America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
theregister.com
theregister.com
Shutting down Mitre and the CVE is against American interests, both public and private. That said, you can make an argument, one that revolves around cost (was the CVE DB worth $50M a year, especially given its backlog?). The other part of that argument rests on assuming there will be a private or semi-private replacement for the service, that there may be many of them, and therefore they will improve. One might assert, as libertarians do, that every service that's not monopoly of force should be private.
These aren't great arguments. $50M does seem like a lot, and maybe it could be reduced. I'd love to see an actual analysis of their operations rather then just ending the program. The second argument is worse. NIST and NOAA are examples of agencies that punch above their weight in terms of cost/benefit (the CFPB as well), and it seems like for-profit NIST and NOAA doesn't make much sense. But yes its worth considering the pros and cons of publicly funded service versus the private versions, in general. Even a bad argument is better than no argument, and the current admin does not bother to make one.
But yes, the intent is for events that threaten the nation, not protests.
The only defense is to inalienably assign certain rights/protections to individuals. (Which itself creates issues with their abusing them)
There is no physical force in the universe that causes words written on a government letterhead to mean anything. The exact same government that granted you "inalienable rights" will ignore them when it's corrupted.
There is no way to construct a government such that it CANNOT execute a minority if enough people want that to happen.
The only answer, as it has always been, is to ceaselessly, diligently, and without fail, never vote in people like Trump.
Unfortunately, the republican party has spent every single moment since Nixon's resignation ensuring that the party would never let that kind of thing stop them again.
Checks and balances, multiple branches aligned along different timescales, and mandatory minimum change periods. E.g. the states that require consitutional amendments to be voted for in two consecutive elections
And all of that buttressed by belief in institutions and the consistency that effects.
It takes time to change people's minds.
This is more or less a common rhetorical argument made by republicans after cutting budgets. The agency (organization, etc) is ineffective now, so we should terminate it, rather than fund it so it may be more effective.
It’s a fucking steal at that price.
It would, by definition as a for-profit entity, cost more and provide less value. That is a guarantee.
$50 seems like nothing for a trillion dollar government budget.
Exactly. And it's totally fair for anyone to question the cost. However, the current administration is destroying things with the precision of a Jackson Pollack painting and no such reflection is happening.
You shouldn't and it does invalidate your opinion.
You're an engineer and this is HN so shouldn't making a comparison or judgment be backed up by some factual information?
>The fact that I don't want to spend my time
You don't have to make the comment.
>. Random people will read random things into whatever random content they consume..
Don't you feel that a comment akin to "government be spending alot" is almost like spam considering how often it's mentioned? If you had some information that showed that for what we are talking about then that would be substantial.
I would call that punching about your own weight, if you consider the use and impact of expect:
above. danged autocorrect.
damned if you use it, damned if you don't.
What comparison are you using? What wouldn't be alot for this service?
Unless you know something I don’t.
We're now all going to experience the high cost of low human capital.
This mirrors a lot the physical destruction of other countries only to come back for "reconstruction" which filled some pockets with unimaginable amounts of money.
Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. They have zero chance offensively against Poland and the Baltics, let alone the full blown might of the EU+UK (which also have independent nuclear weapons in France and to an extent the UK). That doesn't mean that a Polish offensive can march into Moscow, but it doesn't have to for Putin to lose power. He's showing his strongman strong army bullshit to be little more than a paper tiger, and at some point even the nihilistic to death Russians will get tired of the meat grinder for literally no reason.
See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight.
And all these economy size comparisons are mostly meaningless. Sure Russia may have a GDP of Italy but by the same logic Ukraine (which is a fraction of Russian GDP) should have lost long ago.
> They have zero chance against Poland and the Baltics
Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects.
While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance.
> Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3.
Russia has no chance of having a war against the Baltics only. Any aggression against them will be met with a swift reaction from Poland, which has a better equipped army than Ukraine. If Ukraine can destroy the best Russian units and hold to a stalemate the majority of the remainder for years, Poland will wipe the floor with the war criminals.
That's certainly true, but much of this failure can be ascribed to:
1. Lack of co-ordination (both inter-force and within each unit) and basic best-practices in terms of logistics. The Russian armed forces are still far from anything NATO has in this regard but are also a lot better than when the war began.
2. Poor mobilisation and insufficient initial forces. Most of this was based on the obviously misguided notion that Russian forces would be welcome as liberators (which, haha, no, 40+ years of Soviet or Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe have ensured this would not happen for generations), and is unlikely to be repeated.
