Slashdot Mirror
Some Hopeful Predictions for 2018 (nbcnews.com)
NBC asked 15 "top science and tech leaders" for their predictions for 2018. Despite arguments that technology has "created a monster," one anonymous reader sees their answers as a reason for hope:
NBC notes the detection of gravitational waves in 2017 (predicted almost a century ago by Einstein) and the creation of genetically modified human embryos. And a professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute points out that in 2018, more than 10 different medical conditions are now also moving forward in gene-editing clinical trials, including rare eye diseases, hemophilia, and sickle cell anemia. He predicts that in 2018, deep machine learning "will start to take hold in the clinic, first in ways to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of doctors' workflow."
Former ICANN head Esther Dyson predicts we'll also begin using big data not only to reduce healthcare costs, but also social problems like unemployment, depression, and crime. "With big data, and more data available through everything from health records and fitness apps to public data such as high school graduation rates and population demographics, we are increasingly able to compare what happens with what would have happened without a particular intervention...with luck, some communities will lead by example, and policy-makers will take note."
The head of the atmospheric science program at the University of Georgia notes that already, "We now have technology in place to provide significant lead time for landfalling hurricanes, potentially tornadic storms, and multi-day flood events." And Dr. Seth Shostak, the senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, predicts that in 2018 "it's possible that a replacement for Pluto will be found," while an astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History adds that in 2018 the European Space Agency's Gaia Mission will determine "distances to over a billion stars and velocities for several million," creating "an exquisitely detailed 3D map of our home galaxy."
Former ICANN head Esther Dyson predicts we'll also begin using big data not only to reduce healthcare costs, but also social problems like unemployment, depression, and crime. "With big data, and more data available through everything from health records and fitness apps to public data such as high school graduation rates and population demographics, we are increasingly able to compare what happens with what would have happened without a particular intervention...with luck, some communities will lead by example, and policy-makers will take note."
The head of the atmospheric science program at the University of Georgia notes that already, "We now have technology in place to provide significant lead time for landfalling hurricanes, potentially tornadic storms, and multi-day flood events." And Dr. Seth Shostak, the senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, predicts that in 2018 "it's possible that a replacement for Pluto will be found," while an astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History adds that in 2018 the European Space Agency's Gaia Mission will determine "distances to over a billion stars and velocities for several million," creating "an exquisitely detailed 3D map of our home galaxy."
I hope for 2018 less click bait on /.
Not impressed about the medical stuff. Medicine is a dead-end technology that will not apply to our glorious humanless robot future.
Show me the real stuff. Where are Venus colonies? Where are the hypersonic cargo planes?
Props for the gravity wave telescope, though. At least that's something.
Only a morally bankrupt person would find "hope" in genetically engineered human embryos. The world is a sick place in 2018. I guess natural law is out the window. Science is out of control and lacks even basic philosophy. When will science start asking if they "should" instead of asking if they "can?"
Ha ha ha!
Damn, you're funny. You and all your buddies were swearing that Trump would, without a doubt, be impeached in 2017, too... yet here we are, with the "Russia collusion" narrative weaker than ever, and even more evidence that it was the Hillary-and-DNC planned hit job from the get-go.
Still, go ahead and wish all you want for it to happen in 2018. I'll just be laughing at you again when you repeat yourself in 2019, too.
https://ntanet.org/NTJ/65/3/nt...
This paper examines the impact of tax rates on economic growth rate using panel data from Canadian provinces over the period 1977-2006. Our empirical analysis indicates that a higher CIT rate is associated with lower private investment and slower economic growth. However, the PIT rate does not affect the growth rate and investment once one controls for provincial fixed effects. Our empirical estimates suggest that a 1 percentage point cut in the CIT rate is related to 0.1-0.2 percentage point increase in the transitional growth rate.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Really? Doctors fees are fixed and in the USA, pharmaceutical costs are fixed. Knowing how much a person smokes, isn't going to change the cost of chemotherapy. In a family situation, tracking the weekly shopping won't tell doctors who is eating the chocolate-covered bacon.
