Not every one. There are plenty of open hardware certified devices.
lol, that's so naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If you didn't design and build the chip or are best friends with the guy who designed and built the chip, it has a backdoor (possibly even in that latter case due to all the NDAs he would be in fear of.)
Epigenetics has nothing to do with this conversation, and it's hardly new though it is rather poorly understood, though from the tone of your comment it seems more like you misinterpreted what I meant and I wrote something potentially ambiguous.
The nature of how neurons process is known (i.e. at the connection level between them,) the nature of how those connections exist is known (what goes where,) all that is required is putting those two things together.
You don't need to replicate the brain from the nucleotides up, you only need to use an MRI scan to figure out how many artificial neurons you need and how they are initially connected, from there you have a MASSIVE head start and can allow the inputs and outputs of the system to dictate which connections are formed or broken - it adapts naturally.
The point being: you don't need to know how the brain works, you just need to know how the components work and let them self-organize to the task after initializing the state even moderately well, because that's what they evolved to do. All we have to do is mimic what we see to make it.
Glad Musk's birds are coming home to roost, hopefully it will put a stop to SpaceX too. The idea the elite can just sail off to a Mars colony after setting the world on fire instead of taking their rightful places tied to the stake is just wrong.
I actually got placed via a headhunter, the company liked me so much they bought out the contract and started paying me the same amount they were paying the recruiter once the term was up where the recruiter would get kickbacks if I got a raise (that's a thing.) Then the recruiter calls me a few months later with a job offer about 2.5x what the original salary was, I hear them out, they say they're going to get everything lined up and for me to call back the next day to do a conference call with the potential client. I call back the next day, there's obviously a conference line active, no client - just the recruiter saying they're expecting the client to come in soon. In the meantime he starts talking about salary, asks what I'm looking for, mention the figure he said without adding something like "that you mentioned yesterday" and then acts shocked and starts asking why I wanted the sudden pay jump if the original amount was good enough. I dimly response something along the lines of "for savings" or "to spend" without prefixing it with anything or elaborating. He continues the act and ultimately says he'll have to think about it. Within the next week he contacts the company I was placed with and says I called asking about a position that was much higher paying and outside my skillset and that I'm actively shopping around for new positions because I'm unsatisfied with the pay there, but they have another guy who has a track record of sticking it out with companies for years and is loyal as all Hell (found this out months later.) They hire Mr. Loyal, who turns out to be a complete fucking fraud who doesn't know shit about the job beyond how to pretend he's working and shuffle off blame on others, Mr. Loyal gets promoted to management within a month. 10 months down the road Mr. Loyal as lost 15% of the clients with another 75% teetering on the edge of wanting to leave, screaming at devs, managers, salesmen, the owner of the company, etc daily because their projects are late and nothing is what Mr. Loyal promised (turns out Mr. Loyal was outdoing the most sleazy of salesman, as a development head, in overpromising and under delivering.) Ultimately My. Loyal tries to cover his ass by trying to throw myself and another developer under the bus behind our backs while promising us everything was improving in private, this comes out in a group email where he chews us out CC'ing all the higher managers and HR and the entire dev team. So then comes a response of all of Mr. Loyal's fuckups, how he actively interfered with us "disrespectful" developers from patching up issues with clients, how these 75% of clients screaming at us every day about how they were about to leave and how there are communication issues internally which the dev lead assures them is not his fault, etc. Mr. Loyal "resigned" while kept on contract (mainly because they didn't quite know what to make of the situation, he was that great of a lying scumbag, but at the same time he failed to defend any of the ~40 specific points cited and simply send an email in mostly caps saying we were going to have a "friendly little conversation" [think Godfather tone, from someone having an ego-fueled power trip so intense he must have a micropenis] with HR.) 2 months of Mr. Loyal not actively fucking us at every turn (with the exception of 1 big client who was given exclusively to Mr. Loyal to prove himself,) and 65% of those 75% of clients were ecstatically happy with the internal change of promoting a non-dev to handle client interaction to keep our schedules clear while we focused on fixing everything. 3-4 months later that one client Mr. Loyal had finally got sick of the false promises and zero delivery (literally nothing,) and left. And so went Mr. Loyal, over a year after the fiasco began.
Moral of the story: headhunters can land you a decent position, but don't trust them for an instant.
If you think the recruiters have a lavish lifestyle on your dime, I would wholeheartedly disagree.