3. Considerable strategic depth, which further compounded #1 and #2, which the Baltics don't have.
4. Considerable development of expertise on the Ukrainian side, which has been fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk since the first Russian invasion in 2014, whereas neither Poland nor the Baltics armed forces have had much exposure to real-life war outside the GWOT.
5. A smaller mismatch in terms of equipment than media coverage makes it sound, certainly far smaller than that of the Baltics.
The odds varjag puts forward aren't at all outlandish, especially with NATO commitment so uncertain at this time.
Ukraine had dozens of airworthy fighter jets and well over a hundred air defense batteries at the start. Many of the latter were lost in the first weeks but Ukraine was fairly packed as far as smaller nations go.
> Russia has no chance of having a war against the Baltics only.
No, Russian chance of occupying significant part of Baltics with realistic level of NATO involvement is 1 in 3. It would be most certainly able to overrun the three states absent NATO support.
> Any aggression against them will be met with a swift reaction from Poland, which has a better equipped army than Ukraine. If Ukraine can destroy the best Russian units and hold to a stalemate the majority of the remainder for years, Poland will wipe the floor with the war criminals.
That's the spirit I was mentioning yeah, "Ukrainians are bit backwards unlike we noble NATO elves". Name one thing in Polish military that Ukrainian military today doesn't have though?
The coming war will be hell of a reality check for many.
Lack of combat experience.
But seriously, very good analysis!
Nah, it's utter bullshit. Russia can't defeat Ukraine on its own, but they think Russia has a 1 in 3 chance of victory if they add Poland, Baltics, Finland to their war? It's pure wishful nonsense.
Second I have friends and product manufacturing in the Baltics, so my opinion is anything but wishful. One thing I can not afford though is your head in the sand optimism.
It's not optimism to be dismissive of opinions with no basis in reality.
Russia cannot defeat Ukraine. If they attack in the Baltic, they'll add at least a few more enemies. It's mathematically impossible for them to fare better with more enemies when their current efforts are suffering due to men and materiel.
Russia had how many hundreds? And how much time to prepare how to neutralise them?
> , Russian chance of occupying significant part of Baltics with realistic level of NATO involvement is 1 in 3. It would be most certainly able to overrun the three states absent NATO support
No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO support).
> That's the spirit I was mentioning yeah, "Ukrainians are bit backwards unlike we noble NATO elves". Name one thing in Polish military that Ukrainian military today doesn't have though
Years of preparation and conscious arming with a real budget? Ukraine had to go from a small and under equipped (mostly with obsolete Soviet era stuff) army to a total war in mere days. The complete mobilisation meant that there was limited time to train and equip everyone properly. Poland has had years to prepare equipment, training, planning, coordination.
Again, Russia can't handle Ukraine and has no clear path to victory there. Why on earth do you think it could handle more fronts, especially against better equipped and prepared enemies? Nobody is saying Putin is rational, but even he has to know that.
Few dozen fighters on alert in a heavy AD environment is objectively a lot. Most of Ukrainian early AD losses happened in the south and were the outcome of treason by the regional command.
> No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO support).
I feel you're talking past me. Yes Poland will join, absolutely: the battle for Suwalki/Kaliningrad will affect it directly if anything. But without the US commitment (which I hope you realize is not happening) there is a 1 in 3 chance of Putin's substantial success.
> Years of preparation and conscious arming with a real budget? Ukraine had to go from a small and under equipped (mostly with obsolete Soviet era stuff) army to a total war in mere days.
Ukraine was waging a war with Russia for 8 years by the day of the full scale invasion. It was prepared about as much as a country in its circumstances could be. Had this invasion happened in 2014 that really would have been the touted 3-day operation.
> Why on earth do you think it could handle more fronts, especially against better equipped and prepared enemies? Nobody is saying Putin is rational, but even he has to know that.
Every serious European government is gearing up for the war now, so it's clearly not just me alone. The mode of fighting had changed substantially. F-35s a great for cooking off tank waves (that mostly don't exist anymore) but are not very useful against waves of meat sweeping through the forests and millions of attack drones.
NATO is still a formidable force even without the US component but coordinated action would be critical and it's a huge question still. Poland and Finland alone will not be enough to blunt the attack on the Baltic states which are very logistically vulnerable. So Putin has a fair, largely consequence free shot at it but the window of opportunity will close within a year or two.
So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland at the same time? There is no planet on which this makes sense.
> So Putin has a fair, largely consequence free shot at it but the window of opportunity will close within a year or two.
Not only does he not have the troops nor equipment, a year or two window still leaves Macron in the Elysée who will not let such an attack slide, up to and including potential nuclear weapons. And has stated so clearly and publicly.
You seem very confident, but your premise is wrong and lacking in critical information.
