> USA is sleep walking into something very nasty. I still don't know what it is.
Maybe there's something fast & vicious in the works, but it could just be the merciless grasping at any shred of power these Hostis Humani Generis do.
The big move is writ large. It's multi-front sell off of the enduring value of America. Fullscale assault on schools. Destruction of science and medicine. Giving up on USAID then FEMA. Selling off millions of acres of land.
The network state ideology is that you should have to know someone and be in a network to get anything. If you aren't born into or allowed entrance into a network you get nothing. Reducing what government does to nothing melds well with the Christo-fascist ideology that likewise resents any state not run by and for the church: two sides of the same coin.
it's too late for free elections, we haven't had one since pre-Bush I think. Most votes are programmed into people and they don't really know it, and if they do they just don't care. I think very few people actually study and do unbiased research prior to voting. Everyone votes based on what people around them think, and whichever party's social media "brainwashing" has affected them most.
This is such bunk. People aren’t “programmed,” they just don’t agree with you. And people being poorly-informed is not new, and it doesn’t make elections “non-free” or make them not count.
I don’t want to get into a political debate here, but the DNC can thank itself for Trump since they coronated (with no primary!) a candidate who dropped out before Iowa when she ran in the primaries because she had zero support because no one liked her. They also basically ran on a platform of “if you don’t like our policies, you’re a bad person.” I’d imagine more than enough people to swing the election either way pulled the lever for Trump as an explicit rebuke of the DNC’s disdain for anyone outside their orthodoxy.
Anyway. When a party besides the Trump party remembers that persuading the rest of the public (not insulting them) is necessary to win elections, that’s when we’ll have relief from one-man rule by that jackass.
There are many countries that have been in the position that the US has been, though few of them have been as strong democracies prior to falling to this state. I'd recommend the tactics in the two "Rules" section of this blog post:
Fascism had it's roots in Capitalism. The elites not only welcomed it, but they backed it, because it helped shut down workers right movements and keep things stable at a time when the workers right movement was hurting their bottom line by asking their bosses for living wages and humane working conditions, which they saw as Socialism and Communism.
Sadly, Fascism and Capitalism largely walk hand-in-hand these days... Their bastard love-child will almost certainly be the death of "civilized" society if allowed to continue on the path it's currently on... It's well past time society starts brainstorming a better option.
Capitalism is when people vote away their own rights? Leftist analysis can't explain why Bernie out-spent Biden and got crushed. There are strong capital interests on both sides of this issue.
Haven't we been saying it was stolen through suspect political maneuvering and the compromised nature of mass and social media as it exists today?
As a black person, it was not lost on me the difficulty CNN et al. had in finding black voters to interview, until the nation NEEDED to know that black South Carolinian voters definitely hated Sanders and backed Biden.
> Haven't we been saying it was stolen through suspect political maneuvering and the compromised nature of mass and social media as it exists today?
Political maneuvering isn't capitalism. But putting that aside, if your candidate could only win by having the moderate vote split five ways, you're the ones doing political maneuvering.
> As a black person, it was not lost on me the difficulty CNN et al. had in finding black voters to interview, until the nation NEEDED to know that black South Carolinian voters definitely hated Sanders and backed Biden.
>if your candidate could only win by having the moderate vote split five ways, you're the ones doing political maneuvering.
That's highly presumptive. Supporters of the other candidates made their initial choices for reasons. If they could have chosen someone other than Biden, they would have. The DNC purposely induced a panicked run to their chosen candidate (when they weren't calling heads instead of tails). That's as much a vote as the decision which door to exit out of after someone yells, "Fire," is a choice. To belabor the analogy: there was no fire. They pushed everyone to the leave the way that led to the concession stand instead of to the parking lot.
On the other hand, if your candidate can only win by forcing his ideological rivals out of the race with backdoor quid-pro-quo deals, not only is he now corrupt, he is still definitely only winning through political maneuvering.
>Polls always showed that Biden was the Obama guy.
> If they could have chosen someone other than Biden, they would have
They could have chosen Bernie(they didn't want to).
> The DNC purposely induced a panicked run to their chosen candidate (when they weren't calling heads instead of tails). That's as much a vote as the decision which door to exit out of after someone yells, "Fire," is a choice.