Sorry if I didn't make my understanding of that point clear. I thought my statement that headhunters were 1 very skilled negotiator with a horde of unskilled recruiters working for them. Obviously if someone can convince hordes of highly intelligent individuals to essentially give up 20-25% of their potential pay by going through them so well they can script it and have people completely clueless to negotiating, the target industry, the target resources, etc achieve conversions then they aren't going to be paying the low-ranking guys well.
Every CPU since 2006 has backdoors built in, they don't need to have backdoors in individual protocols. If they have cyber-backdoor agreements with the nation manufacturing the chips they have a backdoor.
They were making the decision of how much I'm worth for me.
They already have that number figured out, their bonuses are determined based on how far they can widdle you down below that. Headhunters are fucking deplorable (and not in the happy-go-lucky MAGA way) - they tend to take 15% minimum (so if you get in the door at 85k you can bet the company you end up working for is paying 100k - which makes them expect more while you don't actually see it all.) At the same time they work for companies which are just as bad, and they might make $1k as a one-time bonus if they can get another 10k off. You "won" because they follow a script, most of them don't know how to negotiate but they work for absolute sociopathic pieces of garbage who have negotiating down so well they can train anyone to do it with a script. I've actually interviewed with headhunters who never looked up from the (quite literal) script through the entire 30-60 minute interview.
Not that the gender pay gap is real, but there's an obvious loophole they will use: give a range of 5k (at most,) hint (or don't) through the interview of other roles or multiple roles, if someone bites and can demonstrate experience for those roles they get more, if not they get the entry-level posting the jobs will all be listed as.
My original point is that you can be at the forefront of technology and not be a nerd. I think the defining feature of a "nerd" is some sort of antisocial behavior.
No, you can't. The defining feature of a "nerd" is a genius level IQ and an obsession with figuring out why things do what they do, also usually a desire to exploit the laws of nature to your advantage in ways nobody else has.
Imagine if you will: a world in which the other inhabitants are mere monkeys, like Planet of the Apes.
Now contrast with reality, for a man like Chris Langan:
Koko the gorilla had an IQ of 70
The average person (approx 50% of the population) have an IQ of 100 or less, which is at most 2 standard deviations above Koko the gorilla.
The difference between a genius (145) and a normal person (100) is 3 standard deviations, or 1.5x that of the average person and Koko the gorilla.
Chris Langan is at least 6 standard deviations (190) and possibly as high as 7.33 standard deviations (210) above the average person.
This means the difference between Chris Langan and the common person is the same difference as Koko the gorilla and a common person at least three times over, or between a common person and genius at least twice over.
Now think to yourself: you live in a world run by damned dirty apes, where success and means are virtually decoupled from intellectual ability, where in effect the animals have it better than the sentient creatures of the world. Would you hoot and holler and fling shit like the apes to be king of monkeyworld, or would you aim to withdraw and try not to get beaten with rocks for being different? In fact, you might even come off as a paranoid and depressed reclusive douche.
But good news! You don't have to take this post as a tautological proof of itself: you can move to Congo right the fuck now and try to become the king of a tribe of silverback gorillas, I bet you'd be just like Tarzan, wouldn't that be grand? Go on, give it a shot.
Actually, life is much older than that as we have evidence of fairly complex photosynthetic bacteria about 3.5 billion years ago (but whatever, only 500 million years at the minimum.) Approximately 1.4 billion years later (2.1 billion years ago) were the first known Eukaryota (i.e. a bacteria decided to eat another bacteria, decided "huh, this fucker tastes too good to digest, and kept feeding and licking it, thus the mitochondria was born.) Another 1.5 billion years (about 600 million years ago) and the first Eukaryota start working together and delegating shit, so you have multicellular organisms (probably just Jellyfish, but the start of neurons, yay.) Another 70 million years (530 million years ago) and you have fish. Another 160 million years (370 million years ago) and you have amphibians.. Another 40-50 million years (310-320 million years ago) and you get reptiles. Another 109-175 million years (145-201 million years ago) and you get the first mammals. Another 137.5-169.4 million years (5.6-7.5 million years ago) and the Human lineage diverged from the chimps. Another 5.4-7.3 million years (approx 200,000 years ago) you have the start of tribal societies. Another 196,600 years (approx 3,400 years ago) you have the start of writing and passing down knowledge. Another 3,400 and you have exponential increases in technological development (even during the dark ages!)
