https://archive.is/l5j76

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19737795

It's really astounding incompetence/dysfunction.

The word is probably "corruption."

In late 2010 Germany decreed a 12-year delay for their nuclear phase-out plan.

Then in March 2011 the Fukushima nuclear accident happened, and public opinion took notice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang...

France, shock-full of nuclear... now leads the european pack of nations buying natural gas from the US and also from Russia.

https://energyandcleanair.org/january-2025-monthly-analysis-...

Yes, plus Merkel was about to lose the election and she caved in.

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29173164

Effects: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561

Americans elected a president who behaves exactly like a Russian asset. And no evidence could make them change their mind about it.

Who are the gullible people again?

The only thing they remember is he was president in 2019. They don't reliably know who it was in 2020/2021 though.

(I think the fixed-term strong presidential system is essentially unfixable here. The country needs snap elections.)

Hell, most early Bibles count, or do you think the council of Nicea resulted in something other than what is being described for large swathes of early church writings?

History writing my arse!

Yet these are not the same things. DOGE has done many things already which upset and discourage people. Come to Canada where the sentiment towards DOGE seems very negative, you will still see a great desire for improved government efficiency.

DOGE is not as well-loved as a poll about government efficiency will make it seem. Almost everyone wants improved efficiency. Many people think their public service needs cuts. Not everyone thinks the way DOGE does it makes sense.

The UK with Brexit is a good example. The majority of the voters believed it was a good idea, due to campaigns not really based on facts. Now they're all angry because the results suck for them and the campaigns were mostly lies.

The same is going to happen with the US majority backing Trump's plans. They all believe a lot of lies he keeps telling. And in a few years they're going to be angry because they then face the consequences like high prices for everyday purchases and terrible healthcare for the working class.

It's just that today they don't understand yet what the results of Trump's policies are going to be. And shouting "Canada/Europe/China has been very bad for us" gets them excited, simple human nature, our group vs the other.

And there it is! The info given by the current administration is as bewildering as it is incomplete. Russia, governmental agencies, Medicaid(!), medical researchers (who are shaking in their boots about their futures)...it's a long list with very little reasonable excuses. Musk? I'll stop here.

The point being, we won't know until years from now the damage that's being done to both the states and the world stage.

And I think most people are relieved that for the first time in a hundred years (ever?) somebody is actually doing something to address govt fraud, waste and abuse. Something more than lots of talk followed by no action which is what has always happened previously.

If you’re looking for fraud, waste, and abuse, it’s right there.

And just as a sidenote, the Democrats had 3 times the campaign funds of the Republicans at the last election (Nancy Pelosi herself is worth 100 million..something like that). So if you want to talk about wealthy people, lets talk about the Dems.

And we can also talk about the many people getting very wealthy from the Dem NGOs (USAid was a slush fund basically).

https://www.thefp.com/p/a-20-billion-slush-fund-nonprofits

The best option to actually convict him was in Atlanta for racketeering to win an election. There the democratic attorney general blew it by hiring the prosecutor she was sleeping with.

Treason is strictly defined in the constitution and doesn't apply here because we aren't at war with Russia.

He probably did engage in seditious conspiracy or such things with them, via Roger Stone and Wikileaks, but they successfully obstructed justice enough to get away with it.

Wouldn't their best option be to put up a candidate and policies that voters actually liked?

"What is 'inclusive or' Alex?"

Alex: "Yes! And that will.close out the 'boolean operators & avoidable horrors' category for this game."

However it should probably be noted that it was official government organizations of the first group that were being gullible whereas the official government organizations of the second group all seem to know exactly what's up, but either seem unable to do anything or are actively participating.

Artificially triggering an economic recession is a sure way lower oil prices. So how exactly are they planning to do this?

Besides that.. if this is really musk’s goal he’s going in very roundabout way.

> There's no solid evidence Trump is secretly and knowingly working for Putin

True. He is obviously working for him very publicly and whether he’s conscious of that or not does not even change much

Not enough to indict, anyways, but there's a spectrum between insane left-wing conspiracy and a jury conviction. Paul Manafort, Trumps 2016 campaign chairman, was sentenced to 7 years prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy against the United States. His protege Rick Gates did 45 days in a plea bargain deal.

