nostr:npub1knzsux7p6lzwzdedp3m8c3c92z0swzc0xyy5glvse58txj5e9ztqpac73p I'm not seeing anything anywhere in that article that says what evidence there is for its incendiary claims. The author mentions something that "momentarily flashed on a projector" and quotes the words "semantic matching", and ... so far as I can see, that's it?

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that Google is doing what the article alleges, or some other equally nefarious thing, but I'm having trouble thinking what could possibly (still less _plausibly_) have been on that slide, short and clear enough to be read when merely "momentarily flashed", that would justify the claims in the article.

Am I missing something here? Can anyone suggest what might actually have been on the slide? Or why the author of the article is so very vague about it?