HN user
I'm glad someone else is saying this. Entire companies exist (that do a great job at it) that primarily surface this information in the form of "threat intelligence" for companies to make risk decisions based off of.
Whenever i sit down to read research, I remind myself of Lockheed Martin reading the USSR published research[0] on how electromagnetic waves scatter off of surfaces, and using that to fuel the initial stealth technology. The leading theory being that the USSR didn't recognize how brilliant and revolutionary ability these calculations were.
Just because I can't see the immediate brilliance, doesn't mean it is not brilliant in it's own right.
[0] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-soviet-union-acci...
Genuinely curious:
What does it mean for a Chief Justice to be in control of their court, and of course, for them to be out of control?
The commenter isn't litigating that claim, they are litigating the claim that at least 1 out of 10 of those on death row were false.
I'm not disputing that, what I was (poorly) trying to communicate is that the pervasiveness of academic espionage chain is incredibly widespread. It relies heavily on the underfunded, international graduate students.
Many things are open research and intentionally funded as so, until a dual-use is found. My example was meant to show something that was intentionally funded and released openly, but only because USSR didn't know what they had and it's implications.
My personal confidence in this administration to do anything here in a meaningful way is non-existent. However, the very real problem of academic research funded by American dollars, in American labs, being passed to Geo-political adversaries before publish is pervasive and difficult to solve.
In a purely academic sense: i agree research should be fully transparent, except when a specific reason exists. The point is that sometimes we do not know it shouldn't be and that can be a real critical mistake. A way, and not the only way, to de-risk that is to enforce more strict criterion on the researcher(s) themselves.
Also: thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm a big fan of your work and personal blog.
I don't have great sources on hand, this is just coming from a career situated in or adjacent to protecting research and IP from espionage. As the national labs and prime defense contractors got exceptional at defending their networks, this pushed state actors into attempting espionage at the university level.
It's a lot easier to get access to underpaid graduate students, fresh post-docs, etc who are doing the heavy researching lift day-to-day work. You have way more tools in your HUMINT arsenal with this population. Sometimes research has natsec implications even though it is not in pre-class or classified status.
A famous example of this is how the US created it's stealth technology initially.
"The foundation for a science-based approach to the development of stealth aircraft was laid by Petr Ufimtsev, a Soviet physicist. In 1962, Sovietskoye Radio publishing house issued his book Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction that described the mathematical rationale for the development of stealth vehicles.
In the USSR, these ideas did not go any further, however, the Americans were very enthusiastic about them. Ufimtsev’s physical theory of diffraction has become, they say, the cornerstone of a breakthrough in the stealth technology. In the 1970s, the work was started in the USA on the basis of this knowledge as a result of which breakthrough stealth aircraft − Lockheed F-117 fighter and Northrop B-2 strategic bomber – have been produced."
https://rostec.ru/en/media/news/visible-invisible-stealth-te...
It's great that you recognize that the last 1.5 years were the period you feel like you did things to justify that bill. However, much like juniors everywhere, you justify all of your pay because we are not paying you for your skill at that moment, but for who you will become.
Even more so for PHD work because the expectation is that after the training you will produce many things that make the cost of training you essentially negligible.
No, it's not rose-colored glasses. It's a position based on the level of trust certain societies have. As a person, i inherently distrust anyone who has state sanctioned authority over me and a monopoly on violence.
Compared to the US, nordic countries are more homogeneous and higher trust overall. If I was living in those countries, I'd defer more, due to it's culture and small size. By small size I mean population. Sweden is less than 11 million, smaller than the LA metro area.
My statement was not a ethical judgement that Sweden or Nordics are more trustworthy. Just that they are smaller with a more homogeneous, higher trust society. Thus if I were there I'd trust the government to more likely represent the will of the people broadly, as opposed to the US Congress.
From an American perspective, i don't trust the government with the implementation details, nor do I trust our political climate, misaligned incentives, and general disinterest in good governance to implement something so sensitive.
If I lived in say, Sweden, I feel much more comfortable trusting their government to implement. In America, I feel I must always vote in a way that prevents giving any power to the government that I wouldn't want my political opponents to have over me.
My hypothesis is that for us, now post studying in the "old ways", are able to use these tools to increase learning.
The fundamental problem seems to be that screens as a basis for learning how to learn, study, and retain information in kids appears to be detrimental to developing that core skill we have already developed.
Maybe some people should use AI tools to proofread their work for content and tone before publishing.
It's not uncommon to use VT and other sandbox tools as a proxy indicator for if your attacks have tripped defenders and tooling.
wow.dhs.gov
You're missing the forest for the trees here. The network and techniques used here are the same, but even more refined and tech enabled, of those insurgency groups. The power is the network of people in their specialized roles that can quickly target the enemy (ICE) and deliver a payload (obstruction).