Then there was the time Trump stood up at his campaign podium and directly asked Russian hackers to leak more Clinton emails:

> “Russia, if you’re listening,” Trump said, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

And during his presidency, he went out of his way to take secret meetings with Putin in Hamburg Germany[1], among other places. We have no idea what was discussed, which seemingly checks the "secret" box at least. As for "knowing," well, he directly asked for their help, but who knows how mentally "there" he is. Comes down to "for" I guess, as I'm sure he'd characterize it as "with"?

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump...

Give trust to get trust

A common misunderstanding, unfortunately also among Germans themselves. We are raised not to feel responsible for the crimes of the Nazis ourselves, but responsible to make sure the world never forgets what happened and how. It’s not about guilt for the past, but wariness for the future.

I’m not happy with other traits of our People either, but I think the way we handle the holocaust is the right one still.

By the way, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, etc are reduced by mere exposure to other races, gay people, trans people, etc in a normal setting.

And those morons had almost 30% of votes last election, but fortunately didn't get into government because no other parties wanted to work with them under their conditions.

[1] https://archive.is/L6UNc

While there are lots of pro-Russian people in Bulgaria at large, and specificaylly in politics (including the president), and significant Russian operations in the country, it's not like it's Belarus. There isn't significantly more risk for him there than in Romania or Austria or Slovakia.

A movie lampooning militarism, xenophobia and… armoured supersoldiers grinding through bugs and taking their resources? Sounds cool.

Compare to games like Factorio and Helldivers 2. About 1% of the time I think “wait, am I the baddie?” and the rest is just raining down technologically enhanced Armageddon to further my mineral stockpiles.

I was really confused there for a second, before I remembered that there are native bug monsters in Factorio. I always play with the monsters disabled so the planet is empty.

(eg "service guarantees citizenship" is presented as a fascist idea the movie is parodying, but IIRC in the book you could get it by being a mailman.)

No, it's explicitly noted in the book that the civil service options are supposed to be at least as unpleasant as being a soldier - even if that means inventing useless make-work for someone unable to perform other duties. The explicit example given is that a blind man with only a single functioning limb might be given the duty of counting hairs on caterpillars by touch on a cold moon base for his full tour of service.

Of course, that's leaving aside the basic problem that the idea only works in an idealized abstract state where nobody in the basically unaccountable government ever indulges in even a little bit of nepotism when it comes to who gets picked for or promoted out of certain kinds of drudge work.

Several Starship Troopers movie scenes are lifted directly from the book, almost word for word.

As an Australian, I laughed heartily, and considered it just deserts for that Simpsons episode. ;-)

Verhoeven is something of an expert on this, since he grew up in The Hague during Nazi occupation.

There's an interview out there where he says when he making the film he was wondering if his movie was in-your-face enough about Nazis, to really make sure his movie wasn't too subtle or that people would miss the point he had the former Doogie Howser actor wear a SS officer's trenchcoat.

Because apes are not liberal, of course.

Ironically, the chaos of liberal democracy might be the greatest stabilizing force our species has ever known. Even the Pax Romana the ancient Chinese bureaucracy, and the European empires fell apart for one reason or another.

Let’s hope liberal democracy has many more miles left in the tank.

[1] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/nasty-brutish-and-short....

This is an absurd statement, can you expand on this?

Have you never seen The Pianist, Schindler's List, Come and See, ..?

Yeah I've seen all of those and I know a fair amount of people that those movie had an opposite effect on.

But I'm curious which part of Schindler's List you got "righteous" from. It's not a vibe I got from watching it. Are you sure it's not just your prior judgement coloring your interpretation?

> I was conscripted into some faction of the Bosnian Army in order to "defend" our city. In truth, we had few arms or anything with which to defend. And as a very tall, largely starved girl, I wouldn't have made much of a soldier anyhow. So I was a "nurse." No training, of course. And no supplies, either. I was near the front line fairly often. There wasn't much you could do.

> One day, some shell exploded right on or near two young soldiers and they were torn into dozens of pieces. I say "dozens" because it wasn't hundreds or millions - I'd seen that happen too, and it's totally different. You could count these pieces. They were big lumps. A fellow "nurse" and I were near enough that we got there before anyone else. There was no one to save.

