Because some people got scammed by/pol into believing that hookers were paid to pee on Obama's bed in Moscow. Which of course the media decides to devote 24-7 coverage to. They've investigated it for months and have yet to produce any corroborating evidence worth a damn, and instead have only managed to inform us of the obvious, that Russia runs RT, America runs PBS and the Brits run the BBC. That said, I will give them credit for nothing that, "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries" (p. 13).
Meanwhile, good luck finding stories about the DisruptJ20 people who were caught plotting to gas people with butyric acid by pumping it into ventilation shafts. Be sure to read the MSDS on what that stuff is.
That AC is being dumb about the subsidies--Elon has done far more good with those than most and I cheer for his success. I sincerely wish more of our subsidies were bringing us awesome tech the way the ones going to him are. That said, your post is nonsense too.
First, you apparently don't know what I believe. Second, it's really odd that you believe nothing will change when most people against Trump are saying silly things about Nazis, martial law and nuclear annihilation. Third, rationality doesn't work that way. You believe people based on evidence.
That said, can you explain exactly why it's unreasonable to have a low Bayesian prior for P(they're lying) when they've repeatedly lied, even to cause wars, in the past, when they've presented ridiculous and flimsy evidence that was torn apart, and the best they can give us are political hacks and anonymous sources? Or perhaps you can explain why empiricists should believe things without evidence after having been given quite a lot of disproved evidence?
Oh wait, no, you were just building a straw man... Is Burning Man coming up again? For some reason it feels that way...
Project much? I'm literally laughing out loud. The only ones who got peed on were CNN & BuzzFeed at that press conference.
I mean, seriously, blank paper? That's your retort? Sorry, I forgot that it was wrong sized blank paper. I can't believe they didn't impeach him for that! Yes, let's now debate the virtues of 8 1/2 x 11 vs. A4 vs. legal. We can then proceed to read Trump's next Twitter typo to the entire world, as if to sum up to the world the bad joke the media has become.
What's this now about taking an L? Could it be that you have your hopes set on one of the other scams?:)
You do remember that Trump takes office in a week... right?
Afraid not. My posts don't have enough typos and I've only been involved in the firing of maybe two people. Besides "Donald Trump" has had an account here for a while now.
The fact that they've laundered a bad opposition report that has people on the wrong side of the planet in a country they've never visited into "British intelligence" pretty well sums up the modern media and their complete lack of credibility.
But you do have one thing right: I don't listen to the news at all. I pull the actual verifiable facts (if any) out of the news and do my own research.
That can be done really quickly with some sites. You end up with a short list looking like: anonymous sources, anonymous, our past BS story, BuzzFeed, and a random Tweet and that tells you all you needed to know about the article.
Yes, everyone has cognitive biases. Being aware of them isn't enough to counter act them. That's why you look for hard, reliable facts. You test your sources. Haha, who am I kidding. So far, they strongly prefer to keep losing to Trump.
So whatever, man. Be gullible and swallow the idea that a bunch of hookers peed on Obama's bed. Whatever floats your boat....
I already explained the "debunking" is both selective and silly and gave you the source to watch. The same "standard" isn't held for any of the facts in the report, which are dropping like flies. The fact that you want FISA warrants to look into 4chan erotic fanfics just makes this even more hilarious.
I mean, you haven't even caught on to half of my throwaway jokes yet...
I love that you do not provide any actual evidence here. Please note what qualifies as a evidence here. I want real docs, not anonymous rumors laundered through the press, so spare me the CNN, NYT, BuzzFeed, WaPo, etc. links and look at who they claim to have gotten it from and what they have to back it up. You've got what? Basically, this MI6 opposition researcher who sources absurd erotic fanfics while writing the DNC's "research"? The same anonymous fake agents whose tricks I took the piss out of both last week and in my last post?
I'll save you some time, it appears to start with this story by Louise Mensch, then laundered through Julian Borger at the Guardian, which ultimately claims there are "two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community." Why yes, I do love unverifiable info from anonymous people who are allegedly part of our most secret and least trustworthy court! That's practically the golden standard of proof these days! We can't provide you with our evidence, it's classified! But we can totally feed random nonsense to BuzzFeed, CNN, and the rest of the fake news.
