3 ms·

How Times Reporters Proved Russia Bombed Syrian Hospitals

32 points by tobr 7y ago

tobr 7y ago
I found the technical description of how the evidence was pieced together quite fascinating.
ex3ndr 7y ago
There are no word “srabota” in Russian. Such word probably is from from one of other Slavic languages of Western Europe.
- ivalm 7y ago
  Perhaps it was supposed to be srabotala, which is "it worked" and the "la" is missing from the article...
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  Some Googling says "rabota" ("работа") is Russion for "work". I haven't had luck finding an explanation of how the "s" indicates "done", but I would tend to believe the Times here and suspect it's an issue with romanisation or contraction.
  - ex3ndr 7y ago
    I am Russian. Rabota and srabotalo are very different words. S just a prefix doesn’t mean anything without context.
    - sam_lowry_ 7y ago
      I think they just stripped the last syllable to make it catchy.
- keiferski 7y ago
  Probably srabotala as the other commenter said. The Russian phrase, which directly translates as “it’s worked... It doesn’t exactly bode well for the NYT if their article is about decoding Russian transmissions and they mistranslate the opening sentence...
  - ex3ndr 7y ago
    Sure, but this is most critical word in the whole article and it is translated incorrectly? How so? Do they really spent hours translating and then write incorrect word?
    - keiferski 7y ago
      I interpreted that typo to mean that the Times wasn’t particularly interested in reporting the straight facts, but rather trying to push a particular story they were looking to be true. Ergo minor mistakes like a few less-than-perfectly translated words are irrelevant, especially when the intended audience doesn’t speak Russian to begin with.
      - ex3ndr 7y ago
        That adds oil to the fire. And I just can’t show it to my parents in Russia. And Russian government can easily destroy arguments in this article. This article is made only for clicks and makes everything just worse.
galkk 7y ago
If it were a scientific article, I'd say that it's unconvincing. At all. Can they share raw data, and not just handwaiving? >During our investigation, we obtained tens of thousands of previously unpublished audio recordings between Russian Air Force pilots and ground control officers in Syria. We also obtained months of flight data logged by a network of Syrian observers who have been tracking warplanes to warn civilians of impending airstrikes. The flight observations came with the time, location and general type of each aircraft spotted. Where? How? Can they be forged? Can we hear them? Can we trust them? Can we trust NYT?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc. And, while we are at it: what's to say Google Earth is accurate? The audio recordings just sound russian to you! Does the Mig actually exist, or isn't all that just Hollywood special effects to invent a reason for the F-35 to exist? Point being: this is a good example proving how unrealistic this often-repeated HN cliché of "don't trust anyone" is. Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links.
  - ex3ndr 7y ago
    Oh no, I really want to see audio where they got this incorrect word.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    The difference is that the Times is proclaiming a fact (“How We Proved...”), not saying “our investigation concludes that is it very likely Russia was behind the attacks.” Considering the Times’ past pushing of Anti-Russian narratives, they need to have actual evidence if they want to avoid skepticism.
  - galkk 7y ago
    > And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc I will be able to check it and have my own conclusions, if I'd like to. There were already comments in this chain that there is no word "Srabota" in Russian. It should be either "Srabotalo" or "Srabotala". I'm native Russian and Ukrainian speaker, so hearing the record could convince or unconvince me. > Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links. Of course I should trust the Book without doubts, it has everything written in in it, and it's the Truth! That's what you mean?
sam_lowry_ 7y ago
'Srabota' is not a russian word. I doubt the rest of the article is better if they managed to make a stupid mistake in the 1st sentence.
- andybp85 7y ago
  Google translate auto-detects it as Russian as сработа: https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=srabota https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto... Punching that word into google.ru suggests работа, which then translates to various forms of "work" https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0 https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE... I know nothing about Russian beyond a few swear words, but seems like a transliteration nuance, and "it's done" could be a fair translation. I'd definitely defer to a Russian speaker though.
  - sam_lowry_ 7y ago
    Machine learning imitates, but does not induce rules.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

32 points by tobr 7y ago

tobr 7y ago

I found the technical description of how the evidence was pieced together quite fascinating.

