Yeah notables have been especially fucky past few months…
Don't conflate your insecurity and ignorance onto Trump.
Just because you can't see doesn't mean others can't or that nothing is happening.
Not referring to anything specifically bad about your notables, but moreso commentary on the state of notables since inaug day. I'd be generous if I said that over the past few months, even half of the notables were actually notable or even simply just full, coherent thoughts.
My opinion on the whole is that we should be more selective/strict on what is deemed notable. Lots of baking going on that is not 'targeted' and the analysts (anons) will easily be overwhelmed with bad intel or led down rabbit holes to nowhere. It's like strategy #1 for divisive tactics and the easiest way to make surveillance/intel gathering much, much harder. Similar to NSA gathering ALL signals and still needing to manually use analysts to sift through it all. Information overload is useless to analysts, it devoids the mind of pattern recognition through fatigue, uncertainty and misdirection.
I haven't seen anything this bread or last (first i've logged in a few hours today) that is immediately concerning and I thank you for your service.
I'd agree 'overwhelmed' implies defeat/weakness and that wasn't intended.
I moreso mean that subjectively, trying to digest/analyze a rivers worth of 3/10 information is a LOT harder to map events and clarify patterns than a small stream of 8/10 intel. You might miss some stuff but the patterns are much clearer.
Bill Binney has a LOT of talks on the dangers of dragnet surveillance and the logistical nightmares of trying to run analysis on such large datasets + the complete inability to create what is referred to as 'actionable intelligence'. He talks about how its true for any type of analysis on any type of collections.
It's applicable everywhere. It's just a good idea to not notable everything everyone and their mother speculates because then are they really even notables? It takes the weight out of real research every time a piece of junk is piled in with it, discrediting all of us in the process.
Would you not agree that making something that is not notable, notable takes the weight out of real research every time a piece of junk is piled in with it, discrediting all of us in the process?
Would you not agree that the #1 way to subvert this community is through baking and control of the notables?
Why ignore literally everything I said to ask such a stupid ass question? And this is who is curating the research we do here?
Bringing up the devaluation of notables by promoting junk is relevant considering notables are the curation of content here and what most anons use to catch up for the day…
Why are you so defensive about the fucking notables? I've not said one word or complained about notables in 3 months.
You've not addressed anything I've said but are defensive and mocking, simple avoidance, deflection and intellectual dishonesty. You cannot have a conversation, you can only speak in rhetorical questions and insults.
You are a trashcan. It's like talking to a wall.