> As these soldiers were Bosnian Muslims whose bodies - what there was of them - would be returned to their families, we realized that we needed to collect these pieces to put the soldiers back together, kind of, because Muslims believe a body should be buried "whole" - to the extent that it's possible. With "only" dozens of pieces, it's kind of possible to do this. So we set about trying to match parts - one guy's leg get ripped off above the knee, but this leg has the knee attached, so it can't be this first guy's. That sort of thing. "Look," my fellow "nurse" said, "this one ate rice!" Rice was one of the few kinds of food that was readily doled out. Everyone hated it because they were tired of it, because it required a lot of water to cook (and no one had running water) and because it required a lot of heat to cook (and there was no gas and the trees were mostly gone and we'd already burned most of our books.) But we hadn't had rice in a while; this soldier must have been had some at home, stashed away.

> This guy's stomach was blown up, so rice was all over the various parts of his body that came from his torso. And I remember being so happy, because the hardest things to connect to a specific person are internal organs, but this guy's organs had rice on them, so you could tell they were "his." Ones without rice were, presumably, the other soldier's. So the job of piecing together bodies was made much easier than it normally would have been, when you try to make each "body" weigh about the same, even if you know parts are mixed. Of course, I don't need to add that when something like this happens, it's not just people - and rice - everywhere, but uniquely awful smells, and the flies get there so fast I still don't know how they do it.

> Later that day, I snaked my way to my aunt's, a few kilometers away. I remember smiling; I rarely smiled during the war. My aunt had made soup - good soup - and I ate a lot and told her and my cousins about my day. We all agreed it that things had gone pretty well, considering. I was pretty happy about piecing two young men together successfully because of the rice and having a stomach full of warm soup.

> War is dehumanizing. If, as in the Okinawa quote, you still worry about getting shit and piss on you, if you can even still smell the rotting flesh, and if it bothers you enough that you consider not eating your rations, if you can still consider your situation to be something like "hell's own cesspool," well . . . then you're still pretty fucking lucky. People like to read about that stuff; that's why they make it into popular movies and comic books.

> People don't make movies about the happiness of a young girl who finds she can reassemble people with ease, thanks to the fact that one of them ate a lot of rice earlier that day. Because it isn't very romantic or macho and it isn't full of hard-ass symbolism.

> The thing about war, too, is that it affects many many more civilians than it does soldiers. The military-centric ideas in the article don't grasp that. War, according to romantic notions going as far back as the Greeks, is more about guys toughing it out than women and children left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.metafilter.com/87979/Losing-the-War#2886398

This one, too:

> I found that piece very hard to read - self-serving and smug in the sense of looking for romanticism. I reckon that, if the author had ever seen war, he'd be quite embarrassed by it.

> Guess what - most people prefer the movie version of any human experience. War is mostly long, boring, cold, hungry and tedious . . . then every once in a while someone lobs a grenade at you or shells your house or a sniper's bullet pierces your arm or rapes and kills someone you know and you get hysterical . . . and then it goes back to being long, boring, cold, hungry and tedious for eons and eons. While I like a lot of the human experiences eschewed by many people I know, war is one in which the movie version is quite plainly preferable.

https://www.metafilter.com/87979/Losing-the-War#2886358

There’s some amazing (and harrowing) content in her comment history — highly recommend giving it a read. It made me realize that even films like Saving Private Ryan present war as a titillating kind of hell. Something like Threads will probably come closer to the truth of it.

The movie is bleakly depressing under its mockingly glorified surface shine.

Do you feel ie recent All Quiet on the Eastern Front glorified war, or people involved? That book is even more powerful.

What you go for is a "damn I never want to go to war" reaction but what you get is "sucks those guys died, would have been different if i was there though" and that is the "glorification".

I think this is what Truffaut meant that it's a poor medium to convey conflict as the lens must glorify otherwise its not longer a movie, just footage.

There were no war movies before WW1 and no major wars for a few generations so there were millions of extremely eager young men lining up in front of recruitment offices in Germany, Britain and France. They had zero idea what they were signing up for.

I think this is plain wrong. Unless you count "glorification" to mean anything that makes a subject compelling to watch. But I think that's stretching the meaning of the word past it's breaking point.

