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

U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#991

Post by basisword »

bamboozled wrote: post #341
basisword wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you have a constitution, codified laws, judicial system, separation of powers, etc. We're just learning now none of these things are worth the paper they're written on.

Would you say that was always the case, or just a more recent development?

I think it's partly the way the US state is set up. When the president picks the Supreme Court judges and they have lifetime appointments you don't truly have separation of powers. Then the whole thing is meaningless. When you have "liberal" and "conservative" courts based on the make up of the judges you need to start again.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#992

Post by jaredklewis »

fp64 wrote: post #772
jaredklewis wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does entrepreneurship flourish in Russia? This would surprise me just because its GDP is smaller than Italy's, and around 17% of it is oil and gas. CAGR for past 10 years in Russia is ~1.5% (compared with ~2.3% for the US). Just seems logical to me that if entrepreneurship was flourishing, we would see more economic growth as a result.

You can’t take the GDP in US$ for comparison, given the sanctions and all. PPP is a better means. I do not know about entrepreneurship, but I do know that a Russian’s average purchase power is significantly higher than what you might expect from just looking at the GDP

It might be true that we can’t compare gdp between Russia and other countries, but even if so, wouldn’t we see a growth in GDP over time (ie comparing Russia to itself)?

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#993

Post by t0rst »

Great take from Timothy Snyder, including…

“Signal is attractive not because it is secure with respect to foreign adversaries, which it is not, but because it is secure with respect to American citizens and American judges.”

https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/signalgate-violating-...

(…maybe his article should be a top level HN post)

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#994

Post by fanatic2pope »

nopelynopington wrote: post #759
garfield_light wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real test will be the midterms.

I had a read of the upcoming seat changes in the midterms. Most of them look likely to remain the same colour, with only a handful flippable. And even then there are a few previously flipped to Dem that might revert. Could easily have even more red Senate or Congress in two years

This is "just" a state senate race, but it swung pretty hard to the Democrats.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/james-malone...

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#995

Post by bobtheborg »

GVIrish wrote: post #955
bobtheborg wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"classified information is ONLY supposed to viewed in a SCIF" No. No, no, no. Most classified information is NOT designated SCI. When classified info was mostly paper, it was placed in GSA approved safes in regular 'ole office buildings. You'd get to work, open your safe, and do your work. Most SIPRNet computers are not in SCIFs. Heck, you can even mail classified documents via USPS. Confidential and secret documents…

SCIFs are for viewing TS materials, whether or not they are SCI. Even then, SCIFs are often employed for processing things that are only marked Secret or systems only handling Secret. But yes, if we want to be specific, Secret has a lower bar and can be worked on outside of SCIFs but still not in public or at home.

Again, no. Not all TS material is SCI. You only need a SCIF for SCI.

"SCIFs are often employed for processing things that are only marked Secret or systems only handling Secret"

No. SCIFs are expensive. They are not built when they are not needed. They are only needed for SCI materials.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#996

Post by webninja »

hypeatei wrote: post #844
Thlom wrote: post #824

Everyone crying about the opsec failure and not that these people were cheering murdering women and children in one of the world's poorest country.

Caring about people in a far away country is not a winning strategy. Showing that this admin is harming national security and risking American lives is what gets voter attention.

I wish to highlight the pointlessness in your timing of your leftist activism. Trump cannot run for a third term due to the 22nd amendment to the constitution.

Therefore even if you found evidence that a small subset of the members held national security worse than Hillary secured her emails, (in this case, leaking a Yemen bombing attack 2 hours before it happened), there’s nothing left for voters to vote on.

The only thing far-left activists can do to change this administration is to wait 4 years for Harris, Hillary, or Bernie to run again. But they’ll need a winning platform to run on. Maybe campaigning on making America Great Again or putting America first will work better.

All this left-leaning activism is doing is helping other liberals lose even more of their sanity than they’ve already lost. One reason the democrats lost this election because they didn’t even care about their own American people, let alone other American people.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#997

Post by chris_wot »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #691
chris_wot wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Trump Whitehouse, not only do you believe the rules don't apply to you, but actually the rules don't apply to you.

Use Signal, an encrypted platform from the CIA with a charismatic public persona: the horror! Use an unencrypted email server in a closet for years: that's nothing.

Sheesh, false equivalence much? An unencrypted mail server is also awful.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#998

Post by mehphp »

thewileyone wrote: post #981
mehphp wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For whatever reason norms/laws just don’t apply to Trump. He’s above the law; it’s baffling.

It's not baffling. He just thinks that laws don't apply to him.

Sure, I’m not baffled that he think that, I’m baffled that society allows it.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#999

Post by LWIRVoltage »

hnthrow90348765 wrote: post #381
LWIRVoltage wrote: post #53

From people on Reddit: Something that blows my mind- but is fully true "Hell, I've been in fucking EVE Online alliances that had better opsec than this." "I'll raise you one: I've never been in any EVE alliance that didn't have better opsec than this." ..I noted Board Games(Secret Hitler, for example) require better opsec. So do card games- it's mindblowing to note this too... [Main comment by me - technical outlook]…

> From people on Reddit: Something that blows my mind- but is fully true "Hell, I've been in fucking EVE Online alliances that had better opsec than this." "I'll raise you one: I've never been in any EVE alliance that didn't have better opsec than this." That is some seriously selective memory https://old.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4cdmmc/wtf_is_going_on... https://old.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4dvoj5/sma_diplosleade.…

AI spotted those comments on reddit- note: those were not my words about Eve(which i'm unfamiliar with!)

Point taken though , the commenters who said that were ...obviously..anecdotal, -though possibly still more the norm...)

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#1000

Post by hypeatei »

webninja wrote: post #996
hypeatei wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caring about people in a far away country is not a winning strategy. Showing that this admin is harming national security and risking American lives is what gets voter attention.

I wish to highlight the pointlessness in your timing of your leftist activism. Trump cannot run for a third term due to the 22nd amendment to the constitution. Therefore even if you found evidence that a small subset of the members held national security worse than Hillary secured her emails, (in this case, leaking a Yemen bombing attack 2 hours before it happened), there’s nothing left for voters to vote on. The onl…

> Trump cannot run for a third term due to the 22nd amendment to the constitution

Given he started a riot to interrupt congressional proceedings and tried to insert fake electors in 2021, I don't have much hope that he won't try something in 2028.

> there’s nothing left for voters to vote on

Oh really, so MAGA will just disappear in 2028? The point is to expose the incompetence and the harm that hiring loyalists over qualified people introduces.

> Maybe campaigning on making America Great Again or putting America first will work better.

I don't think populism is a good strategy, personally. It always devolves into a "us vs them" tribalism battle, where you're going against the "elite" but the "elite" is a moving target and not set in stone. Lots of conspiracies arise and you're less effective as a bloc.

> One reason the democrats lost this election because they didn’t even care about their own American people

What specifically do you think showed that they didn't care? Incumbents lost globally due to inflation from COVID and the voter population misplacing the blame. I think Dems could have done better before the election (e.g. Joe should've dropped out sooner) but to say that they lost on policy is a bit asinine.

Post reply on HN