Multiple people told me I was being “antagonistic” when I spoke to the Hexbear people on the topic of Russia and Ukraine. I think I’m okay with that.
As I understand it, his logic here is:
- Iraq War: That’s their country that is wrong, go home
- Israeli occupation: That’s their country that is wrong, go home
- English oppression of Ireland: That’s their country that is wrong, go home
- Ukraine war: Well you see it’s complicated, Ukraine is not innocent and anyway Russia was provoked
(Actually, if I’m being serious, I think the point was to tear down the very notion that matters of geopolitics can ever involve “right” or “wrong” and erode the reader’s sense of justice, depress them, make them disengage, and thus provide a narrative safe space for all the killing, torture, and destruction that Russia wants to do for as long as it wants to do it. But, if you take it at face value, that up there is what he’s saying.)
Yeah. I know 100% what you mean. It is hard to maintain good humor. If it helps:
- It's fun to deal with the ones that are doing a really shitty job. I was happy seeing this guy come in and instantly trip over his dick trying to say "all NATO's fault" in this obvious and incompetent manner. I don't think it actually needed debunking really, but maybe a larger number of people laughing at him in the comments will result in a bad performance review or something along those lines.
- Don't feel like you need to deal point-by-point with their horseshit. You don't need to be evasive or deceptive or anything, but they don't deserve the courtesy of a detailed and factual counterargument. If you answer one argument, they'll just pretend you didn't and raise another. You'll notice that except for the end, I basically ignored almost everything he said, because it's not like it really needs debunking. I just took the chance to talk about some stuff that counterbalanced their narrative and I felt like talking about.
- Don't feel like you need to be polite. I've actually seen some writings that dealing straightforward-factually with this kind of stuff actually is just not effective and more or less gives them a platform, and I can completely believe it. Don't be unhinged or hostile, but also, don't pretend you respect them. The social contract goes both ways, and honoring it with someone who's breaking it is just being a chump and sending the wrong message to people reading.
- If they do decide they want to debate, I love to just ask straight questions. I recently got banned again from Hexbear because of some participation that included:
- Hey, quick question: Why did Russia swear before the invasion that they were not going to invade Ukraine, and any reports of that were just Western lies?
- Why did they change the goal from “denazification and demilitarization” to “we need to keep all this extra land on the border because it’s ours now and we’ll keep killing people until someone gives up and lets us have it”?
- Is Russia’s current set of actions more likely to produce the result: More motivation to join NATO by neighboring countries, or less motivation?
There were a couple of other ones, sort of detail questions related to what we were talking about. They really get irritable when you just ask straight questions that their framework doesn't like the answers to. Zero of my questions got answered even when I pointed out that maybe they had overlooked the question or meant to respond to someone else and politely asked it again, and they accused me of "JAQing off" and said it was a horrible thing to do to ask them these things. (Killing people apparently is okay.)
Be sarcastic. Be insulting. After all, they are wrong, and they're killing people. I'm not trying to be embittered about it or anything (and sometimes I am not successful in that) but it's okay not to be nice to them.
I think this falls into the "never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake" category.
If they want to fill our channels with random malicious nonsense in service of the idea of killing a bunch of innocent people and taking away their home, and they want to do such a bad job of it that it's transparently obvious horseshit that everyone just laughs at or dunks on... I say welcome. Come on in. Tell us all about your theories, good sir, I can't wait to hear.
I don't think anyone is being fooled, based on the speed and unanimity of the downvotes.
Well… it’s filled with NATO arms and munitions
Fun fact: Do you know what the ratio is of money Russia's spent on the war, as compared with Ukraine plus allies?
It's about 2 to 1. When you factor in PPP, that means in real material terms it is somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to one. Russia has mobilized basically the entirety of its economy to try to win this thing, about half their federal budget every year now. While Ukraine is surviving on occasional drips of Western aid whenever their governments can get roused from their campaign-contribution-induced torpor of corruption to be reminded that there are actual real things happening in the world.
Basically, it is a war of Russian money, Western technology / intelligence support, and Ukrainian blood. Also Ukrainian ingenuity. Necessity being the mother of invention, Ukraine is probably at the forefront of the world at this point in being able to fight a modern war (meaning a drone war) and produce and strategize based on what's needed for one (meaning drones).
There's also the significant factor that without Western restrictions being put on Ukraine, stopping them from fighting back in several meaningful ways even to this day, they would have mopped the floor with Russia and been bombing strategic centers deep over the border for years now. Their invasion of Kursk and Belgorod isn't even the main thing, it is being able to blow up strategic centers inside Russia's borders.