Prevention is better than cure; so if anything, the problem is on the other end: Reduce healthcare costs and people will get more treatment meaning minor illnesses don't become acute illnesses.
This is caused by low demand and high productivity. No amount of data is going to change that.
Everybody has a bad day: Depression is an on-going behavioural problem. How is big-data going to know what one is feeling everyday? Yes, AI has been able to link sequences of behaviour with depression, so there may be a benefit from big-data. If healthcare can't provide the necessary treatment, the cost of depression will not change.
Crime is a consequence of several factors. The ability to fit into the moderately skilled, team-driven, repetitive tasks, 9-hour shift labour market; opportunity; cultural norms; political oppression and job history. Most times, it isn't difficult to determine when a person is affected by these factors. I doubt there are any secrets here so big data won't help.
It's impossible to know what correlations big-data will reveal about a problem space but societies have existed and been studied for thousands of years; there are few facts to discover about the problems of many people living beside each other.
the Alien spaceships they've been hiding all the decades.
If not that, 2018 will show a trickle of news-stories that will help sink in the notion to the general public that there's something out there, but as long as there's stuff on Netflix and breakfast-TV, people can carry on...
Why do you think there's been this recent surge of superhero films?
In 2001, when "24" showed a black POTUS, I read a story where somebody was quoted with the sentence "The American public can only imagine what they already saw on TV".
They could only elect a black president because they saw it on TV.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Will you still be talking about Hillary in 2019?
Yet the reassurance comes from the ability to gene splice data, and because 'Big Data' will help save us?
It that supposed to be irony?
Really? Doctors fees are fixed and in the USA, pharmaceutical costs are fixed. Knowing how much a person smokes, isn't going to change the cost of chemotherapy. In a family situation, tracking the weekly shopping won't tell doctors who is eating the chocolate-covered bacon. Prevention is better than cure; so if anything, the problem is on the other end: Reduce healthcare costs and people will get more treatment meaning minor illnesses don't become acute illnesses.
Small data just saved 1/2 your healthcare budget. When they start working on big data, expect that to get even better.
Two guilty pleas unrelated to the issue that the fishing expedition supposedly set out to investigate.
It's almost like the Starr Show, where all they ended up pinning on Clinton was perjury and sexual harassment in the workplace.
The engine elections this year will turn even more of his own party and people against him. Hopefully it will be the tipping point.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Engine elections? Ellis Juan for Powerplant! :-P
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you think anyone actually meant 'you', personally, rather than the general 'you' of TDS sufferers, you are even more deranged - you, personally, are not someone anyone gives a shit about.
As for your "news" about Papadopoulos, you're off in your timeline by many months. He, along with others - including Trump - had been accusing Hillary of having classified emails taken off her illegal server. Some of those comments date back to 2015, so it isn't as if this was anything new.
And 4 "aides" arrested? We have Papadopoulos, who plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his finances and taxes, we have Flynn that plead guilty to lying about a perfectly legal conversation AFTER the election, and we have Manafort and Gates, both of whom are being charged with tax fraud and money laundering during the time, many years ago, when they were employed by the Podesta Group. The same Podesta Group that is run by the Podesta brothers - close friends of Hillary Clinton, one of Obama's close staffers, and a major player in the Clinton political campaign.
Not a damned thing about "Russian collusion" or even a single crime involving the Trump campaign itself. The fact that you are still trying to pretend that making a joke about Russia revealing Hillary's 20K missing emails was to "request more email hacks" shows how pathetic your arguments are and how desperate you are.
On the other hand, we now that Comey wrote an exoneration letter for Clinton's email server before the investigation was done - before, in fact, she or her staff had been interviewed.
We know that the "Russia Dossier" was written by Fusion GPS, a Democrat opposition research and lobbying firm. Fusion GPS was hired by the DNC and Clinton campaigns, and was simultaneously employed by Russia to lobby for removing sanctions. Steele and Simpson who wrote the dossier got almost all of their information from Russian government employees.
