It needs to hook into the existing legal book supply chain so that authors could potentially get compensated (I doubt they do for used book resale tho..).
They don't have an incentive to share their view of reality until after they make investments that would capitalize on their belief in that view of reality. After they take those positions though, it is in their best interest to inform everyone about what they view to be real. It would seem to be risky for them to try to take positions based on some false narrative on some aspect of the market because if someone else finds and publishes the true narrative, and that becomes the prevailing sentiment, they would be harmed.
It was not great to work at a company Vista acquired company ~10 years ago. Engineering talent fled, code quality dropped, product prices were jacked up, etc. I guess the company I worked for was then sold to another pe company in 2017, but it's not public if Vista made money or not. I would guess they're still using cold fusion to this day.
I think they want to get their money out of china and parked into a safe place. If they pay off their mortgage, they don't want to find a new place to park their money, they can just keep the house as an asset. I think a lot of investing in china is real estate based and is part of the reason that market is struggling over there so much now. It would make sense for them to continue to follow that investing model when exporting their wealth to other countries.
Is it all due to inflation and the interest rates? Shouldn't these companies be able to issue stock to get some cheap capital to continue growth/hiring? Or anyone know why this is happening?
A lot of people exited the labor market (disabled or killed by COVID, pulled the trigger on retiring, etc.). Unemployment was very low and it was very difficult to hire. And companies had opportunities for growth, but taking advantage of those opportunities required workers, which were hard to get.
So companies responded by hiring whenever possible and keeping more employees around than they normally would. If there was less work to do, they'd reduce hours instead of letting employees go. Better to pay more labor costs now than to be stuck unable to get employees later. You pay a cost (larger payrolls) to reduce a risk.
Hoarding can be kind of self-reinforcing because as everybody grabs what is available (job seekers), it becomes more scarce, so people want to grab up even more.
But hoarding tends to stop eventually. Companies don't want to pay more for payroll if they don't have to. Once they feel the risk is gone, they'll aim to adjust things back to normal.
Once layoffs start, they could have a domino effect on labor hoarding. If a bunch of companies do layoffs, then other companies think, "Well, if we did need to hire, we could get some of those laid off workers." And then they reevaluate their own situation.
If this is what's happening, then it will take some time for it to play out. Eventually all the hoarding-related layoffs will have been done.
issuing stock and selling it into the market doesn't make the stock price go down. Raising money for this activity on a large scale is why the stock market exists.
The value of the existing company "before" remains the same, and the sale of the new shares brings cash into the company at the selling price, so those new cash assets exactly balance out the dilution of ownership.
If anything it might increase the value of the company if shareholders believe that the same "profit multiplier"/ROE will be applied to the new cash, for example if a profitable restaurant chain sells new shares to get the cash to open and operate new restaurants in new locations. Of course, changes to the share price are due to changing expectations so that will occur as information about the pending transaction is incorporated into the hive mind and not necessarily at the moment of share sales.
this doesn't require any advanced analysis, it's simple supply and demand. offer up more shares to a market without changing demand and the price per share must go down.
think about it the other way -- why would a company ever do a stock buyback if changing the amount of issued stock didn't change the price? there's a reason buybacks are considered essentially the same as dividends.
The company is worth what it's worth, according to investors, no matter how many slices you piece it up in. If you issue more shares, people will be willing to pay less for each one. Yes, adding cash to the balance sheet increases the book value, but the only way to add that cash is to sell the new shares, and the only way to sell the new shares is to offer them for cheaper than the current asking price.
Put another way, if prospective investors wanted to buy more shares at the current asking price, they could, from an existing owner. The people who want shares but haven't bought, demand a lower price for them.
the company is worth MORE when people buy the new stock shares.
Let's say you have a company worth $2 and you have two shareholders, each with one share. So that's a dollar a share, right? Now you sell a third share for a dollar. The company that was worth $2 is now worth $3 because it has its old assets that were worth $2, and it has NOW has a dollar in cash that it didn't have before. Now it's a $3 company. This is not advanced analysis, this is simple counting. Trust me, I know how it works, I got a graduate degree in it, and you're simply wrong.
what you may be thinking of is when the company issues shares and gives them as incentives/rewards to officers/directors/employees. That does dilute ownership, but sale of shares does not.
