We're not "not starting families", like its a choice. It's not economically feasible.

Calculators!

We have over time abstracted away the hard-for-people-easy-for-computers tasks to the point often people just do the hard-for-computers stuff, like interpretation of results, and coordination of next steps

Thinking in-universe here, where this sort of system exists, wearing an equivalent of a full-dive-condom which prevents the feedback you speak of, would maybe make an operator too slow in responding to countermeasures or make the whole process the mental equivalent of walking through treacle. A skilled operator is more effective without it, despite the higher risk?

All of the above is pretty moot though in the real world, computers can and always will operate at a million times the speed of a person, I can't really see the value proposition of being "in" the computer, when all you'd ever really be doing is deploying icebreakers out ahead of you and waiting for the response

A quick check states a Raspberry Pi 4B at 100% CPU draws 6.4W, so in perfect conditions with a perfect panel, it's just about approaching feasible to run a chip on a phone sized panel.

However a Gameboy is much simpler than a Pi. It seems the Gameboy draws about 70-80mA@1.5V, or 0.1W, which is very impressive. I would say that would 100% be physically feasible to power with a gameboy sized solar panel in our lifetime.

I agree that it comes across defeatist using these mantras in relation to things you can change, like skills, outlook, fitness, number and/or quality of relationships.

It would also potentially expose any conspiritors, because the locked-out employee's responsibilities+communications would be forwarded to someone else for those 10 days. This wouldn't help you if the locked-out employee contacted conspirator's out-of-band to warn them however.

At least, that's the explanation. I guess the logic is that to avoid this, you would need to be making _larger_ fraudulent moves, less often. This would show up stronger against the background trade. Alternatively, simply the existence of these very obvious anti-fraud measures discourages people even if it's entirely possible they are a placebo. Similar to Lie Detectors, which only work on people who believe they work.

I think it's value for company resilience doing forced hit-by-a-bus tests on their employees on the regular is far more valuable in the long run.

It's not that it's too strong, it's that it lashes out at things that aren't actually threats because it's ability to recognise what is and isn't a threat is diminished