4 ms·

I suspect it is the type of situation where 99% are a complete waste of resources. But that 1% that turn out to be important are very important. And you can't

I suspect it is the type of situation where 99% are a complete waste of resources. But that 1% that turn out to be important are very important. And you can't tell before that time which will be which.

jdm2212 7y ago
There's also a strong bias to remember/talk about the cases that turned out poorly, not the ones that turn out well. "CIA bungles [thing]" is a splashy headline and memorable story. "US does 10% better in trade negotiation because it was reading the other side's emails" is not. But one happens much more often than the other.
- corodra 7y ago
  Similar to no one talks about when the air force lands planes successfully, which it does thousands of times daily in peacetime. Even more in wartime. But when there's a crash, "Is the Air Force unable to properly fly planes?"
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >But one happens much more often than the other. Probably, but we have no legitimate way of knowing which one it is.
  - jdm2212 7y ago
    There's lots of stuff where we trust that expert communities are being honest. Medical research is impossible to verify unless you get access to the raw data (get into a PhD program and get a grant and then get a DUA... all in all, possibly harder than getting an intelligence community job and an SCI clearance) but we all basically trust that medicine works the vast majority of the time.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      The information required to evaluate our spy agencies is unavailable to the public no matter what school you go to. Doctors took revealed the oxy crisis after taking merely a very long time, but revealing the CIA equivalent would be illegal.
      - jdm2212 7y ago
        There's plenty you can say if you have a clearance that won't get you sent to jail -- pretty much anything that doesn't state a classified fact or allow one to be inferred. "Every mission I worked on got people killed needlessly" is kosher for most people to say. Anyway, generally speaking, the really juicy secrets (from a lay person's standpoint) are not highly classified. The most secret stuff -- sources and methods -- is generally pretty boring unless you're really deep in the weeds.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Let's look at Snowden as an example. What would have happened if he had expressed a vauge, unsupported sentiment about the NSA "not being very nice," or "doing too much spying?" Nothing, probably. The larger public debate needs facts that it can verify and specifics that it can pick over. (Also, "highly classified" and "slightly classified" are the same as far as CNN is concerned.)
        corodra 7y ago
        I argue that the larger public doesn't need to know. Who, in the general public, is actually qualified to determine the effectiveness of these types of operations? On top of that, vast swaths of the public are amazingly incompetent. Why waste time debating with them? Flat earthers and anti-vaxxers are easy targets for this argument. But, do you want national security operations to be influenced by the opinion of someone who "cures" people with essential oils? It's like asking for military tactics from a barista. Don't forget, a lot of people fall for over the phone scams of all kinds. Not just old people. It's a wide gamut of the population. I didn't even get into the real hardcore conspiracy nutjobs that have the loudest voice because they have nothing better to do. Part two, the public does a terrible job of verifying facts or ever understanding them. That's been the public discourse for... oh... I don't know... forever?
- Allower 7y ago
  You have to be kidding right.. swindling is never a successful long term strategy.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That "bias" is appropriate because of actual cost va value! "I killed five people and their families are out to kill you but your salary is 10% higher!" isn't worth it even to a sociopath from the expenses. If their gains are small and their fuckups are large not getting rid of them is itself an immense fuck up.

jdm2212 7y ago

There's also a strong bias to remember/talk about the cases that turned out poorly, not the ones that turn out well. "CIA bungles [thing]" is a splashy headline and memorable story. "US does 10% better in trade negotiation because it was reading the other side's emails" is not. But one happens much more often than the other.

corodra 7y ago
Similar to no one talks about when the air force lands planes successfully, which it does thousands of times daily in peacetime. Even more in wartime. But when there's a crash, "Is the Air Force unable to properly fly planes?"
whatshisface 7y ago
>But one happens much more often than the other. Probably, but we have no legitimate way of knowing which one it is.
- jdm2212 7y ago
  There's lots of stuff where we trust that expert communities are being honest. Medical research is impossible to verify unless you get access to the raw data (get into a PhD program and get a grant and then get a DUA... all in all, possibly harder than getting an intelligence community job and an SCI clearance) but we all basically trust that medicine works the vast majority of the time.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    The information required to evaluate our spy agencies is unavailable to the public no matter what school you go to. Doctors took revealed the oxy crisis after taking merely a very long time, but revealing the CIA equivalent would be illegal.
    - jdm2212 7y ago
      There's plenty you can say if you have a clearance that won't get you sent to jail -- pretty much anything that doesn't state a classified fact or allow one to be inferred. "Every mission I worked on got people killed needlessly" is kosher for most people to say. Anyway, generally speaking, the really juicy secrets (from a lay person's standpoint) are not highly classified. The most secret stuff -- sources and methods -- is generally pretty boring unless you're really deep in the weeds.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        Let's look at Snowden as an example. What would have happened if he had expressed a vauge, unsupported sentiment about the NSA "not being very nice," or "doing too much spying?" Nothing, probably. The larger public debate needs facts that it can verify and specifics that it can pick over. (Also, "highly classified" and "slightly classified" are the same as far as CNN is concerned.)
        corodra 7y ago
        I argue that the larger public doesn't need to know. Who, in the general public, is actually qualified to determine the effectiveness of these types of operations? On top of that, vast swaths of the public are amazingly incompetent. Why waste time debating with them? Flat earthers and anti-vaxxers are easy targets for this argument. But, do you want national security operations to be influenced by the opinion of someone who "cures" people with essential oils? It's like asking for military tactics from a barista. Don't forget, a lot of people fall for over the phone scams of all kinds. Not just old people. It's a wide gamut of the population. I didn't even get into the real hardcore conspiracy nutjobs that have the loudest voice because they have nothing better to do. Part two, the public does a terrible job of verifying facts or ever understanding them. That's been the public discourse for... oh... I don't know... forever?
Allower 7y ago
You have to be kidding right.. swindling is never a successful long term strategy.
Nasrudith 7y ago
That "bias" is appropriate because of actual cost va value! "I killed five people and their families are out to kill you but your salary is 10% higher!" isn't worth it even to a sociopath from the expenses. If their gains are small and their fuckups are large not getting rid of them is itself an immense fuck up.