Not sure if it's the same thing here. The US didn't attempt to turn Afghanistan or Irak into a US state, have them fly the "Old Glory" and their kids recite the pledge of allegiance when school starts.
Just the fact that the government seems to bend over backwards to accept this Havana syndrome narrative while in the past being extra skeptical about all sorts of occupational hazards (like the Iraq burn pits or Agent Orange) is enough to make me super-extra skeptical that this condition being nothing other than some psychosomatic freak incident.
Funny enough, I posted 3 comments about this in the span of 8 minutes and Hacker News is saying 'You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.'. Tinfoil hat ON!
The government was very skeptical of Havana syndrome very a long time. It was outright dismissed until it became very widespread and got lots of news attention.
That would require such evidence to not be classified. Which it presumably is, as one possibility for the cause is "some other military surreptitiously pointing directed-energy weapons at us while we're out-and-about"; and — regardless of the likelihood of that explanation — just in case it is the explanation, they wouldn't want to do anything that could provide a public-channel feedback loop for said other military to learn exactly how effective their new weapon is.
Also, if you look for statistical anomalies in a random group of people, you just have to pre-screen for 30 variables that you don't mention in your report to get one with p<0.05
Source for those statements? I've been following this since it appeared in the news cycles but I don't recall any evidence of physical damage. There were some inconclusive physical changes (keyword changes, not damage) but that doesn't really constitute as any form of proof that the condition is not psychosomatic.
These are both the same report, and it is not conclusive (which the authors agree on). There are many issues with the report, but one is that as it wasn't pre-registered and due to its exploratory nature, it's highly sensitive to accidental p-hacking.
Until a completely new sample of victims with no relation is taken and the study replicated against a completely new control group with no relation, it has very little value. And even if it did, it still wouldn't be conclusive - psychosomatic illness can have physiological effects.
The only way is to prove the mechanism of the attack - which for microwave attacks is readily done with wearable RF devices - and to find a physiologically plausible mechanism for that exact observed attack. Which should be pretty easy to do, and which the CIA hasn't done.
Not sure if you're comment is condescending or I've asked the wrong question. Probably a bit of both. I did read the article but I was asking more along the lines of actual evidence. This being a new and highly publicized phenomenon, I'd expect this to be a goldmine for research clinicians so I'd expect quite a lot of chatter in the form of articles or case studies.
> Pichai was asked, in a question that was highly rated by staffers on Google’s internal Dory system, why the company is “nickel-and-diming employees” by slashing travel and swag budgets at a time when “Google has record profits and huge cash reserves,” as it did coming out of the pandemic.
I find it hard to believe that workers of Google caliber can't fathom the golden rule of capitalism.
> So, it's not really a surprise that theyve declared open season on nuclear power plants.
So getting butthurt is an unsurprising justification for attacking nuclear power plants?
Don't store materiel inside the nuclear plant. Don't fire missiles from the nuclear plant. Don't use the nuclear plant for cover. Don't invade Ukraine. Problem solved.
I don't understand how any position Russia has in this context, matters at all. Just fucking go away. None of this would have happened if Russia didn't start a war of aggression against its neighbor.
