Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everything we know about spies is wrong

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#111

Post by red_admiral »

like_any_other wrote: post #56
red_admiral wrote: post #17

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.

The alternative phrasing would not, IMHO, have been true. If someone genuinely claimed that, then entirely in the spirit of the original quote, lots of people would chime in.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#112

Post by mdhb »

rramadass wrote: post #110
mdhb wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That bigger puzzle you are talking about is a topic I’m extremely familiar with. You appear to have read 3 random books (none of which were written by anyone who worked in that field) at some point and are now relying on excessive use of quotation marks to make it seem more mysterious than it is. I’m not looking to debate you on this one, I was pointing out that I happen to know with an incredibly high level of confi…

You can claim whatever you want on the Internet. I have seen no evidence from you (links/articles/books etc.) regarding your knowledge of the subject domain and hence do not have to take you seriously at all. The resources i have listed are for the general public to get an idea of how to think about the overall subject domain and not some rah-rah storybook. People who study strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfar…

I have a very hard time believing you actually study “strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc” and also came up with that particular list of book suggestions.

One is from a straight up fraud.

Another is based on an series of interviews with the man who is widely known as the single worst leader the CIA has ever had because he was so paranoid and ever since they got rid of him they have spent every moment warning against ever having another person like him in a leadership position again.

The other I don’t know but seems to be really aligned with this same ultra paranoid worldview but has nothing to do with actual professionals.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#113

Post by sgt »

petesergeant wrote: post #38
sgt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Slow Horses on Apple TV+

Slow Horses is some of the best TV ever made, but note that it’s about the Security Service, not the Secret Intelligence Service: they’re more FBI than the CIA.

I don't think that's entirely accurate though. MI5 operates both domestically and outside the country as well, as long as it pertains to national security (or threats to their citizens). Hence why MI5 operated in Berlin during the Cold War, for instance.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#114

Post by psd1 »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #108
dfxm12 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the context. Correcting impertinent details comes off as pedantic and detracts from the conversation at hand. Like, if you and your partner are talking about how delicious your meal at a restaurant was with another couple, it's not worth correcting your partner over the name of server, or if they got the price wrong by a few bucks. Maybe it's worth correcting your partner if they say you got the halibut wh…

This is absurd. If I mention the name of the server or the price it's because it's supposed to mean something to what I'm saying, as otherwise I wouldn't be mentioning those things at all. If I get them wrong, I would surely appreciate my partner correcting me. Correcting typos when everyone can see what was supposed to be there may be pedantic as it serves no communication value, but correcting facts?

You have a narrow view on people's reasons for speaking.

My sisters-in-law speak because, if their jaws stop moving for a few minutes, they will suffocate and die. Persiflage is uttered that has no bearing on anything else said.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#115

Post by rramadass »

mdhb wrote: post #112
rramadass wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can claim whatever you want on the Internet. I have seen no evidence from you (links/articles/books etc.) regarding your knowledge of the subject domain and hence do not have to take you seriously at all. The resources i have listed are for the general public to get an idea of how to think about the overall subject domain and not some rah-rah storybook. People who study strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfar…

I have a very hard time believing you actually study “strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc” and also came up with that particular list of book suggestions. One is from a straight up fraud. Another is based on an series of interviews with the man who is widely known as the single worst leader the CIA has ever had because he was so paranoid and ever since they got rid of him they have s…

You keep using the term "professional" but all your posts so far are anything but. There is no information, no specifics and in short nothing of any value whatsoever which i keep calling out. And yet you keep responding with even more empty verbiage.

The book authors i have quoted are established academics/intellectuals/investigative journalists (i.e. the people who study “strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc” for a living) which you don't want to seem to accept thus reflecting quite badly on your grasp/understanding of the subject domain (assuming there is anything at all there in the first place). I can do no more than suggest education followed by introspection as a possible cure.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#116

Post by seba_dos1 »

psd1 wrote: post #114
seba_dos1 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd. If I mention the name of the server or the price it's because it's supposed to mean something to what I'm saying, as otherwise I wouldn't be mentioning those things at all. If I get them wrong, I would surely appreciate my partner correcting me. Correcting typos when everyone can see what was supposed to be there may be pedantic as it serves no communication value, but correcting facts?

You have a narrow view on people's reasons for speaking. My sisters-in-law speak because, if their jaws stop moving for a few minutes, they will suffocate and die. Persiflage is uttered that has no bearing on anything else said.

I don't think "some people out there spill a lot of non-sense out of their mouths" is a valid argument against correcting facts; if anything, it may be an argument for trying to avoid such people if possible.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#117

Post by fmajid »

mangamadaiyan wrote: post #11
nativeit wrote: post #5

The story of Nora Inayat Khan is an affecting tale of incredible bravery, heroism, and selfless sacrifice. She nearly survived the war, but was captured only days before she was due to be extracted, and died at the hands of one of Germany’s most sadistic torturers. Nora Khan was a “regular” citizen who rose to the moment, committed herself entirely to the allied cause, and nearly single-handedly maintained radio cont…

> regular citizen Almost, but not quite. She had royal blood on both sides of her father's family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Inayat_Khan Not that this takes away anything from what you wrote, I just happened to be in one of my pedantic moods :)

Some of it being the blood of Tippu Sultan, who died fighting against the British to protect the independence of Mysore (and whose rocket technology the British stole and led to the verse in "The Star-Spangled Banner" about "the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air"). If anyone had any reason not to assist the British Empire, it was her.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#118

Post by petesergeant »

sgt wrote: post #113
petesergeant wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slow Horses is some of the best TV ever made, but note that it’s about the Security Service, not the Secret Intelligence Service: they’re more FBI than the CIA.

I don't think that's entirely accurate though. MI5 operates both domestically and outside the country as well, as long as it pertains to national security (or threats to their citizens). Hence why MI5 operated in Berlin during the Cold War, for instance.

FBI and MI5 are definitely slightly different beasts, in that the FBI has a far larger scope, and also incorporate the roles of various UK agencies like the NCA, Special Branch, etc. That said, my understanding is that the FBI absolutely had a presence in Berlin during that time

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#119

Post by sgt »

petesergeant wrote: post #118
sgt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's entirely accurate though. MI5 operates both domestically and outside the country as well, as long as it pertains to national security (or threats to their citizens). Hence why MI5 operated in Berlin during the Cold War, for instance.

FBI and MI5 are definitely slightly different beasts, in that the FBI has a far larger scope, and also incorporate the roles of various UK agencies like the NCA, Special Branch, etc. That said, my understanding is that the FBI absolutely had a presence in Berlin during that time

That's interesting! Who knows, maybe they'll at some point make a movie about that (FBI in Berlin). I'm sure there was plenty of intrigue.
Post reply on HN