So, Russia no longer a cyber threat to America?
theregister.com
theregister.com
# Trump's push to work with Russia is upending U.S. cyber strategy
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/04/russia-cyber-command-trump-...
This is not a forum for plotting counter-action and with respect to the owners and moderators I will not elaborate. Suffice it to say the time has come when we all should think about how our skills are needed (by our country) for more than simply making money, like rising to the challenge of defending democracy.
Thankyou mdp2021.
Using AI and LLMs to counter the onslaught of online disinformation, tailoring that to audiences that currently are coopted by disinformation, reinforcing the value of democracy and how an assault on it, even if by people someone supports, will, inevitably, backfire. Create and automate hundreds or thousands of credible Twitter and Truth Social accounts and disrupt their misinformation distribution network. Magnify dissenting Republican voices, splitting the party and stoking rivalries. Trump relies on his majority on both houses and his control of the GOP. Nullifying it brings the game back into the conventional democratic debate.
There isn't much we can do to mostly offline networks, such as Fox, OANN, Rogan and such except to bait them into spreading misinformation that's in the interest of the country, but against the interests of the current government. Doing so will impact their credibility with their audience.
Also, reinforce critical systems against cyber attacks, and do so without the help or support of the government. A great many of the assets that would be attacked are privately owned, and doing so is already a good idea.
It's extremely important to not break any law doing this. Assume enforcement will be discretionary and will be aggressive against any party that opposes the current incumbent.
# President Job Approval
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025
Poll: Daily Mail
Results: Approve 54 Disapprove 46
Spread: Approve +8
Poll: NPR/PBS/Marist
Results: Approve 45 Disapprove 51
Spread: Disapprove +6
Edit: Comment I replied to was edited after my reply.
Formally speaking around it:
# Kennedy Jr backtracks and says US measles outbreak is now a ‘top priority’ for health department
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/01/kennedy-jr-m...
Directly speaking:
dude, are you trying to sabotage the debate?
No, I was speaking my mind, but I've now retracted that statement since it isn't worth the scrutiny it would bring.
Article gives no clear answer to why would it will make everything worse. It does, however, speculate on how it may be a bad decision, but no one knows for sure.
This comes just weeks after security analysts sounded the alarm on Sandworm stealing credentials and data from American organizations. Sandworm is the operations wing of Russia's Military Intelligence Unit 74455, part of the GRU, that has been blamed for waging cyberwarfare against America's critical infrastructure.
That 'graph links directly to:
"Two Russians sanctioned over cyberattacks on US critical infrastructure" (22 July 2024)
<https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/22/russians_sanctioned_o...>
And:
"Kremlin's Sandworm blamed for cyberattacks on US, European water utilities" (17 April 2024)
<https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/17/russia_sandworm_cyber...>
The Register has tags linking to other Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) stories which detail many further such instances:
<https://www.theregister.com/Tag/Cybersecurity%20and%20Infras...>
Which is a very small sampling of what can be found online.
HN itself turns up nearly 300 story submissions for "russia hackers":
<https://hn.algolia.com/?q=russia%20hackers>
Let's dispense with the asking of facile questions readily answered within the article itself or very proximate resources. It is at best strongly disingenuous.
It just means the people can (eventually) get rid of a bad one.
Otherwise, it is not a value per se: that would be a "tyranny of the majority".
Only if the population is sufficiently educated and good intentioned, and even then it's still the will of the majority, but because it's not a negative result it isn't considered a tyranny.
But the point is, a proper decision system boosts optimality at most "under inspiration" from the preferences of the voters, but not bound to that. Those voters may not even be a "majority"; there are many implementations (already forms of "ranked preferences") in which the idea of "majority" largely loses its meaning, etc.
I mean it closer to 'unjust rule'. For example, Jim Crow laws were an example of tyranny of the majority, and that power was not sized illegitimately. If the majority really wanted to restore something like that, there isn't any system in place that would stop them, not ranked choice voting, nothing - we have to rely on good education so they wouldn't want to do that, but we would need a clean slate to do that as well.
To many people are poorly educated, and raise their kids to be skeptical of education. That's such an immense problem that I'm not sure the US can really recover.
If we were starting from a clean slate, where everyone was well educated, it should work in theory, but even so I think we can have a much better system to any form of democracy we have now.
The term "tyrant" historically was used for rulers who were not part of the recognized dynasty: usurpers. The term shifted to "arbitrary power" because the tyrant ruled without grounds founding an authority. We can say "tyranny of the majority" as it can be valued as unfair that anything (majorities included) have power without full substantial authority.
> If the majority really wanted ... there isn't any system in place that would stop them
That is false, because there can be systems that do not attribute powers to majorities. (In fact, the rule of minorities is quite extensive in history, and not all voting systems give powers to majorities - or, as already expressed, the idea of "majority" loses a direct sense in some even simple voting systems.)
