| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
zatic
Zurich15359 Posts
On December 01 2023 18:53 Vindicare605 wrote: White-Ra just posted this on twitter: Safe to say I think this brings the war a little closer to home for all of us here on TL. This hit hard. I got equipment for the kid and his unit, and video called with him last summer. Promised to get him all the beers he wants once he makes it back alive  | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
| ||
|
0x64
Finland4601 Posts
We know war sucks, it belongs to history books. Nothing will bring back those lost to the madness of the cruel dictator. My deepest condolences to the family. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On November 28 2023 20:53 2Pacalypse- wrote: Thank you for the reply. On the question of sourcing for the loss data, the video description says this: "As noted in the video - credit to a number of sources for their work analysing, collecting or compiling the lost data relied on here (including Warspotting, Oryx, Frontintelligence Insight (and @,Tatarigami_UA) @Naalsio26, @Rebel44CZ etc.)" Perun uses a lot of sources, including buying his own satellite imagery to confirm certain things, and then methodically filters the data to something that he can be reasonably certain about (that's why most of the numbers are probably undercounted). So while each of these sources might have a lot of incorrectly identified and misattributed data, it *is* possible to still extract useful information out of it. For example, I don't know why you think Frontintelligence Insight's report is "bad", because I think it's an excellent way to get geolocated footage of equipment losses. And while sure, that's not enough to correctly identify and attribute the losses to, you can use that data and apply "common sense" to it as you say. One thing you can do is use the satellite imagery to identify the date of when a particular vehicle got destroyed/damaged. And then if you get a different footage from that date (including both Russian and Ukrainian sources), showing a column of Russian vehicles going on an attack in that area, you can be reasonably certain it's a Russian vehicle. This is just one of the tactics you can employ to be more certain in your analysis. I'm not sure why you think these people don't do that. Frontintelligence Insight go as far as calculating their margin of error, which usually indicates a more robust research: "We've aimed to keep the margin of error within 7%, which provides a reasonably accurate count. Potential sources of error may include accidental duplications, misinterpretation of objects, and misidentification of the faction operating the vehicles." Your theory on how Perun is using this data falls apart very quickly after hearing him give, ad-nauseum, all the different disclaimers and caveats on how the collected data can be wrong or incomplete. To think someone like that would do that and then just pick whatever numbers they like from a random source doesn't make any sense. I feel like it's you who's not really applying common sense here. You saw the results of the analysis and concluded that it couldn't be true, so now you're just stuck hand-waving the conclusion that it is *not* true. To turn the tables on you, how would you conduct the research to assess the equipment losses? And in fact, have you, or anyone you follow conducted such research? I would be more than happy to read their report. Just dismissing analysis from everyone else who doesn't agree with your predictions (predictions based on what exactly?) is not using your common sense, it's just confirmation bias. Sorry for the late reply to this, don't have any time these days. Which is a good thing, and a bad thing too tbh. On the question of sourcing for the loss data, the video description says this: "As noted in the video - credit to a number of sources for their work analysing, collecting or compiling the lost data relied on here (including Warspotting, Oryx, Frontintelligence Insight (and @,Tatarigami_UA) @Naalsio26, @Rebel44CZ etc.)" I really did not see this thank you for bringing it to my attention. Though the sources just prove I was right about him taking the make-believe numbers seriously. Warspotting, looking at their website apparently they do not count Ukrainian losses, its laughable that they are even considered as an unbiased source of anything. Oryx, and we've gone through this before has been thoroughly discredited not only by itself but by others too. Frontintelligence is the only source out of these that is at least trying, Tatarigami_UA is biased obviously but isn't full blown propaganda and seems normal. Perun uses a lot of sources, including buying his own satellite imagery to confirm certain things, and then methodically filters the data to something that he can be reasonably certain about (that's why most of the numbers are probably undercounted). So while each of these sources might have a lot of incorrectly identified and misattributed data, it *is* possible to still extract useful information out of it. Maybe I didn't explain my point of view properly in my previous post, and that is the problem with posting like this, its just a lot to go through. The data is dog shit and imaginary. You could give a Nobel Prize laureate dog shit data and they can 'extract useful information out of it' and present it nicely in a paper. But if they got the info from a homeless guy high on crack having visions... its not going to pass peer review. One thing you can do is use the satellite imagery to identify the date of when a particular vehicle got destroyed/damaged. And then if you get a different footage from that date (including both Russian and Ukrainian sources), showing a column of Russian vehicles going on an attack in that area, you can be reasonably certain it's a Russian vehicle. This is just one of the tactics you can employ to be more certain in your analysis. I'm not sure why you think these people don't do that. Frontintelligence Insight