[HauntingPin]

CNN is basically on the same level as Fox News now. I'm not surprised.

Here's a more substantial take on the whole thing that doesn't just blindly repeat everything without question: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/missing-scientis... You know, what journalism is actually supposed to be like.

This BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyw9rpdl4po also has this tidbit:

> "The US Top Secret-cleared aerospace and nuclear workforce is ~700,000 people," science writer, investigator and pseudoscience debunker Mick West wrote on 16 April on his Substack.

> "Ordinary mortality over 22 months predicts ~4,000 deaths, ~70 homicides, and ~180 suicides. The list has 10 … The deaths are real. The families' grief is real. The pattern is not."

[OutOfHere]

If you are going to rudely link to a paywalled articles without an unpaywalled link to read each, then people can't be motivated to read them.

[HauntingPin]

I guess being an asshole is just the standard now on HN? How is this attitude acceptable? What did I do to you? I didn't even realize it was paywalled until you mentioned it. But don't let that stop you from being a dick to somebody who's just trying to help fight misinformation. I guess I'll just go fuck myself.

But here, your paywall free link: https://archive.is/KNECz

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

Unfortunately, this is a sign of the times we live in now. Nobody extends a little grace to others. They assume every act is an intentional slight.

There's no room for mistakes or even differences of opinions, and it's tearing us apart.

Part of it, I think, comes from the anonymous nature of online communications, and little to no ramifications to bad behavior. It's the end result of "I can do whatever I want, the established rules and societal norms don't apply anymore."

[OutOfHere]

If anything, it is you who were closer to being the a by posting what you did without corresponding unpaywalled links. Moreover, it is you who resorted to namecalling, not me. You should know what you're posting; you don't get to be ignorant about it. Even the BBC link you posted is paywalled and therefore unreadable.

Whether the concern is real or not is precisely for the FBI to determine. National security is too serious to leave in the hands of random journalists and overly-comfortable citizens. I fully understand that the data is almost certainly a coincidence, but the consequences of being wrong are so serious that it's best to definitively rule it out.