Please, delete all new places since the start of war 23th of February
support.google.com
support.google.com
And militaries all over the globe do use Google Maps extensively, if not by policy then just by soldiers doing their own thing. Wrong borders in Google Maps have nearly led to international incidents when soldiers ended up on the wrong side of a border. And then there are the disputed borders that Google is forced to display differently in different countries. There is no globally accepted map and as a result the map Google shows you changes depending on where you're located.
[1] Actually I am out of date, it looks like the South Korea maps are vector based now. Maybe the law changed. It definitely used to be the case.
Probably referring to this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1873285 ("Nicaragua Raids Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps")
The South Korean mapping law allows for the domestic service (still subject to slight censorship), but Google didn't want to put any servers other than edge servers to South Korea so as a sort of protest it essentially froze the map for South Korea from November 2016 to December 2021, when Google finally gave up and established a new domestic data center.
The laws Google asked for changes were not limited to the mapping laws but any law to require domestic data centers, which might trigger the domestic tax issue at any moment. Your explanation that Borg couldn't handle domestic clusters doesn't clearly explain that Google eventually established SK data centers and started supporting vector maps anyway---and given that South Korea is not the only country with such requests (e.g. EU), not being able to cope with such laws is just a Google's fault.
Google data centers != Google cloud data centers
The two are logistically very different and consequently that means the types of workloads they host are also different. The latter is really for GCP usage only (both customers and Google-internal cloud infra necessary to host GCP). Compare https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/ with https://cloud.google.com/about/locations.
1. SK vector maps were generated using domestic servers (but no Borg) as SK govt demanded.
2. Google "secretly" exported SK maps and generated vector maps using Borg anyway.
And both scenarios are problematic. The former would mean that the GP's claim that vector map generation requires Borg is not true or at least exaggerated (this scenario was what I had in mind when reading my sources, hence no verification). The latter would mean that... well, Google is in direct violation of SK law and not even trying to hide that.
Tax reasons might have arisen since, but maybe we're talking about different laws? I don't know. Do you?
The fact that there's no mention of Seoul at "Discover our data center locations" https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/ tells me that its GCP region is most likely rented space in someone else's buildings and there are no full-blown Borg clusters with their usual tenants. Choosing where to build was always a complex process. There have been cases where announcements were made and land was bought, but nothing ever got built.
My explanation that.. "Borg couldn't handle domestic clusters"? What does that even mean? You could probably bring up a toy single-master Borg cell on a workstation with the right 283 command line flags and a toy Chubby cluster, but that still won't give you any map tiles.
Back in the days before incremental map updates, the whole globe's data came from a pipeline of pipelines and mapreduces, stitched together by a number of teams (the project's codename started with O). It was tracked with advanced technology (Google sheets) by PMs that had a taste for suffering. The latency was measured in weeks and months. If you missed the build, your data or code changes would take who knows how long to go live. I think that sometimes builds might have been abandoned altogether. These were the days when mobile Maps, if they existed at all, lagged desktop tiles by weeks or months (there wasn't one set only...). Same with navigation. The amount of data has only increased since, but there's obviously a much more advanced process at work nowadays. I don't know what they changed or how.
Anyway, back then, to build the SK tiles with the same tools you would have needed Borg, yes, but also Bigtable, GFS and a wide assortment of ancillary services. How are they doing it now? Maybe they finally got a license. Maybe they got a sufficiently limited subset of the full feed. Maybe they did a major rewrite of the code, pipelines and even binaries to make it feasible for that chunk of the planet to be handled by a bunch of bare Linux machines on GCP or AWS in South Korea. You might be able to deduce something by comparing updates there vs the rest of the world, but that takes time and dedication.
ISIS and the other Islamist factions in the Syrian Civil War were also using it extensively when fighting the Syrian Government forces and when planning their suicide attacks, but because Assad was the bad guy no Google action was taken (like restricting GMaps access in the area).
Speaking of, if you go click on the Ukraine label right now on Google Maps, you won't get the red outline showing their border. Click on a neighboring country label for a comparison.
Belarus: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Belarus/@53.696013,25.7358...
Ukraine: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ukraine/@48.2486332,26.694...