> the company is worth MORE when people buy the new stock shares
This is a huge "when" (it should be more of an "if"), and one upon which the entire theory rests. But we can't just assume infinite demand for shares at any price. So: will people buy the new shares, at the current, pre-new-issue price?
No, they won't. The current price is too much for those people to buy shares. If those people wanted shares at the current price, they could buy them from an existing holder. They didn't, indicating they don't want to.
Thus: no people buying the newly-issued shares; means no cash going into the company; means no increase in company value. The company would need to offer less than the current price (thus decreasing the price) in order to get anyone to buy the new shares.
>Let's say [I] have a company worth $2 and [I] have two shareholders, each with one share. So that's a dollar a share, right? Now [I] sell a third share for a dollar (pronouns edited to respond)
Who would you sell it to? Who would buy that share for a dollar? I could have bought it from one of the 2 existing shareholders for a dollar. Offering a third share says to me that you're on shaky financial ground, and that your company is probably worth closer to $0 than $2. In fact, I suspect you might apply my third dollar towards executive compensation, rather than towards increasing the value of the company, and that's why "the company" needs my cash in the first place.
This is basic demand theory: there is no marginal demand for a share of your company at a price of $1. Only 2 people were willing to pay that, and they already did. I bet the new-issue antics are giving them pause, too: they'll probably offload at a loss, if anyone will buy at that point, even for pennies on the dollar. But I'll tell you what: I'll offer you 30 cents. Take it (and lower the share price to 30 cents) or leave it. Trust me, I got two graduate degrees in this ;)
> why would a company ever do a stock buyback if changing the amount of issued stock didn't change the price?
Buy low/sell high maybe? They buy their stock when the price is low and they think it is undervalued so that they can sell it later when the price more accurately reflects the value or even better when the price is overvaluing their stock.
There are many ways to increase profits. Diluting existing shareholders by increasing outstanding shares should not be a bandaid for inefficient application of capital, which would juts cause a vicious cycle.
Stock issue dilutes ownership and lowers share price. Why would people paid in stock do that when they can just offload labor? Also, they'd be competing with market makers, winkwinknudgenudge.
Aside from general maintenance burden, it's not year-2038 proof. I believe that's the main reason for removing it now, so people don't run in to this in 2038 (some kernels have very long support cycles, are used in embedded devices, etc.)
Is it common for people to carry around baggies of white powder that isn't drugs? The container might tip the scale one way or the other. If there is a little white substance at the bottom of a dunkin donuts bag, I'd err on the side of not being enough for an arrest if it flags as positive since it is more than likely powdered sugar, but if its in a little baggies that are commonly used for distribution, I'd probably say that would be enough.
I'll give an even different example that what others are saying here. I would love to carry my medicine around in little bags so that I don't have to carry a whole bottle. It keeps things organized, more comfortable, and reduces problems if lost. But doing this can be illegal or suspicious no matter what that medication is, including simply ibuprofen. This is not dissimilar from the others saying they just want to not carry around a giant tub because the item is bought in bulk.
The important take away here (combined with the white powder examples) is "just because you don't see a reason or understand a reason doesn't mean it isn't a rational thing that someone else might do." The law is supposed to be about reasonable doubt. Even deeper, the law is about protecting citizens. These activities might be "suspicious" but that's a vague term. At worst, these would be drug __users__ and not __distributors__ and I'd say those are the higher priority. They're also easier to identify because having many small bags is much more suspicious because it is harder to justify the convenience of replacing a storage container and/or taking a daily/lower quantity of whatever that substance is. It might seem weird to carry a bag of creatine, but it much weirder to be carrying 20. But maybe I'm falling trap to my own critique, though I'm saying I'm placing this on a sprecturm of suspicion instead of a binary condition to allow for other context.
"The law is supposed to be about reasonable doubt."
That's what you'll be evaluated in court with (or should be).
To arrest or get a warrant, it's only that the law has been broken by a preponderance of the evidence to meet probable cause. Although it seems that the courts aren't even holding it up to this standard very often.
"It might seem weird to carry a bag of creatine, but it much weirder to be carrying 20"
Very true, and it's absolutely a spectrum. One thing to point out is that most departments require police to make a "thorough investigation". If there's a valid reason then they should be able to confirm it. If stuff sounds fishy, they can investigate further. A lot of the failures talked about in the article are not strictly test failures - they're failures of judgement or knowledge by not relying on other facts or by relying too heavily on the tests.