No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending the Baltics exposing the rest of their border.
The Baltics can be supplied only by air, sea and a very vulnerable land corridor. Air and sea will be very much excluded for the duration of hostilites and the Suwalki gap heavily contested. If Russia would manage to hold onto it long enough the Baltic story will be one huge siege of Mariupol. For Estonia the odds are the worst: even if the siege is broken and its neighbors are liberated it's too small and too close to Russia mainland that it could still remain under effective Russian control.
> You seem very confident, but your premise is wrong and lacking in critical information.
Well back in September 2021 I felt that the attack on Ukraine is coming (and have the receipts for that). Certainly not just me alone but at that moment and up to the very invasion there was huge skepticism around, and not just among Putin shills. "How would it help Russian security?" "But Sweden and Finland would join NATO!" "Russian economy would reel from sanctions, why do that!" Yet here we are.
I remember participating at a national championship here in Norway on 18.02.2024 and my teammate asked me what do I think of the situation. My take was that we're days, if not hours from the invasion and certainly within a week. He was quite startled by it then.
This year on the same championship people in the cafeteria were talking about the coming war matter-of-factly.
Ah, so your premise is even wronger. You're making a Hitler style assumption of a limited war.
If Russia attacks the Baltics, Poland and Finland will join for sure. Poland will attack and probably conquer Kaliningrad (which is more isolated than the Baltic is), establishing firm lines of communication with the Baltic states. They will also advance wherever it makes sense in Russia/Belarus, including Ukraine for an environment if they think it makes sense.
Finland can attack towards St Petersbourg. I don't know if they would, but it would be the main contribution they could make.
As for you being right before, past performance is not indicative of future success. Just because you correctly identified Putin's intentions once doesn't mean you understand the Russian army and what it's capable of.
And it is not capable of taking on Poland. Kaliningrad is isolated and hard to supply right now, let alone in a war.
And you're also talking about a window of 1-2 years, but you're forgetting Macron and Starmer.
I naturally hope there will be no broader war but there is plenty of odds to it, and dismissing this is just hubris. Cheers.
There might be a broader war, yes. That doesn't mean Russia has realistic hopes or chances of it remaining local, and Russia coming out with anything resembling a win.
Article 5 is still in effect, even if America won’t take its part. Attack of Baltics will trigger response from all neighbors including Finland, Sweden and Poland. Kaliningrad won’t last long, St.Petersburg will be within reach of artillery etc. It will be suicidal to do that.
One thing that Westerners do not understand is that people in small towns or rural areas of Russia may be expendable, but population of St.Petersburg and Moscow is a protected class. If they suffer, the regime may actually collapse before reaching military goals. For this reason Russian mobilization barely touched both capitals.
Maybe before getting there, if I end up controlling the next parliament of Ukraine I'd take over Moldova, and before that let's teach a lesson to Armenia. That's to keep the army busy and not let soldiers back home where they could cause troubles or, god forbids, create a pacifist movement like after the Afghan war (the Russian one.)
Even if nobody else, the other Baltic states and Poland will defend them. Very decent chance of Finland, Sweden, UK, France joining as well.
An aging authoritarian is not concerned with long term security, well being of his subjects or boring diplomatic minutae. Seeing his days vanishing, he is intent on leaving a mark in history. What matters is not how pretty the mark is going to be but how visible shall it be through centuries. And since the authoritarian's strength is more often brutality than intelligence, the role model would inevitably be Stalin, Genghis Khan or Ivan the Terrible.
Within their framework the dictator is entirely a rational actor but on a very different vector than what think tanks usually muse about.
This is not correct. Kharkov agreements in 2010 extended the lease until 2042 in exchange for gas price discounts, but they would start working only in 2017 and Ukraina could cancel them (and may have cancelled them if anti-Russian opposition would be back in power - the threat of losing the base was real). After annexation of Crimea Russia itself cancelled the agreements and they effectively were never in place.
>You build your whole chain of reasoning on a faulty premise.
That was not the premise for the whole chain of reasoning. Premises do not start with "may". :)
Russian authoritarianism may be secure, but the current regime's power is not (not to mention their leaders' paranoia).
Their ambition is the control of continental Europe. It might sound crazy, but if you listen to people like Dugin, it is very clear. And it's not that unrealistic in the longer run, considering everything you listed in your post.
The onslaught on Europe will continue - first (already happening) on its unity through the financing and propaganda support of the right-wing populist candidates who don't know (or simply don't care) better and then, once every (relatively) little country in Europe is on their own, on their sovereignty through military threat and/or invasion.
I will also leave this here as I think it is pertinent to the discussion:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313258664_Putin's_R...