Whomever did this...
https://www.google.se/maps?q=catalunya
Another explanation would be the dispute with Morocco about Perejil Island:
https://www.google.se/maps?q=isla+perejil
Or even the dispute regarding Gibraltar with Britain.
Militaries should probably prohibit personal smartphones completely. But I imagine such a prohibition would be a pretty big hit to morale and would also be very difficult to enforce, especially for non-combat areas where soldiers might not see the point.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-05-23/rumsfeld-bans-camera-...
Amap works as expected.
So it is not like the regulations are saying "you must shift the coordinates by this amount", which would be stupid. It's just that foreign map publishers have not obtained the license to use the correct datum for Mainland China, so they make do with another one.
Wikipedia: "GCJ-02 (colloquially Mars Coordinates, officially Chinese: 地形图非线性保密处理算法; lit. 'Topographic map non-linear confidentiality algorithm') is a geodetic datum formulated by the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping and based on WGS-84. It uses an obfuscation algorithm which adds apparently random offsets to both the latitude and longitude, with the alleged goal of improving national security."
What I don't completely understand, for two reasons, is why foreign map publishers would allow this pseudorandom offset to exist on their mapping apps:
1. The obfuscation algorithm has basically been cracked.
2. I don't think the Chinese gov can do much about foreign companies, except maybe by proxy, by pressuring the national trade liaisons or some such.
Google famously left China, but still has offices there. It's impossible to ignore China if you want to develop the OS that runs on so many phones manufactured there (though I believe Google's own phones are built elsewhere). Apple obviously is completely reliant on China almost to a crazy degree. Microsoft caved to China on censorship to keep Bing from being blocked, they never left the way Google did. Facebook doesn't cooperate with China at all in their software products which are all banned, but they're increasingly getting into hardware and can't manufacture their hardware products without China.
Best they can do for now is report these geo markers to google as soon as possible for deletion. (And hopefully Google bans the users who are adding these fake locations)
I find it hard to believe they're actually using Google maps like that though. I wonder if it's simply a DOS attack.
For the army of a state willing to be completely independent of the West to use an American web based service for military purposes, and to do it in a way other people can see it is sloppy to the point of tragedy.
Or maybe that's an elaborate attempt to do psychological warfare?
From their POV. I mean if the "sloppy" approach works (in this specific case) roughly as good as whatever military specific alternate approach they have(1), then it makes sense to use that, to not disclose the capabilities of alternate approaches to their enemy (the US).
(1): That is assuming they have one, if not ... I would be both quite surprised and somehow not really surprised like both at once.
After seeing the relatively poor performance of the Russian military this past week I'm not surprised but I would have been surprised two weeks ago.
Such an expensive mess, especially for the Ukrainians, who are paying it with their lives, for reasons outside their control.
Senior leadership thinks he went off half cocked because he's running out of time.
Propaganda? Sure. Even if it's true.
He apparently couldn't keep the ol' convoy up today either...
Or, just purely from a UX standpoint, you can use a military receiver with an interface like this https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/c0083836/800wm and then look up the coordinates by hand on a twenty year old paper map. Or you can drop a pin on gmaps and text it to Sergey at the artillery battery. If you don't care about opsec, which is easier?
People need to be a little less naive and skip conversations like this. There’s a 40 mile (65km) convoy heading for the capital of Ukraine. A lot of Ukrainians are about to die. Rather than complaining about how Russia is using 21st century technology from the West, perhaps discussing real solutions would be more beneficial?
“…perhaps discussing real solutions would be more beneficial?”
Maybe we come up with nothing but tens of thousands of lives could be saved if we think of something.
A week from now the world is going to wish it had done more.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians will be dead within a week.
You’re the one that came in complaining about how nothing is being done and offering a suggestion of… talking, which is what is already happening.
When people rightfully pointed this out to you, you suddenly involved “we”. You’re the one that has instigated this meta-discussion, and you just don’t like that people called you out on it.
I’ll let you guys get back to saying how bad the Russians are for using Google maps. Forget I even brought up the brainstorming idea.
Quite honestly I should have know people would go with “you first”. But when I go with “me first” people spend the entire time talking about how it’s a bad idea, missing the point completely
A lot of people here probably don’t even remember the Cold War.