• The main character's enthusiasm to enlist is portrayed as irritatingly naive and ridiculous.

• The combat centers around the main character accidentally killing innocent villagers and a fellow American soldier.

• The main character winds up paraplegic, impotent, incontinent.

And all this happens before Willem Dafoe even shows up.

There have on occasion been wars that were fought over resources rather than for recreation.

It's easy to see why someone would find aspects of 'Saving Private Ryan' attractive (eg: Private Jackson, the sharpshooter), and it doesn't require much imagination to see how aspects even of Nazi villains can be attractive (they had the best uniforms).

It's more difficult to see how 'Born on the Fourth of July' would leave anyone - even a sadist - enthusiastic about war.

It's not like Kubrik's 'Clockwork Orange' in which some of the violence, in a sick way, empowers the main character.

Instead, the main character pathetically bumbles into shooting people he doesn't mean to, is shot himself, and turns into an angry loser in a wheelchair (until he finds his calling as a peace activist).

And the fascists have the outfits

But I don't care for the outfits

What I care about is music

And the communists have the music

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7A2-ACZhg_g

Great song thank you.

Personally, I would also include Schindler's List.

Navalny crossed him. Of course he had to die. Pride would allow nothing else.

One of the greatest features of western democracies is that our political losers, who came at the not-a-king and missed, largely still die of old age in bed surrounded by loved ones.

This horrible little man is valorised by the current US president as ‘a genius’ so this sort of stupidity transcends national borders.

> Initially, the FSB was mainly interested in getting its hands on our equipment, presumably in the hopes of confirming its hypothesis regarding our links with the CIA. > ... > The FSB officers feigned surprise and promised to return the missing items immediately but succeeded in doing so only after 40 minutes had passed. Although they failed to bypass the pin codes on the phones or computer, the Kremlin’s agents did manage to install a tracker on Roman’s laptop, which he discovered within minutes.

> I had a weirdly similar experience shortly thereafter, not in Moscow, but — shockingly — in Berlin. Flying back from a screening of Navalny in New York and on the way to another one in the Hague, I was just passing via the German capital for a few hours to speak at a conference. The event was held at a pompous hotel in the city’s suburbs. > ... > During the event, I looked up the ownership of the hotel only to discover it was owned by a German, quite literally, “friend of Vladimir Putin”. I rushed out to get my suitcase, and the bellboy took a whopping twenty minutes to find it. On the way to the airport, I discovered a hard disk was missing from the suticase. I alerted the police who rushed to the hotel, only to be told that the security cameras had been down for maintenance.

Does this imply that the conference was held at this hotel purely to get access to his devices?

> The scheme was replete with cars bearing fake license plates, a route that avoided traffic surveillance cameras, and two speed boats that would need to be sunk at the end of the operation.

> Later on, a source in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) informed Roman that Kyiv’s intelligence services had gathered information showing that a Ukrainian criminal group had received an “order” from Moscow to kidnap him and take him to Russia. A reward of $50,000 was offered for his capture.

> At one point, one of them even booked a seat next to him on a flight from Budapest to Berlin, wearing a hidden camera to record his screen while he texted me. Their attempt to get his smartphone pin code was off by only one digit.

How many people were working full-time to get this guy?

Getting hands on electronic equipment is what any pro-Palestinian Western journalist is familiar with at airports etc.

I don't even know if there will ever be anything other than tyranny. And yes, my relatives and friends are still over there... Others have become emigrants and refugees...

Fuck, sometimes I wish it all to just end. I never chose this. I and most of my circle didn't vote for this Hitler of modernity. I don't know, maybe I should have burnt myself on the Red Square? But what for?

Personally I trust the following two foundations: https://savelife.in.ua/en/ https://www.sternenkofund.org/en I believe both are doing a great job, and donate regularly.

Have a little faith! Otherwise we’ve already lost.

Well my ambitions extend beyond Russia. Just saying...

> I and most of my circle didn't vote for this Hitler of modernity.

One think I must say is that while you (or your generation) didn't vote, at some point in the past people collectively did vote/support or ignore. Common people are a divided, obedient lot as opposed to the oppressors who know how to gang up. As the quote goes:

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,'

I've been pessimistic about European nation's ability to coordinate after the initial Macron meeting after the MSC, but boy am I glad I was wrong.