> they're failures of judgement or knowledge by not relying on other facts or by relying too heavily on the tests.
I think this is well put and I really appreciate your response. I generally agree and I'm generally one that is quite critical of metrics. But I do not see this article as solely about a failure of test, but the interconnectedness and reliance on poor metrics rather than using them to update priors.
Particularly why I like the last sentence is I find this being one of the key points that distinguishes us humans from machines. Because we are able to do such things as "I see the rules, I understand the rules" and more importantly "I understand why the rules were made, and while this violates the rules it was clearly not something the rules were intended to prevent." Because rules __are__ made to be broken. Because rules are imperfect. Tests are imperfect. Literally everything is imperfect. We have a strong desire for order and perfection which helps us decrease the noise but I think we all could do a bit better at embracing the chaos a bit more.
20 small bags of creatine for a 20 day trip makes perfectly good sense. Leave your measuring equipment at home.
And they are test "failures"--the problem is the field tests are not specific enough and will react to innocent materials. (Same as fertilizer or glycerin setting off the bomb sniffer at the airport. Lots of skin products contain glycerin.) And expect any competent drug smuggler to know the cross reactions of the stuff they are carrying--thus what they say isn't really relevant.
> 20 small bags of creatine for a 20 day trip makes perfectly good sense. Leave your measuring equipment at home.
It's also worth noting that in high likelihood you'd have additional context around this. Namely luggage or other such travel accessories. Because it is unlikely that you would create such daily allocations and then carry them on your person. It's more likely to leave them wherever you're staying. Everything is still likelihood based (dependent on model we use, which is why I specify likelihood).
What if instead of having a large container that has powder that needs to be measured someone wants to take premeasured single dose bags? Or should people to carry a scale on road trips to measure their creatine? I don't think it should be suspicious at all
As a purely practical matter, a measuring spoon works just as well. I keep a 7.5ml spoon in the creatine jar because it's a quantity I don't seem to ever need for anything else. I agree with all the points about reasonability and probable cause described above, but it's also smart to assume that cops are low IQ jerks and (for example) if you're traveling, to keep your creatine in a labeled container, ideally the one you bought it in. Failing that, print out a fact sheet on creatine and keep it with the creatine.
Of course we shouldn't have to engage in pre-emptive defensive strategies like this. Cops should operate to far higher standards and exemplify the principle of innocent until proven guilty. But the reality is that a lot of them are stupid and/or corrupt. Having been arrested on false pretences a few times, your post-contact explanations, no matter how reasonable, don't carry much weight if the cop finds you suspicious for some reason. For all practical purposes, cops are trained to maximize confirmation bias.
And the flip side of this is I've seen security doing the same thing in the other direction. My wife set off a nuke scanner in Shanghai. To compound the problem the card from the lab (it was a nuclear heart scan) was sitting in the pocket of the jacket she planned to wear--and changed at the last minute. Despite that it was resolved with a little bit of conversation (admittedly, my wife speaks native-level Mandarin with a Shanghai accent), nobody did the simple test of waving around a geiger counter to see if it was her or something she had that was hot. (And to say something of the state of security--she passed through one US airport when 8x as hot and another when 4x as hot. A sufficiently sensitive detector could figure out that it's 140keV gamma rays and thus medical, but that's not the sort of thing that could be determined from a distance.)
> nobody did the simple test of waving around a geiger counter to see if it was her or something she had that was hot.
Not to justify the experience, but I don't think the purpose of the test is to explicitly discriminate the difference between a person being hot or an item the person has being hot. The test is often used to identify people who work with nuclear materials, where then you want to determine if they are a nuclear worker, spy, terrorist, or simply a member of the public.
I'll also add that despite being really good at detecting radiation there's really high variance in how people respond to sources. I had a tritium keychain shipped from China a decade ago and it sat in customs for several weeks. The general public does not know the difference between radiation types or even understand levels. I highly doubt they are using sensitive detectors and just using a cheap Geiger Counter (which beta emitters will set off). I very highly doubt they are using neutron detectors.