It’s all about to get pretty real.
Considering all the people who are going to die, I had to try.
At best, it's yelling from the sidelines that nothing is getting done and everyone should feel bad.
(That is to say, probably not competent at it, which is better than "definitely not")
Also, you can bet concrete actionable suggestions made here will bubble up to silicon valley execs by the morning.
Cool, can’t wait to see the thread you start discussing these important things.
Or are you saying someone else should solve this for you?
Nothing nuclear happened during the war with soviets in Vietnam, Korea, etc., or with Russians in Syria. RF is much weaker than USSR.
It is not.
> Nothing nuclear happened during the war with soviets in Vietnam, Korea, etc., or with Russians in Syria. RF is much weaker than USSR.
You don’t need much power to fuck up the planet. A single thermonuclear bomb would suffice and Russia, however weak, has thousands of those.
The Chinese did not have nuclear weapons when the US fought them in the Korean War. Neither the Chinese nor the Soviets were (officially) involved in the Vietnam War. The US and Russia have danced around very carefully in Syria; the only direct conflict I know of involved Russian "mercenaries". In none of those cases did the Soviets or the Russians signal that they would use nuclear weapons; likewise, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was given covert military support by the US, but there was no direct conflict.
NATO operations in Ukraine carry a very large risk of accidental escalation, in addition to Putin's threats.
> The US and Russia have danced around very carefully in Syria; the only direct conflict I know of involved Russian "mercenaries".
Turkey shot Russian airplane.
> NATO operations in Ukraine carry a very large risk of accidental escalation, in addition to Putin's threats.
I'm sorry to inform you, but war between two nuclear nations has much larger risk of escalation when NATO will play the role of coward.
Even if some scientists could technically build a bomb, the hard part with nuclear arsenal is not the bomb itself but the launching device.
Meanwhile, you're suggesting "This does nothing" when in fact, it's a legitimate avenue because, to use your specific quote, "all is fair in love and war".
On reflection, I'm completely flummoxed why you would suggest this has no potential. In fact, it seems to be the exact opposite, and quite interesting that these pages are being taken down nearly as quickly as they're posted here. These things taken together suggest that this idea is perceived as dangerous to someone
If we were in Kyiv right now it could be different, but maybe not. Actually, the Russian invasion has been very low intensity so far and to be frank, if not for the nonstop calls for more action from warmongers on the internet, I would still believe we are still well within the range of peace negociations.
I'm conscious how naive this sounds, but after all the Putins and the Bushs can only go to war when their people are filled with enough hatred, that's the first ammo that's ever manufactured.
My opponents usually disagreed, pointing to a big military budget and some modern-ish new weapons shown here and there. No, they do look cool at a show or a parade, but does the personnel know how to use it? Are they built en masse? Is the quality good enough? (With all that corruption!)
Turns out, things are even worse then I imagined, but in the hindsight it shouldn't be surprising: this is far from the first time in history when decaying russian institutions and imperial hubris had led Russia to a disastrous war, which was planned as a 'small victorious' one: Crimean War (1853), Japan war (1905), Winter war with Finland (1940), Afghanistan war (1980), Chechena war (1994).
Now Putin has one of his own. I hope his regime will crumble in the fallout from a resounding defeat.
I just don't understand how that could happen unless they literally run out of fuel on the way, or if some serious airforce intervenes.
We don't they just count the vehicles, I would imagine even basic computer vision software could do that with reasonable accuracy.
If 100 vehicles are in a 10 mile long convoy and then they space out more and are now in a 20 mile long convoy, it's still 100 vehicles.
I do enjoy reading each day the different lengths and distances to Kyiv.
this seems to be happening quite a bit
It's going to be a slaughter, on both sides :(
If anything, it is unthinkable for an advanced army to move in such disposition. They what, cosplay the Freedom Convoy?
Putin did say his troops will be fighting for "Freedom" of Ukraine.
Pop the leader with a Javelin. Pop a couple more vehicles that try to get around it. Presto, instant traffic jam and the Russians have repeatedly shown they clump up in traffic jams. Now you hit the vehicles in the rear, you're not likely to need sophisticated weapons to do that.
Now you have a huge mess that you can rain mortar fire on.
