[1vuio0pswjnm7]

It's possible the author is wrong, but one should consider the author's history and demonstrated technical proficiency, e.g., the programs he has written. Take a look at his code. He has been around much longer than "blogs" and "Substack"

IMHO, he is also proficient at explaining complex topics involving computers. If others have differing opinions, feel free to share

Anyone know where can we see parent commenter's code or something that demonstrates their knowledge of computers, computer networks or particular knowledge of "SIM farms"

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Sometimes departments want to float ideas that a spokesperson would not want to put his or her name behind."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources...

IIUC, the blog post is not claiming there is no such thing as speaking with the press on the condition of anonymity, it is claiming that requesting anonymity for disclosing the existence (cf. the details) of an investigation into routine criminal activity is reasonable cause for skepticism. The blog post then explains why the author believes the "SIM farm" is a routine criminal enterprise, not something more

One does not have to be an "expert in political propaganda", nor rely on one, to question out of common sense why anonymity is needed to disclose the discovery of a "SIM farm"

[rpdillon]

That single paragraph is the weakest part of the article, IMHO. The other observations are quite well-taken, I think, including the observations about the experts cited in the article.

[deelowe]

> the programs he has written.

This is authority bias. Being a great programmer does not make one an expert in political propaganda, the inner workings of government, or the media.

[JoblessWonder]

> Anyone know where can we see parent commenter's code or something that demonstrates their knowledge of computers, computer networks or particular knowledge of "SIM farms"

The parent commenter literally never questions the post's technical conclusions or assumptions. Why are you acting like they did?

The commenter appears to be trying to make a point about how the post addresses sources, tone, and confidentiality.

[Lerc]

I think there is a bit of disconnect between people knowing what is possible and what people fear might be doable.

It's entirely possible that there are good non technical reasons for believing who was behind this while being technically incorrect about what it was that they intended to do.

Some of the more fanciful notions might be unlikely. Some of the evidence is only relevent in context. The distance from the UN is not terribly compelling on its own, the significance of the area of potential impact containing the UN is only because of the timing.

A state action might be for what might seem to be quite mundane reasons. One possible scenario would be if a nation feared an action suddenly called for by other states and they just want to cause a disrupting delay to give them time to twist some arms. Disruptions to buy time like this are relatively common in politics, the unusual aspect would be taking a technical approach.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Yes, leaks can be part of a strategic move by politicians and it can be a source of exploitation by political operators but to equate all anonymous sourcing with propaganda is misleading."

AFAICT, the blog author never equated _all_ anonymous sourcing with propaganda. The blog post is not titled "The NYT is bogus"

Instead, the blog post discusses a specific story that relates to a specific "SIM farm"

It questions why _in this particular instance_, relating to a "SIM farm", the source needed to remain anonymous

But that is not the only reason the author thinks the SIM farm story is bogus/hype

Based on technical knowledge/experience, the author opines the "SIM farm" was set up for common criminal activity, not as a system purposefully designed to overload a cell tower

It is the later opinion, not the one about the NYT, that is interesting to me in terms of evaluating this "news" hence I am curious what similar experience the parent commenter may have, if any

After so many years of being exposed to it on HN and the developer blogs submitted to HN, I have become accustomed to dismissive tone and black-and-white, all-or-nothing, pick-a-side thinking from software developers, i.e., what the parent calls "absolutism", absence of "nuance", etc. Probably not a day goes by without some HN commenter trying to dismiss "mainstream media", making some nonsensical complaint about news reporting that they dislike

Silicon Valley is now intermediating the publication of these worthless opinions for profit: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on

But, like I suggested, if one reads the blog author's source code and discussions of programming and cryptography, then one might be more willing to tolerate some personal opinions about the NYT. Ideally, programmers would only comment online about programming, and not, for example, about journalism, but that's not what happens in reality