5 ms·

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page.

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. b) There is a lack of evidence in the article. I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. c) His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on their own hubris. That is why we demand evidence.

haswell 4y ago
> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. An established reputation is the difference between those claims. You making a claim without evidence is just that. Hersh making a claim without sharing his evidence is something different. That isn’t to say we don’t need evidence, but there’s a better reason to believe him than you, given the context of the situation. > His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on their own hubris. And it’s also full of the opposite. The existence of hubris is not evidence of it. But even then, that claim doesn’t fit, unless you are implying that he made the whole thing up and concluded that it must be what happened. Another conclusion is that he has a source, and simply has not shared it yet. Maybe time will tell.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > Maybe time will tell. This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time. Reputation is not evidence.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Reputation absolutely is evidence. I think you mean it’s not “proof”. If John Carmack says there is an exciting breakthrough in 3D rendering that will give 8k 120fps ray tracing on commodity hardware, that’s noteworthy, and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. HN would be super boring if only topics that had been conclusively proven could be discussed.
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > (...) and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. No it isn't. The guy's reputation is reason to give the benefit of the doubt, but either his claims are proven sound or else they are just as bullshit if Joe blow himself made them.
      - haswell 4y ago
        It’s still an evidence based stance, but temporarily substitutes one form of evidence for another. The notion of reputation is itself built on evidence, e.g. we observe that someone is generally truthful, so we are later justified in concluding that they might be telling the truth. The concept of the benefit of the doubt still relies on this form of evidence. That doesn’t imply that this is sufficient. Regarding Hersh vs. Joe Blow, there is still a meaningful difference in them getting things wrong. When it’s Joe, you don’t care to begin with, and the revelation of wrongness doesn’t change your opinion of Joe. When it’s someone like Hersh, such a revelation brings reputational harm, and raises more questions about how he became so convinced of this information to begin with.
        Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        This looks like an Appeal to Authority.
        haswell 4y ago
        If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things. Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
        Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?
  - haswell 4y ago
    Topics with unknown or unknowable answers are regularly discussed here. Curiosity in the face of uncertainty is pretty much what this place is about. Whether it turns out to be true or false, this article is interesting right now. If it’s true, for obvious reasons. If it’s false, for what it says about Hersh, and a myriad of followup questions that arise.
  - subsistence234 4y ago
    good point, we gotta keep discussion of this topic hidden, so people don't get any weird ideas about questioning our blessed three letter agencies or the holy MIC.
readonthegoapp 4y ago
a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. an incredible amount of tech is involved in these pipelines, building them, blowing them up, figuring out who blew them up, etc. the war/defense industry is the foundation of all US technology: https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.html https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.h... ukraine is a massive test ground for us weapons/tech -- including operations which don't occur strictly in Ukrainian territory. and, the world might be over any day now because of the war, so there's always that. is there a HN in heaven/hell?
- hef19898 4y ago
  Blowing them up requires either a shaped charge or C4 or some other explosive. Hardly high tech.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    The social & physical infrastructure is the story here, not the fact that explosives go boom - although if you don't think explosives are technologically interesting, perhaps that means you just don't know much about them.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      I know you can throw C4 into a camp fire without any risk of it going boom, does that count?
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Somewhat, but I still think you're being overly dismissive. The story is not expressing wonder at how a thick metal cylinder could be damaged by a relatively small explosion or how a bomb could go off under water where it's hard to light a fire.
  - readonthegoapp 4y ago
vintermann 4y ago
> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. No, it wouldn't. The narrative provided by Hersh's source, whether it's true or not, explains many of the facts that demand an explanation. It provides plausible answers to the questions "How were the explosives placed", "How were the explosives triggered" and "how weren't they detected". Not necessarily true ones! But plausible ones that are internally consistent, and don't in themselves raise huge new questions. If you want to be in the running, that's what you need to supply too. This is not a defense of Hersh, it's a defense of his article. You should consider the claims in an article for their internal consistency, and consistency with public evidence, even if you don't trust the source. This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims. There, to the degree Hersh has answers at all to the similar questions how were the chemical weapons acquired, how were they placed and how were they triggered, they just raise impossibly hard questions (like "how was this coordinated", "how did all the participants go along with it" and "how did Russia and the Syrian government utterly fail to expose and document any of it convincingly")
- mzs 4y ago
  >This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims. It really isn't: >What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines … >… Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.” >… Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included—by chance—someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City." That's exactly the sorts of things from his other recent articles that people who know how things actually work would immediately know is BS.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    This is not standard operating procedure, but it's not very different to what happened with the similar Sigonella affair.
  - 4y ago
ihatepython 4y ago
> a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. It's possible the tech stack for the detonator was written in Rust.
masswerk 4y ago
Ad (a): because tech relies on energy and related delivery networks?