However, there were other aspects to TRUMP's engageement with the Russian authorities. One of which had borne fruit for them was to exploit TRUMP's personal obsessions and sexual peversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him. According to Source D, where s/he had been present, TRUMP's (peprverted) conduct in Moscow included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, where he knew President and Mrs OBAMA (whom he hated) had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him. The hotel was known to be under FSB control with micropohones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to.
Exercise for the reader: Next time you get anonymous crap, try looking into the journalist whose byline appears instead of pointing to the anonymous secret agents. Find other stories they've written. Look at patterns and "sources."
Because I believe I explained how this kind of nonsense works in my comment from just under a week ago, quoted in relevant part:
I have secret evidence that your secret evidence is completely bogus. This same secret evidence also indicates that you secretly wet the bed last night. And 20 organizations have signed off on it.
People who watch the "news" are like 50 shades behind everything going on. You guys have no idea how hilarious this is while waiting for you to catch up. But the real joke here is that there are people who actually think that CNN & BuzzFeed's "raw intelligence" of Trump pissing on Obama's bed is real. Corroborating evidence? We have a video of someone who gave Trump a golden shower in 2011! (quasi-SFW, despite what you might think)
Just don't read this guy's explanation of how it was sourced from nonsense they fabricated based on this old TIL on Reddit (amazing how history repeats itself...). But yes, someone can then feel free to link me to BuzzFeed & others "debunking" that one on the basis that the 4chan post laughing about their first victim is newer than the document they wrote during the primaries.
And then we can laugh at how they don't totally "debunk" the dossier based on the fact that they can't corroborate anything worth a damn in it, save maybe that it was created by someone doing an opposition report on Trump who got paid more the longer it was. That way we can all ignore all the more mundane items in the report that were proven to be nonsense. Anyhow, there are far more interesting things to research while everyone else is still wading through the "leaks" and yellow journalism. Feel free to keep wading through the stream, hoping to uncover nuggets of truth. I don't know about you, but after that sort of filth, I need a shower.
Because it's not as if anyone can label anything they don't like BS, right?
If you want to play the Popper card and say we have to be intolerant of intolerance, then just remember that this was justified in terms of self-defense against those who would use "fists or pistols" instead of rational argument. So Popper is more properly invoked against the jihadist types who actually encourage others to murder people in truck attacks and such and those who defend them.
that post positive things about Trump, we know which side they're one. They are not on our side.
Same could be said about Twitter for not censoring Trump. They hate us and are against us.
Hmm, why does this remind me of a quote?
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. "
The problem is that you are implying I said or believed a lot of things I never did believe. I can only speak for myself, but I don't know a single person who ever read the Macedonian clickbait sites. They make money by being clicked on, not by being believed. Take this very Slashdot story for an example. I certainly clicked on it, but I find it a lot more likely that it's an Airbus 330 on a normal flight path than a UFO. So the only thing that might be proven is that they got a lot of clicks. And they did a shoddy job even of presenting that. Where are the Google trends showing the sites gaining in interest over the election? The Alexa rankings? You know, all the normal things that anyone who knows anything about SEO would even look at? Worse, all the news stories just cite other news stories saying things and add nothing new. Seems to me like they're worried about the Macedonians muscling in on their territory. Just cite this one story that uses the other dozen stories as evidence! Primary sources? Who the hell needs those when I can just link to someone who agrees with me?
Regarding PizzaGate, I mostly wrote about Podesta, not Alefantis and the worst I accused any of them was of having iffy taste in art. Every statement I made was an opinion based on fully disclosed facts.
See, I believe in primary sources, not this second hand media laundry crap. And there are poorly explained things in the Podesta emails--who here thinks that it's normal for handkercheifs to have pizza-related maps? Or to ask whether you'd play dominoes better on pizza or pasta? That kind of stuff made people think they were talking in code words, so they went to Urban Dictionary and similar sites and a number of the oddly used words lined up with pedo slang. That doesn't make anyone a pedo, mind you, but that's how that got started. Oh, it's also true that it was later found that Podesta did not attend that one particular spirit cooking event when another email about it was discovered. But that's Podesta. I haven't written much of anything about Alefantis at all, other than to say that the jimmycommet instagram (NSFW) had some strange pictures on it before it got removed.