Interestingly I bought the tritium on Amazon but it no longer seems like you can buy them there. There are several listings that __look__ like they sell them, but here's an illustrative example[0]. Note the last picture specifies the vial is not included. When you search Amazon you will come across a lot of phosphorous and certainly there are many sellers trying to pass this off as tritium. It looks like you can still buy uranium ore though...
[Note] For those reading, tritium is perfectly safe. Radiation levels are not high enough to pass through skin and even light clothing will block it. A keychain is typically a very small quantity which is contained in a glass vial that is coated with phosphorous (to emit light, like a CRT monitor), and then contained in acrylic. I have personally tested that keychain and even let students use it as an extra credit in a radiation detection lab (they were asking about the safety). There is danger if you consume it or rub it in your eyes or genitals (or other soft body parts), but the amount you'd have for a keychain is very insignificant and poses zero risk. It's worth mentioning that tritium is going to be a gas, so if you break the vial it still will not represent danger unless you break it inside your mouth or right in front of your eyes (still likely low risk) due to the fact that it will quickly disperse (it is lighter than air). Tritium is fucking awesome and I wish production was a bit higher so we could have more access. It is commonly used in watch hands and gun sights but can essentially be used in anything you want to "permanently" glow in the dark. Half life is about 10 years but worth mentioning that you won't get a bright glow, but it will be easily identifiable at night or very low light conditions.
True, but they did nothing but talk for a little bit. If she was what they were looking for their actions would not have been of any value. In her case we had just walked through a metal rectangle--could simply have been something to narrow the line to one person wide, or there could have been something in it. I had thought it was lining people up for an infrared camera (I had previously seen such a station with a monitor that was clearly showing an IR camera view of the crowd) but they called her over.
This was Tc-99M, half life 6 hours, 140keV gamma emitter. Commonly used in imaging heart arteries.
I fully agree with you. I was just suggesting that a larger quantity is of higher suspicion but you're pointing at a clear context I wanted to be open to.
I fully believe that there is no hard rule based system that can adequately account for all reasonable scenarios. In fact, I think a key part of what makes us different from machines is being able to reject "rules" because we understand they're more akin to guides. So I agree and thank you for bringing this up.
Side note: in many countries medicine does in fact come in pre-measured dose bags. It might be more plastic but it sure is convenient and has other advantages.
Yea, I didn't think of something like creatine. That being said, I would still be a little sketched to travel with it like that as I would assume the first thoughts of a police officer isn't going to be "that's probably creatine" when most of the times they are exposed to something like that in the past, it was drugs.
That probably sways my thoughts on should it be enough for an arrest if it flags as positive some though.
Unfortunately police don't tend to be very bright and seem to constantly try to find things to pin people for, it's what they're trained to do. Drugs being illegal is a bad idea partially because of this issue. This is just another example of how drug prohibition causes more harm than good.
Their job is to enforce the law. It doesn't seem quite right to denigrate them and call them not bright for doing their job. Shouldn't you be blaming someone else and not the people in the trenches? Also, I'm not sure its so black and white about how drug prohibition has caused more harm than good. I definitely wouldn't want to live in Portland or SF and some of the people stuck in the throws of inescapable addiction might disagree with you.
Portland and SF don't have fully legal and regulated drug supply so I'm not sure what your point is.
Drug prohibition is the entire reason that fentanyl is now in the drug supply and prohibition where supply is unregulated is a large reason for overdose deaths. Most overdose deaths are due to inconsistency in potency which would not be a problem if the supply were regulated. Compound that issue with the harm that the legal system does to someone with an addiction, essentially barring them from normal life if they have a conviction, and we have the recipe for disaster which is the current state of affairs. People with drug convictions are generally seen as having a scarlet letter of unemployability which generally keeps them in a state of addiction and/or homelessness and there is a massive stigma attached not only to drug addiction but mental health issues which usually go hand in hand. That makes it incredibly difficult to get proper treatment.
A lot of them are not bright by design, departments select for obedience rather than intelligence, and at least one person sued and lost after learning that they were rejected because of having too high an IQ: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jordan-v...
Here's you're equating cops' default behavior with doing their job of law enforcement, while overlooking the fact that they often don't perform that job well because they discount reasonable possibilities that initially suspect activity is not actually illegal, and reflexively waive issues like presumption of innocence, 4th amendment limitations and so on. Read up on police training, which is terrible in the US.
