4 ms·

Or maybe… Things are really fucked right now. I agree that this is an abnormal number of suicides- I don't think anyone is disputing that. I disagree with your

Or maybe… Things are really fucked right now. I agree that this is an abnormal number of suicides- I don't think anyone is disputing that. I disagree with your suggestion of “housecleaning” though. I would speculate that the answer is simplier: DoD “Hacker stuff” kills people. And worse. At scale. The psychological stressors of intelligence work alone is real and extremely high; Cyber Command’s role is not just to know, but to act. Cyber warfare is escalating faster than they can keep up, global consequences for their actions are high— and they understand the risks better than anyone [1](and can’t talk about it), but they are extremely under resourced, and because of leadership decisions or other factors outside their control, they feel unable to complete their work effectively [2], or are being told to do things they feel are immoral [3]. The most plausible cause of these suicides, and the takeaway I get from this story, is that under the surface of US global military operations, things are bad. If things are even more stressful than normal under the surface at CYBERCOM and personnel are feeling hopeless enough about it to end their own lives, this should be a red flag for the rest of us. - [1] maybe you can imagine having a hands on understanding of the real world impact of critical OT exploits, and being both unable to disclose specific details and also yelling into the void about it for years while no one listens. US water treatment cyber vulnerability is a great example of industry and government lagging so hard that it took an enormous volunteer effort and a decade to begin to address fixing issues which should have been a “fix it yesterday” all hands on deck priority. https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/08/07/water-system-controllers-dont-belong-on-the-internet-says-ex-nsa-chief-after-suspected-iran-attacks/5285070 https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/08/07/water-system... As another example, the US and Israel hacked “nearly all” traffic cameras in Tehran and used them to target and kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now think about the proliferation of internet connected doorbell and traffic cameras in the US… now imagine having an intimate understanding of how cameras can be used to kill people, while watching that risk grow exponentially over a decade, and being helpless to do anything about it because you aren’t allowed to talk about it and no one would believe you that doorbell cameras are a national security threat anyway. https://www.wired.com/story/from-ukraine-to-iran-hacking-security-cameras-is-now-part-of-wars-playbook/ https://www.wired.com/story/from-ukraine-to-iran-hacking-sec... https://www.safehome.org/resources/home-security-industry-annual/ https://www.safehome.org/resources/home-security-industry-an... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/25/us-cybersecurity-agency-cisa-reportedly-in-dire-shape-amid-trump-cuts-and-layoffs/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/25/us-cybersecurity-agency-ci... [3] e.g. disrupting Venezuelan or Iranian civilian infrastructure. Would you feel okay about developing the capability to cause a nuclear meltdown in Iran? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrv0p37k8jo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrv0p37k8jo https://cybernews.com/cyber-war/us-confirms-cyber-role-caracas-blackout/ https://cybernews.com/cyber-war/us-confirms-cyber-role-carac... https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116351998782539414 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1163519987825...

Loquebantur 2mo ago
The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenomenon. The fiction, that intelligence community (among many other places in US government) was some harbor of angelic superior morality, capable of restraining themselves in spite of total lack of effective oversight is certainly "simple". That doesn't make it true.
- CircuitSeuss 2mo ago
  Absolutely! But I don't think that’s the most plausible answer here.
  - Loquebantur 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
      You know, people would be more receptive to you if you wouldn't talk down on them. I mean, for gods' sakes, parent specifically partially agreed with you(!) and yet you *still* talked down to them.
      - Loquebantur 2mo ago
        "Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.
        encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        >"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? It means partially agreeing, and quite respectfully, I might add. You, however, were only *dis*respectful, downright rude in fact. >Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement. I'm not treating anything as the same as any level of effort. All I'm saying is if you act like a dick, people will be much less likely to give you any attention, even if something you say is correct.

Loquebantur 2mo ago

The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenomenon. The fiction, that intelligence community (among many other places in US government) was some harbor of angelic superior morality, capable of restraining themselves in spite of total lack of effective oversight is certainly "simple". That doesn't make it true.

CircuitSeuss 2mo ago
Absolutely! But I don't think that’s the most plausible answer here.
- Loquebantur 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
    You know, people would be more receptive to you if you wouldn't talk down on them. I mean, for gods' sakes, parent specifically partially agreed with you(!) and yet you *still* talked down to them.
    - Loquebantur 2mo ago
      "Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.
      - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        >"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? It means partially agreeing, and quite respectfully, I might add. You, however, were only *dis*respectful, downright rude in fact. >Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement. I'm not treating anything as the same as any level of effort. All I'm saying is if you act like a dick, people will be much less likely to give you any attention, even if something you say is correct.