However, I have never said anyone there was a pedophile, I disclosed and linked the relevant emails and other facts that formed my opinions, and I never encouraged or supported any kind of violence. And I do condemn every idiot with a gun. Whether it's the idiot who searches a pizza place with a gun, or the idiot who murders a Russian diplomat.
So in sum, I believe evidence, not "news" sources. Especially given what passes for an investigation these days. I can and will point you to the specific facts I used to form my opinions. If you want to change that, present new facts.
Look at primary sources, not media BS. Then see how many I have and how many you have. No, I do not believe things because some knob with a journalism degree spent 10 minutes summarizing something and found another journalist who agrees with him to link to.
So give me your facts, not your opinions, if you want me to believe you. You gave me articles that link to other articles that contain a scant few facts other than the names of a few clickbait sites and no method of corroborating any of them. I gave you the damn flight number and all the information about where this happened and a way to look up that particular flight's route.
> question is: how can so many things be wrong recorded or wrong reported?
Given the state of clickbait journalism, the real question is how we can get real news. It's all fake news.
I can no longer trust reporters at all. They have zero credibility until proven otherwise. I trust verifiable evidence. Period. I assume that everything is written by someone trying to summarize something in 15 minutes (if that) for maximum clicks. I do not expect fact checking or real journalism of any kind, I expect them to listen to whoever gives them the most interesting story.
So I don't give a damn what they reported, I care what facts they present that we can check. Literally every other part of their report is ignored.
Thus, I don't give a damn what they wrote in the article, I care what facts I can verify. And given that we can see a plane in the right place at the right time, that's the only rational explanation until someone provides verifiable facts that say otherwise.
You seem to be assuming that the story is accurate, despite the fact that it offers few details and no primary sources
I'm not nearly so credulous as to simply believe that journalists would let facts stand in the way of good clickbait. This goes double when someone posts verifiable, factual information that contradicts it.
Who am I supposed to believe here, a journalist writing UFO clickbait, or people who posted information that can be verified and corroborated from other sources?
You can't excuse the shoddy OWASP copypasta that passes for "analysis" in there when they couldn't even figure out that they were dealing with an old version of some donationware called P.A.S. Please tell me exactly which sources and methods that would have compromised, given that people could figure it out with Google.
Please tell me why they didn't even note that about a third of the IPs they detected were ordinary Tor exit nodes. Is this list of Tor nodes a classified source or method now?
Please tell me why Russia is reduced to relying on old versions of crappy bitcoin donationware programs instead of the many powerful nation state level hacking tools we know exist. Please tell me why Russia thought that releasing the DNC's dirty laundry was going to throw the election. Oh, wait, I thought the FBI did that... except now you believe them when they say what you want to hear? At least we know what the Wiener warrant was based on and we have actual evidence connecting that to people improperly accessing secure systems and improper storage of top secret information. See, I don't believe the FBI either time--I believe the evidence which we saw and were able to corroborate by investigating.
This report is garbage. The people who wrote it missed some very obvious things and did nothing approaching a real analysis. But we're supposed to just believe them based on magical secret evidence, never mind that can be used to prove anything at all? If you believe that, then I secretly hacked the governments extra super top secret database and found out that your report was secretly written by Russian agents.
I just hope I haven't compromised their top secret method of totally making stuff up.
Slashdot, we really need to have an intervention with all this fake news conspiracy crap. I'm only one person, I don't have time to debunk all this nonsense you keep posting. This used to have some vague relation to tech, rather than every random clickbait article you could find in the firehose.
What's the next story going to be? That Russian lizard people hacked the Bilderbergs to steal their chemtrail recipes for the alien galactic overlord, Xenu to use in Darl's $699 Linux auditing sessions?
Slashdot Mirror
Because some people got scammed by /pol into believing that hookers were paid to pee on Obama's bed in Moscow. Which of course the media decides to devote 24-7 coverage to. They've investigated it for months and have yet to produce any corroborating evidence worth a damn, and instead have only managed to inform us of the obvious, that Russia runs RT, America runs PBS and the Brits run the BBC. That said, I will give them credit for nothing that, "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries" (p. 13).
Meanwhile, good luck finding stories about the DisruptJ20 people who were caught plotting to gas people with butyric acid by pumping it into ventilation shafts. Be sure to read the MSDS on what that stuff is.
