Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO' • Hacker News Board

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#11

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

kryogen1c wrote: post #2

why is the BBC calling NATO Nato? I had to internet search to figure out what they were talking about

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/8f7c... It’s the house style to avoid too many capitals in prose. Remember how people used to write N.A.T.O. decades ago but then simplified to NATO? Now they’re simplifying to Nato.

> Remember how people used to write N.A.T.O. decades ago but then simplified to NATO? Now they’re simplifying to Nato.

I wouldn't call it "simplifying": capitalizing it has the same number of characters and is less ambiguous. I was already somewhat aware of BBC's style, but I still mis-parsed the headline and and thought "Nato" was the name or nickname of a natural person.

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#12

Post by swsieber » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #9

HenryKissinger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent, despite the confusing rhetoric from the commander-in-chief. The United States still refuses to recognize the Russian government's claim over Crimea, the Trump administration has continued selling arms, including lethal arms and armored vehicles, to the government of Ukraine, the United States conducted a cyberattack against Russia prior to the 2018 midterm electio…

> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.

So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#13

Post by zeristor » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

vngzs wrote: post #4

kryogen1c wrote: post #2

why is the BBC calling NATO Nato? I had to internet search to figure out what they were talking about

https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335... > Use the abbreviated form of a title without explanation only if there is no chance of any misunderstanding (eg UN, Nato, IRA, BBC). Otherwise, spell it out in full at first reference, or introduce a label (eg the public sector union Unite). > > Where you would normally say the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with…

Shouldn't that "Bbc" which looks odd to me?

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#14

Post by bovermyer » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:44 PM UTC

JohnTClark wrote: post #8

bovermyer wrote: post #5

Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other things.

How the USA should approach Eastern European region?

I'll leave that to people who are trained for such things. I'm just a software guy.

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#15

Post by shellac » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

kryogen1c wrote: post #2

why is the BBC calling NATO Nato? I had to internet search to figure out what they were talking about

It's an initialism vs acronym thing: when the initials are treated as a word (e.g. NASA, but not BBC) you don't have to capitalise the whole thing (Hence 'Nasa' is ok). See https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/8f7c... for an explanation.

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#16

Post by detaro » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

zeristor wrote: post #13

vngzs wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335... > Use the abbreviated form of a title without explanation only if there is no chance of any misunderstanding (eg UN, Nato, IRA, BBC). Otherwise, spell it out in full at first reference, or introduce a label (eg the public sector union Unite). > > Where you would normally say the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with…

Shouldn't that "Bbc" which looks odd to me?

How do you pronounce "Bbc" as a word, not as spelled-out letters?

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#17

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

zeristor wrote: post #13

vngzs wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335... > Use the abbreviated form of a title without explanation only if there is no chance of any misunderstanding (eg UN, Nato, IRA, BBC). Otherwise, spell it out in full at first reference, or introduce a label (eg the public sector union Unite). > > Where you would normally say the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with…

Shouldn't that "Bbc" which looks odd to me?

[deleted]

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#18

Post by 1123581321 » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

bovermyer wrote: post #14

JohnTClark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the USA should approach Eastern European region?

I'll leave that to people who are trained for such things. I'm just a software guy.

How will you react if the trained people don’t think an overhaul is needed?

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#19

Post by HenryKissinger » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #9

HenryKissinger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent, despite the confusing rhetoric from the commander-in-chief. The United States still refuses to recognize the Russian government's claim over Crimea, the Trump administration has continued selling arms, including lethal arms and armored vehicles, to the government of Ukraine, the United States conducted a cyberattack against Russia prior to the 2018 midterm electio…

> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.

Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance from Russian A2AD weapons.

The underlying causes of these changes are Germany (1) continuing to spend less than 2% of GDP on defense; (2) its 2019 announcement that its pushing back its 2% target date from 2024 (agreed upon in 2015) to 2031; and, (3) continued German support for Nord Stream 2.

America is publicly penalizing Germany for the above reasons, which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops from Germany and other host nations in Europe. Moreover, it seems some troops are likely slated for rebasing in the Indo-Pacific which will bolster US' power there.

Re: Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

#20

Post by mschuster91 » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

swsieber wrote: post #12

mschuster91 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.

So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?

Germany is not delinquent on NATO payments, at least not on the formally agreed-upon budget contribution of 313 million € (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-na...).

The thing you (and Trump) are meaning is the total defense spending as percentage of GDP. Germany cannot be "delinquent" here by definition! Every country is legally free to spend whatever it wants on defense. The "2%"is an informal goal only, not backed by any international treaty!