all know and agree on.

mil williams, 8th april 2023

historical thought and positions from late march 2023

finally, an earlier brainstorming from the same process as described in part two above, conducted back in late march of this year. this is now a historical document and position, and is included to provide a rigorous audit trail of why free thinking is so important to foment, trust and believe in, and actively encourage.

we have to create an outcome which means we know we think unthinkable things far worse than any criminal ever will be able to, to prevent them. we need a clear set of ground rules, but these rules shouldn’t prevent the agents from thinking comfortably (as far as this is the right word) things they never dared to approach.

the problem isn’t putin or team jorge. it is, but not what we see. it’s what they and others do that we don’t even sense. it’s the people who do worse and events that hurt even more … these things which we have no idea about.

if you like, yes, the persian proverb: the unknown unknowns. i want to make them visible. all of them. the what and how. that’s my focus.

trad tech discovers the who and when. but my tech discovers the what and how before even a glint in criminals’ eyes.

so we combine both types of tech in one process that doesn’t require each culture to work with the other. side-by-side, yes. but in the same way, no. so we guarantee for each the purest state each needs of each.

my work and my life/love if you prefer will not only be located in sweden but driven from here too. that’s my commitment. and not reluctantly in any way whatsoever.

[…]

i have always needed to gather enough data. now i have, the decision surely is simple.

mil williams, 21st march 2023
definition, design philosophy, rationale

how to bring absolute truth back into criminal justice … and maybe into public life more widely

introduction:

there are two questions i’d like to discuss in tonight’s post. the first as per these screenshots of a previous post earlier today:

in the second image above, i allude to “zero trust” versus “total openness”. and then add, in an addendum written after the original post, that trust is the secular term we have been constructing for a while in the absence of a more religious faith.

‘only thing being that faith presupposes a universal deity of irreplaceable goodness (that’s the deal; why it’s safe to have faith), whilst trust is what we far more imperfect humans do with each other — equally imperfectly.

and so we get stories such as this:

the guardian newspaper, 17th october 2022

and these:

• full pdf download of the presentation

from one of my own presentations on a “natural justice”, quoting from various guardian newspaper stories

relativism — but not what you’re thinking jim

i think a bit of what is happening is something to do with relativist approaches to criminal justice and law enforcement. and i’m not talking about populist rubbishing of 1960s post-modernist belief systems.

i’m saying that, actually, the defence lawyer’s right — and even obligation — to defend someone they’re pretty sure is guilty relativises since time immemorial the concept of absolute truth. and if you don’t like the word “absolute”, how about we say “core”?

i don’t even mean universal truth. i think i already mentioned on these pages that i sensed a profound difference between the ideas of absolute and universal. this evening, someone encouraged me to explain. and being forced to do so in this way served to clarify my own thought with great utility.

the difference between universal and absolute truth

i ended up using the example of the roman catholic church and my mother. for her, her church is part of a wider community of christians. and she is, in the main, well disposed to these other churches and their own manifestations of such christianity. even so, for her the catholic church trumps them all: in this sense, it holds out for a wider humanity the universal truth that is its teachings.

meantime, many others of other religions, whilst subscribing to similar concepts of an all-seeing god, would beg to differ re my mother’s universal positioning of her church.

from their point of view, i’d argue that — more objectively seen — my mother’s truths were what i would now begin to define as absolute truths: that is, particular to a set of circumstances, and criteria clearly too. but NOT universal for everyone.

and if we apply these two concepts to the criminal justice and legal systems?

apply this explanation to criminal justice and to the legal system: you then get a different view of what a “core” truth in such contexts might after all look like.

forget the debate between a relativised reality or no. forget the naughty 1960s versus the tarnished but ever so real 21st century.

let’s move, instead, into the scenarios of universal truth (applicable one hundred percent to all human beings) versus absolute truths (always context-specific).

from reality-agnostic defence lawyers to criminal justice and legal systems with absolute and core truths

in this sense, from the totally reality-agnostic defence lawyer’s position, where core truth simply can’t exist in the debating chamber that is the court of law such professionals usually operate in, we may slowly begin to put together a new set of ai tech-driven validation systems: systems which may, after all, begin to recover our capacity to deliver these absolute and core truths i am differentiating.

next steps: my call to action …

this is how i’d like us to start:

• secrecy.plus/fire | full pdf download

• positive@secrecy.plus | milwilliams.sweden@outlook.com