That AC is being dumb about the subsidies--Elon has done far more good with those than most and I cheer for his success. I sincerely wish more of our subsidies were bringing us awesome tech the way the ones going to him are. That said, your post is nonsense too.
Elon is a Trump advisory team member and they've been cooperating together.
But why let facts get in the way here when you can conjure more Russian boogeymen?
First, you apparently don't know what I believe. Second, it's really odd that you believe nothing will change when most people against Trump are saying silly things about Nazis, martial law and nuclear annihilation. Third, rationality doesn't work that way. You believe people based on evidence.
That said, can you explain exactly why it's unreasonable to have a low Bayesian prior for P(they're lying) when they've repeatedly lied, even to cause wars, in the past, when they've presented ridiculous and flimsy evidence that was torn apart, and the best they can give us are political hacks and anonymous sources? Or perhaps you can explain why empiricists should believe things without evidence after having been given quite a lot of disproved evidence?
Oh wait, no, you were just building a straw man ... Is Burning Man coming up again? For some reason it feels that way...
You can tell which ones still mean something by what you get paid for having it.
A B.S. in BS isn't an automatic ticket to a cushy job any more.
You're acting bigoted, stereotyping a huge group of people, and wishing for them to die.
Is that really the sort of person you want to be?
Project much? I'm literally laughing out loud. The only ones who got peed on were CNN & BuzzFeed at that press conference.
I mean, seriously, blank paper? That's your retort? Sorry, I forgot that it was wrong sized blank paper. I can't believe they didn't impeach him for that! Yes, let's now debate the virtues of 8 1/2 x 11 vs. A4 vs. legal. We can then proceed to read Trump's next Twitter typo to the entire world, as if to sum up to the world the bad joke the media has become.
What's this now about taking an L? Could it be that you have your hopes set on one of the other scams? :)
You do remember that Trump takes office in a week... right?
Afraid not. My posts don't have enough typos and I've only been involved in the firing of maybe two people. Besides "Donald Trump" has had an account here for a while now.
College freshmen don't know the gold key from the red key on a Vax.
The fact that they've laundered a bad opposition report that has people on the wrong side of the planet in a country they've never visited into "British intelligence" pretty well sums up the modern media and their complete lack of credibility.
But you do have one thing right: I don't listen to the news at all. I pull the actual verifiable facts (if any) out of the news and do my own research.
That can be done really quickly with some sites. You end up with a short list looking like: anonymous sources, anonymous, our past BS story, BuzzFeed, and a random Tweet and that tells you all you needed to know about the article.
Yeah, it's completely hilarious to see people falling for this one.
I just wonder if they're actually going to fall for the next one?
With as many so-called "nerd virgins" as they employ, you'd think they'd be more careful about going on MSNBC to complain about "childless single men who masturbate to anime."
Yes, everyone has cognitive biases. Being aware of them isn't enough to counter act them. That's why you look for hard, reliable facts. You test your sources. Haha, who am I kidding. So far, they strongly prefer to keep losing to Trump.
So whatever, man. Be gullible and swallow the idea that a bunch of hookers peed on Obama's bed. Whatever floats your boat....
I already explained the "debunking" is both selective and silly and gave you the source to watch. The same "standard" isn't held for any of the facts in the report, which are dropping like flies. The fact that you want FISA warrants to look into 4chan erotic fanfics just makes this even more hilarious.
I mean, you haven't even caught on to half of my throwaway jokes yet...
I love that you do not provide any actual evidence here. Please note what qualifies as a evidence here. I want real docs, not anonymous rumors laundered through the press, so spare me the CNN, NYT, BuzzFeed, WaPo, etc. links and look at who they claim to have gotten it from and what they have to back it up. You've got what? Basically, this MI6 opposition researcher who sources absurd erotic fanfics while writing the DNC's "research"? The same anonymous fake agents whose tricks I took the piss out of both last week and in my last post?
I'll save you some time, it appears to start with this story by Louise Mensch, then laundered through Julian Borger at the Guardian, which ultimately claims there are "two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community." Why yes, I do love unverifiable info from anonymous people who are allegedly part of our most secret and least trustworthy court! That's practically the golden standard of proof these days! We can't provide you with our evidence, it's classified! But we can totally feed random nonsense to BuzzFeed, CNN, and the rest of the fake news.