Finland did a lower-tech version of it to them long ago with trees rather than mud as the barrier.
surprise (not), but they literally ran out of fuel on the way [0]
that 65km convoy is just a 65km sitting duck of a traffic jam at the moment. without fuel and food
all of this war is a festival of glorious russian corruption and incompetency at its best. i, as a ukrainian, must thank them for that
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-move-kyiv-stall...
And what did Putin lose in that country anyway? The entire population hates Russians and are willing to die for their freedom. Let's say he can capture it. They have no natural resources of interest or anything like that. Meanwhile his own economy, that was already as tiny as the Benelux, goes completely to the shitterhole.
He has nukes, yes, he has nukes.
I highly doubt this, considering https://nikopol.nikopolnews.net/nikopol/uvaga-informaciya-pr... claims the image is of Ukrainian military. In addition to that, all the claims of them being Spetsnaz seem to originate from social media.
> The fearsome Chechenians were on the way to capture the leaders, and then turned out the Ukrainians already drone striked them including the general.
Once again, there is no solid source for this that doesn't circle back to some social media post.
I don't think there's currently way to confirm whether any of these claims are true or not, not until the conflict is over.
Russian army is amazing.
Saddam had a very powerful army at the time, and the US military walked through it like it was nothing. Occupying Iraq and building a new regime went terribly, as almost all such projects do. Even if Russia manages to conquer Ukraine entirely, which is a massive if, I've seen absolutely nothing in the past 6 days to make me think that an occupation by them would be anything other than a horrid disaster.
Aside from pure propaganda, I have no idea what information you could be looking at to come to the conclusion that Russia is executing the invasion well at this point.
Which part exactly?
The elite spetsnaz that got captured?
The Chechenian army that got drone striked including the general?
The failure of securing the airspace?
The total cluelessness of the soldiers?
The inability to defend the airfield once captured?
The failed logistics?
Yeah, great army, never seen anything like it!
My theory is that Russia threw their D league to go fight so that no one could accuse them of them actually trying to take over.
I'd rather trust my national security on equipment that's subpar but reliable and predictable, instead of trying to make my own and failing. Kind of like home security: I'd rather buy a lock for my front door that may be not perfect rather than trying to machine my own better version, even if I technically know how it works and could maybe make a working prototype. Military development is really, really expensive and extremely hard to do right when your state is still developing and running low on qualified engineers, physicists and mathematicians.
In any case, having recent russian weapons is more than enough when your neighbours are equipped with leftovers from the fifties.
I don't know about China, but Russian exports are mostly soviet-era models, and they are known to have huge maintenance issues. Also note this: in the USSR they knew how to build things, but modern Russia can't. We have no electronics industry, no machine industry, we can't really make commercial airplanes, and we can't build a decent car. How would country with such capabilities make state of the art military equipment?!
As an example from the other side, the British BOWMAN comms system used to be understood as Better Off With Maps And Nokia.
I believe the name for this thing is "the devil in the details" - reality has a surprising level of detail, and the more you go into detail, more murky and shitty things appear to be.
In fact I am amazed that complex things, like, say, the internet, work at all !
As I said, the crazy complexity is above the network level.
I feel like the US military would have to be completely incompetent to not be able to easily dismantle them at this point considering the size of their budget.
I can't help but think they are planned opposition at this point, whether willing or unwilling.
Or, you know, unwilling to start a nuclear war.
Which dismantling the 50%+ of Russia's conventional military committed to Ukraine would very possibly lead to.
Appeasement will only insure larger conflict
The "we will go to open war with you" line is the borders of NATO and the EU, which haven't currently been violated. It's not an unreasonable line to draw, given the potential consequences of nuclear armed states doing battle.
That will keep the US military far away from their battlefield.
When we talk about the risk of a nuclear escalation we talk about the risk of this or that country launching nuclear armed missiles at an other country.
How would the posession of nuclear reactors factor into that?
If Russian will capture nuclear reactor, they can convert it to nuclear landmine, because reactor uses enriched Uranium, to create equivalent of 10k Chornobyl's.
Ukraine has know-how and nuclear materials (Plutonium) to create nuclear weapons at will. The only thing that stopped us is USA, Britain, France, and Germany, which used Budapest memorandum as leverage against Ukraine to prevent that.