haswell 4y ago

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. An established reputation is the difference between those claims. You making a claim without evidence is just that. Hersh making a claim without sharing his evidence is something different. That isn’t to say we don’t need evidence, but there’s a better reason to believe him than you, given the context of the situation. > His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on their own hubris. And it’s also full of the opposite. The existence of hubris is not evidence of it. But even then, that claim doesn’t fit, unless you are implying that he made the whole thing up and concluded that it must be what happened. Another conclusion is that he has a source, and simply has not shared it yet. Maybe time will tell.

threeseed 4y ago
> Maybe time will tell. This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time. Reputation is not evidence.
- brookst 4y ago
  Reputation absolutely is evidence. I think you mean it’s not “proof”. If John Carmack says there is an exciting breakthrough in 3D rendering that will give 8k 120fps ray tracing on commodity hardware, that’s noteworthy, and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. HN would be super boring if only topics that had been conclusively proven could be discussed.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > (...) and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. No it isn't. The guy's reputation is reason to give the benefit of the doubt, but either his claims are proven sound or else they are just as bullshit if Joe blow himself made them.
    - haswell 4y ago
      It’s still an evidence based stance, but temporarily substitutes one form of evidence for another. The notion of reputation is itself built on evidence, e.g. we observe that someone is generally truthful, so we are later justified in concluding that they might be telling the truth. The concept of the benefit of the doubt still relies on this form of evidence. That doesn’t imply that this is sufficient. Regarding Hersh vs. Joe Blow, there is still a meaningful difference in them getting things wrong. When it’s Joe, you don’t care to begin with, and the revelation of wrongness doesn’t change your opinion of Joe. When it’s someone like Hersh, such a revelation brings reputational harm, and raises more questions about how he became so convinced of this information to begin with.
      - Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        This looks like an Appeal to Authority.
        haswell 4y ago
        If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things. Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
        Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?
- haswell 4y ago
  Topics with unknown or unknowable answers are regularly discussed here. Curiosity in the face of uncertainty is pretty much what this place is about. Whether it turns out to be true or false, this article is interesting right now. If it’s true, for obvious reasons. If it’s false, for what it says about Hersh, and a myriad of followup questions that arise.
- subsistence234 4y ago
  good point, we gotta keep discussion of this topic hidden, so people don't get any weird ideas about questioning our blessed three letter agencies or the holy MIC.

readonthegoapp 4y ago

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. an incredible amount of tech is involved in these pipelines, building them, blowing them up, figuring out who blew them up, etc. the war/defense industry is the foundation of all US technology: https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.html https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.h... ukraine is a massive test ground for us weapons/tech -- including operations which don't occur strictly in Ukrainian territory. and, the world might be over any day now because of the war, so there's always that. is there a HN in heaven/hell?

hef19898 4y ago
Blowing them up requires either a shaped charge or C4 or some other explosive. Hardly high tech.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  The social & physical infrastructure is the story here, not the fact that explosives go boom - although if you don't think explosives are technologically interesting, perhaps that means you just don't know much about them.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    I know you can throw C4 into a camp fire without any risk of it going boom, does that count?
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Somewhat, but I still think you're being overly dismissive. The story is not expressing wonder at how a thick metal cylinder could be damaged by a relatively small explosion or how a bomb could go off under water where it's hard to light a fire.
- readonthegoapp 4y ago

vintermann 4y ago

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. No, it wouldn't. The narrative provided by Hersh's source, whether it's true or not, explains many of the facts that demand an explanation. It provides plausible answers to the questions "How were the explosives placed", "How were the explosives triggered" and "how weren't they detected". Not necessarily true ones! But plausible ones that are internally consistent, and don't in themselves raise huge new questions. If you want to be in the running, that's what you need to supply too. This is not a defense of Hersh, it's a defense of his article. You should consider the claims in an article for their internal consistency, and consistency with public evidence, even if you don't trust the source. This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims. There, to the degree Hersh has answers at all to the similar questions how were the chemical weapons acquired, how were they placed and how were they triggered, they just raise impossibly hard questions (like "how was this coordinated", "how did all the participants go along with it" and "how did Russia and the Syrian government utterly fail to expose and document any of it convincingly")

mzs 4y ago
>This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims. It really isn't: >What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines … >… Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.” >… Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included—by chance—someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City." That's exactly the sorts of things from his other recent articles that people who know how things actually work would immediately know is BS.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  This is not standard operating procedure, but it's not very different to what happened with the similar Sigonella affair.
- 4y ago

ihatepython 4y ago

> a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. It's possible the tech stack for the detonator was written in Rust.

masswerk 4y ago

Ad (a): because tech relies on energy and related delivery networks?