Bernie's name was on the ballot. He was / is one of the most recognizable politicians in the U.S. He had plenty of money to campaign. My above point better explains his loss.
> On the other hand, if your candidate can only win by forcing his ideological rivals out of the race with backdoor quid-pro-quo deals, not only is he now corrupt, he is still definitely only winning through political maneuvering.
Force is massive cope. Do you think they would prefer to stay in, 100% lose, and get nothing for it? People that are closely aligned consolidate their efforts. That's how democracy works.
> Clarence Thomas and Strom Thurmond
Just look up the polls. Biden always crushed with African Americans.
The weirdest thing about those pieces (which I have not read) are the glamour shots. Why cover a political subject like that as if they are a beloved children's author or a lifestyle piece? It's a very unusual and strange thing to do for politics, and says a lot about the editors at these media outlets.
I’m not sure how this is a valid reply to the parent? The government inducting favored titans of industry into the military for what certainly smells like a marketing/sales integration is hardly free market capitalism.
For it to read as a joke I’d have to know the commenter and know that’s something they’d never say. Without that context it reads as sincere.
This is a website where people frequently say wild stuff unironically and people mostly don’t get to know each other by name/reputation (with a handful of exceptions like tptacek, etc). It’s not a good place to be sarcastic.
The people want to be surveilled. This is their choice, which has been revealed billions of times since the dawn of the modern social media era. As a result I have zero pity, and the public can reap what it has sown.
Privacy advocates, cypherpunks, hackers, et cetera have been sounding the alarm bells since Room 641A, if not earlier. Not only has the Internet at large failed to heed these warnings, some of those "conscientious objectors" who refused to willingly submit their information to these systems of surveillance capitalism were actively demonized and hunted.
After all, if you are not willingly signing up for these services, social media, and voluntarily forfeiting your data to these systems, then there is something wrong with you and you should probably just sign up for that Meta account already.
You are the ones who have kept these systems running by voluntarily feeding them your time, attention, and/or data. Now the beast has reached maturity and it is too late to do anything about it.
*The people are too poor and disconnected to dissent.
Everything comes down to the desperation to survive in a world where abundant (ABUNDANT) food, shelter, and clothing still must be "earned" (so say our elites).
Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this.
It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.
Dishonest sources can generate bullshit faster than honest people can debunk it. At some point you are obliged to dismiss consistently unreliable sources.
In fact, Wikipedia has already done this:
"The English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles in March 2020, citing issues with the website's factual reliability."
It's literally right there in the heading of that RfC you linked:
Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".
I stopped reading as soon as I read "unprovoked" in regards to the current middle east conflict. I think regardless of what side you are on, there has been a lot of provoking all around.
While I don’t agree with them all the time, I find this sort of critique to be unfair and often are attempting to silence alternative media and viewpoints which is a disservice to journalism
It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing.
Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.
Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.
That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.
Before you run cover for these guys you should probably know it’s not “muh based anti-American-imperialist” but agitprop in service of Russian and Chinese imperialism.
Of course. Faux-news outlets peddling disinformation will always be happy to let you read their work for free. Serious journalists rely on your subscription for their paycheck, not Iranian state media, like the author of the OP link [1].
This is just a direct commission which is commonly done to integrate people into the military who have skills necessary for its continued operation but who don't have the time or need to go through the normal training, process, and schools.
It's how Pete Buttigieg got his commission, for example.
>The Palantir executive pointed to “exploding pagers and long-distance drone strikes from shipping containers” as attacks which “prove that technology has once again changed the battlefield,” and that “our military has to change with it.”
Whenever I see that guy in the headlines, he's trying to pump the stock by making nebulous threatening statements. Can't wait for this era of public persona CEOs to be over, with the most egregious examples of them stuck in prison for fraud.
Palantir has an autonomous weapons command and control product in partnership with Anduril and other weapons manufacturers. They aren't just intelligence.
There's apparently a long history of honorary or symbolic reservist rank being given to civilian advisors; a good starting Google search is "dollar-a-year men".
I'm not aware of any contemporary cases where someone direct commissioned but agreed to a lower "dollar-a-year" payscale. I think our prior assumption should be that these four people are on O5 until we hear for sure.
