This is a bit thin to be drawing any conclusions. Only what one person claims. Has this happened to anyone else? Might there be another reason (that they're not telling us) that this happened?
My son, an 18 year college student with no legal issues ever (except a speeding ticket) - had his Global Entry revoked last year. For no apparent reason. We filed an appeal and are waiting for a response. From everything I've read on it, it seems it could take upwards of 18 months to get a response. But per the article you linked, it seems that less than half are able to get it reinstated. So I'm not really hopeful.
In these modern times of ours, the word literally has taken on a new meaning, which is "not literally but with emphasis." This seems like the most likely explanation.
Even if that's the intended meaning of literally, it is still a reckless exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that Stephenson's endings are no more abrupt than some of Shakespeare's (check out Hamlet and Macbeth) or some of Frank Herbert's (see Dune and Children of Dune), and I never hear anyone go out of their way to describe either of them as being unable to write endings.
Everything from Stephenson after Anathem is an unremitting slog. He needs an editor who won't back down from telling him he needs to cut a third of his pages.
No, no it doesn't. Are you talking about the recent movies that split the first novel into two movies? The novel Dune ends after Paul defeats his enemies and becomes emperor.
I know that, I've read them too. In the SP, and in this thread we're discussing endings to novels. No one is complaining about a series that isn't finished due to the author's death.
I interpret the sense of "literally" here in the opposite way, i.e. without it the sentence may be taken to mean that the books metaphorically stop mid-sentence, but with it, they're saying that it's non-metaphorical and they really do. It would be bizarre wording otherwise.
These modern times that literally began in 1769. Oxford English Dictionary, “literally (adv.), sense I.1.c,” June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9189024563.
That doesn't work as well since you want people with crypto wallets you can steal. People applying for a blockchain company are far more likely to have this.
Scroll back through any AI evangelist's twitter (if they are still on Twitter, and they are) and it is better odds than a coin toss that you find they were an evangelist for either NFTs or crypto.
I mean the CEO of OpenAI is also the CEO of a shitcoin-for-your-iris-scans company, for one.
(Prosaically: these things are usually spear-phishing of some kind anyway, are they not?)
At least in my country, the amnesty only acts against left wing politicians and governments, you can literally compare similar cases or even worse that they intentionally don't emit no judgment, report or whatsoever
That's weird I have somehow opposite experience. I came from Europe and amnesty here usually agitate for foreign political prisoners or local unjustice. Some more crooked politicians of course hate them for obvious reasons but overall they are absolutely good actor.
I just wondering, would you mind to share from which part of the world you are for some context?
Required in that Nvidia would like to sell them to you. But customers seem to be hesitant and prefer x86-based DGX and similar systems. At least from what I've heard and seen.
Big tech has generally not loved this because they know that adding friction like id checks massively reduces attach rates. This is watered down enough that it's likely seen as a lesser evil.
reply