You cite one instance and equate that to a lot of them are not bright by design. I am sure there are indeed some cops that are not great and some that have lower intelligence. The bad cases are usually highlighted, while those that serve their country honorably and professionally get zero recognition. It is an incredibly hard and thankless job and we will be a lot worse off as a country in the future if we keep shouting them down and denigrating them instead of giving constructive criticism about the system. The better ones will become more and more discouraged and people will have more and more to complain about in the future.
No, I gave yo a general report on the topic that cited one instance of a lawsuit. I don't give a shit about police morale. They are generally well paid, have massive benefits including all sorts of legal immunity, incredibly powerful unions, and often net up to half of municipal budgets. It's not a thankless job, politicians fall over themselves to do photo ops with police and talk about how great they are. If cops have a morale problem maybe they should worker harder at treating everyone with respect and upholding their constitutional rights instead of thorwing money at concepts like 'killology'.
> This paper explores this case in detail and its potential impact.
You talk about them like they are the enemy. Lots of people talk about them like you without a word of thanks without acknowledging how fucked we would be without the good ones out there. I am thankful we aren't living in a country where there is complete anarchy or horrible police corruption like in Mexico.
Municipal budgets aren't great and their pay and benefits should be better for the work they do. You and I being on this forum probably means we are paid way too much for not real jobs screwing around on computers. There is a reason we aren't cops and their hiring isn't great. It is a hard job where you literally risk your life and literally deal with the worst parts of society.
There are guns in America. It doesn't matter whether we think that's right or not, that's the world we live in. There are criminals out there, they exist. Should cops carry around tasers only? I would like my local police force to effectively deter local criminals. Lax laws and lax deterrents are taken advantage of, we are not some peaceful species.
You think police are to blame for the situation(s) down south?
One of the reasons for such anarchy in mexico is because there is such a profitable black market for drugs in the US. Our drug policy at home and abroad is one of the biggest reasons that narcostates even exist. What do you think would fund them to such an incredible extent if they didn't have such an incredible cash cow? Definitely not avocados or human trafficking
Creatine is produced endogenously and is believed to be a critical component of energy metabolism and expenditure, particularly in muscle tissue (including in the heart and skeletal muscle that keeps us alive).
As a supplement, it is extremely well researched (probably the most researched exercise supplement) and has been thoroughly demonstrated to have moderate enhancements to digestion, metabolism, and physical performance in all kinds of populations. It is also quite safe. Taking too much for too long can cause stomach discomfort, muscle cramps, dehydration, and in rare cases kidney damage.
The body produces about 1g per day naturally and humans who eat meat tend to get another gram or so through diet. Supplementing ~3g per day has been demonstrated to be extremely safe pretty much indefinitely (except possibly in people with liver or kidney disease, possibly other organ dysfunction).
Just like caffeine (and all manner of substances) if you have lots of pure powder and no clue about safe dosage, it can get dangerous very quickly.
Not sure why you think its unproven, it's actually one of the supplements used in weight sports that has possibly the largest amount of solid evidence behind it.
Frankly that seems a little strange to me. Was it not known as one of the most commonly used supplements in weight lifting for a long time before it was thought of as a nootropic? Just googling creatine gives all sorts of results about it being a sport supplement
Honestly, I don't know. I'm not into nootropics, just a random "fact" I was aware of (fact being this group considers it a nootropic lol). But I'll reference the reddit guide if you want to dig in yourself[0]. But I'm not sure I would expect a great answer as these types of subreddits often have an abundance of unwarranted confidence.
Probably should default to "I don't know why someone would do that, but they probably have a good reason I can't think of" when we're discussing taking away their liberty.
I carry around ziplock bags of unflavored protein powder pretty much everywhere I go, as well as creatine powder. Both of these can look very similar to large amounts of cocaine, heroin, MDMA, 2C-B, MDA, or methamphetamine...especially the bags of creatine crystals.
This was a fragment of doughnut glaze on the floor of the car; the other incident cited drywall dust on the floor. It's very clear people are being detained just off "tested positive"; no apparent extenuating "they had a bunch of dime bags" in either scenario.
When I was a teenager, I would carry around small baggies of baking powder, just in case I got arrested for something. I enjoyed trouble a bit too much, although never enough to actually get arrested.