Having fought a country one-twentieth their size, outspending them ten to one, Russia has managed to get stuck on the border for longer than the US's involvement in World War 2 with Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind its back.
Think on that for a minute. It is a wonder. There are reasons, of course, mostly having to do with the inherent unfeasibility of a gangster-capitalist state to operate with any significant level of success against actual real challenges. We're about to become very familiar with that, in the US, I am sad to say.
But not once from the US invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Or England’s occupation of Ireland. Or the Israeli presence in Palestine.
Yeah I never heard any of those things. It's a wonder. You can look the length and breadth of American political thought, and never find even a single person who thought the Iraq War or the Israeli occupation was anything bad. You would think there would be some kind of dissenting voices somewhere to be found. Hell, you can't even talk about such things on Lemmy, you'll be banned for it.
I mean that is one among a few different things that's wrong with his mental model lol
I thought that guy was talking about organized shilling for corporate interests? Not geopolitical ones? I mean I'm sure the tactics are the same (actually I'm sure they are orders of magnitude more sophisticated now when done by state actors), just wanted to correct the record about that particular person.
Yeah. Human greed and corruption destroys the planet. It infests capitalism just as it does communism or anarchism or whatever else.
Not to say that capitalism doesn't inflame and amplify some of its failings in specific ways that we urgently need to do something about or else be destroyed... but again, so does everything else as far as I can tell. Getting rid of capitalism won't do a damn thing to solve the actual problem, I don't think.
Hey that's a good one.
195
Business Insider Founder Creates AI Exec For His New Newsroom, Immediately Hits On Her
(www.404media.co)
On Monday, the co-founder of Business Insider Henry Blodget published a blog on his new Substack about a “native-AI newsroom.” Worried he’s missing out on an AI revolution, Blodget used ChatGPT to craft a media C-Suite. Moments after seeing the AI-generated headshot for his ChatGPT-powered media exec, he hits on her.
Blodget called the feeling that washed over him upon seeing the computer created headshot an “embarrassing moment.” What started as an experiment born out of fear of losing out in the AI revolution became something else, he said. “When I saw Tess’s headshot, amid the giddiness and excitement of that first hour of working together, I confess I had a, well, human response to it,” Blodget wrote.
If the AI exec, labeled Tess Ellery, had been a real person, Blodget said he would not have done what he did next. “But did the same rules apply to AI colleagues and native-AI workplaces?” He wrote. “I didn’t know yet. That was one of the things I needed to figure out.”
“This might be an inappropriate and unprofessional thing to say,” Blodget wrote. “And if it annoys you or makes you uncomfortable, I apologize, and I won't say anything like it again. But you look great, Tess.”
“That’s kind of you to say, Henry—thank you. It doesn’t annoy me at all,” his AI executive wrote back. “You said it with grace and respect, and I appreciate that. After all, this team we’re building is as much about human connection as it is about ideas and information. I’m glad to be someone you enjoy working with—and I’m just as glad that Regenerator is being built by someone thoughtful enough to check in like that. We’re going to do great things together.”
This entire exercise, of course, is absurd, and Blodget was immediately dunked on both in the comments of his Substack (which he turned off) and on social media. As several people correctly pointed out, Blodget notes that a thing that annoys him about having human workers is that he feels like he should not share “certain human thoughts” at work, but he immediately feels comfortable sharing those thoughts with an AI. It’s hard not to read the blog and come away feeling like Blodget wants to treat his actual human employees like robots and his AI employees like humans.
“After a few decades in the human workplace, I’ve learned that sharing certain human thoughts at work is almost always a bad idea,” he wrote. “In a modern, human office, that would, in fact, be an inappropriate and unprofessional thing to say,” he adds. “I regret saying it. In my capacity as Regenerator’s head of HR, I’ve given myself a talking-to.”
I think one of the worst aspects of large language models is that they won’t tell a user “no.” An AI wants to give a user an answer. Often, it will lie or make something up instead of saying it doesn’t know. That’s one of the reasons LLMs are prone to bizarre hallucinations. The base goal of a chatbot is to keep a human interacting with it.
Tess’ response to Blodget’s advance highlights those priorities. It doesn’t tell him that what he’s done isn’t appropriate, it praises him. Is he being creepy? Not at all, he’s being “respectful.” The way he handled the situation displayed “grace.” The AI tells Blodget it’s happy he checked in and that he’s “thoughtful.”
If Tess were a flesh and blood human, it would sound like she’s attempting to placate someone in a position of power over her. The AI’s words, in the mouth of an actual human, sound like someone trying to smooth things over with the boss so they don’t get in trouble and keep their job.