My understanding is that there's a much shorter, simpler form of "basic training" for folks like this. The military bands, for instance, use it. I think the idea is that they can say that they "went through basic just like everyone else." But there might only be one early morning hike.
Genuinely curious what legal waivers they’ve been afforded, since generally speaking “holding a decision-making position in the part of the uniformed services you also sell to” is very much adjacent to profiteering and disturbingly in the vicinity to honest services fraud. How do you disentangle private interests from the public good, even if these guys are operating in good faith?
Also, give a brief thought to those troops who signed on for their full hitch to defend their country and get to watch a handful of politically-connected billionaires leapfrog their way into custom-built field grade slots without having to attend basic or OCS, or even pass APFT.
I think the question is are the Armed Forces served better by having this expertise available (on a commissioned part-time basis, with modified basic requirements) or by maintaining a bar that the person has to go through OCS and pass APFT?
You probably can’t have both — not they couldn’t pass APFT (with varying degrees of fitness program required) but more likely they cannot commit the time required to do OCS and APFT, and if forced to choose will simply not participate.
It’ll stick in some people’s craw that this is dual standards, however you can’t please all the people all the time — someone concluded the compromise was worth it to obtain access to technology experience.
The DOD already has the Defense Science Board (and the services have their own advisory boards), so other than giving a few billionaires the chance to strut around in their freshly-pressed Class As, it's not clear what advantage this provides over existing civilian FACA entities.
decision making on contracts and acquisitions is a very complex thing the DOD, and they won't be allowed anywhere near it in the areas where they have civilian conflicts of interest.
If this is pointed at home, we have a problem. If this is about using the best in tech across information harvesting, artificial intelligence for use against foreign adversaries, maybe less worrying for u.s. citizens.
I'm wondering if maybe there's a non-anti-Semitic source for this? It seems like there ought to be, given that it's reporting on something purportedly published on Twitter.
It's just a way to re-link the military with the tech industry, which is arguably how we won the previous world wars. If the US falls behind, then be prepared to learn Mandarin.
Peter Thiel's 20-year pursuit of ensuring technology companies, and their accompanied data, are used as a highly-efficient machine for surveillance - and plutocratic-endorsed authoritarianism - is almost actualized.
I guess creating an ecosystem of these products in the form of having most of them come from the same venture capital company WAS the answer, and he was doing it so well - that even In-Q-Tel gave up on their efforts to compete with that strategy.
But Thiel said it best in that regard; "competition is for losers".
As a veteran, now civil servant, I think this is an excellent thing for the US military to do. BIAS: I am a PLTR shareholder and I collab with at least one of the units involved.
Another similar commissioning was the founder of Dragos, Robert M Lee who was previously a Cyber officer in the Air Force.
We need top talent from industry. These highly skilled individuals will be good pickups for the work confronting our nation in securing vital infrastructure and enabling for the future of high performance compute and AI.
Fair, but is that what they're doing here? I don't know much about the individuals involved, but I sure know the companies they're associated with. The concerning part for me is that this new "Detachment 201" seems less about these individuals' expertise and more about the companies they represent and can provide access to.
I asked Grok a related question about Robert Lee. Here is its response
Robert M. Lee, as the CEO and co-founder of Dragos, Inc., brings a wealth of expertise in industrial control systems (ICS) and operational technology (OT) cybersecurity, which aligns closely with the U.S. Army’s requirements for cyberspace operations and infrastructure protection. Commissioned as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard in February 2025, Lee’s extensive background positions him to make significant contributions to the Army’s mission of securing critical infrastructure and enhancing cyberspace capabilities. His prior experience as a U.S. Air Force Cyber Warfare Operations Officer, where he developed a pioneering mission at the National Security Agency to identify threats to industrial infrastructure, equips him with a deep understanding of the cyber threats facing military and civilian systems. Additionally, his leadership in investigating high-profile cyberattacks, such as the 2015 and 2016 Ukraine power grid attacks, the 2017 TRISIS attack, and the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware incident, demonstrates his ability to address sophisticated threats to critical systems, a key focus for the Army’s cyberspace operations.