The point of this being: we're already about there if we weren't, but we are. I may be radically misinterpreting what you wrote if you mean to say it didn't take a lot of time because we can just scan neurons which are already in the proper configuration via MRI then replicate the structure, but it seems from your multiple comments that is not the case.
We don't know how the brain works fully, but it does and we can make more. We don't know how the structure of the brain works fully, but it does and we can replicate it. Hell, we don't really even know how semantic search works in full (in the sense that no developer can program it directly or make much sense of the data structure without weeks or months of sifting for a single thing,) but it does because we know how to make the simple pattern which makes it possible.
Is there a better way to make a brain, which you could run an an Arduino? Probably not, but that's irrelevant. If we had the processing power to simulate the neuron count in the brain with all their parallel connections we could make a brain. We wouldn't need to know more than how individual neurons calculate and the rough superstructure (which if we really want to cheat, we can just copy from an MRI - that's already been done - it took a long fucking time to simulate a second of activity on the largest supercomputer - but it's been done.) That's the thing about AI in general: we don't need to know how it works to make it work. This is a bit of a diversion because while operators rarely know how to design and build a machine they use in their daily work, usually the designers do - that simply isn't the case anymore.
The only barrier to AI with our current understanding of it is compute power. Are there barriers to understanding AI? Sure, there likely always will be, especially if you want to step through the thing and see the multidimensional callstack in a sensible manner - but that's where Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness comes in: a system cannot define itself, so we are unlikely to ever reach a point where we can step through and fully comprehend something as complex as ourselves, but we don't need to, we only need to know the component parts and where to stick them.
The pace of technological development and change is exponential, and we're over the midway point.
The mathematical formulation is quite different from special relativity, it just happens to fully encompass it. The important part of that being that it covers more, such as unifying all the forces as well as giving proper descriptions of inertia, matter, energy, time, and space which allow creation/destruction/manipulation of them.
You're off target about pretty much everything else, though. The Michelson-Morley experiment was only the first of many, many experiments that validate special relativity
The Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted nearly 20 years before special relativity was published, it didn't "validate" shit, it's an experiment with a result which can be explained many many ways, inclusive of by the relativistic aether Morley went to his death believing in. Aether theory was never at odds with relativity because it wasn't a fully refined theory at the time, just a method of interpretation and the modern versions are "valid" per your definition a Hell of a lot more than relativity is because there are things such as the quantum foam relativity doesn't even account for which aether theory does.
with today's measurement technologies that can measure the speed of light directly, there is no need to go to all the trouble Michelson and Morley did to do interferometry.
Are you joking? That's literally the exact same setup as they used in LIGO. Moreover, what the Hell are you talking about with "direct measurements" of the speed of light? The Michelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with trying to measure the speed of light, that's a metric they used to determine whether or not a static aether existed. What you just wrote is the functional equivalent of "with today's measurement technologies that can measure the temperature directly, there is no need to go to all the trouble that my mother did to use a meat thermometer when baking a turkey.
Most optical gyroscopes use fibers these days, and don't deal with the speed of light in vacuum at all, although you can do it with ring laser gyroscopes... which obey special relativity.
THAT IS THE EXACT EXPERIMENT Morley used to show the relativistic aether exists! Did you just Google all this shit an Wikipedia and jot down your failed interpretation? Give it the respect the subject deserves and read the materials underlying the research for a few years (at least) before going around professing your knowledge on the subject.
Have you even read the actual (non-heaviside-vector reduction) Maxwell field equations? Have you worked them at all? Are you aware aether theory was never at odds with relativity, because it predicted relativity as we see it today? Are you aware that the Michelson-Morley experiment was only designed to detect a static aether through which matter moved, and Morley later devised an experiment to test for a relativistic aether which showed positive results, the principles of which are in use today in optical gyroscopes, among other devices (but hey, it makes so much more sense to consider those the product of a bunch of separate effects instead of one underlying thing, right? Occam's Razor be damned!)
Face it, you're speaking out of your ass and have never bothered to research what the "kooks" were talking about, go be euphoric.
Einstein didn't predict shit, he plagiarized his theory from Minkowski, Poincare, and Lorentz. Moreover, gravity waves were predicted by an extension of electrodynamics and Einstein misinterpreted the equations he stole as "spacetime" when the relativistic media is aether with space and time as emergent effects.
The government might if they get hands on the data, but that's an issue with all of your data, not just the stuff collected by voice.
That is an absolutely ignorant argument. The most basic rule of security is to reduce your attack surface - i.e. don't go throwing your data around everywhere, certainly not to a bunch of places you yourself don't at least control.