The FBI has a long history of attempting to infiltrate and destabilize these groups. In the early 2010s there was a push to infiltrate right leaning groups. They especially called out in their published documents disgruntled veterans returning from the wars and unhappy with leadership noting a worry they would use the skills picked up at war at home.
It's absolutely no surprise that the FBI would investigate this behavior.
Like i've said over and over, the tactics used are the distilled what works from those insurgencies honed over decades. They are incredibly effective. The network that was built (several max signal chats, organized territory, labor specialization) has essentially created an effective targeting mechanism.
This isn't a bunch of people organically protesting, this is an organized system designed to "target" ICE agents. The only difference is the payload delivery between physical disruption vs weapon based attacks.
You're projecting a values claim on the American wars in the middle east on me that I didn't make. It's pretty clear that the ME wars were all around bad and evil.
It doesn't change the organization and tactics used to identify targets are the same methods and strategies used by insurgent groups to select targets and attack. AQI was very sophisticated for the technology they had. Their warriors were brave, cunning, and true believers with efficacious systems for what was available to them.
Twenty years of that, plus the rest of the middle east has now made it particularity common knowledge how to run insurgency cells worldwide. This combined with American expertise brought back and with people legally aiding these groups in setting up their C2 structures with what is effective and what works is no surprise.
This investigation should be no surprise to anyone. They use these techniques because they work. They are so effective at target acquisition, monitoring, and selective engagement that if they flipped from their current tactics to more violent ones it would be a large casualty event.
It's more like Minneapolis has been "chosen" as the battle point by people opposed to Trump in every step. It's the same person leading deportations as under Obama, they deport less than Obama did, yet they have been demonized almost immediately after the Trump administration took over. Why?
During the Obama administration, state and local LEO worked with ICE to deport. Now they are directed not to. Without that protection and cooperation from local officers, it becomes significantly harder and more dangerous to execute these operations. So they put masks on because the local agitators are doxxing them, threatening their families, and making life unsafe for the agents.
So now we have this lack of cooperation from local government that creates unsafe and dangerous operating conditions for ICE. What are they supposed to do? Not enforce the law because the local government says no? We already fought a war about Federal power versus state power. Heck, Obama (whom i voted for 2x) sued Arizona (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387) over supremacy of the Federal Government with respect to immigration.
There would be no problems if Minneapolis and Minnesota leadership reacted the way other cities like Memphis did. Instead they've explicitly, or tacitly, endorsed this escalating resistance movement. I can't imagine ever putting my hands on a LEO and expecting it to go well, yet they do it freely. Officers are only human, and day-in day-out of this, combined with very real actionable threats against your life, and family life are only going to create more tensions and more mistakes.
This is no invasion hostile force, this is a chosen focal point to challenge the will and ability of this administration to enforce the democratically made laws.
What's needed is MNPD sharing their data around the criminal illegal aliens with ICE so that they can execute the deportation orders that have already been issued by judges.
The structure of your message implies you are not American. DHS posts the people they deport here:
It's really hard to go down that list and say "yeah i'd rather have these people here than have ICE deporting people".
Not a lawyer, but there's a lot of back and forth around jurisdiction between local and federal enforcement. If the President directs the DoJ to not fight to own the investigation over local, then it is up to the Executive Branch.
They are running communications rings geographically distributed across the city via Signal. They organize into specialized roles for identifying suspected agents (spotters), tailing them, and moving to contact with ICE. They use the ARMY SALUTE[0][1] method to handle their reports.
Anyone who ran convoys in the Middle East, patrolled, or did intel around it will know this playbook. The resistance is impressive because it's taken lessons learned from observing the US Military overseas dealing with insurgencies.
0 - https://www.usainscom.army.mil/iSALUTE/iSALUTEFORM/ 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHIPEVj0pRo
It's a good thing FBI has capacity to do more than one thing at a time. Also Trump agreed to allow MNPD to handle the wrongful death investigation.
Two things can be true: the "resistance" rings in MN are behaving like the insurgents the US has fought for decades in the Middle East, and ICE agents wrongfully killed a man.
The finding is surprising, but I think their methodology is a bit flawed.
Study 1 shows "Difference-in-Differences analysis of engagement with 154,122 posts by 1068 accounts before and after the policy change". All this tells us is that existing accounts did not have a noticeable change. It doesn't suggest anything about accounts created after where the culture of Twitter (appears) to have shifted quite a bit from before going private.
Basically "okay cool, existing accounts didn't change their behavior". What about new accounts? More anonymous accounts? Can we understand anything else about platform growth and interaction? What about classes of user w/ respect to verified users, anonymous accounts vs accounts tied to real identities?
Study 2 is also very limited to draw that conclusion because people are less likely to honestly report their engagement with content or beliefs that could be punishing in a given political environment. This was most astutely observed by the French polymarket user who crushed it betting on the 2024 election using neighbor-polling methodology [0]. Essentially, it appears to be more reliable to ask about the preferences of a respondent's social circle than ask the respondent directly.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/french-whale-made-over-80-milli...