Now, maybe if Russia captures a reactor they could send a scientist down to repurpose its parts to make an improvised nuke, but if that's the goal, what would be the point? It's not like Russia doesn't have nukes already.
Just having plutonium and knowledge is not enough to build a nuclear weapon. No country has ever developed nukes while its main territory was being invaded. For one, even if you can build a device, you'd need to test it at least once. What would you do if you had nukes and you detected that the non-nuclear-capable country you're invading has just run a nuclear test?
The point is to use the nuclear reactor like a nuclear landmine, to blow up at retreat, to do maximum amount of damage. It's called «scorched earth tactics».
Ukraine, as part of USSR, developed nukes decades ago. Ukraine is the fist post-nuclear country in the world.
Nuclear reactors can't produce nuclear explosions, for the reasons I said previously. Even the Chernobyl incident wasn't a nuclear explosion, it was a steam explosion. It's no more possible to turn a nuclear reactor into a nuclear bomb, than to turn a gas generator into a molotov cocktail. I don't know where you heard this absurd notion of a "nuclear landmine", but anyone who talks about exploding nuclear reactors is just spreading sensationalism.
Yes, Ukraine had nuclear weapons. Had. It has since dismantled all of them and doesn't have the infrastructure to make new ones. As such, it would have to develop them again. They have to build the machines to build the weapons and then they have to test the weapons to make sure the machines are building them correctly. Then they need some delivery system, which is a problem entirely separate from merely making a device that can produce a nuclear explosion. Good luck doing all that while infrastructure is disrupted by an invasion.
Go back to 1986, and imagine what the Soviet response would be if NATO would have breached the Iron Courtain and would have fighter planes and tanks in Kiev. This is what we're dealing with here.
"A shame your tanks exploded. Perhaps their car warranty expired?"
For all we know, this is already happening.
2 weeks ago it was "unlikely" Russia launches a full scale war on Ukraine. Putin is crazy and will use nukes if he deems it necessary.
We have a lot to hate about putting,but it comes from his inaction to solve a genocide on his very border. Instead, he only acted when russia was threatened. Sounds logical to me.
My understanding is that Putin has repeatedly made it painfully clear that that is exactly what he would do if anyone interferes.
Of course, a 10% chance of destroying the world is beyond my tolerance.
What probability of global thermonuclear war would you accept? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
It probably depends a lot on the exact circumstances/timing. And in the war, circumstances change all the time.
Putin wants us to believe it's a Dr. Strangelove situation, where no humans make a choice and therefore nuclear annihalation is a guarantee if we cross a line. But that's false.
Any line Putin draws can be tested and shifted along various axes: who crosses it, how bad it is for Russia, how egregious the violation is, how well it can be argued that it's not a violation, how long it takes to confirm that a violation has taken place, how certain he is that a violation has taken place, who authorized it, how long it takes to confirm who authorized it, etc.
And we don't know for sure that Putin can unilaterally initiate a world-ending strike without anyone in the chain second-guessing him.
Oh yeah and they can't deliver them anywhere. Then can deliver only a few. Others are short range or should be dropped from old planes that can't even fly.
Wikipedia says as part of START[1], russia has 1457 warheads. Suppose 50% are broken. That's 728 warheads. Even one warhead landing in each of the top 50 cities in the US[2] would be devastating.
>Oh yeah and they can't deliver them anywhere. Then can deliver only a few. Others are short range or should be dropped from old planes that can't even fly.
Source? As of 2009 they have 383 ICBMs. Keep in mind each ICBM can hold multiple warheads because of MIRV. Presumably there's less now because of START, but the ones they decommissioned are the old/unreliable ones, so it's fairly reasonable to assume most of their warheads can be delivered.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Are you willing to bet the future of human civilization on this?
Russia also has enough nuclear weapons, in unknown places (likely off the US coast), to do a lot of damage to the US. They will almost certainly use them in the face of an existential threat (like being at war with NATO directly), so NATO will do everything possible to avoid that contingency.
Nobody is super-rational all the time. If he does get ousted he will certainly be killed. His replacement is, by reversion to the mean, very likely to be less rational.