go as far as calculating their margin of error, which usually indicates a more robust research: It would be great if they actually did this I agree. Your theory on how Perun is using this data falls apart very quickly after hearing him give, ad-nauseum, all the different disclaimers and caveats on how the collected data can be wrong or incomplete. To think someone like that would do that and then just pick whatever numbers they like from a random source doesn't make any sense. I feel like it's you who's not really applying common sense here. You saw the results of the analysis and concluded that it couldn't be true, so now you're just stuck hand-waving the conclusion that it is *not* true. Giving disclaimers on the data is a good thing, but that doesn't mean anything of what he said is true. He still picked numbers that came from RNG and tried to make that work. To turn the tables on you, how would you conduct the research to assess the equipment losses? And in fact, have you, or anyone you follow conducted such research? I would be more than happy to read their report. Just dismissing analysis from everyone else who doesn't agree with your predictions (predictions based on what exactly?) is not using your common sense, it's just confirmation bias. Actually following through with the stated methodology I have and clearly show the process to my audience would be paramount, not: step 1: ill do this, this and this in a non-biased way step 2: ???? step 3: propaganda Its important to know whats happening with those questionmarks https://lostarmour.info/ is much more thorough in its vetting of losses on both sides and takes longer to verify and publish. Yes, its a Russian source and imagine my surprise the loss ratio is about the same just flipped so the Ukrainians are losing much more than the Russians. An ideal source would try to find out where the confirmed losses overlap on both sides where they are attributing them to the other side and try to find out. Which would be a fools errand without people on the ground. Dogshit, compromised data will always be just that: dogshit, compromised data. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On December 03 2023 17:02 zeo wrote: Sorry for the late reply to this, don't have any time these days. Which is a good thing, and a bad thing too tbh. I really did not see this thank you for bringing it to my attention. Though the sources just prove I was right about him taking the make-believe numbers seriously. Warspotting, looking at their website apparently they do not count Ukrainian losses, its laughable that they are even considered as an unbiased source of anything. Oryx, and we've gone through this before has been thoroughly discredited not only by itself but by others too. Frontintelligence is the only source out of these that is at least trying, Tatarigami_UA is biased obviously but isn't full blown propaganda and seems normal. Maybe I didn't explain my point of view properly in my previous post, and that is the problem with posting like this, its just a lot to go through. The data is dog shit and imaginary. You could give a Nobel Prize laureate dog shit data and they can 'extract useful information out of it' and present it nicely in a paper. But if they got the info from a homeless guy high on crack having visions... its not going to pass peer review. It would be great if they actually did this I agree. Giving disclaimers on the data is a good thing, but that doesn't mean anything of what he said is true. He still picked numbers that came from RNG and tried to make that work. Actually following through with the stated methodology I have and clearly show the process to my audience would be paramount, not: step 1: ill do this, this and this in a non-biased way step 2: ???? step 3: propaganda Its important to know whats happening with those questionmarks https://lostarmour.info/ is much more thorough in its vetting of losses on both sides and takes longer to verify and publish. Yes, its a Russian source and imagine my surprise the loss ratio is about the same just flipped so the Ukrainians are losing much more than the Russians. An ideal source would try to find out where the confirmed losses overlap on both sides where they are attributing them to the other side and try to find out. Which would be a fools errand without people on the ground. Dogshit, compromised data will always be just that: dogshit, compromised data. This is a direct quote from your thorough Russian vetting source when trying to get their data on armored vehicles "Attention! Losses of armored vehicles of the RF Armed Forces are not published until the end of the SVO." Oh and I personally found the general vernacular coupled with the link to send money directly to the Russian armed forces a bit disqualifying in my attempt to take it serious as a reasonable source fully occupied with vetting losses correctly. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17614 Posts
As the investigation into damage to Baltic Sea critical infrastructure continues, Finland's Minister of European Affairs Anders Adlercreutz said it’s hard to believe sabotage to the undersea gas pipeline was accidental — or that it happened without Beijing’s knowledge. [...] An investigation by Finnish authorities identified as the main suspect Chinese container ship Newnew Polar Bear, which is believed to have dragged its anchor across the Baltic Sea seabed, cutting through the cables and gas lines. The anchor — which weighs 6,000 kilograms — was retrieved a few meters from the site of the damage. Heh, they're now trying to link UA/RU war with Israel, Palestine, China and North Korea in some sort of global power struggle between the East and the West. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On December 04 2023 20:33 Manit0u wrote: https://www.politico.eu/article/balticconnector-damage-likely-to-be-intentional-finnish-minister-says-china-estonia/ Heh, they're now trying to link UA/RU war with Israel, Palestine, China and North Korea in some sort of global power struggle between the East and the West. "they"? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17614 Posts
