4 ms·

> are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday to not originate in the US or any other nation To be clear, they stated that “these are not US military drones”, and t

> are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday to not originate in the US or any other nation To be clear, they stated that “these are not US military drones”, and that they have no evidence that they are from a foreign entity or adversary, which is very different from what I interpreted you as saying.

keepamovin 2y ago
You interpreted me as saying?
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  I interpreted your statement as “the Pentagon has assessed the drones and determined that they did not originate in the US or any other nation”.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Basically yeah, there's some room for interpretation, but the key thing is the exact words the Pentagon spokesmen used are: "at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones" The linked video starts at the relevant timestamp.
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  "are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday... to not originate in the US or any other nation" = "the Pentagon claims to actively know that the drones aren't from any publicly-known line of drone models"
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Well that's not exactly what they said. Here's the transcript: "at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones" What do you make of that?
    - comp_throw7 2y ago
      I didn't say they said that. You asked what the other poster interpreted you as saying.
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        Right but how would you know how the other person interpreted it? What you said is not what I said. What I said is just a paraphrase of the Pentagon statement. How is it very different hahaha? :)
- craftsman 2y ago
  > "are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday to not originate in the US or any other nation" This statement logically means that: * The Pentagon assessed (determined) that X is true * Where X is defined as "The drones do not originate in the US or any other nation" That is different than the statement: * The Pentagon has stated that (a) X is false, and (b) they have no evidence that Y is true. * Where X is defined as "The drones are US military assets" * Where Y is defined as "The drones originate from and/or are assets of a foreign nation or adversary."
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    For clarity the exact words the Pentagon staff in the video used are: "at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones" What's your thoughts?
    - craftsman 2y ago
      I'd just revise the second part of my post to: That is different than the statement: * The Pentagon has stated that (a) X is true, and (b) they have no evidence that Y is true. * Where X is defined as "These are not US military drones" * Where Y is defined as "these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary"
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        I guess "US commercial drones" is the gap or intersection of the relevant Venn diagrams, but that doesn't make sense. Why would you test them over a military base? I think we can apply some Gaussian blur and assume the statement is an approximate fit to the meaning by remembering that: this was a statement provided by a human in real time, ad libbing in response to a press question. They didn't spend hours drafting it to elucidate all possible logical connections and deftly conceal the unstated meaning by crafting some inference puzzle. Hahaha! :) Communication between people is successful miscommunication. It's not an API - remember that, engineer! :)
    - 2y ago
conductr 2y ago
What evidence do they have though? I’m going with none and it seems odd to me they’re ok just letting the local law enforcement run point
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  Why would one believe that US intelligence agencies have no information about extensive reports of drone activity near military installations? Given that this has been happening for a couple weeks now, and the military has said “these are not a threat”, the clearly more plausible explanation is that they know what these are, and they aren’t saying. This is what the military does when they are testing classified military technology. “It’s not ours. It’s not the enemy’s. It’s not a threat. Nothing to see here.”
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Maybe they state that, but they're not going to test it in the open so it's not a secret.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Can you really assume they have no evidence? You'd hope they'd have sensors and analysis capable of forming some conclusions, such as tracing the drones to a origin point, or classifying based on signature, etc. They've haven't provided much and there's a lot of questions unanswered, but they've said unequivocally what they think the origin is not.

keepamovin 2y ago

You interpreted me as saying?

Vegenoid 2y ago
I interpreted your statement as “the Pentagon has assessed the drones and determined that they did not originate in the US or any other nation”.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Basically yeah, there's some room for interpretation, but the key thing is the exact words the Pentagon spokesmen used are: "at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones" The linked video starts at the relevant timestamp.
comp_throw7 2y ago
"are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday... to not originate in the US or any other nation" = "the Pentagon claims to actively know that the drones aren't from any publicly-known line of drone models"
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Well that's not exactly what they said. Here's the transcript: "at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones" What do you make of that?
  - comp_throw7 2y ago
    I didn't say they said that. You asked what the other poster interpreted you as saying.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      Right but how would you know how the other person interpreted it? What you said is not what I said. What I said is just a paraphrase of the Pentagon statement. How is it very different hahaha? :)
craftsman 2y ago
> "are assessed by the Pentagon yesterday to not originate in the US or any other nation" This statement logically means that: * The Pentagon assessed (determined) that X is true * Where X is defined as "The drones do not originate in the US or any other nation" That is different than the statement: * The Pentagon has stated that (a) X is false, and (b) they have no evidence that Y is true. * Where X is defined as "The drones are US military assets" * Where Y is defined as "The drones originate from and/or are assets of a foreign nation or adversary."
- keepamovin 2y ago
  For clarity the exact words the Pentagon staff in the video used are: "at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones" What's your thoughts?
  - craftsman 2y ago
    I'd just revise the second part of my post to: That is different than the statement: * The Pentagon has stated that (a) X is true, and (b) they have no evidence that Y is true. * Where X is defined as "These are not US military drones" * Where Y is defined as "these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary"
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      I guess "US commercial drones" is the gap or intersection of the relevant Venn diagrams, but that doesn't make sense. Why would you test them over a military base? I think we can apply some Gaussian blur and assume the statement is an approximate fit to the meaning by remembering that: this was a statement provided by a human in real time, ad libbing in response to a press question. They didn't spend hours drafting it to elucidate all possible logical connections and deftly conceal the unstated meaning by crafting some inference puzzle. Hahaha! :) Communication between people is successful miscommunication. It's not an API - remember that, engineer! :)
  - 2y ago

conductr 2y ago

What evidence do they have though? I’m going with none and it seems odd to me they’re ok just letting the local law enforcement run point

Vegenoid 2y ago
Why would one believe that US intelligence agencies have no information about extensive reports of drone activity near military installations? Given that this has been happening for a couple weeks now, and the military has said “these are not a threat”, the clearly more plausible explanation is that they know what these are, and they aren’t saying. This is what the military does when they are testing classified military technology. “It’s not ours. It’s not the enemy’s. It’s not a threat. Nothing to see here.”
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Maybe they state that, but they're not going to test it in the open so it's not a secret.
keepamovin 2y ago
Can you really assume they have no evidence? You'd hope they'd have sensors and analysis capable of forming some conclusions, such as tracing the drones to a origin point, or classifying based on signature, etc. They've haven't provided much and there's a lot of questions unanswered, but they've said unequivocally what they think the origin is not.