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

Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 227 posts

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#211

Post by unclebucknasty »

corresation wrote: post #205
unclebucknasty wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you make no sense. No one attacked the "mere existence" of alternative theories. I challenged you to explain why yours is any more credible than others, something which you apparently cannot do, hence your little tirade about what HN is all about. And, I plainly I didn't "shoot the mesenger". I specifically questioned your message. In fact, you acknowledged this in your previous reply when you "found it remark…

Edit your noise to about 1/5th the volume and it might be worth skimming. Your prattle is boring.

Thanks for the advice. Will try to be more concise.

Meantime, work on defending your position and constructing logical responses. I should warn you however, that constructing arguments may require that your word volume increases.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#212

Post by [deleted] »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #208
dllthomas wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you didn't say that. Read my post more carefully. Though actually, you're close to saying it here: "[I]t is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction." If you lack evidence in either direction, your estimate of likelihood should be at your priors. If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely b…

I re-read your post. You are correct. It is possible to read it in a manner wherein you are not making the claim about my post. Seems a little odd as a response. Perhaps your intent would be clearer if your replies didn't hypothesize quite so much about what the parent might be thinking. I noticed a lot of "ifs" in your most recent post as well, as in "if you believe this or that". Comes off rather straw-mannish. Why…

[deleted]

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#213

Post by dllthomas »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #208
dllthomas wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you didn't say that. Read my post more carefully. Though actually, you're close to saying it here: "[I]t is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction." If you lack evidence in either direction, your estimate of likelihood should be at your priors. If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely b…

I re-read your post. You are correct. It is possible to read it in a manner wherein you are not making the claim about my post. Seems a little odd as a response. Perhaps your intent would be clearer if your replies didn't hypothesize quite so much about what the parent might be thinking. I noticed a lot of "ifs" in your most recent post as well, as in "if you believe this or that". Comes off rather straw-mannish. Why…

I think you are assuming I hold positions that I do not. I agree with you that foul play is sufficiently likely to warrant some consideration. I said as much in my own reply to skwirl's comment.

"First, I didn't assign a probability. I said we should be asking questions."

"We should be asking questions about X" is a claim that probabilities are sufficiently high that it's not a complete waste of time to be asking questions about X. You also said it was plausible, which is assigning some bounds on probability. Neither of those were what I was objecting to, however.

I was objecting to what I saw as your rejection of the sort of argument skwirl was making ("This is sufficiently unlikely that it doesn't make sense to be talking about it") in the face of lack of evidence, rather than simple rejection of the particular claim skwirl made (which I reject as well).

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#214

Post by unclebucknasty »

corresation wrote: post #210
PavlovsCat wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the email seemed "paranoid" to you? may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues. "Obviously I'm not saying that's the case," Even saying it's likely takes sheer powers of rationalization I can't even fathom. And bringing up just that is what it is. This is like saying "no offense, but" and then saying s…

His email hinted at uncovering a grand plot. Lots of people who have mental issues think they've uncovered grand plots. Even saying it's likely I didn't say it was likely , I said it was possible (given that the outright acceptance of incredibly conspiracy theories are by far the most commonly discussed possibility). The difference is profound. But really I think there are some people who seriously flunked basic prob…

Why don't you enlighten us all as to the workings of "basic probabilities", since you have clearly applied them in arriving at your conclusions.

Perhaps you can start by identifying all of the variables that you considered in assessing the probability of each scenario, then move on to providing us with the statistical probability that you calculated for each of those variables.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#215

Post by PavlovsCat »

corresation wrote: post #210
PavlovsCat wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the email seemed "paranoid" to you? may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues. "Obviously I'm not saying that's the case," Even saying it's likely takes sheer powers of rationalization I can't even fathom. And bringing up just that is what it is. This is like saying "no offense, but" and then saying s…

His email hinted at uncovering a grand plot. Lots of people who have mental issues think they've uncovered grand plots. Even saying it's likely I didn't say it was likely , I said it was possible (given that the outright acceptance of incredibly conspiracy theories are by far the most commonly discussed possibility). The difference is profound. But really I think there are some people who seriously flunked basic prob…

His email hinted at uncovering a grand plot. Lots of people who have mental issues think they've uncovered grand plots.

In other words, claiming to have uncovered a plot is a sign for a mental health issue? Just like being angry is a sign of rabies, huh? Before you dive into probabilities, check out some logic, I hear it helps. And maybe history, since you seem to think a "plot" is something like an elf or pink elephants.

are seriously saying that the former is more probable

Nope, that's the beauty of it, I'm not even speculating either way. I am dealing with your comment only. When I read that email, I don't see any signs of madness. To the contrary, that bit about legal advice seems a bit too coolheaded for even drug use.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#216

Post by unclebucknasty »

dllthomas wrote: post #213
unclebucknasty wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I re-read your post. You are correct. It is possible to read it in a manner wherein you are not making the claim about my post. Seems a little odd as a response. Perhaps your intent would be clearer if your replies didn't hypothesize quite so much about what the parent might be thinking. I noticed a lot of "ifs" in your most recent post as well, as in "if you believe this or that". Comes off rather straw-mannish. Why…

I think you are assuming I hold positions that I do not. I agree with you that foul play is sufficiently likely to warrant some consideration. I said as much in my own reply to skwirl's comment. "First, I didn't assign a probability. I said we should be asking questions." "We should be asking questions about X" is a claim that probabilities are sufficiently high that it's not a complete waste of time to be asking que…

>I think you are assuming I hold positions that I do not.