My daughter drinks Miralax every morning, which is a white powder. When we go on trips I usually put a few scoops in clear plastic bag rather than take the entire container.
From my college days, I seem to recall cocaine being a different consistency than Miralax. But I don’t know about other drugs and at first glance it definitely looks suspicious.
I am aware that my willingness to do this is a sign of my privilege, that many people in the US do not enjoy.
Be careful with taking stuff like this every day. Miralax in particular is indicated for occasional use. You're supposed to stop and consult a doctor after 7 days of use.
I overused a popular fiber supplement for a few months and wound up with a kidney stone. I kept my PCP in the loop for all of this but it wasn't caught. An EMT is the only one who blurted out "kidney stone" although EMTs aren't supposed to diagnose anything. And nobody in health care drew the connection to the habitual supplement usage.
Miralax is frequently prescribed by doctors for long term use. I believe the OTC directions are not because it is known to be dangerous for long term use, but because the symptoms it treats should be evaluated by a doctor.
I apologize completely, because I missed the part where the GP said that his daughter obtained a prescription from her physician, and I am sorry for comparing my inept supplement abuse to hers. Also it is a fluke that I informed my physicians at every step of my usage, and they failed to predict or diagnose the resultant kidney stone. Every other US physician is far more attentive and responsible and would've noticed straight away and warned me about this off-label usage.
I'd say that being "scared" or "sketched" about doing perfectly legitimate things is a direct symptom of the overbearing totalitarian system created by this war on drug users. I hope you won't be so quick to support it in the future! The ideals of freedom would indicate a high bar for locking someone in a cage, and private possession of consciousness altering substances doesn't clear it. It's essentially a false axiom from which so much of the contemporary police state has crystalized.
"but if its in a little baggies that are commonly used for distribution, I'd probably say that would be enough."
I'd say possibly. Like in my original comment, if they have a record of distribution that adds a lot of weight. Just having a baggie of powder, or rock candy, etc isn't enough.
As a kid, I had little baggies of glow powder I would sometimes have on me. I've had some unlabeled white pills in my car (asprin) in case of an emergency. I'm sure there are other examples too. It's not really about what's common, but what's probable - those are two different things. But yes they would require more details to differentiate.
Yea.. there is so much ambiguity in stuff like this. Reasonable and probable mean different things to different people and its not like we have statistics to show that when a powder of a given texture of a given quantity in a given container is found, what percentage of the time is it drugs and what percentage of the time is it something innocent.
People carry powdered supplements. Most are optional, some are required. Some are hygroscopic and the original container becomes problematic in humid climates--measuring out daily amounts is essential.
People on the road often have one-load baggies of laundry detergent. Yes, pods exist--but if you're in a humid climate and don't have airtight storage you have a problem. Pods are hygroscopic and will fail if not adequately protected. (Think about it--the pod goes somewhere when you toss it in the wash. Where it goes is it dissolves in the water.)
Also poor people exist, and sometimes they gotta make do with what they've got, even when it might be something that looks sus, that a middle class person wouldn't ever do.
And those people are often the same people to be targeted by police for drugs.
Maybe there is a market for people who get shot at or with those that are paranoid about that? I know the windows aren't bullet proof, but the panels stop smaller calibers. If it is performance enough, maybe they could be used by police? The default panels on their cars don't offer protection.
That's pretty screwed up to kill an asset like that. I doubt Iran could have unraveled the plot so quickly and I'm not sure how they could benefit from killing him.
The idea that someone would use their real identity, or not disappear and get a new identity, while on covert action against America enemies is so absurd it's almost a great skit idea.
"We successfully attacked the nuclear facility!"
"Oh Van, by the way what name did you sign in the log book?"
"...Oh no"
I imagine there are a non-zero amount of readers (but not commenters) who find these stories comments extremely funny.
I think that only goes for when Dutch surnames are adopted by people who don't speak Dutch. "van Sabben" just means "from Sabben" and calling someone "From" just sounds weird. ;)
Sorry, I’ll respond seriously because re-reading my comment sounds like a bit of a cheap shot at P, et al.
From the report in Dutch, they raise the point he may not have even known the magnitude of what he was doing. Until it already had been done and he realized what happened.
He was an asset, not a member of a secret service organization. He was in a useful position in a company, then he was recruited. It sounds like he was more of a useful idiot and not some mastermind.