Don’t be afraid of scarecrows. He is a powerless freak far away from the decision makers, not Rasputin. Says a lot, but doesn’t really matter. It is much more interesting what people in security council say and who gets the contracts. There’s zero indication of expansion but a lot of messages about not messing with “legitimate interests”. They protect what they think is theirs.
The ambition of the control over continental Europe exists only in imagination of people with no understanding of Russian internal politics. They need absence of threat and parking lot for the money, so they will play the game of influence, but war? Nonsense.
People in the security council were cowering with fear on 22-02-22 afraid to say the unthinkable and Putin openly gloating while forcing them to say it.
Dugin is a freak alright, but he has the ear of (and is privy to) the paranoid decision makers there; he was talking about the impending war long before anyone else.
> They need absence of threat and parking lot for the money
It will be much easier to park their money in any one of the small rich countries (e.g. Switzerland) once those are not encumbered by the KYC and AML rules imposed by the globalist word order. Same with their luxury properties and kids in private schools.
They don't need to invade every country to control the continent. Look at Finland prior to the collapse of the USSR - while staying mostly independent they still had to run their leadership choices by the Kremlin and did not even think about joining military alliances to avoid confrontation.
> so they will play the game of influence, but war?
Right, they played the game of influence with Ukraine until they lost all influence and and saw an opportunity for military success. On the other hand, they are not invading Georgia or Belarus because the governments are in their pocket and their security apparatuses are basically departments within FSB. For the same reason they won't be invading Hungary or Slovakia any time soon. But the Baltic countries? I'm not so sure.
I think you are making up some stuff here. First of all, the war was declared on 24.02.2022, two days later, and that matter was not discussed on Security Council on 22.02. Watch the video, it's available on YouTube. On 22.02 they discussed the recognition of independence of Donesk and Luhansk People Republics and the only person who was seemingly uncomfortable was the director of foreign intelligence service. He may have known about what's going to happen, but it was just him. Maybe he has also known that his intel is either bad or was ignored in the decision-making process and the war is going to be something different than planned: he is certainly not the guy who would feel so bad because of a military operation. As a matter of fact, he may be the only guy in Security Council who whould be sympathetic to Dugin.
>It will be much easier to park their money in any one of the small rich countries (e.g. Switzerland). Same with their luxury properties and kids in private schools.
"Parking money" is not locking them in a vault. It's investing. There's a reason why Russian oligarchs prefer London and were trying to buy European assets. Small countries cannot absorb capital on that scale. If Russia controls the continent, why only small countries? If Russia does not, KYC rules etc apply to Switzerland too - they cannot resist the pressure.
>They don't need to invade every country to control the continent. Look at Finland prior to the collapse of the USSR
What a giant leap. I'm not sure this fiction is interesting to discuss. Russia is not USSR, EU is not Finland (which by the way is part of EU and NATO now and does not look at Russia when making foreign policy decisions for at least 40 years).
>For the same reason they won't be invading Hungary or Slovakia any time soon
If Hungarian or Slovakian opposition will win on next election they won't invade too. It's not the reason they don't do it. Just look at the map.
I would like to add that, yes, with a lot of money and weapons from the US and other countries, they would not have been able to do it without their help. Am I wrong about the aid's significance, or did it not happen?
It's like a person with muscles witnessing a beating and then when the perpretaror notices, looking away and saying "I didn't see anything!".
So far John McCain had this one right. Show Putin weakness at your peril. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8
Thinking of a Moscow-Washington phone call makes me think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=6T2uBeiNXAo
> Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello.
Oh SNL, please make a spoof of this...
Trump does not have a pro-America agenda; he has a pro-Trump agenda. His whims are not morally, politically, or strategically aligned with the goals and prospects of the American people, they're aligned with a global billionaire class, to which Putin belongs. That is why they get along. They are allies.
If something he does helps America, it is because it helps him, or because it inflates his ego via people applauding him.
They are not smart enough, well informed enough, nor do they particularly care to educate themselves or listen to other smarter people, they just see a number in the budget which they don't understand, so it can go. I suppose the assumption is that if it's truly important enough, someone will turn it into a business.
> The phrase is often mistaken as a scriptural quote, though it is not stated in the Bible. Some Christians consider the expression contrary to the biblical message of God's grace and help for the helpless, and its denunciation of greed and selfishness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_the...
https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm
The phrase “he who does not work, does not eat” was never intended by its author to be applied to those who were physically incapable of working. You might say otherwise, but Saint Paul had been a very traditional adherent of the Jewish faith, which had required farmers to leave portions of their harvest for the poor and destitute. The idea that he thought those who were physically incapable of working should not eat is absurd. It is unlikely he had a change of heart on this matter after his conversion to Christianity given that he had viewed Christianity as the continuation of Judaism.
