61–70 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard this one about Linux in the '90s. "If you need help with doing something in Linux, don't ask for help - you'll get ignored. Just boldly state Linux can't do that and you'll have PhDs running to prove you wrong."
It works on hacker news and reddit too, for almost any subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard this one about Linux in the '90s. "If you need help with doing something in Linux, don't ask for help - you'll get ignored. Just boldly state Linux can't do that and you'll have PhDs running to prove you wrong."
It works on hacker news and reddit too, for almost any subject.
Ask them about the story with some facts wrong. If they don't correct you, the story is probably false and they are just confirming anything.
This is pure gold, and still works on the internet to get the specs for PLA tanks: > If she wants to know something specific, but doesn’t want people to notice her asking questions, she should simply make incorrect statements while in the company of experts. Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men.
> Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men. Observe the importance of phrasing. If this had been put as "men enjoy sharing knowledge, while women are content to let others wallow in ignorance and error", it would have ruffled a great many more feathers.
("X is more likely to correct you" can obviously also have a negatively charged interpretation, which I'm leaving as an exercise to the reader)
This is pure gold, and still works on the internet to get the specs for PLA tanks: > If she wants to know something specific, but doesn’t want people to notice her asking questions, she should simply make incorrect statements while in the company of experts. Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/09/19/s...
Another interesting one is "The Nazis Next Door" about the US recruitment of ex-Nazis after WWII as spies in the growing Cold War, many with records of war crimes, who were resettled in the USA after their overseas service was completed.
https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-na...
Incidentally, there's a big difference between a spy and an assassin, and James Bond was not a spy - he was an assassin who was 'licensed to kill'. It's a mistake to conflate these two things, even if they're both managed by the same intelligence agency.
People interested in this stuff should check out; 1) Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA by Edward Jay Epstein - https://archive.org/details/Deception-TheInvisibleWarBetween... 2) Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control by Kathleen Taylor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing:_The_Science_of_T... 3) Yuri Bezmenov's lectures (available on Youtube) on "Subversion Model/Psychological War…
Also I’m not familiar with that second link but it gives me major red flags at first glance. There is some ok stuff out there on that topic. One of the darker ones that comes to mind came out of the 80s when Hezbollah kidnapped the CIA station chief in Lebanon and then basically used him as a real life experiment of just how badly can you psychologically torture someone and give them the slowest shittiest death possible I think it was a 15 month process in the end and it’s probably one of if not the most horrifying story I’ve ever heard.
There’s lots of places to get that story but I believe one of the people who lead that torture also wrote a book about it but I’ve not read it personally.
On a completely different note, my favorite fictional spy, Bernard Sampson, says something like this (can't find the exact quote) "experienced agents are like nervous old ladies - always worrying about everything."
Essentially that "brave" agents are either inexperienced or dead. Sampson is able to do things like shoot but overall he feels its a sign of incompetence if it becomes necessary.
If you haven't already, try the "Game, Set, Match" trilogy.
Neither James Bond nor Jason Bourne were really "ripped hunks." Maybe an argument could be made for Daniel Craig, but really most Bonds and Bourne were just kind of handsome, charming men who knew their way around a gun.
Is anyone else burned out of these headlines? Doing X for fun and profit Everything we knew about X is wrong I did X for $timespan and Y happened
Title it in any other format and people will say it is clickbait.
I wonder about the practical reason this occurs but I suspect the reality for a given individual could range from being an impatient reader to encountering a poorly-written article. I also wonder how the perception would differ (not trying to start a debate, just noting a thought) if the title here included the "Why" from the title there since, at least in this case, the article does a decent job of answering the question: they don't want to appear as spies.