4 ms·

Right. But you do realise, if there is political capital or some other advantage to be gained by this perception, that the fbi or some other agency, would pote

Right. But you do realise, if there is political capital or some other advantage to be gained by this perception, that the fbi or some other agency, would potentially undertake an operation that would allow the impression to be given that it was Russia that did it? Do you remember when North Korea hacked Sony films?

jacquesm 3y ago
Of course, but there is this thing called Occam's Razor and it applies just fine here, the evidence for Russia doing this is far more convincing than that the FBI (not really the agency that I would task with trying to hack the EU energy supply) did it. That's preposterous at best and lunatic territory at worst. Is your account name a wordplay on 'Pravda'?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  I see the same kind of smug nihilism as the parent comment all over this site. They imply that the FBI is lying (which is possible) without providing a shred of evidence.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Given the brief of the FBI it is beyond incredible.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    But it's fine to simply believe these agencies are not lying without evidence, is that it?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Logic failure. You should probably check up on what the brief of the FBI is before continuing to post in this thread. Hint: it's the very first word of the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
      - verisimi 3y ago
        It's a logic failure? How? Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe them? You think because it says 'protect' it must be true? If it says 'defense' does that also mean countries only defend themselves from attack? Or can you also defend yourself, by invading other countries? Isn't that when 'attack' is the right word?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Having room enough in your worldview for an FBI that goes so far over their brief that they could start a war is well outside my comfort zone. Note that what you are describing goes directly against anything the FBI stands for and with a flourish you equate that 0.0000001% possibility with the 98% possibility (based on the evidence available) that this is Russia acting to sow dissent in the EU. Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so). Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.
        verisimi 3y ago
        Right - it could be outside your comfort zone. But not a logic failure. If you want to see an example of how this might be done, can I recommend the entertaining movie: 'Wag the dog'? What we are really talking about is the problem of presentation. Very few people/companies have a very broad reach. If you are an agency/organisation that is able to intercept and alter the message that is sent, perhaps even create the message completely (you can call this propaganda or spin) if no one is checking the reality on the ground, would you do it? Do you think those organisations tasked with governing minds (govern mente) would consider this as the easiest way to manage their message? And, as a consumer, how would you know the truth of whatever is portrayed? There are plenty of reasons not to take the presentation we are provided literally.
    - benterix 3y ago
      Occam's razor here is that Russia has been engaged for years in a wide range activities with the sole aim of, simply speaking, creating all kinds of problems in the West. [0] Many of these are very well documented. There is no single cause - they will support both extreme right and extreme left, aiming to sow trouble. These actions are not so subtle and everybody can analyze them. Their ex-prime minister openly threatens to nuke EU countries, not just once, but on several occasions. Moreover, Russia had high hopes the EU will not manage without Russian gas. They even made this scary video on how the whole EU will freeze[1]. But we managed to solve the problem and nobody in Europe is fearing the next winter. It would be a strange coincidence if power plants in the EU started malfunctioning in February causing country-wide outages because of some complex software problems that got undetected for months... [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01399-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01399-3 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5x4RzDL8ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5x4RzDL8ps

jacquesm 3y ago

Of course, but there is this thing called Occam's Razor and it applies just fine here, the evidence for Russia doing this is far more convincing than that the FBI (not really the agency that I would task with trying to hack the EU energy supply) did it. That's preposterous at best and lunatic territory at worst. Is your account name a wordplay on 'Pravda'?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I see the same kind of smug nihilism as the parent comment all over this site. They imply that the FBI is lying (which is possible) without providing a shred of evidence.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Given the brief of the FBI it is beyond incredible.
- verisimi 3y ago
  But it's fine to simply believe these agencies are not lying without evidence, is that it?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Logic failure. You should probably check up on what the brief of the FBI is before continuing to post in this thread. Hint: it's the very first word of the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
    - verisimi 3y ago
      It's a logic failure? How? Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe them? You think because it says 'protect' it must be true? If it says 'defense' does that also mean countries only defend themselves from attack? Or can you also defend yourself, by invading other countries? Isn't that when 'attack' is the right word?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Having room enough in your worldview for an FBI that goes so far over their brief that they could start a war is well outside my comfort zone. Note that what you are describing goes directly against anything the FBI stands for and with a flourish you equate that 0.0000001% possibility with the 98% possibility (based on the evidence available) that this is Russia acting to sow dissent in the EU. Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so). Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.
        verisimi 3y ago
        Right - it could be outside your comfort zone. But not a logic failure. If you want to see an example of how this might be done, can I recommend the entertaining movie: 'Wag the dog'? What we are really talking about is the problem of presentation. Very few people/companies have a very broad reach. If you are an agency/organisation that is able to intercept and alter the message that is sent, perhaps even create the message completely (you can call this propaganda or spin) if no one is checking the reality on the ground, would you do it? Do you think those organisations tasked with governing minds (govern mente) would consider this as the easiest way to manage their message? And, as a consumer, how would you know the truth of whatever is portrayed? There are plenty of reasons not to take the presentation we are provided literally.
  - benterix 3y ago
    Occam's razor here is that Russia has been engaged for years in a wide range activities with the sole aim of, simply speaking, creating all kinds of problems in the West. [0] Many of these are very well documented. There is no single cause - they will support both extreme right and extreme left, aiming to sow trouble. These actions are not so subtle and everybody can analyze them. Their ex-prime minister openly threatens to nuke EU countries, not just once, but on several occasions. Moreover, Russia had high hopes the EU will not manage without Russian gas. They even made this scary video on how the whole EU will freeze[1]. But we managed to solve the problem and nobody in Europe is fearing the next winter. It would be a strange coincidence if power plants in the EU started malfunctioning in February causing country-wide outages because of some complex software problems that got undetected for months... [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01399-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01399-3 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5x4RzDL8ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5x4RzDL8ps