Anyway, I always thought the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” meant you had to do a bare minimum within your capability to take care of yourself if you want help. I think it is a corruption to claim the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” in any way implies that God does not help those who are incapable of helping themselves.
Regardless, it always seems to be used as a cudgel against those whom the invoker believes is lazy or undeserving of God's help.
(As an atheist though the phrase always seemed like a justification for why prayers were not being answered.)
As for prayers being unanswered, there are two tragedies in this world. One is not getting what you want. The other is getting it. Interestingly, the Mouse Utopia Experiment showed that giving everyone everything that they could ever want is ultimately bad for them. That is perhaps a major reason why various prayers are unanswered.
The modern take is when you put animals into environments well outside what they evolved for you get seemingly bizarre behavior.
But more importantly it was not happening in those experiments.
The status quo "in god we trust" is universally hopeful.
"God help us" can sound helpless (cheek in tongue)
Jesus: 25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto [a]the measure of his life? 28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Paul: 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now those who are such, we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ that they work with quietness and eat their own bread.
Jesus: 17 As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. 19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”
20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”
21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!” 24 This amazed them. But Jesus said again, “Dear children, it is very hard[b] to enter the Kingdom of God. 25 In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”
Jesus: 17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Paul: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Paul: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." [6] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 15
Jesus: * And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.*
Peter was supposed to be the "disciple to the Gentiles". But Paul became one.
But he claimed he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, in the wilderness, and then in the inner rooms of the jail cell.
Jesus: “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
Paul himself admits he didn't actually study with any of Jesus' own students, but went to Arabia for 3 years and taught from his own visions. Like Mohammad did centuries later. And then later
Paul: 15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas b and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
21Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they praised God because of me.
In Acts 15: Paul finally visits Jerusalem he argues with Peter.
Paul: When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned... When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
But his historian Luke says the opposite about this incident -- that he was rebuked* and told to publicly show everyone he isn't teaching Jews not to follow the law, by paying for some nazarene's purification rites to shave their heads. And so he did! Publicly!
Acts 21: 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
And this refers to the OFFICIAL LETTER OF THE CHURCH THAT JESUS HIMSELF SET UP, led by his brother James and by Peter ("the Rock") who invoked the authority of the Holy Spirit to say to all gentile believers to essentially follow Noahide laws:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&versi...
Paul agreed to go to his churches and send this message. But he said instead:
Galatians 2: As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, a just as Peter had been to the circumcised. b 8For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Cephas c and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
Seems to contradict what he was told to send to them.
Today, after the Council of Niceae by Constantine 3 centuries after the events, nearly all Christian denominations follow Pauline doctrine. But where is his authority from? How is he any different from, say, Mohammad?
From all the Christian apologists I have talked to, they point to one verse and one verse only: Second Peter
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
But most scholars consider Second Peter not to have been even written by Peter
https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.”2 And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.”3
So what are we left with? One dubious link to Paul, from Jesus and his followers, in the entire Bible. And yet most people follow Paul.
Thomas Jefferson: I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.
Anyway... that's my conclusion after studying the matter in as much depth as I could find, and talking to Christian apologists.
All religions based on books have discrepancies within themselves that allow people to pick whatever they want and adapt it to their personal wants and actions.
Some flavours want people to interpret the scriptures themselves, while other flavours only allow some specific scholars to interpret it and you must follow blindly.
By design, religions have a de facto tendency to control people's behaviours and beliefs and fill the gaps wherever they are.
Cultural contexts shifts can't be addressed quickly as their traditions are rooted in centuries of small interpretations that can't be undone.
I guess that's why so many people have a tendency to leave religion, just by seeing how much of the past can they carry before it starts weighing them down more than it lifts them up.
For the bible, the simple definition of righteous needs interpretation :
James 2:24 : You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8-9 : For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.
Everything surrounding Paul could be described as the first interpretation and it's often easier to follow an existing idea than make your own.
The Bible-compatible spin on this might be something like: if you don’t “help yourself” in the absolute strictest sense — feeding yourself, say — but only set out to help others, then you will fail to help others, as your body will fail you before you’ve done a single useful thing. It is not sainthood, not martyrdom, to refuse to do the small work required to accept the “gifts of God” (like a breath mask that keeps you alive long enough to do the work required to save your own children.)
