Did you mean: > Only 12% of American male youth who are __not__ qualified for the military __are__ in college?

Without reading your citations, your argument threw me for a loop.

I don't think so. I think what was meant was what was literally said: that 88% of youth qualified for the military are in college.

66% of youth are not qualified for the military or college, leaving a remainder of 34% that are qualified for the military, college, or both.

X% of youth qualified for college but not the military (qualified for college here meaning attending college, I think.), leaving (34-X)%.

Of those, 88% attend college .88(34-X)%,

leaving .12(34-X)% eligible for recruitment. Which ends up a successful recruiting number like 63.5K, which is from one of the references.

I could be wrong, but it could make sense.

But also, 2/3rds of 34% also leaves a remainder of about 12% (which is a bit coincidental), so maybe what was meant to be said was that only 12% of (all American youth) are (qualified) and not (in college), rather than only 12% of (the qualified) are not (in college.)

In a theoretical sense, you are right.

The life of most currency notes is bank to customer to merchant to bank, and the bank could just track serial numbers to figure out your spending habits.

Practically, it would make little sense. The actual life of most currency notes is bank1 to customer to merchant to bank2, and there is a large probability that bank1 and bank2 are different entities. And then, so many more people use the credit card system, and it is so much easier to track people there, that the ROI on tracking people using cash would be low.

I would be very surprised if any bank tried to scan currency note serial numbers.

Serial number scanning is a common feature of electronic cash counters (also networking!) I'm pretty sure all incoming serial numbers are scanned and checked against a database to find stolen banknotes. I don't know if any banks are tracking outgoing serial numbers, but it would be pretty trivial to implement. I've noticed when I go in and withdraw cash from a human teller that the cash no longer comes from a drawer, but rather is dispensed by an automatic cash handling machine and then handed to me.

Is the probability that large for bank1 vs bank2? There’s only a few major banks left. Chase has so many ATMs it’s hard to compete with the access.

I live in a city with a population of ~ 25,000, and we have I think 10 bank branches, 1 credit union branch, a different credit union ATM (they closed their branch but left an ATM), and a gas station ATM. We've got Chase, BofA, Wells Fargo, the other 7 are more of local or regional banks.

I always thought that the Gettier problem was an academic curiosity.

Someone who justifiably holds beliefs about the eventual impact of AI that later turn out to be true---can they be declared to have been knowledgeable about the subject matter?