I strongly disagree with your interpretation. The person quoting him is saying that. Maybe the person quoting him is trying to trick the reader, but I haven’t been able to track down the context.
He’s definitely NOT describing how well he could do his job.
Imagine trying to play checkers when you couldn’t see 13 squares (20.3% of the board), or solving a chess quiz when the contents of 2 squares (3.125%) (chosen by a malicious intelligence) are unknown.
The thing about non-public information is that it is selected for value- but it is selected for value to the opponents of the people keeping it secret. If you aren’t the enemy of the people who are concealing information, there’s a good chance that the information they are concealing isn’t interesting to you.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. The person quoting him is saying that. Maybe the person quoting him is trying to trick the reader, but I haven’t been able to track down the context.
He’s definitely NOT describing how well he could do his job.
Imagine trying to play checkers when you couldn’t see 13 squares (20.3% of the board), or solving a chess quiz when the contents of 2 squares (3.125%) (chosen by a malicious intelligence) are unknown.
The thing about non-public information is that it is selected for value- but it is selected for value to the opponents of the people keeping it secret. If you aren’t the enemy of the people who are concealing information, there’s a good chance that the information they are concealing isn’t interesting to you.