I need to be clear that I do not endorse this view. The role of the United States in facilitating global cybersecurity, not to mention navigation, trade among much else, almost surely pays dividends far beyond what it costs us. The amount of international goodwill that the United States enjoys is remarkable particularly in light of our various foreign policy "mistakes", and I think we have these systems to thank.
It doesn't seem all that simple to dictate to someone what you think their actual opinion is and then point to Shakespeare as some kind of evidence.
Maybe let's keep things simple by taking people at their word.
It has never mattered that the US is technically energy independent, because it's not independent of a number of other resources, and it cannot sustain the sort of cost increases which reductions in global oil and gas supply would lead to: because again, threesome resources aren't publicly owned - the higher revenues flow to the oil companies, not the tax payer.
Should the US be the one to handle the CVE database globally? The current administration wants to see other parts of the world help carry the load. A little scare could be the push needed to make this either distributed or handled by a coalition. This could be a positive for the US (who doesn't want to be the sole funder) and for those who don't want the US to have sole control.
It's the equivalent of taking a day off work to haggle over the price of a bus ticket.
I have a European perspective to this. This isn't as bad as it looks. The rest of the world should in any case not rely on the US federal government for their security. So, there was always going to be some duplication of effort needed here. And given the whole tariff situation, there is of course quite a bit of interest in non US based alternatives to your favorite US based trillion $ companies and their services and lots of companies giving the evil eye to any US based service providers. I've been seeing a lot of that lately with our German customers; especially in the public sector.
Short term mildly disruptive for some companies but not something to panic over.
Heck, those nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are only making the American people less likely the collaborate with the rest of the world on security too.
Bin the entire lot
Color me skeptical. How many companies have lost sensitive due to extreme carelessness, time and again? The cost of taking security seriously is greater than the cost of settling after the fact.
I feel like even the biggest data breaches result in little more than victims being offered free credit monitoring.
https://www.newsweek.com/doge-whistleblower-stalked-threaten...
They don't see this. There is no true reporting. My mom didn't know about the breadth of tariffs. She didn't know about the DJT crypto scam. I've explained signal to her several times (prior to the news, just getting her to use it). She really doesn't understand anything complicated.
She "knows Trump is a jerk" but wants, and I quote, "America for Americans" and for us to put China in its place and to secure the border.
edit: I told my dad "Why do you think America is so powerful and influential? It's because we invest in the world and welcome students into this country. We aren't the center of the world for no reason". He simply replied, "We are the center of the world."
Our country is filled with people like this, incapable of abstract thought and poisoned by lies.
Plenty of people in Britain still think the world owes us something, nearly a century after the end of our empire.
[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/computer-security-is-a-polit...
Goes into pretty good detail about DOGE employees going out of their way to obscure their activity on NLRB's Azure account. Surely a plus for transparency in government.
> Within minutes after DOGE accessed the NLRB's systems, someone with an IP address in Russia started trying to log in, according to Berulis' disclosure. The attempts were "near real-time," according to the disclosure. Those attempts were blocked, but they were especially alarming. Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created DOGE accounts — and the person had the correct username and password, according to Berulis.
Who else can you seriously suggest, knowing the past 10 years of CVE history? Subcontract it to Cisco or Oracle?
Even if the US doesn't play ball, it's a public database right? Is there anything stopping the UN, EU, UK, Australia, etc from copying it and establishing their own joint CVE?
“The county has, for whatever reason, also refused to produce the network routers. We want the routers, Sonny. Wendy, we got to get those routers, please. The routers. Come on, Kelly, we can get those routers. Those routers. You know what? We’re so beyond the routers, there’s so many fraudulent votes without the routers. But if you got those routers, what that will show, and they don’t want to give up the routers. They don’t want to give them. They are fighting like hell. Why are these commissioners fighting not to give the routers?”
Has he become more coherent in the subsequent 9 years?
so why was only the US federal government funding it, especially if it wasn't expensive to maintain?
this is the follow up question to every headline and won't be seen as controversial later, so why bother treating it as controversial to say now
Okay, so we’ve established that the cost of the endeavor is low.
> it’s the global catalog that helps everyone organize and talk about vulnerabilities
I would argue that leading and controlling the organization that provides the world with the single most ubiquitous cybersecurity resource justifies what you characterized as a meager cost in reputational capital alone.
> this is the follow up question to every headline and won't be seen as controversial later, so why bother treating it as controversial to say now
It’s not controversial, just a bit aloof.
Control of something like the CVE registry is essentially a geopolitical concern at this point, i.e. there has been anxiety brewing about China’s vulnerability disclosure laws for a bit now, much of which is warranted as China has been preventing the disclosure of vulnerabilities and instead stockpiling 0days and leveling up their APT groups. Even if the US wouldn’t exert such blatant influence or control over the program, the fact that vulnerability disclosures are being sent to US entities, or even just traveling through IP space we control, may be alone enough for value to be extracted.
