“Ad hominem” in the sense that someone whose “proof” that π is a rational number is rejected, unread, by a mathematics professor complains that the rejection is “ad hominem”.
The best short read on “technological solutions” is here. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cm…
But basic point: any such solutions require enormous trust, and extensive common legal frameworks, and common implementation of IT. Both sides have to be convinced and they will take years to negotiate and implement.
They are not, save from the perspective of eternity, a solution to the backstop.
@hayward_katy here marking @ShankerASingham’s piece as promoted by @SteveBakerHW: to return to my metaphor above, taking the part of the maths professor bothering to read the “proof” that π is a rational number.
And here is a biting but justified criticism of @ShankerASingham’s woeful drafting: drafting designed to obscure the intellectual disingenuousness of the exercise.
