Hacker News Reader

You must not read the NYT much. I just took a glance at their homepage and less than 1/3 of the articles are on US politics. The vast majority of their articles I see on HN have a wide variety of interesting topics -

> They Could Buy, but Why? Meet the High-Renters

> Google, Not the Government, Is Building the Future

> Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

> Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

> How Harvard Business School Has Reshaped American Capitalism

> China's $1T Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order

> Google is transforming public education with low-cost laptops and free apps

Honestly, I really don't understand how anyone, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, can wholesale dismiss the NYT. They do good reporting, solid analysis, and if you don't like their editorial board (just as I have little liking for the WSJ editorial board) - don't read them. This tendency to stick with a limited set a source(s) you agree with is at the core dysfunction of the US government today, imo.

> This tendency to stick with a limited set a source(s) you agree with is at the core dysfunction of the US government today, imo.

If you believe this, you should definitely not read much of any single source. Including the NYT. Unless you have time to read much of many sources, which makes it full-time job.

Though I'd agree with you that if you skip reporting on current US politics, part of the world politics (e.g. all Middle East reporting) and any editorial content on left's causes du jour, NYT may be not that bad.

> The most likely source, a leak inside. A leak they were never truly able to detect.

This is pure conjecture.

It is quite easy to do data mining on your subjects if you aren't actually bound by laws, evidence, or human rights.

The drug lords were using AS/400 mainframes decades ago to ferret out traitors. Sure, they killed a few people who weren't, but, meh, who cares, right? I can't imagine the Chinese government actually cares to any greater degree.

Unless an informant doesn't actually want any tangible benefit, there is going to be SOME trail in the electronic ether nowadays. Even the act of disabling your phone is going to be a trail nowadays.

If you simply kill off anybody who falls afoul of your "standard profile" you're going to get your intelligence agents.

If I was in this game I'd be quite careful about that kind of behaviour, and I'd also be gleefully delighted to get an inkling that my opponent had adopted this strategy.

Why? Because I would assume that my opponent was planting evidence to slander my people, and if I thought that they would act on hints and slanders well - I'd have a fun program of hinting and slandering the keystones of their operations (especially counter intel) as well as I could identify them.

The dominant game here is to trust your operation. The way that you win is to build as capable a trust system as you can thus enabling you to run as large an operation as possible. This is why terrorist networks operate in atoms, they are short duration by definition because they tip their hands with any action so there is no deep network building.

At work I often struggle to understand the motivations of some of my less benevolent colleagues, and this gets me into difficulty from time to time. But, the thing about the Chinese shooting the fella in the office carpark, to me, it doesn't sound like an act that is likely to forge deep bonds in the team.

>The drug lords were using AS/400 mainframes decades ago to ferret out traitors.

do you have any reading on this?

2002 article date--arrests were 8 years earlier: http://cocaine.org/cokecrime/

>It doesn't take a side, it doesn't try to fire you up, it just informs.

By informing, they do take a side. It's just that now you like the side they've taken. I'm not saying that all Trump articles are completely justified - the media feeds on hyperbole and fear after all, but a large number of articles are simply trying to inform when talking about Trump.

Here's the first link I saw today on NYT page (not the biggest one, but one on the top of "Sunday Review" column):

4-Year-Olds Don’t Act Like Donald Trump By ALISON GOPNIK Comparing our president to a child is inaccurate and unfair to children.

What is it informing me about? That Trump is not literally 4 years old? Well, thanks a lot. In fact, the whole article is dedicated to describing how Trump sucks so much that comparing anybody to him is an insult. Yeah thanks for "informing" me, I'd never know it if not for NYT reporting.

First problem is that you've mistaken an opinion piece for reporting.

As the other poster mentioned... You did notice the article is an opinion piece? It says 'opinion' right at the very top in prominent type.

For myself, I wouldn't read the WSJ expecting to agree with all of their opinion pieces, though it does happen.

Every article need an angle or a hook to become a story, and that's OK since they sell ads, just like everyone else these days.

It's only when they go hyperbolic, and exclaim themselves as the last stand against the Dark Lord that it's a bit tiresome.

"This story is incredible - it shows a massive failure" - I don't see how it is 'incredible' - the history of CIA is a 'Legacy of Ashes' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_Ashes_%28book%29

It's really terrifying how much the deep state seems to be unraveling.

The so-called "deep state" is just a Trumpian label for "any bureaucracy once gets in the way of my autocracy."

At best, it's a complete reversal of Hanlon's razor, where witches and commies and whatnot are hiding behind every corner.

The term deep state has been around for a long time. It is the group of non-elected people who exert considerable influence from behind the scenes, and that remain from administration to administration. But whatever you want to call it, it is exactly the deep state that facilitates things like yesterday's $350B arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

The absence of a deep state would be much scarier than the alternative!

Maybe scarier for you and all the running dogs of US imperialism. The people of countries under semi-colonial and semi-feudal rule may disagree.

On what basis did you assume I was a supporter of US imperialism?

Besides, as far as feudal masters go, the US is despite their colorful history on the more benign end of the cruelty spectrum, which is really saying something about the competition.

Ultimately the regions subjected to American rule would see their conditions deteriorate further if the deep state didn't soften the brutal seesaw motion that inevitably follows the change in leadership.

You went straight from saying, “Don't assume I'm a running dog!” to literally proving that you are a running dog! So cool.

In that case... Woof bark!

please chill out dude

I find myself having mixed feelings. Generally, I like the idea that there are people who have many years of experience in various positions at all levels of government. In that way the deep state is wonderful. It would be insanity if everyone at all levels got swapped out every 4 years. At the same time it's the deep state who is responsible for the NSA wire-tapping. It's the deep state who began planning our invasion of Syria in 2006 with Israel and Saudi Arabia, long before the Arab Spring or chemical weapons.

So in some sense I think the deep state could use a bit of a shake-up to hopefully get it back in line with what I believe are American values. At the same time I'm afraid of the short term consequences of this shake-up.

All those trillions of dollars that would need to be spent bettering society instead of .. being spent secretly on who knows what ..

The deep state unraveling has nothing to do with Trump whatsoever and dates back at least as far as the Snowden leaks and cablegate. Well, I guess it does have a little bit to do with Trump since some of the ways it's unraveling include leaks that seem to be intended to harm Trump but so far have proven to lack substance.

Trump is doing arms deals with Saudi Arabia for the military industry, a part of the deep state, as we speak.