Abandoning defense gives away the game before it starts
>Imagine if Mexico played host to Chinese and Russian missile launchers pointed at our major cities jn the same way Poland does.
The fact that Mexico doesn't probably says something. I'm sure there's a lot of money in hosting Chinese military assets.
All this is to say nothing about the incongruities between your explanation and the many and varied lies about why the invasion that was happening both wasn't an invasion and wasn't happening...
By the same argument that this justifies attacking Ukraine, you must think the US would be justified in attacking Canada if Mexico hosted the Chinese and Russian missiles you describe.
Locals know the directions, not having maps is a handicap for everybody but mostly the attacker.
Besides, GMaps could require login for Ukraine, and only be allowed for people with a track record of being in Ukraine. Since Google follows you everywhere.
I suspect the locals only know the directions for routes they commonly travel (eg. for work/groceries/school). If you're fleeing, you'll need it just as much the invaders does.
Someone can use Google Maps to plan a peaceful protest or a Molotov cocktail strike more easily than a missile strike. Why would you expect them to take that capability away from people they've publicly sided with?
These people actually think they are freedom fighters and want to restore "good" empire.
Why would anyone register a domain with such extension is beyond me unless they are completely brainwashed by the regime.
Here is example of a typical "news" site from that list: sevastopol.su
You can use Google Translate to understand the skewed picture that is being tried to shown to the local people.
Plenty of anti-Russian Ukrainians use .su
Because it's fun? Most sites where probably registered before the war and aren't necessary serious. You can have a good time with a soviet styled website or even community, all with matching url and flags and stuff.
Russian armies historically do very badly at first, then improve markedly after being banged around a bit. That's normal for armies of conscripts who don't undergo expensive, realistic training.
The USSR lost 20 million people in WWII, about half soldiers. 13% of the population. The US lost only about 400,000, about 0.13% of the population. France and UK, about 1%. The USSR still won.
That Russians also sent millions of Russians to the GULag -- including most POWs repatriated at war's end -- does not make it less bad.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-sees-evidence-of-mo...
I haven't seen a single reliable message in Russian social media from conscript's mothers and, believe me, they would not have been quite. And no, you can not hide use of conscripts from relatives on such scale.
That's a Latvian source. May be propaganda. Other sources saying the same thing track back to that one.
The Russian army has "contract soldiers", who signed up, and "conscripts", who are drafted to serve for one year. I've been looking for good counts. Most conscripts are in the army; The navy, air force, and strategic rocket force are mostly (entirely?) contract soldiers.
[1] https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/26/i-m-panicking-where-...
Some positive adjective that denotes using a resource in a way no one expected.
But my guess is that you simply get your information from clearly biased media.
You've got to be kidding me. Maybe you've missed the indiscriminate artillery and rocket attacks on population centers such as Kharkiv?
And the Russian army hasn't failed at occupation. It's miserably failing at capturing anything of note, properly conducting sieges ( Kharkiv was resupplied multiple times), basic logistics, basic air operations.
If you're going to accuse people of using biased sources, it would be good for you to include some examples of clearly unbiased media, so that they can compare and learn.
Russia already lost more soldiers in this war than the US in the entire Iraq War.
Given the other indicators of disorganization we've had in the last week? It's pretty plausible, especially given reports of them broadcasting in the clear and using text messages for comms.
You have a bag of misinformation. That's all.
There's a lot of recorded communication.
“Reliable enough for me to stock up successfully weeks before lockdown”, you mean?
This leads to two options:
1. They don't have any communications at all and the analog we capture is 'fake'
2. They are using the analog unencrypted channels we can all listen to
In fantasyland there is a third option: they have wireless communication that isn't detectable at all and doesn't use devices we can take photos of.
- Extreme wide spectrum frequency hopping. Hard to distinguish from the noise floor.
- Steganographic encrypted channel over fake unencrypted channel.
If course when in doubt, assuming stupidity is the safe bet.
But Hanlon's razor applies, and indeed, it is more likely incompetence.
Instead we have a clown show media that has already spent the last decade or two, disgracing itself repeatedly, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria to Libya to China to Russia unable to make any trustworthy context of current events.
Even if our own military was making this claim, that is not automatically trustworthy either. It's likely propaganda, just as the WMDs were. You really do not know.