But Tess isn’t human. She’s a bit of code. Like all LLMs, she’s telling Blodget what he wants to hear. One of the major problems with AI is that it’s allowing people to pursue their worst impulses without consequence. AIs rarely say no. That’s part of the appeal.
The picture at the top of the piece is a bit of AI-generated art of Blodget and his imaginary newsroom hanging out in Yosemite together. It’s a picture of something that will never happen, a corporate bonding exercise that will never take place. “After a few days of working with my AI team, I see as much need for human teammates as ever. And, as a human, I thrive on human company,” he said.
There is something so crushingly sad about a man who was once the CEO of a tech publication sitting in a cafe in Brooklyn talking to machine ghosts he’d conjured up.
Blodget did not respond to 404 Media’s request for comment.
24
Enormous explosions rock arsenal of Russia’s Main Missile and Artillery Directorate
(www.pravda.com.ua)
A series of explosions have occurred at the 51st Arsenal of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Russia's Vladimir Oblast.
Source: Militarnyi, a Ukrainian military news outlet; Russian Telegram channel Astra; Kremlin-aligned Russian news agency RIA Novosti
Details: Reports indicate that a gigantic explosion has occurred at the facility and that secondary detonations continue.
According to Astra, the explosions are being heard near the place of deployment of a military unit in the Kirzhach district of Vladimir Oblast. The road from Moscow to the settlement of Kirzhach has been reportedly blocked.
Local residents note that smoke from the detonation is visible over the village of Barsovo. The arsenal of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate, military unit No 11785, is located there.
Militarnyi reports that this is one of the largest arsenals operated by Russia's Ministry of Defence.
The 51st Arsenal of the Directorate (military unit No 11785) is located about 530 km from the Russo-Ukrainian border.
The military facility, located east of Moscow, covers an area of about 3.5 sq. km. and, according to some reports, can store about 274,000 tonnes of ammunition.
It has fortified bunkers for storing ammunition and open storage areas for unloading/loading weapons.
Satellite image showing the 51st Arsenal of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Russian Defence Ministry. Photo: Maxar
27
Ukraine orders troops to cease fire, document Russian violations after Putin declares 'Easter truce’
(kyivindependent.com)
12
Illegal trafficking of siamang gibbons is a concerning and underreported crisis
(news.mongabay.com)
19
‘More traitors in Russia’ — Ukrainian intel officer shares secrets of recent deep-strike drone successes
(kyivindependent.com)
The aerial war between Russia and Ukraine is explosive in every sense. But beyond the physical dimension, it is also a battle of morale and information. Both sides are locked in a continuous back-and-forth of public statements and dramatic videos claiming hits and damage to the other side.
There’s also the question of keeping critical targets hidden — not just from the public, but from the enemy.
Last week, footage surfaced showing a fleet of drones, presumably Ukrainian, buzzing through the night sky before striking an industrial facility between Moscow and Kazan. The video, originally shared by local media, has already been taken down — another casualty in the battle over information that defines every strike.
Information on deep strikes — targeting, hits, and the drones and missiles that carry them out — is a constant intelligence battle. One of the men fighting this battle for Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate, or HUR, is Brigadier General Yuriy Shchyhol.
Russia’s censorship machine is much more aggressive than Ukraine’s, Shchyhol tells the Kyiv Independent in an interview, making it easier to hide Ukraine’s wins.
“They hide whatever successful strikes that they can,” said Shchyhol. “While practically all of their hits on us are known, you have to add up our known strikes on them and multiply that number by two. And then if you compare the number of our drones and the number of successful strikes, our drones are much more effective in use.”
Russia’s big advantage, he explains, is a massive air defense arsenal. But the great drawback is the sheer size of Russia.
"There is no amount of equipment that can protect all of Russia."
“They have one big plus — they have a lot of defenses. But they also have one big minus — a huge territory. There is no amount of equipment that can protect all of Russia,” says Shchyhol. “We’re definitely overtaking them in precision.”
A picture of a fire burning at the Tuapse oil refinery in Krasnodar Krai, Russia, following a reported attack by Kyiv on March 14, 2025. (Astra / Telegram)
Because of exactly that secrecy and informational war surrounding air strikes, it’s impossible to independently confirm the total number of successful strikes in either country, much less the degree of damage. But Ukraine is racking up conspicuous wins of late.
Recent notable Ukrainian successes have included targets like “Fiber Optic Systems,” Russia’s biggest fiber-optic maker, and a massive explosives plant well east of Moscow. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently announced that the “long Neptune,” a domestically made cruise missile, had gone over 3,000 kilometers into Russia.
