First you start out stating that having the source code gives you nothing, then eventually vaguely admit that having the source code can get you part way to a solution. by then people begin to suffer from too long didn't read, but even if they do make itthat fast, as I said, it's vague. Clever.

Excepept its usually morea bunch of sheep and a few wolves except the wolves work to convince the sheep the wolves are actually sheepdogs and if a few sheep were to disappear... the remaining sheep are told its because they didn'tlisten to the wolves, er sheepdogs.

No you didn't. Since you posted AC I have only the location of your post to make a determination,but nothing above your post demonstrated a lack of ability to write and understand coherent thoughts. I and I am sure many others am willing to entertain a case to the contrary. In order to make such a case you would have to state the coherent thought and how you believe it was misuderstood. Also state the writing you believe does not express a coherent thought and your reasoning Alternatively you are free to withdraw your apparent assertion that some or all of the posts above yours are as you described.

Once you bring "empirical studies" into it, your statements can no longer be evaluated on whether they are internally logically cnsistent. you have to actually cite at least one relevant "enmpieical study" in order to even stand a chance of being elieved by a rational person. Such relevancy in this case would have to at the least havea rigorous definition of "skill" Of course you are free to withdraw your assertion that mpirical studies show this is not true.

But then, there is the matter of how many people you've met, and how diverse their walks of life are. If you are born into a family known for its success, you are likely to grow up around other children from families that are also known for success. Furthermore, those children are taught to believe that their success is due purely to their own "hard work". They don't actually have to work hard because they are taught how to use their family's advantages such as inheritance and connections with the other families known for success. Utilizing that knowledge is furthermore seen as the end all and be all of "hard work", when in fact it doesn't even begin to compare to the difficulty of the work those not similarly advantaged have to do just to survive much less be successful. Furthermore, those families tend to stick together into adulthood so these notions are all constantly reinforced in addition to your notion that practically everyone you met that "worked hard" were successful. It becomes a tautology. Just how many people have you met that haven't "worked hard" anyways?

No, the problem is confirmation bias and vast amounts of historical data being ignored and effectively being treated as stale in favor of scant scraps of more recent data, then in turn being both intentionally and unintentionally misinterpreted,and used to justify redidulous expenditures to collect as much data as possible,which again is both intentionally and unintentionally misinterpreted and secretly dispersed with the intention to benifit a small minority of people with the effect of harming the whole, ironicly even the minority that was ssupposed to benefit. The moster's hunger is never sated by gorging on that which is external to it; it must appese its hunger by devouring itself as well.

There is no proof that all internet traffic and phone metadata is being collected and mined? All anyone has to do to determine that that is a blatant falsehood is google nsa hdoop mine. Even if that were not the case, you are making the assumption the NSA is not. That is av far more dangerous assumption to make.

There is no such thing as a "standard" government worker.and it is just s ludicris if not more so given recent and not so recent historical events to state definitively that there are no plots or a campaign of fear as it is to state definitively that there are. I don't know, maybe it's all a coincidence or maybe collateral damage that the government actions result in no little amount of fear in the general populace

I would counter that no one in their right mind is 100% certain that no false flag operation have been done. The question is not whether there is some sort of "useful" policy, or even whether aq givengiven operation is a false flag op, but whether false flag operations serve the ends of people with the capacity to make them happen, and given recent and not so recent historical events its even more irrational to suggest or imply that no publicscrutiny should be made as to whether false flag operationsw have been run.

It's not fast and there's also wait staff you have to tip.