Slashdot Mirror
Not every one. There are plenty of open hardware certified devices.
lol, that's so naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If you didn't design and build the chip or are best friends with the guy who designed and built the chip, it has a backdoor (possibly even in that latter case due to all the NDAs he would be in fear of.)
That is the problem, now what is the solution?
Same as all the solutions to all the other problems: slaughter the sales and marketing people of the world.
Epigenetics has nothing to do with this conversation, and it's hardly new though it is rather poorly understood, though from the tone of your comment it seems more like you misinterpreted what I meant and I wrote something potentially ambiguous.
The nature of how neurons process is known (i.e. at the connection level between them,) the nature of how those connections exist is known (what goes where,) all that is required is putting those two things together.
You don't need to replicate the brain from the nucleotides up, you only need to use an MRI scan to figure out how many artificial neurons you need and how they are initially connected, from there you have a MASSIVE head start and can allow the inputs and outputs of the system to dictate which connections are formed or broken - it adapts naturally.
The point being: you don't need to know how the brain works, you just need to know how the components work and let them self-organize to the task after initializing the state even moderately well, because that's what they evolved to do. All we have to do is mimic what we see to make it.
Glad Musk's birds are coming home to roost, hopefully it will put a stop to SpaceX too. The idea the elite can just sail off to a Mars colony after setting the world on fire instead of taking their rightful places tied to the stake is just wrong.
Absolutely deportable.
Don't tell me how to quote made up shit and I won't tell you.
Schwarzchild 3.14
I actually got placed via a headhunter, the company liked me so much they bought out the contract and started paying me the same amount they were paying the recruiter once the term was up where the recruiter would get kickbacks if I got a raise (that's a thing.) Then the recruiter calls me a few months later with a job offer about 2.5x what the original salary was, I hear them out, they say they're going to get everything lined up and for me to call back the next day to do a conference call with the potential client. I call back the next day, there's obviously a conference line active, no client - just the recruiter saying they're expecting the client to come in soon. In the meantime he starts talking about salary, asks what I'm looking for, mention the figure he said without adding something like "that you mentioned yesterday" and then acts shocked and starts asking why I wanted the sudden pay jump if the original amount was good enough. I dimly response something along the lines of "for savings" or "to spend" without prefixing it with anything or elaborating. He continues the act and ultimately says he'll have to think about it. Within the next week he contacts the company I was placed with and says I called asking about a position that was much higher paying and outside my skillset and that I'm actively shopping around for new positions because I'm unsatisfied with the pay there, but they have another guy who has a track record of sticking it out with companies for years and is loyal as all Hell (found this out months later.) They hire Mr. Loyal, who turns out to be a complete fucking fraud who doesn't know shit about the job beyond how to pretend he's working and shuffle off blame on others, Mr. Loyal gets promoted to management within a month. 10 months down the road Mr. Loyal as lost 15% of the clients with another 75% teetering on the edge of wanting to leave, screaming at devs, managers, salesmen, the owner of the company, etc daily because their projects are late and nothing is what Mr. Loyal promised (turns out Mr. Loyal was outdoing the most sleazy of salesman, as a development head, in overpromising and under delivering.) Ultimately My. Loyal tries to cover his ass by trying to throw myself and another developer under the bus behind our backs while promising us everything was improving in private, this comes out in a group email where he chews us out CC'ing all the higher managers and HR and the entire dev team. So then comes a response of all of Mr. Loyal's fuckups, how he actively interfered with us "disrespectful" developers from patching up issues with clients, how these 75% of clients screaming at us every day about how they were about to leave and how there are communication issues internally which the dev lead assures them is not his fault, etc. Mr. Loyal "resigned" while kept on contract (mainly because they didn't quite know what to make of the situation, he was that great of a lying scumbag, but at the same time he failed to defend any of the ~40 specific points cited and simply send an email in mostly caps saying we were going to have a "friendly little conversation" [think Godfather tone, from someone having an ego-fueled power trip so intense he must have a micropenis] with HR.) 2 months of Mr. Loyal not actively fucking us at every turn (with the exception of 1 big client who was given exclusively to Mr. Loyal to prove himself,) and 65% of those 75% of clients were ecstatically happy with the internal change of promoting a non-dev to handle client interaction to keep our schedules clear while we focused on fixing everything. 3-4 months later that one client Mr. Loyal had finally got sick of the false promises and zero delivery (literally nothing,) and left. And so went Mr. Loyal, over a year after the fiasco began.
