That’s a good question. Your division equation of her retaining 1⁄6 of her original personality is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. I might even retcon it in. I hadn’t thought about the numbers that precisely. My original intention was that Trinity’s whole personality was erased in the parts that got hooked up to the collective but that hardware limitations keep less connected parts of her brain relatively unaltered. Like, the part of her brain which keeps her heart beating needn’t be overwritten.
It also might make sense for the collective to keep some of her skills and memories around, especially valuable areas of expertise the collective otherwise lacks. How the assimilation process works may change over the course of the story as technology advances.
I assumed a simple hack (the interface remains as it is, only the cable going in the opposite direction is cut/blocked) rather than some more complex reingeneering of the interface. But this is an unwarranted assumption on multiple levels—the way the interface works (a simple cut of cable will block copying in one direction without raising an alarm), the technical skills of the collective (if they are qualified enough to do a simple hack and avoid detection, it is not too unlikely to assume they could do a complex hack, too).
That’s a good question. Your division equation of her retaining 1⁄6 of her original personality is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. I might even retcon it in. I hadn’t thought about the numbers that precisely. My original intention was that Trinity’s whole personality was erased in the parts that got hooked up to the collective but that hardware limitations keep less connected parts of her brain relatively unaltered. Like, the part of her brain which keeps her heart beating needn’t be overwritten.
It also might make sense for the collective to keep some of her skills and memories around, especially valuable areas of expertise the collective otherwise lacks. How the assimilation process works may change over the course of the story as technology advances.
I assumed a simple hack (the interface remains as it is, only the cable going in the opposite direction is cut/blocked) rather than some more complex reingeneering of the interface. But this is an unwarranted assumption on multiple levels—the way the interface works (a simple cut of cable will block copying in one direction without raising an alarm), the technical skills of the collective (if they are qualified enough to do a simple hack and avoid detection, it is not too unlikely to assume they could do a complex hack, too).
My interpretation on first reading was the same as your original intention. I agree with the second paragraph, that seems reasonable.
(I’m writing this vaguely because I don’t remember syntax for spoilers, and can’t be bothered to look it up)