Lee’s role in the Army National Guard, specifically with the 91st Battalion in Virginia, involves designing and leading OT cybersecurity and response efforts. The Army’s cyberspace requirements, as outlined in documents like the Army Cyberspace Strategy for Unified Land Operations 2025, emphasize securing mission-critical systems, protecting infrastructure, and developing resilient networks against advanced persistent threats. Lee’s expertise in ICS/OT cybersecurity directly supports these goals, particularly in safeguarding infrastructure like power grids, water systems, and transportation networks that the military relies on. His work at Dragos, including the development of the Dragos Platform for threat detection and response, and the discovery of the PIPEDREAM framework, showcases his ability to deliver scalable, OT-specific solutions. These skills could be applied to enhance the Army’s defensive cyber operations, improve real-time threat intelligence, and strengthen partnerships with private sector entities to protect national infrastructure.
Furthermore, Lee’s experience as a SANS Fellow and creator of ICS515 and FOR578 courses highlights his commitment to education and workforce development, which could bolster the Army’s efforts to train cyber warriors. His strategic vision, evidenced by his testimony to Congress and advisory roles with the Department of Energy and World Economic Forum, positions him to help the Army develop policies and strategies for public-private collaboration in cyberspace. By leveraging his technical expertise and leadership, Lee could drive the integration of OT cybersecurity into the Army’s broader cyber operations framework, ensuring robust protection of critical infrastructure and enhancing national security in an increasingly contested digital domain.
Previous discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44270660
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547
Thanks! Macroexpanded:
I'm the CTO of Palantir. Today I Join the Army - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44270660 - June 2025 (68 comments)
The Army’s Newest Recruits: Tech Execs From Meta, OpenAI and More - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547 - June 2025 (191 comments)
- [Palantir] A surveillance company used by by spy agencies
- [Meta] A social media company that has all your personal conversations & pictures, video, audio
- [Open AI] Something many people at work & school are uploading sensitive data to
- All run by acolytes of Peter Thiel
- Current president & vp are bankrolled Peter Thiel
- Top executives formally recruited into US Army.
USA is sleep walking into something very nasty. I still don't know what it is.
But please when it unravels. Let us not pretend we never saw it coming.
I am very worried about this. Something is being set up.
> USA is sleep walking into something very nasty. I still don't know what it is.
Maybe there's something fast & vicious in the works, but it could just be the merciless grasping at any shred of power these Hostis Humani Generis do.
The big move is writ large. It's multi-front sell off of the enduring value of America. Fullscale assault on schools. Destruction of science and medicine. Giving up on USAID then FEMA. Selling off millions of acres of land.
The network state ideology is that you should have to know someone and be in a network to get anything. If you aren't born into or allowed entrance into a network you get nothing. Reducing what government does to nothing melds well with the Christo-fascist ideology that likewise resents any state not run by and for the church: two sides of the same coin.
Sadly everyone keeps hoping there will be free elections still.
I do fear for my US friends and everyone else that is being impacted by what is happening.
it's too late for free elections, we haven't had one since pre-Bush I think. Most votes are programmed into people and they don't really know it, and if they do they just don't care. I think very few people actually study and do unbiased research prior to voting. Everyone votes based on what people around them think, and whichever party's social media "brainwashing" has affected them most.
This is such bunk. People aren’t “programmed,” they just don’t agree with you. And people being poorly-informed is not new, and it doesn’t make elections “non-free” or make them not count.
I don’t want to get into a political debate here, but the DNC can thank itself for Trump since they coronated (with no primary!) a candidate who dropped out before Iowa when she ran in the primaries because she had zero support because no one liked her. They also basically ran on a platform of “if you don’t like our policies, you’re a bad person.” I’d imagine more than enough people to swing the election either way pulled the lever for Trump as an explicit rebuke of the DNC’s disdain for anyone outside their orthodoxy.
Anyway. When a party besides the Trump party remembers that persuading the rest of the public (not insulting them) is necessary to win elections, that’s when we’ll have relief from one-man rule by that jackass.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ380SHZvYU
Okay. What do we do? Be as radical as you want, just don't say, "Vote."