Very possible. I think those "ifs" got me again.

>You also said it was plausible, which is assigning some bounds on probability.

A fair enough interpretation, but I was thinking of it in the more subjective sense vs. mathematical.

>I was objecting to what I saw as your rejection of the sort of argument skwirl was making

OK! Understood. LOL! I wasn't objecting to or even addressing whether the sort of argument skwirl was making could ever be valid in any scenario. My point was with regard to this particular discussion. That is, in this context it is not valid to dismiss the need for questions out-of-hand. I tried to be specific and narrow in my explanation.

I think the confusion came in because you broadened what was a very concrete discussion, then began introducing hypotheticals: "well, if you believe this or that, then the other".

I didn't make that turn. Wasn't sure what your position was or what you were attributing to me.

All of this to say, that we appear to be in agreement on the substance. That is, the circumstances merit questions.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#217

Post by samstave »

tptacek wrote: post #200
samstave wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf Check this out and look at the source as well as take some time to critically think about the technical resources a group like the NSA has vs. the researchers of this paper... You think that "It's hard to imagine any remotely competent government group or organized crime group" choosing it" is an informed position? I would HOPE you are aware of Stucnet, as well as Du…

He's not saying it's impossible to crash a car using a telematics exploit. He's saying that's a uniquely stupid way to have someone killed. 40-60mph collisions between trees and modern cars aren't uniformly fatal; instead of killing Hastings, the attack was equally likely to have left a witness talking about how all the sudden his car started driving itself. This guy's car crashed into a tree. He was doing national s…

I agree with your statement. What i took issue with was his saying that the government is "incompetent" if they tried something like this.

With Stuxnet, Duqu and Mossad car bombings of scientists in Iran, my point was that I would not put the ability past them to be able to hijack a car in a method similar to the one described in the PDF.

Personally, I have no clue/opinion on if they actually killed Hastings.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#218

Post by corresation »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #215
corresation wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His email hinted at uncovering a grand plot. Lots of people who have mental issues think they've uncovered grand plots. Even saying it's likely I didn't say it was likely , I said it was possible (given that the outright acceptance of incredibly conspiracy theories are by far the most commonly discussed possibility). The difference is profound. But really I think there are some people who seriously flunked basic prob…

His email hinted at uncovering a grand plot. Lots of people who have mental issues think they've uncovered grand plots. In other words, claiming to have uncovered a plot is a sign for a mental health issue? Just like being angry is a sign of rabies, huh? Before you dive into probabilities, check out some logic, I hear it helps. And maybe history, since you seem to think a "plot" is something like an elf or pink eleph…

I am dealing with your comment only.

Which you said takes "sheer powers of rationalization I can't even fathom". Which really is an extraordinary and ridiculous statement (which I'm learning is the modus operandi among the theorists -- feigned outrage that any other scenario outside of the most conspiratorial could even be contemplated): Such fits of irrational behavior happen to countless people yearly, often under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or simply intense stress. Sometimes it's even a tactic for the suicidal.

The simple possibility that he was on a bender or had an episode simply defies reason in your imagination, which leaves the gamut of the possible rather narrowed, despite your absurd protests to the contrary.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#219

Post by groby_b »

lazyjones wrote: post #175
groby_b wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, no. Breitbart was a lot of things, but certainly not a journalist of nearly the same caliber. And given that he claimed to work on "big stories" pretty much all the time, we can take that out of the equation, too. And your disingenuous argument trying to tie drone attacks into that is an utter disservice to truth. To quote from the fine article: "could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al…

> "could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda involved in plots against the country and if his capture was not feasible." They have already assassinated a 16 year old US citizen who was not a senior Al Qaeda leader and who wasn't "collateral damage" either: http://boingboing.net/2011/10/21/awlakis.html

If you'd get your news from other sources but boingboing, you'd be aware that we actually don't know if he was targeted or collateral damage.

Once again, I'm not debating the morality of the drone program, or the ludicrousness of writing off killings as "collateral damage". I debate the deliberate use of misinformation to score a point. We all need to stop distorting the truth to suit our purpose, so we can see what's actually happening - which is bad enough and doesn't require conspiracy theories.

Re: Michael Hastings Sent Panicked Email Hours Before Car Crash

#220

Post by jamieb »

derleth wrote: post #177
jamieb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watergate "Scandal". From wikipedia: "On September 15, a grand jury indicted them, as well as Hunt and Liddy,[9] for conspiracy , burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws." I find it interesting that when the Watergate "Conspiracy Theory" was proven, two things happened: 1. The perpetrators were charged with conspiracy (proving it was a conspiracy), and yet: 2. The Watergate Conspiracy was henceforth known…

You're being dishonest. That isn't what 'conspiracy theory' means and you know it. Noun phrases aren't defined by taking their words one by one; they have to be understood as a unit.

Wikipedia again:

"Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.[5] The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational.[6][page needed] A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis."

Ironic, isn't it, that since the time when genuine conspiracies at the highest level have come to light, the term has been successfully modified in the general vernacular to mean a ridiculous or paranoid idea.

I'm not falling for the redefinition. You're welcome to.

Post reply on HN