We know that Fusion GPS arranged a meeting between a Russian government official - who was only allowed into the US because of a special visa personally granted by the Obama Administration - and the Trump campaign, during which they tried to lobby for removing sanctions, which the Trump campaign refused.
We know that Simpson - the Fusion GPS employee - gave the dossier to his coworker Nellie Ohr, who handed it to her husband Bruce Ohr, who then handed it to his Andrew McCabe. The same Andrew McCabe that was undergoing an Inspect General investigation into his conflict of interest violations for handling the Hillary email investigation, considering he and his wife had strong political and financial ties to Hillary Clinton. McCabe then met with two of his employees, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, where they discussed an "insurance policy" against Trump winning the election. By the way, Strzok was also the agent who interviewed Hillary Clinton and her staff about her email server and refused to take notes or make recordings - in direct violation of FBI regulations. He's also the same Peter Strzok that modified Comey's exoneration letter (written before the interviews, remember) to be softer and make it sound less like a crime had occurred. He's ALSO the agent that interviewed Michael Flynn, and AGAIN did not take notes or make a recording of the interview in violation of FBI regulations, despite having supposedly been punished for not doing so during the Clinton investigation. He's also the same Peter Strzok that was fired from the Mueller investigation for his inappropriate behavior and conflict of interest violations (and laying about them on his background investigation reporting).
There's no evidence of collusion, of hacking even a single voting machine, or anything. You're clinging to even less evidence than the Birthers ever had - you Pissers actually make the Truthers sound sane. Again, having fun getting your hopes up. Your tears of despair will taste so sweet.
Since she looks to be settings up another Presidential run for 2020, probably.
If you think anyone actually meant 'you', personally, rather than the general 'you' of TDS sufferers,
Stopped reading here.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Eh, that was a good spot. Any further, and you would have had to admit your arguments were crap.
https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hmm, the NYT and The Atlantic don't like tax cuts. Democrats don't like tax cuts. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and not that the NYT and Atlantic are only reporting things that fit the Democrat agenda.
And if you look at the study they cite they're talking about personal taxes, not corporate taxes.
The study I linked to found this
The results in column (3) show that, as expected, the coefficient of CIT rate is negative and statistically significant. The magnitude of the coefficient is, however, higher than what we obtain in column (2). The coefficients of the personal income and sales tax rates are still statistically insignificant. The coefficient of the interaction term between the sales tax rate and the RSTdummy is still negative but statistically insignificant.
I.e. lower corporate taxes mean higher growth 'the coefficient of CIT rate is negative and statistically significant' . Interestingly they can't tell if that's the case or not for personal and sales taxes because 'The coefficients of the personal income and sales tax rates are still statistically insignificant.'
This is why you need to look directly at economics research and not Google 'do tax cuts increase growth', and find an article on the NYT or Atlantic saying they don't. Clearly the sort of tax cut matters. You also need to read the whole paper, and not a summary by journalist who - in the US - is basically guaranteed to be left wing (only 7% of US journalist are Republicans), and given they all have liberal arts degrees, innumerate. All they're doing is Googling for some 'science' that backs their prejudices and then writing a long rant summarising it. Shit, even I could do that.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I think you are being blinded by your desires to political reality.
For Trump to be impeached the House, which is dominated by Republicans, would need to vote a bill of impeachment. For the impeachment to be executed the Senate, which is also dominated by Republicans, would need to vote for a conviction.
Despite what it says in the constitution about grounds, political reality is that the House can impeach on any grounds that it finds suitable, and the Senate can convict if it feels like it.