Given the increasing obviousness that there's functionally no oversight of NGOs and government funding, perhaps we just need some NGOs and get government grants for these critical services.
They can, they just need to use the EU equivalent of <app> they want. No one is forcing EU residents to use <app>.
Gentle reminder that if you're commenting on hacker news articles you are likely the outlier in the "why people switch browsers" reasoning. Friends and family constantly surprise me with their tech choices and how they interface with the digital world whenever I'm home on holidays.
My current working theory is that US systems are in general great, if you're smart and educated enough to not get scammed. There's a high level of knowledge you need to just exist in society without being preyed upon by some entity.
Unfortunately, healthcare is probably the most glaring example of this. It's already K-shaped based on the insurance you have (or don't have). In addition, most americans just aren't educated enough about their own bodies and medicine to accurately convey their problems to their care team, and that's before how likely they are to believe you.
I have a great PPO plan and spend a large amount of time each year researching care for longevity and curating a care team, or cash-only practices for things. If i lost that, then i'd be hosed. I can't imagine how people on HMO or medicare plans work.
NPs fulfil a very useful niche, even if that niche is "you tested positive for strep, here's your antibiotics" keeping physcians and PAs able to care on more severe persons.
This applying to graduate degrees really does seem like the result of AMA lobbying to keep Nurse Practitioner numbers down. It is state and program dependent, but in some states NPs have prescribing authority, which cuts into the domain of MD/DO practice in the US. There are of course merits to the argument about NP training vs MD/DO training in Pharmacology, but overall this limits patient access in America to prescribed medicine.
Congress, at the behest of AMA lobbying, had kept the number of Medicare funded residency slots capped at the same number since 1997 until the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 which added 1000 new residence slots[0]. Starting in FY 2023 (October 1 2022) no more than 200 new positions would be added each FY meaning the full 1000 could be created no sooner than FY 2028 (October 1 2027). Given the medical school timeline of 7-10 years training (school, residency, fellowship) we won't see any meaningful impact from that until the mid 2030s.
The US already has a much lower physician to patient ratio than Nordic countries (as a comparison between wealthy, western countries). The us has 2.97 active physicians per 1000 population, of which 2.52 are actual direct patient care physicians[2]. For comparison Sweden is ~5 per 1,000, Norway 4.5 per 1,000, Denmark 4.45 per 1,000, and Finland at 3.8 per 1000. Extra Bonus (Russian Federation reports 4.0 per 1,000)[3]. Note these numbers are as of 2020.
In America, most people interface with doctors in order to get tests run and medicine prescribed. Reducing the incentive for RNs to move into NP by removing it's professional degree status will likely lower the amount of prescribing individuals a patient can interface with, increasing bottleneck and time to care.
[0] https://www.sgu.edu/news-and-events/new-residency-slots-appr... [1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8370355/ [2] - https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/data/2023-key-findings-and... [3] - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-...
You really can't weaken Canada much more than it is.
I personally can downplay them as a joke because it is a joke. The mostly likely path forward for anything like that would instead a certain oil rich province voting themselves independent and then asking the US for aid or to join.
And, if it wasn't a joke, then that's even more of a reason to consider meeting your 2% NATO agreement instead of just phoning it in.
"ending last November" - Is the implication that a Trump presidency implies a risk of invasion from the South?
Canada has relied greatly on the United States providing a blanket defense guarantee of the continent. The Canadian military is currently operationally worthless across the board, save the cyber domain. There are many reasons for it that I'm not here to list out. However, that does come with grave consequences geopolitically and the Canadian government has been living in the 1900s.
The USA, via Alaska, provides Canada against Russian provocation on the West Coast[0]. This is similar to the near constant probing of NATO states airspace, especially countries near Ukraine [1][2]
The Canadian Navy is severely underfunded (along with the rest of the Canadian Armed forces)[3] with not enough ships to actively patrol and protect it's waters, especially in the North.
The North passages are incredibly important, and will become more important as trade routes. The entirety of the US wanting to buy Greenland is as a part of having an Atlantic outpost to control those shipping lanes. Those trade lanes can be significantly shorter than routes using Suez or Panama canals.
In addition to the trade routes, the US fears a Russian and Chinese alliance because of the access that grants to the North Atlantic. Point blank: Nato cannot build ships anymore, and the PLAN capacity is staggering. This is already independent of CN and RU intelligence probing of the entirety of the west coast.
The world has changed dramatically, and the only thing that really changed in November is that the USA is no longer pretending it can defend the mainland, defend NATO countries, and police shipping lanes on their own. The USA doesn't have the capacity to replace ships, nor do they have the knowledge anymore to do so.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter...
[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i...
[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-wh...