This it total gibberish. No one cares about this sort of academic correction for observed outcomes. "Hmm some kids are continuously scoring better on math exams. Our pedagogy must be wrong! We must teach better." In reality math teachers who are good are extremely rare because people who are good at math tend to not be teachers.

I'm actually surprised that sentiments like this still exist. We work in technology, we've had enough contact with enough people to know that there is a difference between motivation to learn a hard technical field and the aptitude to actually do that field. "Anybody can learn basic addition" is mostly true. "Anybody can learn linear algebra" is not.

In order for a game like this (what you described is a type of game) to work, all players need to have the same level of trust vectors toward the other players. This type of situation only emerges in very localized instances. The military, for example.

>1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance [sic] and 500 years ago China was more advanced.

Yeah real life isn’t your science fiction fantasy. None of this is true. I am aghast at how ostensibly smart people have, just in the last couple years, adopted a view of history that is completely at odds with the written record.

>These foreigners, if not properly disposed of, will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.[1]

-Thomas Jefferson

The Founders had a conception of immigration that is completely at odds with the free for all that exists today, and Cato is partially responsible for people incorrectly thinking that the US was “literally built on the idea of immigration”.

[1] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/lhbcb/0490...

When these things come up people tend to venture into hyperbole. Probably because it's an incentives issue (it gets clicks and upvotes). If "preserving order" was the number everyone in the judiciary optimized for all of violent riots and protests against any cause you can imagine wouldn't have happened. But they did, so therefore this concept of "no evidence" is not true.

It's fine to be skeptical about private companies sharing "intelligence" (I would challenge the use of that word) with what are state-sanctioned entities (the police), and there's a long list of reasons to be skeptical. So obviously there is no reason to invent things that are not true.