There are many countries that have been in the position that the US has been, though few of them have been as strong democracies prior to falling to this state. I'd recommend the tactics in the two "Rules" section of this blog post:
https://verfassungsblog.de/the-authoritarian-regime-survival...
Though, personally, I'm having a lot of trouble following some of them...
Ranking civilians is a wartime measure.
It's a fascist measure.
> USA is sleep walking into something very nasty. I still don't know what it is.
It's called fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_paramilitary
No, it's called capitalism — capital has the last word. As we have seen clearly, even Trump is overwhelmingly limited by the constraints of capital.
Fascism had it's roots in Capitalism. The elites not only welcomed it, but they backed it, because it helped shut down workers right movements and keep things stable at a time when the workers right movement was hurting their bottom line by asking their bosses for living wages and humane working conditions, which they saw as Socialism and Communism.
Sadly, Fascism and Capitalism largely walk hand-in-hand these days... Their bastard love-child will almost certainly be the death of "civilized" society if allowed to continue on the path it's currently on... It's well past time society starts brainstorming a better option.
You could almost say capitalism's final form is some flavor of oligarchy fascism
This is an incredibly correct post.
Have a read: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/whats-next-for-capit...
Capitalism is when people vote away their own rights? Leftist analysis can't explain why Bernie out-spent Biden and got crushed. There are strong capital interests on both sides of this issue.
>Leftist analysis can't explain why Bernie out-spent Biden and got crushed.
Haven't we been saying it was stolen through suspect political maneuvering and the compromised nature of mass and social media as it exists today?
As a black person, it was not lost on me the difficulty CNN et al. had in finding black voters to interview, until the nation NEEDED to know that black South Carolinian voters definitely hated Sanders and backed Biden.
> Haven't we been saying it was stolen through suspect political maneuvering and the compromised nature of mass and social media as it exists today?
Political maneuvering isn't capitalism. But putting that aside, if your candidate could only win by having the moderate vote split five ways, you're the ones doing political maneuvering.
> As a black person, it was not lost on me the difficulty CNN et al. had in finding black voters to interview, until the nation NEEDED to know that black South Carolinian voters definitely hated Sanders and backed Biden.
Polls always showed that Biden was the Obama guy.
>if your candidate could only win by having the moderate vote split five ways, you're the ones doing political maneuvering.
That's highly presumptive. Supporters of the other candidates made their initial choices for reasons. If they could have chosen someone other than Biden, they would have. The DNC purposely induced a panicked run to their chosen candidate (when they weren't calling heads instead of tails). That's as much a vote as the decision which door to exit out of after someone yells, "Fire," is a choice. To belabor the analogy: there was no fire. They pushed everyone to the leave the way that led to the concession stand instead of to the parking lot.
On the other hand, if your candidate can only win by forcing his ideological rivals out of the race with backdoor quid-pro-quo deals, not only is he now corrupt, he is still definitely only winning through political maneuvering.
>Polls always showed that Biden was the Obama guy.
Clarence Thomas and Strom Thurmond.
> If they could have chosen someone other than Biden, they would have
They could have chosen Bernie(they didn't want to).
> The DNC purposely induced a panicked run to their chosen candidate (when they weren't calling heads instead of tails). That's as much a vote as the decision which door to exit out of after someone yells, "Fire," is a choice.
Bernie's name was on the ballot. He was / is one of the most recognizable politicians in the U.S. He had plenty of money to campaign. My above point better explains his loss.
> On the other hand, if your candidate can only win by forcing his ideological rivals out of the race with backdoor quid-pro-quo deals, not only is he now corrupt, he is still definitely only winning through political maneuvering.
Force is massive cope. Do you think they would prefer to stay in, 100% lose, and get nothing for it? People that are closely aligned consolidate their efforts. That's how democracy works.
> Clarence Thomas and Strom Thurmond
Just look up the polls. Biden always crushed with African Americans.
I would urge anybody who wants to soothe their fears to avoid reading up on Curtis Yarvin.
Nice trick. I couldn’t stop myself from looking:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
https://archive.is/qJoI8
The weirdest thing about those pieces (which I have not read) are the glamour shots. Why cover a political subject like that as if they are a beloved children's author or a lifestyle piece? It's a very unusual and strange thing to do for politics, and says a lot about the editors at these media outlets.