I've seen people on LinkedIn etc. interpreting this all the signs of a new World War already being under way. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23592 Posts
The White House on Monday warned leaders in Congress that the administration will run out of resources to provide aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia unless Congress takes action by the end of the year. In a letter to congressional leaders, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young stressed the United States is “out of money — and nearly out of time” to provide weapons and equipment to Ukraine. “I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from U.S. military stocks,” Young wrote. “There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment.” She warned that the lack of aid would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories.” “Already, our packages of security assistance have become smaller and the deliveries of aid have become more limited,” she wrote. “If our assistance stops, it will cause significant issues for Ukraine. While our allies around the world have stepped up to do more, U.S. support is critical and cannot be replicated by others.” www.nbcnews.com | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On December 05 2023 02:35 Manit0u wrote: I've seen people on LinkedIn etc. interpreting this all the signs of a new World War already being under way. Interesting perspective from these people on Linkedin. Entirely nutjob, but interesting in any case. Going back to my question though, in the phrase "Heh, they're now trying to link UA/RU war with Israel, Palestine, China and North Korea in some sort of global power struggle between the East and the West. ,who do you mean by "they"? It's not obvious to me. | ||
2Pacalypse-
Croatia9529 Posts
On December 03 2023 17:02 zeo wrote: Sorry for the late reply to this, don't have any time these days. Which is a good thing, and a bad thing too tbh. I really did not see this thank you for bringing it to my attention. Though the sources just prove I was right about him taking the make-believe numbers seriously. Warspotting, looking at their website apparently they do not count Ukrainian losses, its laughable that they are even considered as an unbiased source of anything. Oryx, and we've gone through this before has been thoroughly discredited not only by itself but by others too. Frontintelligence is the only source out of these that is at least trying, Tatarigami_UA is biased obviously but isn't full blown propaganda and seems normal. But it proves no such thing. We don't know how he used these sources, and while I agree with you that a full methodology would be nice to know (and I wouldn't be surprised if perun actually does publish his full methodology somewhere, I just can't find it now), you can't just conclude that he conjured his numbers out of thin air. Unless you're claiming that literally 0 valid information can be found within those sources, which would be a pretty bold claim indeed. This is why quantifying errors is important in scientific research. You can't just say this source is biased and then discard 100% of their data. I mean, you can, but you're also discarding some valuable information that can be extracted from those sources. For example, you can take footage from Orynx source, but not use their conclusions and instead independently verify it through other means. And I'm pretty sure perun actually does this, because I remember him talking negatively of Orynx before. But he still lists them as his source if he takes any footage he finds there. https://lostarmour.info/ is much more thorough in its vetting of losses on both sides and takes longer to verify and publish. Yes, its a Russian source and imagine my surprise the loss ratio is about the same just flipped so the Ukrainians are losing much more than the Russians. An ideal source would try to find out where the confirmed losses overlap on both sides where they are attributing them to the other side and try to find out. Which would be a fools errand without people on the ground. Dogshit, compromised data will always be just that: dogshit, compromised data. Thank you for posting another source. Their website is really hard for me to work with though (I can't even open it anymore for some reason). But from doing some basic querying they showed like ~46 losses of armored vehicles across the whole frontline for the Ukranians during November? This seems reasonable to me, and I don't think it even conflicts with these other pro-Ukranian sources. Also I don't see them counting Russian losses at all? If I'm misusing this website, could you please extract their data for Ukranian counter-offensive in Zaporizhzhia direction, and for Russian offensive in Avdiivka direction. | ||
KwarK
United States43501 Posts
Nice to see the obvious pointed out by someone else. The reason the army looks different at war than at peace is because war and peace are different things. Of course they look different. The attempt to take the two datapoints with completely different contexts and form a narrative from them was, and still is, dumb as hell. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10836 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On December 05 2023 04:01 2Pacalypse- wrote: If I'm misusing this website, could you please extract their data for Ukranian counter-offensive in Zaporizhzhia direction, and for Russian offensive in Avdiivka direction. This would be statistics by month comparing Soviet and NATO made armor losses by UKR: https://lostarmour.info/stats/ukr-soviet-vs-nato-armour-design-losses They are very thorough with vetting and documentation of weather something was destroyed or just hit, and give the most conservative numbers compared to some other sources on the RU side of 'investigators'. They don't track RU losses as far as I know. As for UKR personnel losses I suggest https://wartears.org/en/posts/2023-02-02-math-model-v3/ and they thankfully go in depth into their methodology which is always a good thing obviously people that are better than averaged at math can check how they came to their numbers. Anyway, moving on: ----------------------------------------------------- As we near six whole months since the start of the counteroffencive very interesting winds blowing in the Western media, with even the BBC stepping out of line. First article from today titled In Ukraine, a war of incremental gains as counteroffensive stalls source ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine — Soldiers in the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade waited for nightfall before piling — nervous but confident — into their U.S.-provided Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It was June 7 and Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive was about to begin. The goal for the first 24 hours was to advance nearly nine miles, reaching the village of Robotyne — an initial thrust south toward the larger objective of reclaiming Melitopol, a city near the Sea of Azov, and severing Russian supply lines. Nothing went as planned. The Ukrainian troops had expected minefields but were blindsided by the density. The ground was carpeted with explosives, so many that some were buried in stacks. The soldiers had been trained to drive their Bradleys at a facility in Germany, on smooth terrain. But on the mushy soil of the Zaporizhzhia region, in the deafening noise of battle, they struggled to steer through the narrow lanes cleared of mines by advance units. The Russians, positioned on higher ground, immediately started firing antitank missiles. Some vehicles in the convoy were hit, forcing others behind them to veer off the path. Those, in turn, exploded on mines, snarling even more of the convoy. Russian helicopters and drones swooped in and attacked the pileup. Troops, some experiencing the shock of combat for the first time, pulled back to regroup — only to attack and retreat, again and again on successive days, with the same bloody results. “It was hellfire,” said Oleh Sentsov, a platoon commander in the 47th. By day four, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s top commander, had seen enough. Incinerated Western military hardware — American Bradleys, German Leopard tanks, mine-sweeping vehicles — littered the battlefield. The numbers of dead and wounded sapped morale. Rather than try to breach Russian defenses with a massed, mechanized attack and supporting artillery fire, as his American counterparts had advised, Zaluzhny decided that Ukrainian soldiers would go on foot in small groups of about 10 — a process that would save equipment and lives but would be much slower. Months of planning with the United States was tossed aside on that fourth day, and the already delayed counteroffensive, designed to reach the Sea of Azov within two to three months, ground to a near-halt. Rather than making a nine-mile breakthrough on their first day, the Ukrainians in the nearly six months since June have advanced about 12 miles and liberated a handful of villages. Melitopol is still far out of reach. Key findings from reporting on the campaign include: ● Seventy percent of troops in one of the brigades leading the counteroffensive, and equipped with the newest Western weapons, entered battle with no combat experience. ● Ukraine’s setbacks on the battlefield led to rifts with the United States over how best to cut through deep Russian defenses. ● The commander of U.S. forces in Europe couldn’t get in touch with Ukraine’s top commander for weeks in the early part of the campaign amid tension over the American’s second-guessing of battlefield decisions. ● Each side blamed the other for mistakes or miscalculations. U.S. military officials concluded that Ukraine had fallen short in basic military tactics, including the use of ground reconnaissance to understand the density of minefields. Ukrainian officials said the Americans didn’t seem to comprehend how attack drones and other technology had transformed the battlefield. ● In all, Ukraine has retaken only about 200 square miles of territory, at a cost of thousands of dead and wounded and billions in Western military aid in 2023 alone. A very in depth and serious article which I cannot obviously quote all of here but WP has had months of interviews and many journalists working on this and it shows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second article posted on the BBC website going into the ongoing fiasco around the foothold at the village of Krynky on the banks of the Dnieper river. Outnumbered and outgunned, one front-line soldier has given a sobering account of Ukraine's struggle to cling on to its foothold on the east bank of the vast Dnipro river. Several hundred Ukrainian soldiers have made it there as part of a counter-offensive launched six months ago. Under relentless Russian fire, the soldier spent several weeks on the Russian-occupied side of the river as Ukraine sought to establish a bridgehead around the village of Krynky. The BBC is not naming him to protect his identity. His account, sent via a messaging app, speaks of troop boats blown out of the water, inexperienced reinforcements and a feeling of abandonment by Ukraine's military commanders. It highlights growing tensions as Ukraine's defence against Russia's invasion grinds to the end of another year. Ukraine's military told the BBC they are not commenting on the situation in that area for security reasons. The Ukrainian soldier's quotes are below in bold. "The entire river crossing is under constant fire. I've seen boats with my comrades on board just disappear into the water after being hit, lost forever to the Dnipro river. "We must carry everything with us - generators, fuel and food. When you're setting up a bridgehead you need a lot of everything, but supplies weren't planned for this area. "We thought after we made it there the enemy would flee and then we could calmly transport everything we needed, but it didn't turn out that way. "When we arrived on the [eastern] bank, the enemy were waiting. Russians we managed to capture said their forces were tipped off about our landing so when we got there, they knew exactly where to find us. They threw everything at us - artillery, mortars and flame thrower systems. I thought I'd never get out." