[atemerev]

Yes, exactly. While those are still somewhat plausible (I am Russian, and I might have occasionally used all of these ironically), it was "POTUS" and "SCOTUS" that made me 99% sure that this text was written by an American (or at least a US insider). You guys love your acronyms.

[gbuk2013]

Yup, I've been living in England for over 20 years and my English language proficiency is well above that of most of the locals, but I still had to look up SCOTUS and POTUS a few years ago (probably when I started reading HN actually). Now that I know them I still would never consider using them in writing (the former is actually reminiscent of something offensive).

[Nexxxeh]

British native here. Do you not watch much TV or many movies?

[gbuk2013]

I don't own a TV. :) I do watch some movies now and again though, especially when flying long haul but I never had one that mentioned those. Off the top of my head I can only think of 24 as a candidate but I never watched that.

[mistermann]

Anyone who's spent any significant amount of time in political threads in reddit (just for example) would know those acronyms.

[Sacho]

I think it's not a matter of knowing the acronyms but rather using them in your writing. Even though I'm aware of POTUS, I would simply write "The President" or "The US President" - it comes much more natural, from all the times its been used in local media to refer to our own/foreign presidents. Same reasoning for the US Supreme Court.

[doktrin]

I honestly don't know why you guys are trying to divine identity based on textual clues like this. It's safe to assume every stylistic and linguistic choice is deliberate.

[throwaway71958]

Sure. But if that's what you really think, then you don't get to assume that the DNC was hacked "by the Russians". Agreed?

[willstrafach]

Are you able to elaborate on how this case is related to the DNC hacks? ShadowBrokers was never accused of being the same as Guccifer2, as far as I understand.

[throwaway71958]

I'm not saying he/she was. But do consider that in one case the most cursory circumstantial evidence is enough to convict, but in this case the same level of "evidence" is not enough to exonerate. Double standard, anyone?

[doktrin]

> the same level of evidence

Whatever's written in that blog post, and how it's written, is neither enough to convict nor exonerate.

[atemerev]

No, as a fellow Russian I am fine to admit that the DNC hacks were probably done by us. When the leak happened, there was a little too much enthusiasm in Russian hacking circles. Guccifer2.0's style was also consistent with Russian writing.

But when the Shadowbrokers leak appeared, the community response was more like "wat."

[doktrin]

> if that's what you really think, then you don't get to assume that the DNC was hacked "by the Russians". Agreed?

Are you saying there's some letter written in broken english that's being used as proof of Russian involvement in the DNC hacks?

[jessaustin]

Now that we know the "tools used" "proof" is worthless because CIA uses those tools too, is there anything else?

[doktrin]

What does that have to do with my point about inferring identity based on textual clues in this blog post?

[jessaustin]

'doktrin perhaps you have confused this subthread with a different one; it would be understandable since you've seen fit to post on this page sixteen times already. (Bonus points: you've used the phrase "paid shills" twice!) Unless you're willing to admit now that you are the DNC staffer who leaked all their dirty laundry to Wikileaks, you've got to admit that this tawdry hermeneutical argument no longer suffices to prove The Russians Did It.