There are no word “srabota” in Russian. Such word probably is from from one of other Slavic languages of Western Europe.

ivalm 7y ago
Perhaps it was supposed to be srabotala, which is "it worked" and the "la" is missing from the article...
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Some Googling says "rabota" ("работа") is Russion for "work". I haven't had luck finding an explanation of how the "s" indicates "done", but I would tend to believe the Times here and suspect it's an issue with romanisation or contraction.
- ex3ndr 7y ago
  I am Russian. Rabota and srabotalo are very different words. S just a prefix doesn’t mean anything without context.
  - sam_lowry_ 7y ago
    I think they just stripped the last syllable to make it catchy.
keiferski 7y ago
Probably srabotala as the other commenter said. The Russian phrase, which directly translates as “it’s worked... It doesn’t exactly bode well for the NYT if their article is about decoding Russian transmissions and they mistranslate the opening sentence...
- ex3ndr 7y ago
  Sure, but this is most critical word in the whole article and it is translated incorrectly? How so? Do they really spent hours translating and then write incorrect word?
  - keiferski 7y ago
    I interpreted that typo to mean that the Times wasn’t particularly interested in reporting the straight facts, but rather trying to push a particular story they were looking to be true. Ergo minor mistakes like a few less-than-perfectly translated words are irrelevant, especially when the intended audience doesn’t speak Russian to begin with.
    - ex3ndr 7y ago
      That adds oil to the fire. And I just can’t show it to my parents in Russia. And Russian government can easily destroy arguments in this article. This article is made only for clicks and makes everything just worse.

galkk 7y ago

If it were a scientific article, I'd say that it's unconvincing. At all. Can they share raw data, and not just handwaiving? >During our investigation, we obtained tens of thousands of previously unpublished audio recordings between Russian Air Force pilots and ground control officers in Syria. We also obtained months of flight data logged by a network of Syrian observers who have been tracking warplanes to warn civilians of impending airstrikes. The flight observations came with the time, location and general type of each aircraft spotted. Where? How? Can they be forged? Can we hear them? Can we trust them? Can we trust NYT?

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc. And, while we are at it: what's to say Google Earth is accurate? The audio recordings just sound russian to you! Does the Mig actually exist, or isn't all that just Hollywood special effects to invent a reason for the F-35 to exist? Point being: this is a good example proving how unrealistic this often-repeated HN cliché of "don't trust anyone" is. Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links.
- ex3ndr 7y ago
  Oh no, I really want to see audio where they got this incorrect word.
- keiferski 7y ago
  The difference is that the Times is proclaiming a fact (“How We Proved...”), not saying “our investigation concludes that is it very likely Russia was behind the attacks.” Considering the Times’ past pushing of Anti-Russian narratives, they need to have actual evidence if they want to avoid skepticism.
- galkk 7y ago
  > And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc I will be able to check it and have my own conclusions, if I'd like to. There were already comments in this chain that there is no word "Srabota" in Russian. It should be either "Srabotalo" or "Srabotala". I'm native Russian and Ukrainian speaker, so hearing the record could convince or unconvince me. > Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links. Of course I should trust the Book without doubts, it has everything written in in it, and it's the Truth! That's what you mean?

sam_lowry_ 7y ago

'Srabota' is not a russian word. I doubt the rest of the article is better if they managed to make a stupid mistake in the 1st sentence.

andybp85 7y ago
Google translate auto-detects it as Russian as сработа: https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=srabota https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto... Punching that word into google.ru suggests работа, which then translates to various forms of "work" https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0 https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE... I know nothing about Russian beyond a few swear words, but seems like a transliteration nuance, and "it's done" could be a fair translation. I'd definitely defer to a Russian speaker though.
- sam_lowry_ 7y ago
  Machine learning imitates, but does not induce rules.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]