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

At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#71

Post by andyjohnson0 »

Jblx2 wrote: post #69
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #61

Three things: 1. Many people intuitively assume that clumping/clustering of events implies non-randomness, and that random processes are smooth and low-variance. The opposite is true [1]. 2. A consequence of 1. is that people often over-estimate their understanding of the likelihood of events and the degree to which they are conditional/dependent. 3. There was an intriguing comment on this site a few days ago [2], re…

Anyone else feel a bit queasy about citing Kahneman as a source anymore? https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...

Point taken. But I'm not an academic and this is just hn - and I think the comment was well made.

Edit to add: The critique in the linked blog post refers to weak studies relied-on in one chapter of one general-readership book by Kahneman. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that he is generally unreliable as a scientist.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#72

Post by k12sosse »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #71
Jblx2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone else feel a bit queasy about citing Kahneman as a source anymore? https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...

Point taken. But I'm not an academic and this is just hn - and I think the comment was well made. Edit to add: The critique in the linked blog post refers to weak studies relied-on in one chapter of one general-readership book by Kahneman. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that he is generally unreliable as a scientist.

You say "just HN" but deep down it's a cabal where the rich and elite gather to laugh at the affected and groom future billionaires through advanced snobbification.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#73

Post by [deleted] »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #61

Three things: 1. Many people intuitively assume that clumping/clustering of events implies non-randomness, and that random processes are smooth and low-variance. The opposite is true [1]. 2. A consequence of 1. is that people often over-estimate their understanding of the likelihood of events and the degree to which they are conditional/dependent. 3. There was an intriguing comment on this site a few days ago [2], re…

[deleted]

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#74

Post by zimpenfish »

abcd_f wrote: post #36
zimpenfish wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Via [0], "Well, there are about 2 million researchers in the US. There are about 25 deaths per million people per day in the US, that’s 50 scientists dying each day, or 73,000 scientists over a four year period. Finding 11 that have some vague connection does not seem unusual to me." (there's more detail at the link, obvs.) [0] https://www.stevennovella.com/neurologicablog/whats-with-the...

Show some rigor. > 25 deaths per million people per day That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.

> Show some rigor.

Yes, perhaps by reading the link.

"I should point out I am using numbers for the general population, which may not match the rate for scientists. [...] I also looked at CDC data – about 800,000 people in the US between 25 and 65 die each year [...] About 6% of the population work in the science field, which would be 192,000, or half that if you use a narrow definition of 3%, so close to the 73,000 figure I calculated the other way."

He also looks at how that compares with the individual institutions.

But yes, "show some rigor" indeed!

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#75

Post by [deleted] »

delichon wrote: post #33

The NameUs US public database of around 26k longer term active missing person cases adds around 600 new names per month. It doesn't seem odd that a handful over years would share a narrow professional interest. But that number, 20 disappeared people per day, is gut wrenching. (US murders are at around 40 per day.) Surveillance sucks, but maybe at least it can be leveraged to find patterns when married to NameUs data.…

[deleted]

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#76

Post by zimpenfish »

notahacker wrote: post #52
abcd_f wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show some rigor. > 25 deaths per million people per day That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.

But then if we're doing age ranges , the 10 people "tied to sensitive research" who have disappeared or died are 59, 61, 60, 68, 53, 60, 78, 47, 67, 39 (with the two youngest identified as homicide and suicide). How does a cohort with an average age in their 60s compare with the age range of actively practising researchers?

I should imagine you could look at the CDC data for those cohorts and perform the same kind of analysis as he has.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#77

Post by martin-t »

unethical_ban wrote: post #70
martin-t wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll happily take 20 missing people per day in exchange for the ability to organize a demonstration[0] or an uprising when needed and for not being disappeared myself when the surveillance net falls into the hands of the next (or current) despot. [0]: I don't like the word protest because words are meaningless. A mass gathering of people is a demonstration of force because manpower means firepower and firepower means…

It should be clear that martin-t is not "happy" about disappearances. I've thought the same thing they expressed - perfect surveillance, if put into practice with omnipresent cameras tied to AI analysis for infinite government agents tracking each of us, would not be used to solve all crime but would be used to pre-emptively end any eventual needed revolution or mass uprising against the state. Just because we can do…

Yes, tools are just tools - they are not good or bad by themselves but by how people use them. (Though of course, some tools are much easier to use for one side than the other.)

The second issue is surveillance does not affect all crime[0] equally. It works best against organized or planned action. It does little to prevent crimes of passion or spur of the moment decisions. States are more likely to be affected of the first kind, normal people are much more likely to be affected by the second.

[0]: It should go without saying, crime does not mean bad/harmful/evil but merely against the law. Slavery used to be legal, as was the holocaust.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#78

Post by OutOfHere »

HauntingPin wrote: post #24
OutOfHere wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to rudely link to a paywalled articles without an unpaywalled link to read each, then people can't be motivated to read them.

I guess being an asshole is just the standard now on HN? How is this attitude acceptable? What did I do to you? I didn't even realize it was paywalled until you mentioned it. But don't let that stop you from being a dick to somebody who's just trying to help fight misinformation. I guess I'll just go fuck myself. But here, your paywall free link: https://archive.is/KNECz

If anything, it is you who were closer to being the a by posting what you did without corresponding unpaywalled links. Moreover, it is you who resorted to namecalling, not me. You should know what you're posting; you don't get to be ignorant about it. Even the BBC link you posted is paywalled and therefore unreadable.

Whether the concern is real or not is precisely for the FBI to determine. National security is too serious to leave in the hands of random journalists and overly-comfortable citizens. I fully understand that the data is almost certainly a coincidence, but the consequences of being wrong are so serious that it's best to definitively rule it out.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#79

Post by walletdrainer »

jasonlotito wrote: post #22
walletdrainer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s sanewashing.

4 separate government agencies are putting time and effort into something. The headline is accurate. The reporting is accurate. Should CNN not report what the government is doing? Or are you confused and assume that the investigation has returned and finding? Or maybe, we should highlight the things the government is doing. Why do you find what the article is saying sane?

CNN should accurately report just how bizarre the reasoning behind these investigations appears to be.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#80

Post by mjd »

walletdrainer wrote: post #79
jasonlotito wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 separate government agencies are putting time and effort into something. The headline is accurate. The reporting is accurate. Should CNN not report what the government is doing? Or are you confused and assume that the investigation has returned and finding? Or maybe, we should highlight the things the government is doing. Why do you find what the article is saying sane?

CNN should accurately report just how bizarre the reasoning behind these investigations appears to be.

I wonder if it is reasoning. To me the sequence looks something like this:

1. The story is promulgated by a long-retired ex-FBI analyst

2. Fox News picks it up and runs with it

3. Fox News watchers get excited about it on social media

4. Someone behind a desk at the FBI is assigned to pick up the phone and say tiredly “Yes, yes, we're investigating it all very seriously”

5.The FBI waits for the new Flavor of the Week to distract the Fox News people, then closes the investigation

Meantime, CNN reports on phase 4.

Post reply on HN