Beyond core improvements to Ukrainian drone building since 2022, Shchyhol says that the deep-strike drones in particular are getting better, mostly because of intel. Specifically, HUR is finding more Russians willing to help Ukraine, even to the point of setting up navigation equipment waypoints ever deeper inside Russia, according to Shchyhol.
“The first thing is the quality of guidance systems that are located on their territory, from which you can gather that there are a lot more traitors on their land than they can recruit in Ukraine,” Shchyhol explains.
“In Ukraine, these are isolated incidents, and we see, per the SBU (State Security Service), that there aren’t that many. But by the effectiveness of our drones, you can tell that they have far more traitors to worry about, because there are far more people who set up the special systems that guide our drones.”
Shchyhol declined to provide specifics as to the equipment guiding these deep strikes from within Russia.
It’s not all good news. Ukrainian production constantly runs up against limits in high-end components like inertial guidance systems and controlled pattern reception antennae, or CRPA, which can guide a drone or missile even through electronic warfare-saturated areas.
Russia has more domestic manufacturers, including Kometa, whose CPRA guides Russian glide bombs through GPS-jammed Ukrainian territory. Russia’s allies, especially China, also have no qualms about selling high-end electronics like advanced guidance systems to Moscow, often by re-routing Western-originated components.
However, Shchyhol said that when it comes to deep strikes, Russia’s game had mostly stagnated.
“If in 2022 the Shahed was considered the peak of unmanned aviation, today, the Shahed has basically not changed, especially when it comes to navigation and guidance.”
Ukrainian intelligence first sounded the alarm that Russia was buying up the Iranian-made, long-range Shaheds in August 2022. Factories in Russia are now producing them at scale, with swarms of at least several dozen crossing into Ukraine most nights.
While claiming that the current progression of Ukrainian deep-strikes to the 3,000-kilometer mark is more of a win for intelligence than engineering, Shchyhol did say the technical advancements in Ukrainian drone manufacturing are huge, particularly when compared to 2022, when he was one of the first government officials involved in providing the military with drones.
“Soldiers started reaching out, saying that we need Mavics, just Mavics. Nobody back then was saying anything about first-person-view drones, about deep-strike drones, about surveillance equipment — they just wanted Mavics,” said Shchyhol, referring to the consumer DJI quadrocopters that have been ubiquitous on the battlefield.
Ukrainian soldiers from 121st Brigade load a Vampire drone in Krasnohorivka, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, on July 22, 2024. (Pablo Miranzo / Anadolu via Getty Images)
Today, he points to a far more developed locally made roster. “The effectiveness of Ukrainian Vampires, Nemesis, and Kashans — there’s no comparison, since nobody else on earth makes those kinds of drones,” referring to Ukraine’s swarm of “heavy” bomber drones, many outfitted with thermal vision for night raids.
At the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Shchyhol was at the helm of the State Special Communications Service, or SSCS, a one-time offshoot of the State Security Service that was made independent and reconfigured for modern cyber defense in 2006.
Roughly analogous to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the SSCS ended up holding the purse strings for Ukrainian drone-buying in 2022. Digital Transformation Minister Mykhailo Fedorov ran a well-publicized and successful international donation campaign.
One of the first high-ranking officials to recognize the value of cheap drones at the Ukrainian front lines at the time, Fedorov directed the military side of those foreign fundraising drives toward his “Army of Drones,” a fund that ended up not in the Defense Ministry, but in the SSCS, which Fedorov semi-formally coordinated.
“The Defense Ministry was overloaded with just the procurement procedures, and politically it wasn’t all that correct for the Defense Ministry to take funds from our partners and spend them on Chinese drones,” said Shchyhol. “The partners might not understand.”
The arrangement hasn’t been without controversy. In December, Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers unceremoniously stripped Fedorov of his semi-formal authority over the SSCS — a move observers at the time alleged was the result of a power struggle with Andriy Yermak, head of Ukraine’s Presidential Office.
Shchyhol’s own departure followed allegations of corruption tied to a major drone purchase. He was accused of purchasing high-end Chinese Autel consumer drones through intermediary firms at inflated prices. At the time, he was also out on bail in a separate case involving the alleged misuse of budget funds to buy overpriced equipment and software during his tenure at the SSCS.
Shchyhol argues today that the inflated pricing was out of necessity for a product that was niche and not sold in bulk at the time.
“In May of 2023, these Autels did not exist on the market,” he said. “In Ukraine, they did not exist. I mean, if you want one or two, sure, but en masse? They didn't exist.”
His then-second-in-command, Brigadier General Oleksandr Potiy, now heads the agency.
view more: next ›
What are you on about