So far, no president has actually had the sentence of impeachment executed. It would be interesting, though not pleasant, to consider what might happen if the Senate voted to confirm the impeachment, and the President contested the validity of the vote. There is no explicit provision for enforcing the sentence. It those working for the executive branch were to be personally loyal to the President despite the vote of impeachment there doesn't appear to be any way to make the impeachment stick. It would come down to who the army was loyal to.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You might follow up your news stories with the retractions. The "before the hacks went public" turned out to be a wrong date (they were AFTER they went public). The "2 pleading guilty" were process-crimes....Hillary's girlfriend committed the same (or worse)--that just came out, just wasn't reported on the news sources you listen to. It's WRONG for the FBI to be paying ($$ or labor) or opposition research. Uh....it's wrong for Trump to "contact the Russians" (not proven), but it is ok for Clinton to do the same (Ukraine, but same principal)? BTW, the sky is kinda bluish-gray, with some white.
In 2018 I expect the Republican majority in the House will be massively flipped and the Senate will be weakened. If enough Senate Republicans are willing to turn on Trump, which they very well might be after witnessing the ruinous political backlash he'll cause (especially now that their tax "reform" has passed), there will be no political impediments to his impeachment.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The NYT and Atlantic were just reporting on a 65-year study from the Congressional Research Office (in 2012, Congress was controlled by Republicans).
That's not what history has shown. The study you cited was based on the Canadian economy. The data is significantly different here in the US.
http://www.epi.org/publication...
You are welcome on my lawn.
You might follow up your news stories with the retractions. The "before the hacks went public" turned out to be a wrong date (they were AFTER they went public).
I'm aware there were some erroneous stories earlier in the year about Trump's campaign having info before the public leaks, but I'm talking about this story from the last 48 hours:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
Good luck with the false equivalence defense though.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I voted in the 2016 election and all I got was this Mulder & Scully shirt. Looking forward to 2020!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If I do some googling with Duck Duck Go I find
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corp...
Trump's Council of Economic Advisers say it will boost growth by 3-5%, which means Trump will go down in history as the Next Reagan. But then, as Mandy Rice-Davies put it "Well, they would say that wouldn't they?"
http://uk.businessinsider.com/...
Then there's this, another right wing think tank
https://www.americanactionforu...
The U.S. is mired in a slow economic recovery, and is projected to continue growing at about a 2 percent annual rate for the next 10 years.
The U.S. corporate tax is grossly out of step with the rates of its developed country competitors, and is the only nation to have increased its rate on net since 1988.
A large body of economic research has documented the anti-growth effects of the U.S. corporate tax, with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concluding that it is the most harmful form of tax on per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Reducing the corporate tax rate would lead to higher investment, faster productivity growth, faster economic growth and higher wages, which would offer a higher standard of living for U.S. workers.
Here's the OECD paper.
https://www.oecd.org/officiald...
This paper examines the relationship between tax structures and economic growth by entering indicators of the tax structure into a set of panel growth regressions for 21 OECD countries, in which both the accumulation of physical and human capital are accounted for. The results of the analysis suggest that income taxes are generally associated with lower economic growth than taxes on consumption and property. More precisely, the findings allow the establishment of a ranking of tax instruments with respect to their relationship to economic growth. Property taxes, and particularly recurrent taxes on immovable property, seem to be the most growth-friendly, followed by consumption taxes and then by personal income taxes. Corporate income taxes appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. These findings suggest that a revenue-neutral growth-oriented tax reform would be to shift part of the revenue base towards recurrent property and consumption taxes and away from income taxes, especially corporate taxes. There is also evidence of a negative relationship between the progressivity of personal income taxes and growth. All of the results are robust to a number of different specifications, including controlling for other determinants of economic growth and instrumenting tax indicators.
Now the OECD report is credible.
And it doesn't really seem all that unreasonable for the US to cut corporation tax rates given it has the highest tax rate in the OECD.
E.g.
http://stats.oecd.org/index.as...
In fact in best Laffer curve fashion you can make an argument that high tax rates encourage US corporations to have complex tax structures like Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich. Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 22% makes it somewhat more competitive. A bit of Trumpian bullying of the likes of Apple and Google combined with a tax cut might cause them to start paying US taxes instead of paying Dutch, Irish or UK ones.
