>>379593
I covered Obama's (& his handlers whoever they were) means and opportunity.
But motive?
that is what the general digs have been covering for 3+ months now.
Of course they had a motive.
So yeah, motive, means, opportunity. Yeah.
Now I need to estimate the supercomputers' teraflops, extabytes, etc. And whether/how so much data could be stored or reduced to something workable without loss of fidelity.
Then estimate how much data 5000 fields x 220 records is, as updated in near realtime, and how much computing is needed to analyze it.
Then compare the DoE capacity with social engineering problem set, and see whether there is a fit. I suspect there is. Anyway more computing capacity could always be acquired if needed … who is going to turn down an appropriation for computer hardware that is tasked with preventing nuclear war?
I am already aware that CERN's data storage and throughput requirements were some of the highest in the world, at the time that information was made available to me. Extrapolating from that date to the present, by a Moore's Law factor, might be enough to estimate what they've got now. Is it all for particle collisions? I doubt it. Anons have said CERN is a funding black hole with no transparency and no oversight.