The funnies part is that I thought they'd learned their lesson by now, but no, they just had to swallow that ridiculous BuzzFeed story about pissing on Obama's bed. Yes, it's really that absurd if you haven't seen it yet. It's on page 2, bullet #3:
Exercise for the reader: Next time you get anonymous crap, try looking into the journalist whose byline appears instead of pointing to the anonymous secret agents. Find other stories they've written. Look at patterns and "sources."
That's especially funny.
Because I believe I explained how this kind of nonsense works in my comment from just under a week ago, quoted in relevant part:
People who watch the "news" are like 50 shades behind everything going on. You guys have no idea how hilarious this is while waiting for you to catch up. But the real joke here is that there are people who actually think that CNN & BuzzFeed's "raw intelligence" of Trump pissing on Obama's bed is real. Corroborating evidence? We have a video of someone who gave Trump a golden shower in 2011! (quasi-SFW, despite what you might think)
Just don't read this guy's explanation of how it was sourced from nonsense they fabricated based on this old TIL on Reddit (amazing how history repeats itself...). But yes, someone can then feel free to link me to BuzzFeed & others "debunking" that one on the basis that the 4chan post laughing about their first victim is newer than the document they wrote during the primaries.
And then we can laugh at how they don't totally "debunk" the dossier based on the fact that they can't corroborate anything worth a damn in it, save maybe that it was created by someone doing an opposition report on Trump who got paid more the longer it was. That way we can all ignore all the more mundane items in the report that were proven to be nonsense. Anyhow, there are far more interesting things to research while everyone else is still wading through the "leaks" and yellow journalism. Feel free to keep wading through the stream, hoping to uncover nuggets of truth. I don't know about you, but after that sort of filth, I need a shower.
Because it's not as if anyone can label anything they don't like BS, right?
If you want to play the Popper card and say we have to be intolerant of intolerance, then just remember that this was justified in terms of self-defense against those who would use "fists or pistols" instead of rational argument. So Popper is more properly invoked against the jihadist types who actually encourage others to murder people in truck attacks and such and those who defend them.
Hmm, why does this remind me of a quote?
There's also those who work to prevent making the US price of AIDS drugs cheaper by making political agreements to manipulate the price.
The problem is that you are implying I said or believed a lot of things I never did believe. I can only speak for myself, but I don't know a single person who ever read the Macedonian clickbait sites. They make money by being clicked on, not by being believed. Take this very Slashdot story for an example. I certainly clicked on it, but I find it a lot more likely that it's an Airbus 330 on a normal flight path than a UFO. So the only thing that might be proven is that they got a lot of clicks. And they did a shoddy job even of presenting that. Where are the Google trends showing the sites gaining in interest over the election? The Alexa rankings? You know, all the normal things that anyone who knows anything about SEO would even look at? Worse, all the news stories just cite other news stories saying things and add nothing new. Seems to me like they're worried about the Macedonians muscling in on their territory. Just cite this one story that uses the other dozen stories as evidence! Primary sources? Who the hell needs those when I can just link to someone who agrees with me?
Regarding PizzaGate, I mostly wrote about Podesta, not Alefantis and the worst I accused any of them was of having iffy taste in art. Every statement I made was an opinion based on fully disclosed facts.
See, I believe in primary sources, not this second hand media laundry crap. And there are poorly explained things in the Podesta emails--who here thinks that it's normal for handkercheifs to have pizza-related maps? Or to ask whether you'd play dominoes better on pizza or pasta? That kind of stuff made people think they were talking in code words, so they went to Urban Dictionary and similar sites and a number of the oddly used words lined up with pedo slang. That doesn't make anyone a pedo, mind you, but that's how that got started. Oh, it's also true that it was later found that Podesta did not attend that one particular spirit cooking event when another email about it was discovered. But that's Podesta. I haven't written much of anything about Alefantis at all, other than to say that the jimmycommet instagram (NSFW) had some strange pictures on it before it got removed.
However, I have never said anyone there was a pedophile, I disclosed and linked the relevant emails and other facts that formed my opinions, and I never encouraged or supported any kind of violence. And I do condemn every idiot with a gun. Whether it's the idiot who searches a pizza place with a gun, or the idiot who murders a Russian diplomat.