I can see you don't like Trump of the GOP and to be honest I've got mixed feelings about them myself. Still you c
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It still won't happen in 2018. If Trump is impeached it will because it suits the partisan interests of the GOP. If in late 2019 to early 2020 they help the Democrats round up the votes to impeach Trump but leave Pence (or at least Paul Ryan) unscathed that solves a lot of Republican problems. They get to campaign on their hard vote against the president, they avoid a bitter primary fight against a sitting president, they avoid the possibility of an independent Trump campaign, and they screw the Democrats out of running against Trump. In the mean time the GOP can use Trump to help them undermine Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and then use him as the fall guy when it all proves highly unpopular outside of the GOP's group of major donors.
The Laffer Curve is a fraud. It's not real, as in it's nonsense.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...
It is not true that the actual corporate tax rate in the US is higher than the other OECD countries. It's a canard, as in lie, as in bogus.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/...
Supply-siders love to talk about Laffer curves and "the highest corporate tax rates in the world", but they have sold you a bill of goods. Their claims don't match up with reality.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's...a frighteningly good argument.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Laffer curve is obviously true. Consider. If you have zero taxes you collect zero revenue. If you have 100% taxes you also collect zero revenue because people won't work for free. In between the two there's a curve where tax revenues increase up to some level and then begin to fall.
When Gordon Brown put the top personal tax rate up from 45% to 50% HMRC - the UK equivalent of the IRS - did a study of the 50% tax rate in the UK with Laffer curves in it.
http://webarchive.nationalarch...
Also if you percentage of income tax paid by the top decile vs the top personal tax rate you can see a very Laffer curve like effect
https://imgur.com/zaeEh
(more details here
https://pastebin.com/JU3exgXL )
Here's one for just the Nordic countries. The argument is that they are very comparable because they are so similar. Firstly culturally, particularly the Scandinavian ones. Secondly the share of market income by the richest decile is quite similar.
https://i.imgur.com/q5WNJ.gif
It is not true that the actual corporate tax rate in the US is higher than the other OECD countries. It's a canard, as in lie, as in bogus.
No it's not and I linked to OECD data to prove it.
And saying 'well the effective tax rate is lower' is not a refutation. I'm sure big corporations do all sorts of deals to reduce their effective tax rate in the US - they shop around the states and pick the one who offers the best incentives.
However if you start a new corporation you get hit with the headline rate, until you grow large enough to corrupt the system, go bust or move your business overseas. Which is why 35% corporate taxes are a bad idea.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The Laffer Curve dead-enders have been refuted time and time again in economics studies. Your example of 0% vs 100% tax rates don't really bear out in real life. We've been hearing this quasi-religious dedication to supply-sideism since the 1970s and it just doesn't happen. It increases the wealth of the top fraction of a percent, and degrades the wealth of everyone below that.
http://economistsview.typepad....
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're correct.
And since they got their tax cut - (and Trump's co-operation in Judicial nominees), he serves the GOP agenda well enough.
I also expect the newsmedia to blandly fall in-line behind Trump in the next year or so, and while there will be vigorous dissent among voters, that dissent will be largely invisible, to the extent it can be made so, via mass-media, and social media manipulation. Dissenters who go outside of these systems to be heard, are probably going to be dealt with, in the way they're dealt with in "other countries". You know exactly what I mean. Yeah we're fucked. It's not like we weren't warned.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Fortunately truthful reporting on Trump is quite profitable, so I don't think it will stop. In fact it's a good opportunity for brands to get some much needed patronage, as until recently mere factual reporting wasn't a cause by itself.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It increases the wealth of the top fraction of a percent, and degrades the wealth of everyone below that.
And yet, if you read the links I posted here
https://pastebin.com/JU3exgXL
That last ratio is (share of total taxes paid of richest decile)/(share of market income by richest decile). You can actually make an argument that the rich in the US - which has lower personal tax rates than the UK pay more of their fair share. Similarly the UK has lower personal tax than Sweden, and yet rich people pay more of their fair share.