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Every day we sat in the forest taking incoming fire. We were trapped - the roads and paths are all riddled with mines. The Russians cannot control everything, and we use it. But their drones are constantly buzzing in the air, ready to strike as soon as they see movement. "Supplies were the weakest link. The Russians monitored our supply lines, so it became more difficult - there was a real lack of drinking water, despite our deliveries by boat and drone. "We paid for a lot of our own kit - buying generators, power banks and warm clothes ourselves. Now the frosts are coming, things will only get worse - the real situation is being hushed up, so no-one will change anything. "No-one knows the goals. Many believe that the command simply abandoned us. The guys believe that our presence had more political than military significance. But we just did our job and didn't get into strategy." Of course, can't quote everything but its an interesting read | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14081 Posts
Or is this the part where we explain to you again that its not against the law in the west to post stuff negative to your side and how this article would land the writers in jail for publishing it? Its nice to see GH continue to post his fun facts. He doesn't obviously read the things he's posting but I'm glad that he enjoys reading them. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18195 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14081 Posts
On December 05 2023 11:22 Acrofales wrote: I have no issues with that article Zeo quoted. It's quite clearly an interview and styled as such. There are no conclusions drawn from the interview. It's simply stating war is dogshit. You should ask some of the airborne guys what they thought of Bastogne. You have no issues with an article with an anonymous source with media quotes ready made delivered that's posted in a light to disparage one side? Does this mean that we're allowed to post telegram quotes again because zeo apparently had a big problem with that practice until it benefited his side. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23592 Posts
On December 05 2023 10:40 Sermokala wrote: + Show Spoiler + Is this the part where we question your source that's based on a supposed person on a messaging app supplying these clearly media-trained soundbites for the article? Or is this the part where we explain to you again that its not against the law in the west to post stuff negative to your side and how this article would land the writers in jail for publishing it? Its nice to see GH continue to post his fun facts. He doesn't obviously read the things he's posting but I'm glad that he enjoys reading them. What's this about? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8231 Posts
On December 06 2023 02:08 Sermokala wrote: You have no issues with an article with an anonymous source with media quotes ready made delivered that's posted in a light to disparage one side? Does this mean that we're allowed to post telegram quotes again because zeo apparently had a big problem with that practice until it benefited his side. Media must be allowed to be their own source as well, otherwise investigative journalism would just cease to exist. It would be ridiculous if newspapers couldn't interview anyone themselves because "it's not a legitimate source". It's up to you whether you want to believe them or not, and I would heavily suggest checking out an outlet's reputation and previous works before making an opinion on that. That's why I have no problems denouncing Washington Post pieces, as they have a proven record of sensationalism and making shit up, while completely trusting Task and Purpose, who has a history of... not, even if they also have pieces with no other source than their own work. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14081 Posts
On December 06 2023 02:32 Excludos wrote: Media must be allowed to be their own source as well, otherwise investigative journalism would just cease to exist. It would be ridiculous if newspapers couldn't interview anyone themselves because "it's not a legitimate source". It's up to you whether you want to believe them or not, and I would heavily suggest checking out an outlet's reputation and previous works before making an opinion on that. That's why I have no problems denouncing Washington Post pieces, as they have a proven record of sensationalism and making shit up, while completely trusting Task and Purpose, who has a history of... not, even if they also have pieces with no other source than their own work. I know this but we went through pages in the thread of zeo shitting on anything and everything possible while dodging imediatly anyone asking if he holds the same standard to what he belives and posts. Now we have our answer on his standard of credability which boils down to the same telegram posts he railed on so much in those pages. You made a statement along with your quote of an article. It wasn't supported by what you quoted. This is the second time you mischaracterized an artile you posted which contributes your posts in the thread. When someone confronted you over your last one you acted like it was just a fun fact you wanted to share. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
RongYI Cup
Clem vs ShoWTimE
Zoun vs Bunny
Big Brain Bouts
Percival vs Gerald
Serral vs MaxPax
RongYI Cup
SHIN vs Creator
Classic vs Percival
OSC
BSL 21
RongYI Cup
Maru vs Cyan
Solar vs Krystianer
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
