sigwinch

History shows periods of opaque infighting within a closed circle of security barons. The west did not know Khrushchev was positioned for power until that ring met with Eisenhower for arms talks, and Khrushchev was the one standing next to Eisenhower at the buffet.

I think the West now expects a complex and probably mortal fight for succession, with the Patruchevs being favored right now.

I’ve heard people talking about factions: one ensuring Putin’s physical security; another ensuring a continuity of their power so that oligarchs and siloviki are indivisibly secure.

It’s well documented, Latvia, Poland, and it takes time to build the case so there are probably more.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/may/04...

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/01/16/we-need-eyes-and-ear...

As of October, Russian efforts via Telegram are associated with the seemingly-spontaneous swarms around places like The Hague.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-cyberespionage-gig-...

9 September is probably where you want to start. Intentional swarm of military drones into NATO. Shahads shot down, no question about a Russian plan to test reactions along the perimeter.

Since then, coordinated launches of screens of smaller civilian drones. I don’t think we’ll get hard numbers, but I’ve heard that NATO is more interested in ground-detection of GPS and satellite uplink jamming.

So the question now is: how are some civilians coordinating within NATO countries, and how are they getting drones that can jam?

A few people have great information on drones. Why would they become sources for RT?

On the topic of what Putin wants, I’m increasingly swayed that domestic politics limit the choices he’s given. I wonder how the same siloviki but a different leader would perform.

On the topic of a wide drone attack coinciding with land invasion, I think (rightly or wrongly) the drone attack will be attributed to Russia early. Even though the life of a Russian soldier is approximately the same as a drone, it’d be very helpful for Russia to manifest the drones in support of some other origin of the troops.

I heard it’s a mix. Suggestible local people on Telegram are coaxed to launch civilian stuff at a time and place. This clouds the sensor data of the true launches.

I don’t know if we’ve seen Shahads since 10 September, but note that Shahads can be ship-launched as well.

In my experience, interest from sociology promoted it to those writing A/B testing. It’s not that the difference in a degree in applied statistics and a degree in data science demonstrated frequentist versus Bayesian.

More interesting is JD Vance suggesting citizenship should be gated on fighting in a civil war.

“If you had the opportunity to inject pig-butchering scenery into our banking app, would you flee the country after its executed?”

There is something of value it produces:

The relationship between politics and finance has lost accountability. Would you take a chance investing with just any cryptocurrency? Or will you make the wise decision and choose mine, the first and only crypto that’s polygraphed all programmers for accountability.

So it’s not involved in a criminal investigation. Then it’s a loyalty test. Specifically, it reassures them you can keep a secret.

Good article. The toxic secret is that a class of these exist, like myristicin in nutmeg. And that nature can alter coumarin into dicoumarol, yet has no obligation to announce it.

Note that this is based on data from a substack post with a major retraction:

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/i-was-wrong-about-dat...

The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around.

> DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” a DHS spokesperson told Reuters.

Maybe that’s true? I think HN was ok with this because it felt like a rational reaction to bringing guys like Big Balls into the SCIF.

DHS and Musk’s people confirmed it. See Reuters back in May 21.

And if you stop doing it, you now have a group who were polygraphed and a group who were not.

In particular, Panorama showed Proud Boys marching after Trump’s speech, when they’d actually left before.

The founder of NewsMax says that lawsuit is going nowhere.

But this does get the latest Epstein fallout off the front page. Epstein is a worse story for Trump than Jan 6.

In another thread, the edits of Trump’s Jan 6 speech by Panorama were called “fake news”. Seems to me that the more-problematic edit was showing the Proud Boys after Trump’s speech, when in fact they left before.

But it’s not like Trump is being taken out of context. It’s not like he was acting with incomplete information.

I think you’re discounting what a physically-unacceptable soldier can do with a drone.

The top brass in Canada would benefit to know who among the civil service has circuitry and dexterous control skills. And if it were me, I’d like a high-res scan of each person with the intent of precomputing who could convince ICE software of an already-established American’s identity.

You and I probably agree that Trump didn’t get to say what he actually wanted to say. I assert those two lines come closest. The attentive watcher might see the cut (two different camera angles) and put in the effort to watch the 50 min. in between. But biased people would just presume it fits a pattern.

Do you think Trump is being taken out of context?

Or, the one awarded a cross by Hitler. I can’t tell when someone quotes Ford today, who might they think is today’s Henry Ford.

The topmost graph on Wikipedia is about GDP, and when it comes to children-per-village, you’re absolutely right. But down some is the J graph, which looks like the American graph in the link I posted.

I think it’s unbiased to say that Jan 6 was about Trump more than any other person. No matter how you pore over his speech, he’s purposefully unclear about what “we” means and how the “fight” should start. No one analyzed the speech in realtime for its most-influential lines and this edit reflects what the rioters heard and felt.

I watched the video a few times. I don’t think Trump himself would object to the edit. But I’m sure that, if he had to explain that speech or Jan 6, it would be damaging.

So this is really about what he wants with the lawsuit.

Specific to this politician, right and wrong don’t matter. The one skill he’s sharpened his entire life is bad faith litigation. Once he threatened to sue, BBC needed some gesture that, in court, would demonstrate contrition.

I’m not sure Trump himself would object to this edit. So-far, he’s benefitted by not reliving Jan 6 or explaining that speech.

As of now (early afternoon GMT) he’s threatened to sue but it’s not clear on what grounds, or if it’s simply part of a larger campaign of leverage.

Who is today’s Henry Ford?

Traditionally, you spend a lot of effort on clear broth. You can, toward the end, add egg white only to remove it once it accumulates protein from the broth.