I.e. on a plausible model of fairness US>UK>Sweden even though in terms of personal tax rates Sweden>UK>US.
And the Laffer curve hasn't been refuted - the HMRC for example use it, and you'd expect them to know what they're talking about.
What is disputed is Taxable Income Elasticity which determines what shape the curve is. If you search the HMRC pdf I linked to for 'Laffer' you can see what happens to the curve as TIE varies and they also make some progress on determining the TIE for the UK and thus the optimal top tax rate. Basically that report was instrumental in the case for reducing the top personal tax rate from 50% back to 45% because a 50% tax was generating extra revenue.
And of course in France they experimented with high tax rates and then eventually rolled them back.
The Guardian is far left and supported high taxes on the rich but even they had to admit it didn't raise money and that's why it was dropped
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Finance ministry studies showed that despite all the publicity, the sums obtained from the supertax were meagre, standing at €260m in 2013 and €160m in 2014, and affecting 1,000 staff in 470 companies. Over the same period, the budget deficit soared to €84.7bn.
The decision to drop the tax is a personal blow for Hollande and only one of a number of government U-turns since he was elected, fuelling criticism that he is indecisive and lacking presidential authority.
And if you look at the data I posted it's actually rather obvious that the US has personal taxes about right and that higher taxes than that will reduce revenue.
What it didn't have right was corporation tax, at least until the recent GOP tax cut.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Good thinking. Make sure that Trump gets a second term.
Dems don't like Tax Cuts? The Obama Tax Cut was larger than the one Trump just did but it was actually for the Middle Class unlike Trumps. So your post is Fake News.
It's funny how Republicans spew Fake News at everything when they are the ones spreading actual Fake News.
Clinton's emails on her illegal server were discovered in 2015. So someone commenting that the Russians had thousands of Clinton's emails was NOT news in 2016.
Remember, the hack you are trying to refer to was a hack of the DNC/John Podesta, NOT Hillary Clinton. It couldn't have been the source for "thousands of emails" from Clinton.
Clinton's emails on her illegal server were discovered in 2015. So someone commenting that the Russians had thousands of Clinton's emails was NOT news in 2016.
That's like saying that your house was known to be left unlocked in 2015, so me commenting that my buddy had a copy of your tax returns was not news in 2016...even if they were only posted online a month later. If he said that the Russians had emails just because it was public knowledge that Clinton's server was vulnerable, that's speculation. Not the sort of statement that leads to a guilty plea.
Remember, the hack you are trying to refer to was a hack of the DNC/John Podesta, NOT Hillary Clinton. It couldn't have been the source for "thousands of emails" from Clinton.
Yes, and as such you are undermining your previous argument - how is Hillary's server relevant? The fact is that Papadopolous seemed to know that Russia had this material before the general public did. The three possible reasons he might have said that are lying, speculation, or insider knowledge. Only one of those reasons might compel someone to plead guilty.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hmm, the NYT and The Atlantic don't like tax cuts. Democrats don't like tax cuts.
I've heard that they're having to correct the history books, Hal. You see, it wasn't puritans on the Mayflower, Hal. It was loaded with all the paedophiles that England was trying to get rid of.
Do you like paedophiles, Hal?
If you are lucky he will be "impeached" in late 2020, and for sure in 2024.
I have little hope for 2018. Tech advances aren't going to solve the major issues we have, and the increasing prevalence of things like Big Data are likely to make them even worse.
Former ICANN head Esther Dyson predicts we'll also begin using big data not only to reduce healthcare costs, but also social problems like unemployment, depression, and crime. "With big data, and more data available through everything from health records and fitness apps to public data such as high school graduation rates and population demographics, we are increasingly able to compare what happens with what would have happened without a particular intervention...with luck, some communities will lead by example, and policy-makers will take note."
They aren't going to like the results when they don't fit the predefined American liberal narrative.
It would come down to who the army was loyal to.
In the end, everything comes down to who the army is loyal to.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it