Which democratic systems of government prevent a majority from voting in new representatives to change the law as they see fit?
Majorities may be used technically but it is not the majority of the population that determines the policy (which remains indirect anyway).
They can still always overrule it though. That's inescapable in a democracy.
If you disagree, I hope you can give a more fleshed out example than, what seems to be, to be the vague handwaving you have been doing so far - no offense intended.
Close to impossible to say without consideration of specific implementations of the exemplary sub-frameworks proposed.
> a more fleshed out example
A John Rawls like framework of common best interest in not appointing beasts, coupled with criteria to discriminate beasts? The point is not about providing a detailed solution here, but in pointing in a direction beyond simple, lacking forms of democracy, suboptimal in theory and in results. If you have naïve processes in place, faults will eventually show: the system must become resistant. A large number of possible improvements can be considered: the point remains that they must be studied - this has never been the "end of history", if only because in too many systems the fool and the bright have similar impact.
And I need to say: like in all systems, checking what went wrong, why it went wrong, and implementing solutions so that it will not go wrong again.
This is what needs to change. Recently there was a story that Reese Witherspoon was in a jury, and the other jury members thought she was a real lawyer because of Legally Blonde. These people are not qualified to serve on a jury let alone vote.
Why are we getting input from people that couldn't run a small low traffic corner store on how to run a country? It's ridiculous, and it's the reason the US is in the mess it is now.
But how do you decide who votes? The fairest is obviously to allow voting for everyone. As soon as you try to single out 'unsuitable' people, you run into a problems of how you would do so? You could try to give people a basic test, but these 'literacy' tests were historically used to supress all kinds of minorities.
That is the true problem of democracy, it sucks, but everything else is miles worse. The people voted, the people get what they voted for. If you want a different result, convince people to vote differently.
That doesn't mean they would b e used to oppress minorities today. Except the minority that is deemed too ignorant to be granted a right to vote based on failing the test.
> That is the true problem of democracy, it sucks, but everything else is miles worse.
I don't think that's true, it's just that there is little motivation to come up with better alternative and people who try just get shit on for even trying as though it were an insurmountable goal.
In some places, of course it would be used to oppress minorities.
In other places, it would likely be used to oppress some other majority faction.
Not if the test and infrastructure for administering it is designed well to be resistant to this type of abuse, which it's possible to do.
Ideally, the goal would be not for people to resent not passing thee test and being unable to vote, but being motivated to better themselves until they are able to vote.
And therefore it will actually help?
Is anyone actually this naive?
Repeat: there is a whole academic discipline about optimal voting. But it must become a real concern...
You mean my post? I'd say the weakness in what I propose are no where near as bad as the weaknesses in the system we currently have.
> there is a whole academic discipline about optimal voting.
And I would never discard that or the results of the relevant research, but I genuinely think the system we have in place is too flawed, to fundamentally broken, to really make progress or fix things. Half the country literally considered anything from any legitimate source that clashes with their beliefs as 'fake news'.
How does academia suggest this problem should be addressed?
No, I meant that about «weighted votes» with heavily imperfect criteria for the weighing.
> no where near as bad
Never an excuse for skipping due diligence.
> suggest
I suggest the problem is taken into serious consideration, because already looking at phenomena like gerrymandering is astonishing, and anti-intellectualism is abasing on both sides (of the failed and the failing), etc. There are leaking faucets: stop ignoring them, plan and fix them. That means, find solutions, propose them, convince the public, have them implemented.
How? Half the public outright denies truth and fact, proudly.
My point is that isn't happening. Due to partisan deadlock party P can't implement solution S.
If that «half the public outright denie[d] truth and fact, proudly» caused such «partisan deadlock» that «party P [couldn]'t implement solution S», what you had stated would be that no legislation would be passed...
> The fairest [would be] obviously to allow voting for everyone
Certainly not, you are playing on a shade of meaning of "obvious" (i.e. "apparent"): that is strongly unfair to the gifted, cultivated etc. - it is unfair in terms of merit. And it is unfair to those who want an optimal system at their residence, etc.
- Insulted the president of Ukraine in a manner such that every news channel -- except Fox news and Russian state media -- called it shameful.
- Stopped military support to Ukraine after the previous administration sent ~$100 B in aid, essentially making that investment into an ally a giant waste of money.
- Prevented the three-letter agencies doing their job in Russia.
- Reduced sanctions on Russia.
- While turning up sanctions to eleven on America's closest allies.
- Invited Russia back into G7.
- Has said nothing but nice things about Russia and especially its kleptocracic and murderous leader. (Think about the ridiculous number of defenestrations in Russia, the polonium tea, giving dioxin to Yushchenko, etc...)
The terrifying thing is that I've spoken to some MAGA friends and they love this. Absolutely love it. They think it's brilliant.
It's just mindboggling.
> I've spoken to
Show them explicitly that there can be no vanity in being immoral.