I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or if you think that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.
https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft
https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
Obviously something on the hyperbolic sensationalist side, but closer to the truth than the simplistic ignore-your-own-eyes contrarianism peddled by Russian propaganda. FWIW your comment is the type that makes me go back and upvote GP.
ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Just think of how many people you have killed in the past months who posed much less threat to you than you to their country and their people. And I am anbsolutely sure Israel and Pentagon are not very picky about the means they use.
"But these were not our citizens..": true, the little girls murdered by you in Teheran were not. So these "not our citizens" thing you can shove you know where.
I don't condone doping in tested sports, but I think there needs to be recognition that preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
> A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
> preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
No, the olympics are a doping competition, and a meta-competition of “who is better at not getting detected.”
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
So the olympic games do pit near-identical competitors against each other.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
What's the point of this post? You're missing the forest for the trees. It's like saying racing is driver against driver, not driver and car against driver and car. Motivation has NEVER made up for physical fitness, never will, and never should. The olympics are about the human body first.
I don't see the Olympics as a particularly "fair" sport in the first place, in the sense of "fair" meaning "without favoritism" because physical capability is a vast spectrum.
Would you think it a poor dynamic if a company offered to pay people a good salary simply to be heavy sustained drinkers, but only for some limited amount of time? I'd say the problem is that the Moloch attractor tends to undermine this lofty ideal of "freedom of choice".
At least that produces tangible value for the rest of us this way.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.
1. How stupid do you have to be to believe that a three-letter agency from any country isn't capable of delivering a lethal dose of poison to eliminate its target?
2. To this day, it remains unclear who actually slightly poisoned Navalny and to what end.
3. As of last week, we have an on-camera confession [2] from Leonid Volkov of Navalny's FBK [1], in which he states that it is very disappointing that USAID funding is no longer available. The videos are in Russian, but you should at least care and be capable of translating them with AI. If not, don't even bother raising your propagandized, brainwashed takes.
I have nothing to say about the OP-linked site other than that it is a trashcan of lies.
I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or if you think that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.
FSB's Second Service are also the ones who deal with the internet shitshow now.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/04/16/report-fsb-unit-linked-...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/04/15/russian-websites-b...
More scary articles I think:
https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
First there was Nemtsov, then there was Navlany. Wonder who's next.
Funny thing is, if 1999 went differently Lukashenka actually had a shot at being in the Kremlin today.
Imagine if all Russians put their energy into making world a better place, instead of killing their neighbours, raping, stealing and corrupting. Sad.
s/Russians/humans/. Absolutely nothing special about Russians here.
Ghee, i wonder what media you consume
Obviously something on the hyperbolic sensationalist side, but closer to the truth than the simplistic ignore-your-own-eyes contrarianism peddled by Russian propaganda. FWIW your comment is the type that makes me go back and upvote GP.
Please share it with us.
That is a quintessential part of russia through the history of that country. Conquer, oppress, loot. Medieval imperialism brought to modern age.
The west is secretly in love with this malevolence, that's why.
Yup, they call it 'mysterious russian soul', while it just a blatant disregard to human life
Or maybe Westerners stop lying that much.
hm, not much would change. - we'd still see palestine destroyed - iran bombed - iraq bombed - lybia bombed - afganistan bombed - lebanon bombed
Imagine if all countries would put their energy into building peace and prosperity. That would make a difference.
ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Just pointing out that nothing would change. And you are obviously fixated on Russia. May be broaden your perspective.
only things you point out are russian propaganda points.
that you need to broaden your perspective? Russian propaganda said that about you?
How it is hacker news now?
Christo does excellent investigative journalism, his curiosity is well aligned with many of the people on this site.
The western propaganda full steam again.
Just think of how many people you have killed in the past months who posed much less threat to you than you to their country and their people. And I am anbsolutely sure Israel and Pentagon are not very picky about the means they use.
"But these were not our citizens..": true, the little girls murdered by you in Teheran were not. So these "not our citizens" thing you can shove you know where.
Filthy murderers.
I don't condone doping in tested sports, but I think there needs to be recognition that preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
Man A)
- Predominantly fast-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 RX genotype [0]
- Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1 levels at the very upper end of reference range
Man B)
- Predominantly slow-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 XX genotype
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11014841/
> A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
There's no inherent reason that the second man couldn't make it to the Olympics in the air pistol event.
> preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
[0] Wikipedia
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4008225/2022/12/16/lionel-m...
Olympics are literally a showcase of the genetic lottery. We can have Testtube Olympics alongside Special Olympics if there is sufficient interest.
No, the olympics are a doping competition, and a meta-competition of “who is better at not getting detected.”
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
1988 All-Drug Olympics (SNL Weekend Update sketch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU
It’s best of competition, not everybody at the same time on finish line equity gathering.
So the olympic games do pit near-identical competitors against each other.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
Most sports are a genetic lottery showcase regardless of how many drugs you take.
What's the point of this post? You're missing the forest for the trees. It's like saying racing is driver against driver, not driver and car against driver and car. Motivation has NEVER made up for physical fitness, never will, and never should. The olympics are about the human body first.
Yeah so athletes with more money and better access to doping products win instead.
Hard pass.
Also will encourage athletes to give themselves long term health issues for short term performance gains.
I'm of the "your body, your choice" mind
To me the decision to take PED's doesn't feel different than being an alcoholic or having an abortion.
I wouldn't recommend anyone become an alcoholic, but it's their life and people ought to have the freedom of choice.
I’m not sure kids in competitive sports will be able to make an informed decision without any pressure.
Would you think it a poor dynamic if a company offered to pay people a good salary simply to be heavy sustained drinkers, but only for some limited amount of time? I'd say the problem is that the Moloch attractor tends to undermine this lofty ideal of "freedom of choice".
At least that produces tangible value for the rest of us this way.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.
1. How stupid do you have to be to believe that a three-letter agency from any country isn't capable of delivering a lethal dose of poison to eliminate its target?
2. To this day, it remains unclear who actually slightly poisoned Navalny and to what end.
3. As of last week, we have an on-camera confession [2] from Leonid Volkov of Navalny's FBK [1], in which he states that it is very disappointing that USAID funding is no longer available. The videos are in Russian, but you should at least care and be capable of translating them with AI. If not, don't even bother raising your propagandized, brainwashed takes.
I have nothing to say about the OP-linked site other than that it is a trashcan of lies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Volkov_(politician) [2] https://www.jpg.wtf/c54omx.mp4
You don't need 3 letter agencies.
Billionaires and Tech Executives from CA do it all time too.
Heck one even threatened to eliminate me because I was working on competing ad tech low latency system. I was much younger back then completely shook.