This pattern could basically be viewed as the DOGE fallacy at this point.
Someone in the original HN thread about funding wrote a post explaining how poorly run CVE org was and it had been like that for years. It had a giant backlog, ignored criticism, and moved very slowly.
Then the second it shutdown a volunteer organization was assembled overnight.
> Control of something like the CVE registry is essentially a geopolitical concern at this point
This is purely a reputational concern. Being on government networks doesn't make it instantly more trustworthy or safe. Just like everything regarding security it takes lots of people looking at it, people reporting issues, and an organization that deals with issues promptly.
Sure, but that doesn’t change anything, does it? Most people that use or have benefited from the CVE program are not even aware of these criticisms, and I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people who _are_ aware only became so in the past week.
> This is purely a reputational concern. Being on government networks doesn't make it instantly more trustworthy or safe.
I did not say the concern was the safety of the CVE program. The concern is influence over the world’s inbox for 0days and the tangible ways that can be used to a nation’s benefit. It is most certainly not just a reputational concern. If China had stepped in last week and took the reins there would be groups within both industry and government having mild freakouts this week.
let's fix our own cities and domestic infrastructure projects while pulling back the federal government, just like we are doing
You don't need to put the federal government in a wood chipper to make the US better, and in fact you often need the federal government to make the US better, like with social security, food stamps, medicaid, the interstate, railroads, most of our infrastructure, the internet, microchips, etc.
In fact, if you want the best infrastructure, why wouldn't you end up importing that? Most of humanity is not a US citizen. "The best" human at something will only rarely be american.
Meanwhile this admin has done nothing to improve things for americans, so stop carrying water for their horse shit.
People love the meme of a runway full of F35s and saying "We are about to demonstrate why the US doesn't have socialized medicine" and it has always been a lie. We can EASILY afford 3k F35s, 13 aircraft carriers, AND healthcare. We've been paying more for healthcare than countries with socialized medicine this whole time.
I'm aware but there is no consensus for that, or addressing the budget, all while our infrastructure crumbles at the same time.
Now there is at least an attempt to address our budget. Regarding foreign policy, other leading nations are not giving aid, they are investing. We could just as easily do our "soft power" stuff in a more equitable way. Every controversial budget change, that's even mocked by leaders of G-7 nations, are things those G-7 nations are already doing. Aid for repayment? yeah they're doing that. Not a controversial concept in reality.
And yes, I still want the federal government to do the things you mentioned regarding federal highways, railroads... infrastructure projects we both agree on.
NO THERE IS NOT
DOGE hasn't saved a dime, and by cutting IRS employees has already cost more than they could ever save, meanwhile the Trump admin is pushing a budget that just keeps adding to the deficit to pay for more tax cuts for the hyperwealthy.
Why are you so unaware of these things?
That said, there is the similar sounding title called “the leader of the free world” applied to the U.S. president since the end of WWII. I always thought that was the result of military alliances, not the CVE program, which post dates it.
Edit: To the downvoters, I take issue with the assertion that the U.S. has claimed the title “leader of the world”. That is applied to the Pope during papal inaugurations and as far as I know, has never been formally applied to the United States. It seems to have been invented this year as part of claims that the U.S. has an obligation to spend money on programs that benefit others, given that the current political situation has made a number of them appear to be in jeopardy, but that appears to be a rewrite of history, rather than any historical truth. My sole interest here is the historical truth, and not politics.
This means they have the capability to enforce their will globally to a significant extent. In an arena such as geopolitics, justice is the will of the stronger, no holds barred. This makes the USA arguably the primary concern in geopolitics, the ring you need to kiss to do anything on that stage.
Keep in mind that “claimed” may be referring to the sense of “won” rather than “stated”.
From that perspective it’s not too much of a stretch to call them the world leader, but that does ignore the fact that leadership implies the will to lead and to a significant extent the requisite wisdom and skills.
However, I believe both titles are applied to specific office holders in the modern day. The U.S. president is called the leader of the free world by many. I believe the title leader of the world is bestowed upon the Pope during Papal inaugurations.
Saying that the U.S. got its leadership position because no one else wanted it is historically incorrect. Following WWII, every other major democratic power was in ruins while the U.S. was the sole major power left in tact. Without any military attacks on U.S. soil, U.S. military strength had skyrocketed during the war. As the war progressed, the U.S. attained the status of a great power and by the war’s end had become a nascent super power. U.S. strength continued to grow after the war due to the threat of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the other great powers never fully recovered militarily since they focused on their economies while relying on the U.S. for security. The U.S. gained its leadership position because no one else existed that could claim it.