Moral of the story: headhunters can land you a decent position, but don't trust them for an instant.
If you think the recruiters have a lavish lifestyle on your dime, I would wholeheartedly disagree.
Sorry if I didn't make my understanding of that point clear. I thought my statement that headhunters were 1 very skilled negotiator with a horde of unskilled recruiters working for them. Obviously if someone can convince hordes of highly intelligent individuals to essentially give up 20-25% of their potential pay by going through them so well they can script it and have people completely clueless to negotiating, the target industry, the target resources, etc achieve conversions then they aren't going to be paying the low-ranking guys well.
You're the sad one. Sad.
Every CPU since 2006 has backdoors built in, they don't need to have backdoors in individual protocols. If they have cyber-backdoor agreements with the nation manufacturing the chips they have a backdoor.
They were making the decision of how much I'm worth for me.
They already have that number figured out, their bonuses are determined based on how far they can widdle you down below that. Headhunters are fucking deplorable (and not in the happy-go-lucky MAGA way) - they tend to take 15% minimum (so if you get in the door at 85k you can bet the company you end up working for is paying 100k - which makes them expect more while you don't actually see it all.) At the same time they work for companies which are just as bad, and they might make $1k as a one-time bonus if they can get another 10k off. You "won" because they follow a script, most of them don't know how to negotiate but they work for absolute sociopathic pieces of garbage who have negotiating down so well they can train anyone to do it with a script. I've actually interviewed with headhunters who never looked up from the (quite literal) script through the entire 30-60 minute interview.
Not that the gender pay gap is real, but there's an obvious loophole they will use: give a range of 5k (at most,) hint (or don't) through the interview of other roles or multiple roles, if someone bites and can demonstrate experience for those roles they get more, if not they get the entry-level posting the jobs will all be listed as.
You could end it and rest forever if you really wanted to.
My original point is that you can be at the forefront of technology and not be a nerd. I think the defining feature of a "nerd" is some sort of antisocial behavior.
No, you can't. The defining feature of a "nerd" is a genius level IQ and an obsession with figuring out why things do what they do, also usually a desire to exploit the laws of nature to your advantage in ways nobody else has.
It's sadder to think you believe your words are something else.
The state develops naturally from the structure, it starts at zero.
Imagine if you will: a world in which the other inhabitants are mere monkeys, like Planet of the Apes.
Now contrast with reality, for a man like Chris Langan:
Now think to yourself: you live in a world run by damned dirty apes, where success and means are virtually decoupled from intellectual ability, where in effect the animals have it better than the sentient creatures of the world. Would you hoot and holler and fling shit like the apes to be king of monkeyworld, or would you aim to withdraw and try not to get beaten with rocks for being different? In fact, you might even come off as a paranoid and depressed reclusive douche.
But good news! You don't have to take this post as a tautological proof of itself: you can move to Congo right the fuck now and try to become the king of a tribe of silverback gorillas, I bet you'd be just like Tarzan, wouldn't that be grand? Go on, give it a shot.
Actually, life is much older than that as we have evidence of fairly complex photosynthetic bacteria about 3.5 billion years ago (but whatever, only 500 million years at the minimum.) Approximately 1.4 billion years later (2.1 billion years ago) were the first known Eukaryota (i.e. a bacteria decided to eat another bacteria, decided "huh, this fucker tastes too good to digest, and kept feeding and licking it, thus the mitochondria was born.) Another 1.5 billion years (about 600 million years ago) and the first Eukaryota start working together and delegating shit, so you have multicellular organisms (probably just Jellyfish, but the start of neurons, yay.) Another 70 million years (530 million years ago) and you have fish. Another 160 million years (370 million years ago) and you have amphibians.. Another 40-50 million years (310-320 million years ago) and you get reptiles. Another 109-175 million years (145-201 million years ago) and you get the first mammals. Another 137.5-169.4 million years (5.6-7.5 million years ago) and the Human lineage diverged from the chimps. Another 5.4-7.3 million years (approx 200,000 years ago) you have the start of tribal societies. Another 196,600 years (approx 3,400 years ago) you have the start of writing and passing down knowledge. Another 3,400 and you have exponential increases in technological development (even during the dark ages!)
The point of this being: we're already about there if we weren't, but we are. I may be radically misinterpreting what you wrote if you mean to say it didn't take a lot of time because we can just scan neurons which are already in the proper configuration via MRI then replicate the structure, but it seems from your multiple comments that is not the case.
