Gpt summary of imminent threat from Assange/snowden whistleblowing:
* ### WikiLeaks (Julian Assange)
-Compromised Security Operations: The release of detailed military operations and tactics could have directly endangered ongoing missions and the lives of soldiers and local collaborators. - Jeopardized Intelligence Sources: Disclosures that revealed the identities of informants, intelligence agents, and collaborators put these individuals at significant risk of retaliation, harm, or death.
### Edward Snowden
- National Security Risks: The revelation of specific surveillance methods allowed adversaries to alter their communication strategies to avoid detection, thereby reducing the effectiveness of intelligence operations. - Compromised Counterterrorism Efforts: Exposing the extent and methods of surveillance enabled terrorist organizations and other malicious actors to adapt their operations to evade surveillance, potentially leading to undetected plots and attacks.*
Don’t they have to prove this?
One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK.
This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this.
And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.
So MAGA would probably take up his cause, but with the Biden admin freeing him (fingers crossed), that's one less thing they can use against Biden in the elections.
The Secretary of State not responding to the Libyan consulate’s security concerns prior to the attack is a serious matter and the source of the documents is not the issue.
Ah, an appropriate example of bending logic and serious ignoring of many facts to end up with this conclusion...
One step less than 'hoax' but it's Snopes and they lean left.
a) think
b) (mis)use the English language
For clarity: do you believe that your cognition on this matter is logically, ontologically, and epistemically flawless?
I hope your seeming high level of confidence is resilient enough to answer this simple question directly, without engaging in rhetoric, meme magic, evasion, misdirection, silence, etc which in my experience is the standard behavior of the normative conditioned Western human mind when it is put into such a situation.
No, I believe my cognition on this matter can be flawed. That's why the qualifiers "would probably be", "apparently", and "parts of".
But I agree with kome's response.
Did you properly qualify each statement in your broader text?
Are you familiar with the terms "rhetoric", "interpretation", "reductionism", "perception", "misinformation", "Meme Magic", "emergence"? Do you think they may have some causal relevance to the (possible/alleged) "technical correctness" of your statements?
Do you think it is possible that speaking out in this manner/style may have non-trivial (which could range from "bad" to "extremely bad") negative effects on the overall system (which I think is at least part of your concern with the behavior of MAGA people)?
> But I agree with kome's response.
If that's the case, would you be willing to answer the questions I asked of kome?
I have a question: do you believe I am actually a chatbot, or are you only speaking as if you believe that I am a chatbot (full disclosure: my theory being that you might be[1] leveraging humor to galvanize support against an outsider in the community, taking a different attack angle than others have tried, etc)?
Regarding HN guidelines: I would say they are highly optimal as they are: ambiguity + (layers of) culture is a very powerful combination, it allows moderators great leeway in using heuristic/cultural pattern matching to "prove" violations by exploiting well known bugs in consciousness (which have been discussed with very little controversy right here on HN many times in the past).
Human conversation and belief (aka: truth) formation is extremely complex, and often counterintuitive.
Thoughts or counterpoints? I think it is an interesting and important topic that does not get nearly enough attention.
[1] though not necessarily with explicit conscious intent, perhaps simply just as an intuitive, culturally conditioned behavior
Regardless: as a fan of novelty and effort, you get my upvote. Also: the bots angle is actually a rather interesting idea, if a person was to put a bit of thought into it.
Perhaps (it is a subjective matter, in more ways than one, and some more importantly than others). What of it?
Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy? Don't forget, lives are literally on the line. (Something else I find funny: sometimes lives being on the line is important, other times it is not. It is amazing how inconsistent humans are, even on the very most important matters.)
> their comment is ok
Is this to say that it suffers in no way regarding the specific phenomena that I am asking about?
And if not:
- what does "is ok" mean, precisely?
- do you believe that it does not suffer in any of these ways?
> and i fully understood their logic.
If you did not, would you necessarily be able to know? (Can you realize the architectural problem you are in?)
> I cannot say the same about yours.
What specific "logic" of mine are you referring to here?
Not being a complete and utter asshole, like you are being here. HTH!
What does HTH stand for by the way?