I want to flip this question around as if it was asked by somebody from a country other than the U.S. If I was looking at America since 9/11 from the outside, I would see a country that was trying to destabilize itself. It started out slowly enough, but as the years have progressed the wobble has become more and more pronounced until today, where the U.S.'s trustworthiness is lower than I personally ever thought it could go. And it's going to get worse.
So if I lived outside the U.S. I would be asking the very same question: Why would a government that is so unstable and so dangerously powerful be in charge of something that the world kind-of would like to depend on? And I'd start my own version of it asap. I understand from the Reg article that the U.S. extended its contract in the 11th hour, but that just speaks to the point more than anything else.
or it suggests that an entire world and private sector is so uncoordinated and budget strapped globally that all this - at least these things - is held together by the US
I'm pleased to find out. I'm dismayed at how disruptive doing so has to be, but its either accepting the concept of American exceptionalism, or stepping up and proving the apathy was giving America a bad deal and calling into question how much of an ally anyone was
Businesses, Science and individuals thrive in societies that are democratic, with separation of powers and independent judiciary. The better they function, the harder it is for crime.
On the other hand, if you allow organized crime to prosper, take control of it, and on the other hand have the judiciary in your grip, you can play both cards against your political/business enemies.
This is the model of Russia, where the State is deeply connected to transnational organized crime. The Kremlin powers really wanted Viktor Bout free. Now, if the power brokers in the media landscape wanted to tell you the big picture instead of hyper focusing on the day to day circus... (that is also why journalism /= actualities).
So these are just necessary steps to clear roadblocks for crime networks. The same for IRS. In Russia you cannot get power without Kompromat on yourself. Like the maffia, the boss needs a kill switch on everyone.
From a higher perspective, it is a bit unfortunate that these transgressive steps were foreseen in academia, those despicable expertise centra in the EU and other democratic countries, while the general public is kept in the dark by media houses.
I am not sure if it still suitable for HN or that the Overton Window shifted too much already, but the other things that were forecast are the capturing of conservatism by the same networks. We expect also to see further normalization of law breaking, power abuse, power concentration and state capture by non-elected bodies. Yes, this was a normalization process of decades. But now on full acceleration. As an aside, it is not entirely a coincidence that "Accelerationism" is the ideology of associated power circles.
And now you also know how Tech Bro's and Conservatism could share the same campaign. Their intended outcomes differ on some points, but they agree on the path to their respective ideals. The extreme destruction that follows will not touch them personally. To ensure that last thing they unlock powers for them self: become the law.
You may agree with some, but there is a pattern.
I am waiting for it to leave the FAO. Not hoping, waiting.
The ICJ started that particular fight by issuing arrest warrants against non-signatories, something explicitly outside of its power and purview.
That's the missing cooperation.
Some UN nations are quite happy about this, because it will make it easier to access what they want in US.
Anyways, I have to agree with the others: this is not the real issue. If you wanted to change the governance on that point, you can transition these things orderly.
Like Doge, the messaging is to hide the real intentions. It doesn't take much effort to see that the actions do not really match with the messages, but if the media would not even do that bit of analysis and would not bring the disconnect front and center, then yeah, it is a winning strategy.
Anyway, we are going to get the bad parts of the plan without the benefits now. Not entirely too late but pretty close. We can't all wait until a blatant constitutional crisis to start protesting because the court will back down where it can without openly loosing legitimacy. And once the admin chooses to cross the red line they will be ready for the response. Show support to gop members who want to stand up but are afraid of primaries (and death threats). Even promise cross party primary support where that is possible. Don't go along with illegal stuff. Tell the dnc your only priority is democracy and to stop arguing about the rest. Go to protests. Talk to people you disagree with calmly and do it a lot. Don't flee, this is endgame, nowhere else will hold out all that long. Help people get their voter registration in order with stuff like voterider to combat voter suppression.
Ok that was cathartic to type out all at once. If you don't see it then go read the history of successful and failed takeovers from rome to the present. It is a color by numbers approach that is easy to recognize once you've seen the others, but done super faster and with no visible bloodshed. And with a lot less public support than is normal for such things. Kind of impressive in a horrifying way.
Its a run of the mill libertarian position
It doesn't matter which politician or administration does it from that perspective. Those two do happen to be a coalition with libertarian constituents that they courted for votes, so its more than happenstance that the positions and actions will sound the same.
Regardless, private funding isn't controversial. The US Federal government reaching parity with the same level of apathy of every other government organization in the world isn't controversial either.