We don't know how the brain works fully, but it does and we can make more. We don't know how the structure of the brain works fully, but it does and we can replicate it. Hell, we don't really even know how semantic search works in full (in the sense that no developer can program it directly or make much sense of the data structure without weeks or months of sifting for a single thing,) but it does because we know how to make the simple pattern which makes it possible.
Is there a better way to make a brain, which you could run an an Arduino? Probably not, but that's irrelevant. If we had the processing power to simulate the neuron count in the brain with all their parallel connections we could make a brain. We wouldn't need to know more than how individual neurons calculate and the rough superstructure (which if we really want to cheat, we can just copy from an MRI - that's already been done - it took a long fucking time to simulate a second of activity on the largest supercomputer - but it's been done.) That's the thing about AI in general: we don't need to know how it works to make it work. This is a bit of a diversion because while operators rarely know how to design and build a machine they use in their daily work, usually the designers do - that simply isn't the case anymore.
The only barrier to AI with our current understanding of it is compute power. Are there barriers to understanding AI? Sure, there likely always will be, especially if you want to step through the thing and see the multidimensional callstack in a sensible manner - but that's where Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness comes in: a system cannot define itself, so we are unlikely to ever reach a point where we can step through and fully comprehend something as complex as ourselves, but we don't need to, we only need to know the component parts and where to stick them.
The pace of technological development and change is exponential, and we're over the midway point.
The mathematical formulation is quite different from special relativity, it just happens to fully encompass it. The important part of that being that it covers more, such as unifying all the forces as well as giving proper descriptions of inertia, matter, energy, time, and space which allow creation/destruction/manipulation of them.
It's sad that you deem yourself worthy to speak of science.
You're off target about pretty much everything else, though. The Michelson-Morley experiment was only the first of many, many experiments that validate special relativity
The Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted nearly 20 years before special relativity was published, it didn't "validate" shit, it's an experiment with a result which can be explained many many ways, inclusive of by the relativistic aether Morley went to his death believing in. Aether theory was never at odds with relativity because it wasn't a fully refined theory at the time, just a method of interpretation and the modern versions are "valid" per your definition a Hell of a lot more than relativity is because there are things such as the quantum foam relativity doesn't even account for which aether theory does.
with today's measurement technologies that can measure the speed of light directly, there is no need to go to all the trouble Michelson and Morley did to do interferometry.
Are you joking? That's literally the exact same setup as they used in LIGO. Moreover, what the Hell are you talking about with "direct measurements" of the speed of light? The Michelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with trying to measure the speed of light, that's a metric they used to determine whether or not a static aether existed. What you just wrote is the functional equivalent of "with today's measurement technologies that can measure the temperature directly, there is no need to go to all the trouble that my mother did to use a meat thermometer when baking a turkey.
Most optical gyroscopes use fibers these days, and don't deal with the speed of light in vacuum at all, although you can do it with ring laser gyroscopes... which obey special relativity.
THAT IS THE EXACT EXPERIMENT Morley used to show the relativistic aether exists! Did you just Google all this shit an Wikipedia and jot down your failed interpretation? Give it the respect the subject deserves and read the materials underlying the research for a few years (at least) before going around professing your knowledge on the subject.
Have you even read the actual (non-heaviside-vector reduction) Maxwell field equations? Have you worked them at all? Are you aware aether theory was never at odds with relativity, because it predicted relativity as we see it today? Are you aware that the Michelson-Morley experiment was only designed to detect a static aether through which matter moved, and Morley later devised an experiment to test for a relativistic aether which showed positive results, the principles of which are in use today in optical gyroscopes, among other devices (but hey, it makes so much more sense to consider those the product of a bunch of separate effects instead of one underlying thing, right? Occam's Razor be damned!)
Face it, you're speaking out of your ass and have never bothered to research what the "kooks" were talking about, go be euphoric.
Einstein didn't predict shit, he plagiarized his theory from Minkowski, Poincare, and Lorentz. Moreover, gravity waves were predicted by an extension of electrodynamics and Einstein misinterpreted the equations he stole as "spacetime" when the relativistic media is aether with space and time as emergent effects.
The government might if they get hands on the data, but that's an issue with all of your data, not just the stuff collected by voice.
That is an absolutely ignorant argument. The most basic rule of security is to reduce your attack surface - i.e. don't go throwing your data around everywhere, certainly not to a bunch of places you yourself don't at least control.