"No_Try;c-1879706" wrote:
"UnbelieverInME;c-1879684" wrote:
We'll never know for sure one way or the other frankly. That's half the issue. It's meant to be done without people knowing. That's the point of it not being detectable. Plausible deniability.
They can deny it. But with sufficient data anything can be reliably proven. Such is the nature of statistics.
This is the same for political scene, scientific scene and worldwide events. I don't wanna go into hyperbole. It's evident such happenstances is numerous. Some people pursued the data of outcomes while the influential public speakers denies it for years. Then deniability goes away.
But there is no realistic way to gather enough data, so still it is a matter of beleiving that your low ammout of data is "enough".
To make things worse the negation posted by Kyno does not negate the OP question, actually the opposite, the answer is made in a very especific way that creates the perfect hole for the EA to put this system and keep that affirmation as true.