> it’s unclear if Van Sabben knew exactly what he was doing, but his family said he appeared to have panicked at around the time of the Stuxnet attack.
It was his family who said that he started panicking, so he was probably involved.
After a quick public records search, it looks like he was a real person -- or a real identity with a tangible history. It appears he was formerly married to an American woman in his first marriage.
The comment isn't suggesting that he didn't exist, but rather that after he died in the motorcycle accident, it was possible to say that he was the actor and protect the people who were actually involved.
All this requires is to understand who died shortly after Stuxnet who could have feasibly been involved.
In general, intelligence agencies don’t tend to kill their assets to keep them quiet, because that “benefit” is massively outweighed by the negative effect when trying to recruit the next 1000 assets over the next few years - pragmatism and self-interest, not morality. So its much more likely Iran did it - if a foreign engineer who worked at the attacked site suddenly decides to leave the country, it doesn't take 2 weeks to identify him as a suspect, more like 2 seconds. And if they kill him, it at least sends the message to other potential assets who might work against the interests of Iran. I’m sure Iran would have preferred to capture and question him to try unravel the rest of the network, but they’d settle for killing him I think?
It's much more likely that they just pinned this story on some guy who died in a motorcycling accident.
The point of killing someone over some wrong they did you is publicizing it after the fact. If you don't take credit for it, it doesn't have any deterrent power.
Or alternately, they staged what appeared to be a fatal accident to put him in a witness protection program.
Or alternately, he did it and then tried to back out of the deal. Now arranging an apparently accidental death then became the best way to keep security intact.
The one theory that makes no sense is that they intended his death from the beginning.
All believable scenarios. I personally am fond of the "pin it on a dead guy" story. I want to believe that western security services have some sense of elegance.
The problem with killing an asset is that you've now involved multiple more teams of assets who now know that you kill assets. This is not how you keep secrets, nor how you retain people who keep secrets.
Like the JFK assassination theories that involve killing off an additional dozens of people. You can't cover up one murder by involving an extra 1000 people.
> If you don't take credit for it, it doesn't have any deterrent power.
The various deaths associated with Putin are a counter example here. Russia denies involvement but the method usually makes it pretty obvious. Rare poison, unlikely situation etc.
The putin assassinations are a little different though. The assassinated are publicly known to have links to the regime. The methods of death have a similar signature and the rarity of that type of death makes most people draw one likely conclusion so that the message is communicated. People fall out of windows for minor infractions and to really send a message they are poisoned.
The asset in this case wasn't known publicly and the method of death makes people assume it was simply an accident. Unless they did some private announcement, no one was deterred. If it was Iran and they wanted to send a message, they would probably have to out the asset publicly and/or make it clear that it was an assassination. e.g. a bomb would send a clear signal that it was more likely to be a nation state assassination and not some accident or a random robbery/act of violence.
The entire point of stuxnet was to covertly sabotage the centrifuges, so it wasn't clear that they were broken until months or years later. 2 weeks isn't remotely long enough for Iran to know they were sabotaged.
Talking about it would have painted a huge target on his back for retribution from the Iranian government. It would have also put a target on his wife's back, as well as all of her family that is presumably still in Iran. Killing him also would make it much harder to recruit assets in the future, if it became common knowledge that you will be offed after your mission is complete.
It seems much more likely that he actually did die in a random motorcycle accident (not uncommon), or he was entirely uninvolved and a dead man was chosen to pin blame on in order to hide the real method(or, to make Iranians stop trusting foreign contractors, making them do everything in-house with higher costs and worse quality).
It doesn't even have to be a totally "random" (unrelated) motorcycle accident.
If he panicked after the Stuxnet attack, as his family is reported to have said, then it's likely he has behaving erratically and was fearful for his life.
That could easily translate to circumstances where he rides a motorcycle in a particularly dangerous manner - e.g. fleeing from someone he thought was Iranian/Dutch/US/Israeli intelligence (even if they weren't).
Is a car accident and not publicly announcing it as a reprisal sending a message? Seems a little too quiet for that and like it might be cleaning up loose ends by someone else instead.
I’m not clear on the timeline. As I understand it, the hack went on for ages before it went malignant and started damaging stuff. Is it 2 weeks from being deployed, or 2 weeks from wrecking equipment?