Giving federal employees 6+ month severance packages is a far cry from what Yarvin wrote ought to happen them.
Trump really can't get anything right.
[flagged]
There are free markets outside america. Surprisingly, even in china
No, there are not. That is very naive. None of them are independent from America's role as international peacekeeper/peacereeper and global financier.
"Peacekeeper"
Yes, that's right. Thank you.
I’m not sure how this is a valid reply to the parent? The government inducting favored titans of industry into the military for what certainly smells like a marketing/sales integration is hardly free market capitalism.
That's the joke he's trying to make
For it to read as a joke I’d have to know the commenter and know that’s something they’d never say. Without that context it reads as sincere.
This is a website where people frequently say wild stuff unironically and people mostly don’t get to know each other by name/reputation (with a handful of exceptions like tptacek, etc). It’s not a good place to be sarcastic.
The people want to be surveilled. This is their choice, which has been revealed billions of times since the dawn of the modern social media era. As a result I have zero pity, and the public can reap what it has sown.
Privacy advocates, cypherpunks, hackers, et cetera have been sounding the alarm bells since Room 641A, if not earlier. Not only has the Internet at large failed to heed these warnings, some of those "conscientious objectors" who refused to willingly submit their information to these systems of surveillance capitalism were actively demonized and hunted.
After all, if you are not willingly signing up for these services, social media, and voluntarily forfeiting your data to these systems, then there is something wrong with you and you should probably just sign up for that Meta account already.
You are the ones who have kept these systems running by voluntarily feeding them your time, attention, and/or data. Now the beast has reached maturity and it is too late to do anything about it.
*The people are too poor and disconnected to dissent.
Everything comes down to the desperation to survive in a world where abundant (ABUNDANT) food, shelter, and clothing still must be "earned" (so say our elites).
By your logic people also want to get into car wrecks, develop cancer in old age, get food poisoning, etc.
Just because there's risks with something or side effects with something doesn't mean people want the side effects
I would agree in cases where the desired effect is distinct from the side effect.
However, for social media in particular, the desired effect is the side effect, which is the surveillance.
Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon...
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547
It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.
Dishonest sources can generate bullshit faster than honest people can debunk it. At some point you are obliged to dismiss consistently unreliable sources.
In fact, Wikipedia has already done this:
"The English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles in March 2020, citing issues with the website's factual reliability."
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone)
It was deprecated because it was the personal blog of Max Blumenthal more than any specific false stories. The Wikipedia discussion is public:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
It's literally right there in the heading of that RfC you linked:
Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".
Ok so in this case what is not correct
Any reason to prefer the WSJ link over the official source at https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment... ?
That seems good too.
While that may be true, the article is accurate and has links to its sources.
I stopped reading as soon as I read "unprovoked" in regards to the current middle east conflict. I think regardless of what side you are on, there has been a lot of provoking all around.
While I don’t agree with them all the time, I find this sort of critique to be unfair and often are attempting to silence alternative media and viewpoints which is a disservice to journalism
It is an Ad hominem against the source w/o addressing the actual content of the article.
It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing.
Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.
Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.
That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.
Before you run cover for these guys you should probably know it’s not “muh based anti-American-imperialist” but agitprop in service of Russian and Chinese imperialism.
That isn't my point at all. Most good propaganda is true btw.
The WSJ article is paywalled
Of course. Faux-news outlets peddling disinformation will always be happy to let you read their work for free. Serious journalists rely on your subscription for their paycheck, not Iranian state media, like the author of the OP link [1].
And paywalled links are allowed on HN [2].
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon...
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179596
This is just a direct commission which is commonly done to integrate people into the military who have skills necessary for its continued operation but who don't have the time or need to go through the normal training, process, and schools.
It's how Pete Buttigieg got his commission, for example.
>The Palantir executive pointed to “exploding pagers and long-distance drone strikes from shipping containers” as attacks which “prove that technology has once again changed the battlefield,” and that “our military has to change with it.”
That's not Palantir's market segment.
