seppin

I would respectfully disagree with your premise that there is such a thing as "smart". Ie. if you can do one thing well that requires a specific skillset, you can do another thing well too.

That's why Elon Musk got asked about COVID and Kayne about foreign policy. We need to stop doing that. Musk is great at building companies, knows nothing about virology. Kayne is a good at music, end of list.

I mean a home with local ties and roots, not just someone else's airbnb :)

If you are implying those attributes are unique to coders, or that all coders have them, i'd have to politely disagree with both points.

Coding might imply a capacity to do other complex jobs, but not to become an expert in said field. There's only one way to do that, with time and effort.

I wish there was a cal sync different from mail and the rest. Having to login to a secure device to check meetings for the next morning in an annoying ritual.

Right but actual roots / connection to a local community, besides fellow travelers / tourists?

I personally never felt more than a temporary resident in most places i've been.

Ah ok you are married. Do you have long term friends locally ? Is your wife your anchor to a local community ?

They can code, yet many remain painfully ignorant about people and the world.

They have one specific ability, which doesn't require much math at all.

Death to the halo effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

vanlife, digital nomad, etc. It's all the same. You are only presented with the highs, not the lows.

> I’ve been nomading for ten years.

The most i've ever been able to do was half a year. How can you choose to be without a real home that long?

> If I'm sending things out that my reports can't or don't want to read,

If you have to ask..

They are bad managers that work at bad companies, then.

But it's rare and usually conditional. Large sections of the US IC still haven't forgiven Israel for Pollard.

Is this proven with Teams?

No, I admitted my original comment didn't cover everything it needed to, hoping such a concession would lead to a more civilized discussion. I was wrong, you are more interested in attacking people and defending yourself than discussing anything.

> "Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients."

Ok, so the CIA approaches their mark, in this case their own government. They say we will threaten other actors that threaten you, in exchange for money. You've just described the Pentagon, DoD, and every standing army on earth. A "broader protection racket" can literally mean any security service, from mall guard to 4-star general.

Besides, you are being disingenuous. When people think of a "protection racket" they think of extortion and the mob, not the broad security guarantees of an army or intel service.

Or as clearly stated on wikipedia:

> "Protection rackets are indistinguishable in practice from extortion rackets"

You a deflecting from the accepted definition of a term you used in order to make your original claim less fantastical and attention seeking. I don't blame you for making such a claim, social media and websites that allow for upvoting are made for such actions.

Doesn't mean you are anywhere near correct.

> Part of a protection racket is staging attacks when you think you're not going to get paid

Are you implying this has happened or does happen? Please cite your source if so.

> Just because it's a protection racket doesn't mean that it needs to at all times 100% conform to a sentence that you found on wikipedia.

No but going off an existing definition is better than throwing around a concept with any real connection to reality.

> The core of a racket is to respond with disproportionate violence. For example, sending your army to harass the entire country that some of your attackers were part of.

What does that have to do with CIA?

> Drone strikes on schools that are known to be full of children.

So a drone strike on country B is payback for them not ponying up protection money to the intel agency of country A. Did I get that right?

That is nonsensical.

> Have you ever seen a gangster film?

I'm sorry i'm not basing my arguments on movies i've seen.

Combine that with you arrogance in implying i'm getting concepts wrong (i'm citing them, you are not), I think this conversation has run its course. Your entire response amounts to "you are wrong but i'm not going to say how".

> it has been structured so as to help fascistic, autocratic governments gain and hold power.

Perhaps during the cold war, but "countering communism" (whatever that means) was the mission of every branch of the US Government then.

So not sure what your point is.

My point was a simple one, spying will always occur. If people are arguing it should be the exclusive purview of autocrats, and that would somehow improve the state of the world, I would disagree.

You're right:

"Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

It implies that the protector has the absolute ability to control if an attack occurs or not. So if the CIA had a little more budget, they would have stopped 9/11. Because they had the ability to, they just didn't.

Is that what you are saying?

Shutting down spy agencies in democracies will not stop spying done by autocrats. If anything, it will create greater incentives to attack more, not less.

A protection racket implies the "threat" is fake or choreographed. Are you implying China isn't hacking America, or pushing out it's maritime borders, or threatening US allies? These are all engineered threats somehow?

..unless you are China

> HUMINT Intel isn't practiced between staunch allies either

It most certainly is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Interesting news today, Israel remains the only country on earth capable of freeing a spy in the USA convicted and serving a life sentence.

https://www.jns.org/us-frees-jonathan-pollard-after-decades-...

A complicated relationship.

I'm not saying there isn't use for knowing your adversary's capabilities (especially in designing your own offense/defensive systems) but very little of that knowledge informs the core of future arms programs.

> The only people who care about "truth" in capitalism are shareholders and affluent individuals.

These are the people that care about stability, in order to enjoy their wealth. A country that cannot agree with one another on objective reality isn't one that can be governed, and is destined to fall.

Which might be why so many of the "disinformation" fighters come from the establishment, and so many proprietors of distortions and lies are those with grudges (Greenwald, Bannon, etc.) or nothing to lose (QAnon/MAGA types).

It comes down to a difference between people that benefit from a stable status quo, and those (for whatever reason) that want to tear it down.

"is believed by many"

He already said no.

Israel gladly accepts all the help it can from the US, but is well aware of the large support that American anti-zionist and pro-palestinian causes receive. They also don't trust certain administrations to always have their back, even if stated publicly.

In summary, Israel always has a bunker mentality of "us vs. the world". The US, while an ally, isn't immune from suspicion and active and aggressive spying efforts.

> What they do mind is when they themselves are being spied upon

That's what SIGINT is.

> Like Merkel's phone being tapped.

Which is an example of SIGINT. And it was leaked which is why it became an issue. World leader's are always surveilled.

There's a certain level of aggression you use against acknowledged enemies that would be awkward if exposed against allies, that is not to say it doesn't still happen.