So in sum, I believe evidence, not "news" sources. Especially given what passes for an investigation these days. I can and will point you to the specific facts I used to form my opinions. If you want to change that, present new facts.
Look at primary sources, not media BS. Then see how many I have and how many you have. No, I do not believe things because some knob with a journalism degree spent 10 minutes summarizing something and found another journalist who agrees with him to link to.
So give me your facts, not your opinions, if you want me to believe you. You gave me articles that link to other articles that contain a scant few facts other than the names of a few clickbait sites and no method of corroborating any of them. I gave you the damn flight number and all the information about where this happened and a way to look up that particular flight's route.
See the difference here?
> question is: how can so many things be wrong recorded or wrong reported?
Given the state of clickbait journalism, the real question is how we can get real news. It's all fake news.
I can no longer trust reporters at all. They have zero credibility until proven otherwise. I trust verifiable evidence. Period. I assume that everything is written by someone trying to summarize something in 15 minutes (if that) for maximum clicks. I do not expect fact checking or real journalism of any kind, I expect them to listen to whoever gives them the most interesting story.
So I don't give a damn what they reported, I care what facts they present that we can check. Literally every other part of their report is ignored.
Thus, I don't give a damn what they wrote in the article, I care what facts I can verify. And given that we can see a plane in the right place at the right time, that's the only rational explanation until someone provides verifiable facts that say otherwise.
> there was no authorized airplane at that place!.
Really? Because flight records put LATAM Chile flight LA330 in the right place at the right time.
But you won't get anyone to click your news stories by telling people that....
You seem to be assuming that the story is accurate, despite the fact that it offers few details and no primary sources
I'm not nearly so credulous as to simply believe that journalists would let facts stand in the way of good clickbait. This goes double when someone posts verifiable, factual information that contradicts it.
Who am I supposed to believe here, a journalist writing UFO clickbait, or people who posted information that can be verified and corroborated from other sources?
BS.
You can't excuse the shoddy OWASP copypasta that passes for "analysis" in there when they couldn't even figure out that they were dealing with an old version of some donationware called P.A.S. Please tell me exactly which sources and methods that would have compromised, given that people could figure it out with Google.
Please tell me why they didn't even note that about a third of the IPs they detected were ordinary Tor exit nodes. Is this list of Tor nodes a classified source or method now?
Please tell me why Russia is reduced to relying on old versions of crappy bitcoin donationware programs instead of the many powerful nation state level hacking tools we know exist. Please tell me why Russia thought that releasing the DNC's dirty laundry was going to throw the election. Oh, wait, I thought the FBI did that... except now you believe them when they say what you want to hear? At least we know what the Wiener warrant was based on and we have actual evidence connecting that to people improperly accessing secure systems and improper storage of top secret information. See, I don't believe the FBI either time--I believe the evidence which we saw and were able to corroborate by investigating.
This report is garbage. The people who wrote it missed some very obvious things and did nothing approaching a real analysis. But we're supposed to just believe them based on magical secret evidence, never mind that can be used to prove anything at all? If you believe that, then I secretly hacked the governments extra super top secret database and found out that your report was secretly written by Russian agents.
I just hope I haven't compromised their top secret method of totally making stuff up.
Actually, it's pretty well identified.
It appears to be LATAM Chile flight LA330.
And they wonder why nobody trusts the news any more after posting ridiculous nonsense like this...
> Is it identified?
Yes. It appears to match LATAM Chile flight LA330, callsign LXP330, which is an Airbus A320-233.
Really? Because there's an airport right there with standard flight route. Feel free to look it up on Planefinder. More info here: https://www.metabunk.org/explanation-for-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrail.t8306/
Slashdot, we really need to have an intervention with all this fake news conspiracy crap. I'm only one person, I don't have time to debunk all this nonsense you keep posting. This used to have some vague relation to tech, rather than every random clickbait article you could find in the firehose.
What's the next story going to be? That Russian lizard people hacked the Bilderbergs to steal their chemtrail recipes for the alien galactic overlord, Xenu to use in Darl's $699 Linux auditing sessions?
This is Slashdot, you have to hope that one of the comments will take pity on you and give you a link:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170101-a-new-tomb-for-the-most-dangerous-disaster-site-in-the-world