Whenever I see that guy in the headlines, he's trying to pump the stock by making nebulous threatening statements. Can't wait for this era of public persona CEOs to be over, with the most egregious examples of them stuck in prison for fraud.
Interesting comment. It's exactly one of their market segments, defense technology.
That's a market, in defense a market segment would be "mortar rounds" or "tanks." Palantir's market segment is high-level integration of surveillance.
Palantir has an autonomous weapons command and control product in partnership with Anduril and other weapons manufacturers. They aren't just intelligence.
Exploding pagers are defensive? (Please don't wrap yourself into a logical pretzel responding to this purely rhetorical question.)
This seems a little weird to me, but direct commissions like this are pretty common for professionals like lawyers, clergy, and doctors.
That's why clergy and lawyers don't have skyrocketing valuations: because they are a predictable part of the system
There's apparently a long history of honorary or symbolic reservist rank being given to civilian advisors; a good starting Google search is "dollar-a-year men".
The direct commission program is ordinarily used for medical providers and they are on the same payscale as everyone else that holds their rank.
But medical providers aren't commissioned as advisors, they're commissioned to actually deliver services, right?
I'm not aware of any contemporary cases where someone direct commissioned but agreed to a lower "dollar-a-year" payscale. I think our prior assumption should be that these four people are on O5 until we hear for sure.
Sure! Also: I am saving a lot of space for the underlying arrangement here being super weird and norm-breaking, for obvious reasons.
They're O5s. But in the reserves, so they won't be getting paid much unless they're activated.
Should make them go through basic.
They only have the qualifications to GOTO BASIC.
My understanding is that there's a much shorter, simpler form of "basic training" for folks like this. The military bands, for instance, use it. I think the idea is that they can say that they "went through basic just like everyone else." But there might only be one early morning hike.
Make them go through BUD/S.
BUD/S /s.
To punish or to learn?
> To punish or to learn?
Why can't it be both?
Genuinely curious what legal waivers they’ve been afforded, since generally speaking “holding a decision-making position in the part of the uniformed services you also sell to” is very much adjacent to profiteering and disturbingly in the vicinity to honest services fraud. How do you disentangle private interests from the public good, even if these guys are operating in good faith?
Also, give a brief thought to those troops who signed on for their full hitch to defend their country and get to watch a handful of politically-connected billionaires leapfrog their way into custom-built field grade slots without having to attend basic or OCS, or even pass APFT.
I think the question is are the Armed Forces served better by having this expertise available (on a commissioned part-time basis, with modified basic requirements) or by maintaining a bar that the person has to go through OCS and pass APFT?
You probably can’t have both — not they couldn’t pass APFT (with varying degrees of fitness program required) but more likely they cannot commit the time required to do OCS and APFT, and if forced to choose will simply not participate.
It’ll stick in some people’s craw that this is dual standards, however you can’t please all the people all the time — someone concluded the compromise was worth it to obtain access to technology experience.
Rules matter. There are processes to change the rules officially. We are a nation of laws.
The DOD already has the Defense Science Board (and the services have their own advisory boards), so other than giving a few billionaires the chance to strut around in their freshly-pressed Class As, it's not clear what advantage this provides over existing civilian FACA entities.
decision making on contracts and acquisitions is a very complex thing the DOD, and they won't be allowed anywhere near it in the areas where they have civilian conflicts of interest.
Does this mean if you’re under them in the org chart you are a troop?
Gotta respect the chain of command and it looks like whoever came up with this was smart enough not to put infantry underneath them.
You’ll have to salute, though.
It means they are now refered to military courts and they get military ids instead of civilian .
They probably have fewer rights than citizens , no?
Hopefully makes it easier to try them in The Hague
Not any more than you're a Hindu just because your supervisor is.
If this is pointed at home, we have a problem. If this is about using the best in tech across information harvesting, artificial intelligence for use against foreign adversaries, maybe less worrying for u.s. citizens.
I'm wondering if maybe there's a non-anti-Semitic source for this? It seems like there ought to be, given that it's reporting on something purportedly published on Twitter.
Is US Military[0] good enough?
[0]: https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment...
That looks ideal, thanks!
This is a stupid clickbait layer on top of a neutral informative announcement: https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment...
