*** THREAD ***

Accuracy or Entertainment, Which Do You Prefer?

The Importance of Listening to Experts

1/

As you no doubt already know, Twitter is a vast universe of unbridled lunacy.

The most obnoxious and incorrect voices are often amplified, while the truth is drowned out, stifled, then beaten to death through groupthink, and mass pile-ons.

2/
I am not an expert in Active Measures, Information Warfare, Geopolitics or Counterintelligence.

I'm a student, loosely.

But there ARE experts and I have always tried to point my followers to them.

3/
Today, I have an opportunity to show you the difference between an actual intelligence expert with years of experience and a Twitter personality with zero intelligence creds, so that you may see the difference.

Let's compare...

4/
This take comes from a foreigner, who is not even an American citizen, with zero intelligence credentials.

I daresay it IS entertaining.

But, alas, it isn't accurate, which I will soon show you.

https://t.co/zsgIyHNooc

5/
Here is an article on the same topic, from Dr. John Schindler, a former NSA Intelligence Analyst and Naval War College professor, who also has many years experience in Counterintelligence.

https://t.co/WEbJMvW8UH

6/
Declaring the actions of a hostile intelligence service an "Act of War" is no small thing.

While such a characterization may be entirely innocent, the net result is that potentially 300,000 Twitter followers have been unnecessarily whipped into a frenzy over a few words.

7/
Let's take another look at what the intelligence expert has to say...

This is IMPORTANT, because it means something entirely different...calls for an entirely different response...

8/
And accuracy warrants the accolades of OTHER experts.

Here's the response to John's article and expertise, from General Michael Hayden, the only man to have served as Director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.

9/
We must, MUST follow experts if we want to get it right.

Twitter personality cults are fun entertainment, particularly because they tell us what we want to hear.

But choosing to listen to them over experts, ultimately, isolates us from the truth.

10/
If you don't already subscribe, I highly recommend considering a subscription to John Schindler's Substack account.

It's the best intelligence expertise you'll find, for normies like us.

https://t.co/aHxbpfSJ0f

11/
Understand CLICKBAIT when you see it.

Don't fall for the fear-mongering.

12/

@threadreaderapp compile please

More from For later read

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.