So when you hear reports of a feckless Russian military completely unable to tell which way is North or unable to drop bombs without Google Maps access, and your first response is not skepticism, you aren't paying attention.
Meanwhile, even if you had direct feeds of their comms, do you know which comms are headfakes and which ones are real? Don't be foolish. Russia is one of the most successful nations in military history. We probably would not have won World War 2 without them. You probably do not have them figured out from your Twitter or TikTok feed.
With all that in mind, Ukraine needs every possible win it can get on the PR front. Kindergarten bombed? Kharkiv city center shelled indiscriminately? Video of random civilians on a road being obliterated by a missile? They need to tell everyone all of that, so that Ukrainians keep on fighting, and so the world keeps supporting them so there's weapons to fight with. National legends, feel good stories about superhuman successes by legendary men better than us is classic. If they exaggerate or invent some feel good/positive things, it doesn't matter. They're at a war they cannot win on military terms. The ends ( surviving) justifies the means.
You either have wireless communication or you don't, and you can detect the presence and absence of it using a software defined radio.
Perhaps you were responding to someone else.
What indicators are you referring to?
2) Some evidence of using clear radio communications because officers are too far away to be contacted
3) no coordination between air and ground
4) Allowing the column advancing to kiev to bunch up like that.
> reports of them broadcasting in the clear and using text messages for comms.
More details, including recordings, in this thread (I don't speak Russian, so I can't confirm...)
So - yeah.
Troops probably not, but undercover saboteurs couldn't risk to be caught with encrypted devices, radios etc. A tablet with a browser would raise a lot less warnings.
Maybe things have radically changed over the last couple of years but I have a really hard time imagining relying on public Google Maps submissions for any purpose at all.
If you need evidence that Google Earth is used by militaries then download Google Earth Pro and look in settings. There is a setting for, "Enable MGRS".
The US doesn't use Google Earth for fire support coordination, especially with combined arms assets (artillery, air, naval fires). We have dedicated software for that.
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/advanced-field-artil...
https://dzone.com/articles/war-fighter-netbeans-platform
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/joint-automat...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgd7dd/google-maps-live-traf... ("Google Maps Live Traffic Showed the Russian Invasion of Ukraine") (2/24)
https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-temporarily-disabl... ("Google temporarily disables Google Maps live traffic data in Ukraine") (2/27)
Anyway, I agree with the assessment.
https://support.google.com/maps/thread/152809911/terrorists-...
https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t4copf/they_are_us...
Someone with a line to the Maps team should contact them immediately
If I were an idiot planning to use a public product for classified opsec activities, the least I would do is try and make them blend in with existing data to reduce the chances of it being removed for just this purpose.
but either way, I do hope the traditional "Google support via HN frontpage" actually helps in this circumstance, too
Is there a contact at google (twitter handles are great) that these suspected locations can be sent to? They cannot be posted publically for obvious reasons.
I have sent a legal request to Google which may be read, but not in time, as Kharkiv is actively being bombarded.
Email in profile, or give instructions below. Thank you.
Military grade means things like “works for outside air temperatures between -40 and 120 F” and “will still work being vibrated to hell for decades”.
On the other hand modern tech is like “my cat knocked my Apple Watch on the floor and shattered the screen” and things are generally extremely fragile.
They’re also old. You want things that work for decades, not UIs that change every few months.
Yes, there is a military specification for (generic) pop tarts which covers how much filling, what’s in it, and how much frosting is applied.
> I generally feel like military equipment is of higher quality and will last longer
> I've been involved in military contracts for a long time and the stuff they buy is generally consumer grade, but they have some standard and forced manufacturer for every tiny screw used on the vehicle, driving cost up tenfold without any gain. I don't see the appeal
> so you're telling me there is a standard
And that day I understood why overstock military stuff is so attractive to many buyers: It doesn't change. If you read good receptions about a military backpack or some kind of tooling, you can be dead sure that if you decide to get it, it will be just as nice as the thing in the reports. Because they make sure every pice will be exactly the same, no surprises.
They used to explicitly have a "do no evil" slogan. It'd be good if it survives somewhere in their culture for times like these.
iirc "don't be"
>used to
they have
I'd describe that as being aggressively neutral, not picking sides.
original post was deleted
> This page is no longer available
> Try searching or browse recent questions.
