Reactive like a Dog

You know how dogs read social cues? The torture computer is not that skilled. It is that sensitive. It’s highly reactive. Only it’s not that good. It’s the emo kid of the family. It likes high drama. It’s programmed to record actions and events of and around the torture victim, analyze and catalogue that activity and then respond with torture attacks which best match the activity. It’s striving to be relevant.

Well the torture computer seems to think like a Hollywood movie writer. It has one of the worst understandings of real time action around. It is perfectly reactive. It does what they need it to do in a speedy manner. It is not so relevant.

None of the torture attacks legitimately match to real time activity. It seems correct because the computer does the attack in response to what the victim or someone or something around them does. The torture attacks are all creations of the torture operators. They’re one perspective on how the case goals connect to the victim. Which in truth does not connect at all.

Here’s an example of how pre-programmed torture attacks go wrong: A victim is being attacked to think that the torture technologies are coming from vans following them around. This means when the victim is in a location there must be vans around them to spark the torture attack. You see the problem? No vans=no attack.

Now, this victim is not physically controlled by the torture group so they are doing things they choose to do. They do not work. They are home all day. This means there is less chance they are in contact with vans. So the torture attack runs less. The torture group has created an attack to run during non-van related times. They tell the victim there are two ways to transmit the torture technologies. They also use satellites. Well that breaks the entire claim they were trying to prove apart. Why use vans when the satellites are enough?

Because of the victim’s behavior this attack which seemed to be a main story on how the torture technologies work has been stifled. The torture group wants to do more torture attacks than this victim is triggering. They must change the attack. But the victim was fully believing the vans were responsible for their torture! Now their opinion changes, to the next new claim by the torture group.

It’s a complex system. It does not work well. The people running it have shown that a semi-automated torture computer’s seeming efficiency is countered by its inability to predict what real life will throw at it. This kind of problem is why victims reports on the torture are consistently evolving. This is how a victim can control their torture. This is why victims find ways to survive their torture. They crack the system.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.