It's a pedantic distinction with presumably zero consequences.
Which is important to identify as it separates the eternally hopeful from those who've seen this cycle before.
> It's a pedantic distinction with presumably zero consequences
You say from unfalsifiable supposition.
That’s fine. You may not be wrong. But if the only evidence is mis-citing a shuttered programme, that’s important to note, too.
Irrelevant to the inaccuracy of the statement “Apple is part of PRISM.” Present tense. (Emphasis mine.)
It’s important in these discussions to separate the nihilists who are convinced all is always lost from those who know what they’re talking about.