And war knows no limit to the business…
Related:I hate to think about it but i have lots of micro controllers, gps receivers, rc receivers and transmitter. Plenty of control system software adapable to many vehicle types. pressure, acceleration, ir, radar sensors..
I think if there is serious prolonged war in modern countries it wont look anything like history.. its as much about what tech is on the go when war breaks out, its what evolves during it.
Confusing, conflicting seemingly too obvious information is all just noise that floods the senses and overloads them.. but doesnt mean to say there isnt a signal in the noise.
i dont know whats going on here, but i think that we are at a stange time in history.
Edit: i am not saying i have any plans or anything, full on pacifist here. i just like rc drones etc. But lots of people have this stuff and its in tons of kids toys too.
It's also a major opsec error, if your threat model suggests Google is compromisable by the enemy. What we're observing here suggests either the Russian army doesn't think that's the case or the Russian boots-on-the-ground don't care what the brass thinks about opsec (remember, the Enigma machine was nearly uncrackable state-of-the-art cryptographic hardware in World War II... unless you set the encryption cylinders to HIT and the decryption to LER, of course...)
That doesn't align with my understanding of Enigma's operation or how it was broken.
Enigma is a substitution cipher. There are no "encryption" and "decryption" cylinders. There are just rotors. The rotors start in a known configuration according to a calendar distributed out-of-band. Decrypting a message is the same as encrypting it, but both the encrypting and decrypting machine have to start in the same state.
Enigma was broken in part using frequency analysis (captured machines and codebooks helped). Weather reports had a similar structure and (some?) messages ended with "HH". I don't believe operators in the field got lazy with rotor settings, since that would require coordinated laziness.
Enigma was state-of-the-art but still flawed. Substitution ciphers are fundamentally susceptible to frequency analysis. It would have been broken even without capturing machines and codebooks and even if the Germans had minimized structure in their messages.
The story I was trying to relate was that hypothetically, the army should have been using a protocol for setting up the cylinders to minimize the breakability of sent messages. In practice in the field, they got sloppy; where radio operators had liberty to choose settings "at random," the randomness started to break down. If the Allied decoders determined, for example, that a message had been sent with initial cylinder config HIT, the next message was almost certainly sent with LER. Same for LON (DON), MAD (RID), BER (LIN), and TOM (MIX).
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2615decoding.html
In contrast, the German navy (particularly the U-boats) worked from a code-book and were nearly unbreakable consistently because the code-book had been generated with pure physical random methods. The books were water-soluble and kept in the captain's quarters; in the event of capture, the captain was to destroy the book. The big break for the naval codes was that the Allies managed to successfully force a U-boat to the surface and during the fighting, the captain was injured and couldn't execute on the destruction protocol; the Allies retrieved the book. The navy was so impressed with itself regarding its code-book solution that when they discovered their codes were consistently broken, they were utterly incredulous that a book could have been acquired and began an internal espionage inquisition.
Thanks for the great resource.
E: Reading this transcript I see:
> Since they knew the Enigma would never duplicate a letter in the original, if any pairs of letters did match, the phrase must be in the wrong position. They slid the crib along the message until they found a point where none of the letters were the same. This could be where the phrase was located. If successful, they could then work out the Enigma settings for the next 24 hours.
I wonder if Enigma could have been cracked based on this frequency analysis alone. Presumably the Navy replaced the codebooks after they were compromised, but AFAIK Bletchley Park was able to decipher messages through the end of the war.
But hilariously, I'm pretty sure the main thing that dragged out the length of time that the navy codes were broken was the fact that the German admiralty spent more time executing high ranking officers suspected of espionage after the codes were broken than coming up with an actual solution ;)
>disabled certain Google Maps features in Ukraine to ensure safety of our citizens
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/28/22954426/google-disables-...
The Ukrainians were really played as a bunch of saps for the US/UK, and its encouragement of belligerence in the Donbass and in the Ukraine's application to NATO. And the Ukrainians are and will be paying the price for their belligerence and gullibility.
EDIT: mirror -- https://web.archive.org/web/20220301173337/https://support.g...