The UK, France, Germany, and other Western+Northern European nations have finally opened their eyes, and are starting to move to integrate European capabilities.

The overtures to Turkiye, the removal of Germany's debt breaks on defense spending, the potential expansion of France+UK's nuclear umbrella, and the injection of interest and potential cash in Eutelsat OneWeb will help enhance European strategic autonomy.

If a liberal rule based order is to exist, it must be protected by all it's members, and it's up to them to help course correct wayward members of that order.

I am really excited to see a new chapter in nuclear proliferation unfold.

My bet would be on Poland, Japan, and South Korea.

And why is almost no one mentioning Taiwan in these discussions? I am probably missing something, but Taiwan would seem like the most likely candidate, assuming they do not want to be swallowed by China.

Even for a highly industrialized nation, developing nukes is a big project, and all of the upcoming defense spending in the next few years will go to Ukraine and closing some of the gaping holes in conventional forces.

Besides, Germany still has deep-seated qualms about weapons and armed forces; while this is slowly eroding, I don't see it going as far as nuclear armament.

I find it more likely that Poland will possess nukes in ten years; they're geographically closer to Russia, spend more on defense and have more political will.

There is a difference between allowing US weapons under US control (and only to be launched from US planes) to be stationed in the country vs a deeper European collaboration where France stations weapons in Germany for joint European use.

I could imagine that Germany replaces the US warheads with French or even British ones, but not actual ownership of nuclear warheads, nor a situation where a single foreign nation could make the decision to start nukes from German soil without German approval.

Given the regime change in the US, those would be useless if the goal is to deter Russia, wouldn't they?

I don't see Germany or Canada getting them as they lack domestically owned and manufactured delivery systems (eg. medium/long range ballistic missiles, domestically manufactured nuclear warhead capable jet fighters).

This is why SK and Japan kept investing in ballistic missile and rocketry research. Pakistan did the same in the 1980s and North Korea in the 1990s.

Nuclear weapons without delivery systems are functionally useless in a world where most nuclear powers have second strike and nuclear triad capabilities, so the deterrence aspect of nuclear weapons are DoA.

Germany is not in a position today to start a nuclear program, becuase any nuclear program can be viewed as causus belli for a conventional war, and Germany would not have the ability to develop credible secondary strike capabilities if such a war were to happen in the next 3-5 years.

In addition, Germany lacks a domestic civilian nuclear program due to denuclearization in the 2000s and 2010s - something which Japan or SK DID NOT do.

Imo, it will will take 7-12 years for Germany to reach a point where it's domestic space/ballistics industry is comparable to even Iran's today.

That said, that development and capital might be sped up if defense related opportunities with the KSA are enhanced, because it would provide a massive infusion of capital.

Also, nuclear weapons programs are expensive, and Germany can better use it's capital to build conventional warfighting capabilities that it severely lacks, while remaining assured of France or the UK's nuclear umbrella.

Germany should have started this spending spree 10-15 years ago (which is when most other regional powers like Japan, SK, KSA, UAE, India, Pakistan, etc began doing so), but better late than never.

Germany is severely lagging in dual use technology, and German civilians need to realize that (the leadership does recognize this and hence why a spree of defense manufacting deals with the KSA, UAE, and India began during the Scholz chancellorship). That is the only way Germany can actually build strategic autonomy.

If a country like Germany or Poland wants to build a credible nuclear program that actually has deterrence, then they would need a completely domestically supply chain and vendor for most of their delivery systems, because poltical winds change, and despite the current alignment over Ukraine, countries like France, Germany, and Poland continue to clash over foreign and economic policy (eg. Germany undermining the next-gen tank deal for France, France undermining Eurofighter to protect Dassault, Poland directly opposing sending troops to Ukraine despite France pushing to start a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine).

And this is one of the various reasons why Germany and Poland have not seriously considered a nuclear program during the current defense rush.

The US has made it clear that European security is a European problem.

Most non-nuclear European states cannot go nuclear today as they lack the ability to concurrently rush second strike and nuclear triad capacity without being pulled into a conventional war.