It's just a way to re-link the military with the tech industry, which is arguably how we won the previous world wars. If the US falls behind, then be prepared to learn Mandarin.
I had to check if this was an April Fools joke
Peter Thiel's 20-year pursuit of ensuring technology companies, and their accompanied data, are used as a highly-efficient machine for surveillance - and plutocratic-endorsed authoritarianism - is almost actualized.
I guess creating an ecosystem of these products in the form of having most of them come from the same venture capital company WAS the answer, and he was doing it so well - that even In-Q-Tel gave up on their efforts to compete with that strategy.
But Thiel said it best in that regard; "competition is for losers".
I wonder if they asked them LeetCode questions
They asked them Lt. Code questions.
Maybe they'll get shipped to Iran.
They’ll be shipping the drone swarm strategy against Iran from safely under a mountain in CONUS.
As a veteran, now civil servant, I think this is an excellent thing for the US military to do. BIAS: I am a PLTR shareholder and I collab with at least one of the units involved.
Another similar commissioning was the founder of Dragos, Robert M Lee who was previously a Cyber officer in the Air Force.
We need top talent from industry. These highly skilled individuals will be good pickups for the work confronting our nation in securing vital infrastructure and enabling for the future of high performance compute and AI.
https://www.robertmlee.org/back-in-military-service-from-blu...
https://www.dragos.com/team/robert-m-lee/
> We need top talent from industry.
Fair, but is that what they're doing here? I don't know much about the individuals involved, but I sure know the companies they're associated with. The concerning part for me is that this new "Detachment 201" seems less about these individuals' expertise and more about the companies they represent and can provide access to.
I asked Grok a related question about Robert Lee. Here is its response
Robert M. Lee, as the CEO and co-founder of Dragos, Inc., brings a wealth of expertise in industrial control systems (ICS) and operational technology (OT) cybersecurity, which aligns closely with the U.S. Army’s requirements for cyberspace operations and infrastructure protection. Commissioned as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard in February 2025, Lee’s extensive background positions him to make significant contributions to the Army’s mission of securing critical infrastructure and enhancing cyberspace capabilities. His prior experience as a U.S. Air Force Cyber Warfare Operations Officer, where he developed a pioneering mission at the National Security Agency to identify threats to industrial infrastructure, equips him with a deep understanding of the cyber threats facing military and civilian systems. Additionally, his leadership in investigating high-profile cyberattacks, such as the 2015 and 2016 Ukraine power grid attacks, the 2017 TRISIS attack, and the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware incident, demonstrates his ability to address sophisticated threats to critical systems, a key focus for the Army’s cyberspace operations.
Lee’s role in the Army National Guard, specifically with the 91st Battalion in Virginia, involves designing and leading OT cybersecurity and response efforts. The Army’s cyberspace requirements, as outlined in documents like the Army Cyberspace Strategy for Unified Land Operations 2025, emphasize securing mission-critical systems, protecting infrastructure, and developing resilient networks against advanced persistent threats. Lee’s expertise in ICS/OT cybersecurity directly supports these goals, particularly in safeguarding infrastructure like power grids, water systems, and transportation networks that the military relies on. His work at Dragos, including the development of the Dragos Platform for threat detection and response, and the discovery of the PIPEDREAM framework, showcases his ability to deliver scalable, OT-specific solutions. These skills could be applied to enhance the Army’s defensive cyber operations, improve real-time threat intelligence, and strengthen partnerships with private sector entities to protect national infrastructure.
Furthermore, Lee’s experience as a SANS Fellow and creator of ICS515 and FOR578 courses highlights his commitment to education and workforce development, which could bolster the Army’s efforts to train cyber warriors. His strategic vision, evidenced by his testimony to Congress and advisory roles with the Department of Energy and World Economic Forum, positions him to help the Army develop policies and strategies for public-private collaboration in cyberspace. By leveraging his technical expertise and leadership, Lee could drive the integration of OT cybersecurity into the Army’s broader cyber operations framework, ensuring robust protection of critical infrastructure and enhancing national security in an increasingly contested digital domain.
"If you are not a libertarian at twenty, you have no heart, and if you’re not a state nationalist at forty, you have no brain"
- Benito Friedman