171–180 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I mean strict ban on sight no politics like it helped usenet and irc communities in the 90s and helps slack, discord, reddit and other forums right now. Stay on topic or gtfo.
HN tried banning "all politics" once. it was one of the bigger clusterfucks in the history of the site.
It could just be my ignorance, but is world hunger really as inevitable as they say. Couldn't other countries step up production or tap into their grain reserves? >World hunger is unavoidable... I can't tell you what the higher ups were thinking when they decided to go through with this operation
Verified by two anonymous sources, according to a “Bellingcat exec director”, who in turn has been verified by Twitter (which amounts to what, I do not know — verified their name? Their job? That they are competent at their job?) A little tenuous, but maybe this Bellingcat employee is super famous and renowned? It would be interesting if people here can come up with a better chain of verification. Until then, it’s ce…
It's interesting that otherwise smart people here believe that it must be true because two anonymous and unverified sources also say it's true. And this is purportedly intelligence information coming from the FSB! I mean, military intelligence, what could go wrong with trusting sensitive intelligence of an ongoing war that someone posted on Twitter or Facebook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at his hand with the pen at 8:38-8:40, his palm, close to wrist, is definitely clipping into foreground
Yes we all saw those clips - but find the original HQ video first and make your opinion from that.
4k quality even has interlacing artifacts which makes me think it is as close to original broadcast you can get
Side note: if they really thought of sending "politically undesirables" to the front, they must be desperate. And in Russia, of all places! Don't they know what happened when frustrated soldiers came back from the front?
christo grozev says it's probably not fake, according to his two fsb contacts (though they disagree with some of the author's conclusions): https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500197460626624513 edit: missing word
But where is the "chain of trust" here? Why should we trust either Grozev or his two anonymous "FSB contacts"? Especially on a subject where every side has incentives to lie, distort or exaggerate the truth.
It was a tense week, but Russia has lost the war. They can drag it out, but ultimately victory will go to Ukraine. The reasons for this are subtle but obvious. The Russian military machine can't operate outside of Russia. They have no way of transporting fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies to the front lies. This means that their effective operational capabilities are limited to five days. It's been a hobby of…
It depends what you define as win. Its true that russia will find it _very_ difficult to sustain this level of effort for any level of time. Its logistic capacity has been pushed way beyond efficiency. but with that in mind, whos going to push putin out of ukraine? yes the people can pick off soldiers for the next few years, but thats not peace. It is currently within Putin's grasp to freeze the conflict as it is now…
> 1) stage a dirty bomb, blame it on ukraine, order a general mobilisation.
Equivalent to #5.
> 2) freeze the conflict now, hold on to the "gains"
This would be the smartest move. But it would also signal that Russia admits defeat, which may work against Putin. After all, his goal is to hold on to power.
> 3) Assainate Zelenskyy
Putin is certainly trying. It may be media exaggeration, but supposedly he's survived three attempts.
If it happens, though, I don't think it will tip the scale -- Ukraine won because there are competent people in charge, and because Zelenskyy didn't flee. Zelenskyy dying would still leave competent people in charge.
> 4) Stage some other stupid humanitarian horror(bombing of russian hospital/orphanage/school) general mobilisation
Equivalent to #5.
> 5) carry on, regardless.
It's impossible for Russia to make progress, because they have no way of carrying fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies to the front lines. Any time they try to extend their lines into Ukraine, they're cut short, because five days later the front line runs out of fuel. And they can't guard their supply lines because they never achieved air superiority.
Putin's options are extremely limited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word for this is LARP (Live Action Role Play). This is where some message board troll uses publically available information and plausible extrapolations to pretend to be some "high level insider" leaking something. When the prediction doesn't pan out, the usual response is "two more weeks." Qanon is the most notorious and successful example of this phenomenon. You don't normally see these on HN, but they are comm…
Except this letter didn’t come from some message board, but a source that is generally considered reliable (admin of gulagu). It would be good if you knew something about the topic before throwing around LARP-accusations. I’m willing to bet that you are completely unfamiliar with the people publicly involved in this release, odds are that you can’t even read Russian.
Or the admin is bored.
Or the admin got this sent randomly from someone. Maybe an FSB operative, or maybe a convincing troll, or Russian or Ukrainian or frankly any intelligence service.
It’s completely unknowable. Any heuristics for determining authenticity go out the window, because they would be used by a faker too.
Hell, even concluding it’s a fake is dangerous, because what if that’s the intention? Next thing you might be wondering if this is reverse psychology and trying to conclude things from something that really has no informational content to the lay user.
While it looks like it’s interesting, I can’t help but feel that the informational content is zero of maybe even negative. There is absolutely no way for the lay internet user to corroborate one word of it that isn’t already public information. Whether it looks or feels plausible is also meaningless: it could “feel right” because it is, or because someone took effort to design it this way. So best thing for me is to…
While it looks like it’s interesting, I can’t help but feel that the informational content is zero of maybe even negative. There is absolutely no way for the lay internet user to corroborate one word of it that isn’t already public information. Whether it looks or feels plausible is also meaningless: it could “feel right” because it is, or because someone took effort to design it this way. So best thing for me is to…
In the first days of the Snowden leaks, I was very skeptical (and got a lot of heat because of it), because, although intuitively it sounded true and fairly aligned with my world view, he seemingly didn't say anything that one couldn't just come up with and at the time only one news paper has seen the actual documents, vouching for it.