The only major non-nuclear European states I can think of that have this capacity are Turkiye (unsurprising due to competition with Russia, Iran, KSA, and Israel) and Spain (significant MIC that has experience and exports in the Mediterranean - and often competed with the French because of Spanish MIC's co-sell deals with Turkiye).

Reality is, most European countries are 5-10 years behind Asian and Middle Eastern regional powers in rearming - all of whom began in the 2010-14 period due to crises such as South/East China Sea, Himalayas, Syria, Myanmar, Donbass-Crimea, and Libya.

European leaders recognize this, and hence why there has been a flurry of Asia and EMEA defense deals over the past 6 months to help raise capital to begin rebuilding manufacturing capacity, but European HN/Redditors do not realize this (though I've tried bringing up).

The fact that the largest shareholder and launch partner for Europe's replacement for Starlink in Ukraine - Eutelsat Group and Eutelsat OneWeb - is an Indian government aligned conglomerate (Bharti Airtel) starkly shows this issue.

European states that aren't UK, France, Turkiye, and maybe Spain will have to rebuild their conventional capabilities in aerospace, space, naval, and land defense tech first before they can even consider a nuclear option.

That seems hardly relevant considering that other European countries realistically can only acquire nuclear weapons if they have political support from France/UK. In those cases French/British companies would be more than willing to sell whatever equipment they need as well (that’s how Britain got Trident after all..)

Because then you don't actually have autonomy.

If Germany or Poland are dependent on ArianeGroup, then they are dependent on France, who will have a final say on deployment and utilization of it's technology in an offensive manner, and Germany, Poland, and France often don't see eye to eye.

> those cases French/British companies would be more than willing to sell whatever equipment they need as well

And those sales come with stipulations and shutdown options from the French and British government (the Germans do the same with their own weapons programs such as Eurofighter).

In general, a country like Germany or Poland just cannot fully build a nuclear weapons program that could be deterrent, and the money either would spend on such a program just doesn't make sense when there is much lower hanging fruit in conventional warfare.

However my point is that Germany or Poland developing nuclear weapons without direct support of Britain/France is not even worth discussing. It would be infeasible due to a variety of political/military/economic/other reasons. I don’t think that it’s something even would be considering even semi seriously at this point.

Realistically some More centralized EU based nuclear weapon sharing program might be feasible but it’s very far away at this point.

Why would they need warheads on standby?

I'd say it takes balls of stainless steel to doxx Putin's hitmen.

And he doesn't back down.

This is next level bad-ass.

Damn.

This what happens when despots concentrate power in their hands

When professionalism matters less than loyalty, the professionals become scarce

In the 1950s there was Soviet ideology that meant something. Now there is loyalty to Putin.

Makes me weep to see the same thing happening in the USA. Ideology can be problematic (I do not miss the Bolsheviks) but loyalty to the Big Man is much more random, and worse

No, there wasn't. Soviet ideology that meant something died under Lenin, and already Stalin in those aspects of loyalty to the Big Man were way more demanding and intolerant, then Putin.

Not that different from Stalin or Putin, I don’t really get why is that silly idea that Lenin was somehow “purer” still so ingrained…

Compare him with Stalin, who even read with difficulty, or with Putin, who wrote one and a half articles on history.

You mean, after Stalin died in '53?

This fact came from one of the people who was involved in putting it there. Navalny phoned a Russian guy pretending to be another Russian official, asked him how this op went down and the dude said the toxin was in his underwear. You can see this all in the documentary.

Your attitude is misplaced, so much that one wonders why you're posting this.

One of the most consistently useful lessons I've learned online is that you can spot uninformed low-trust dismissals because they're always based on how someone is "funded" by someone else or advise "following the money" but their theory of how this works either doesn't exist or is obviously wrong.

Very common in /r/science for instance. They won't read a paper or check if it's preregistered etc. but they will complain if it was sponsored by someone at all associated with the topic of the paper.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingcat#Funding_and_support

One, in part. Two, are you challenging Bellingcat’s credibility? On what grounds other than affiliation? They’ve been pretty spot on with all of their calls to my recollection.

Three, if you don’t like Bellingcat, maybe check out Marsalek’s Wikipedia page’s source list before creating a throwaway account to post a comment.