And yet, the intention is to deter usage of a product/vice that is a bane on America. Cut the supply is effective at reducing consumption.
Is this really 1A when we are talking about mental health of our children? It's fairly well established that no pornography consumption is a net positive.
Sounds fine; it's their culture and prerogative. Probably a benefit to deter such consumption for as many youth and young adults as possible, given the negative impact on mental health.
GCHQ used to challenge applicants to disassemble a motor vehicle, and reassemble it indoors. Perhaps this inspired Chris and Mitch's revenge prank on Kent (for Kent's phone spying / leaking stunt)?
Yes, your hypothesis is a better fit, and makes fewer assumptions. Perhaps the arrangements with Russia were made hurriedly while Snowden was hiding in HK, days prior to departing, as some reports suggest.
However, Snowden had been stealing classified intel premeditatively for a long period of time, and had contact with actors who had the knowledge and contacts to plan such a ruse in advance. Given his high intelligence and exacting personality, haphazardly leaking to the press from HK prior to obtaining asylum seems to be out of character.
I do believe strongly that Snowden would have told elaborate, pre-fabricated lies, if it were to his benefit.
Just pointing out that snowden's passport was cancelled on 20130622 and that he flew out of hk on 20130623. It's not an unreasonable speculation that he planned to wind up in Russia, putting on a convincing show in the process.
many celebs have personal protection details. how such protection details behave likely varies widely..
as for your concerns, pay close attention to your cybersecurity posture before engaging with people who will draw attention to you simply by association.
I can only speculate, but it was during the course of a reference check for someone connected to this circle. So, likely this was done to look into me, demonstrate power over me, and let me know they are "watching".
I was once hacked, stalked and targeted by friends of a celebrity who I had just met. I tried pursuing help about it and was threatened with murder. Then, after promising to report the murder threat, I was told by another person in that social circle that if I talked about the previous incidents that my career reputation would be permanently ruined.
The last person told me in the same conversation that Peter Thiel would recognize him. As Mr. Thiel has many interests, there was no reason to believe this person was connected to Palantir. However, Palantir sure came to mind while I processed this last interaction like a deer in headlights.
With Larry Fink and hedgies involved, Bitcoin only needs, at most, a couple hundred billion to prop up prices well beyond $20k-$25k. Small market, which Fink noted.
$100k would not be an entirely unexpected milestone sooner rather than later.
What happens when you combine extensive knowledge of a user's most intimate secrets and most painful memories with the ability to algorithmically choose targeted content at will, with the intention to amorally experiment on said user? Can you cause long term psychological damage to a user? Would it be justified if this were deemed to be a form of "digital karmic revenge", also determined using social mining algorithms?
What would happen if such weapons were refined on a user across social media platforms over a multi-decade timeframe? Could you invoke self-destruction of a person intentionally?
Whether the comment was incorrect in this case related to the paper in question doesn't invalidate the strategy, generally. Might be easier to pass scientific misinfo/disinfo if it were more difficult to reproduce, of course.
The comment was likely done in haste, meant to convey general strat that warrants consideration when examining the paper -- but could be easily invalidated, as you pointed out.
s:b's,,command::ts;hwep..sting