I just don't understand what the node-ipc dev was expecting when he did that.
"Hm, maybe if I put malware into a community-trusted module that destroys files of people in a certain geopolitical region, the countless innocent citizens that are affected will realize what they did wrong! Wait, who am I actually targeting again?"
If a company does business in Russia right now, they are giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians. Let's not conflate wartime trade policy with Twitter wokeness marketing.
Yes, that is bad too. However, in some cases it is necessary to prevent people from freezing, so there is a balancing act. Note that fossil fuel dependency just became a much more common political discussion item in Europe.
While it's unreasonable to expect europeans to freeze to death to protect ukranians, I think there's a middle ground between "business as usual" and "protect ukraine at all costs" that's not being considered here. Specifically, turning the temperature down to 5-10°C and wearing a coat. I doubt you'll be freezing to death in those circumstances. Is there widespread effort by europeans to do this? If not, then the parent's is still mostly correct: europeans are not willing to endure slight discomfort to prevent "giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians".
I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors.
And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation.
And energy intensive industries could close for a while. Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?
> Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?
German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.
> It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes?
They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler.
Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)
> I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors.
That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that have disposable income will swallow the cost. All the people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth. Those who can't will start rioting, especially when their children start coughing. It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari next easter. There is only so much inequality you can accept before resorting to violence. I think it's better to ensure everyone can - at least - eat, sleep, keep warm and get some access to some entertainment.
> And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation.
In practice, many people just can't do that. Either because those transport options do' not work or aren't ready yet. Think of Mr. Electrician who goes around the city in his van fixing peoples home. If he is forced to take the bus, he needs to reduce his client base to what's accessible by bus, he can do less client per day. Or he can pay for the gas and keep his activity. Or he can just let it go and ask for welfare, increasing the burden on social security for someone who is perfectly willing, able and qualified to work if not for high gas prices. Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. We have already started to see people making that choice with the current gas prices.
Of course, highly qualified profile who are already well paid will negotiate with their employers so that the companies swallow those added costs. Most companies will have no choice but to agree. So the people on the roads will be in the "already rich" category.
All in all, this would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class. The upper class will swallow those cost by just saving a bit less, but generally keeping their lifestyle. The lower class will be hit the hardest, by having their spending power reduced and/or being moved to unemployment. One of these groups will benefit more of the economic recovery if/when prices goes down - you can guess which one.
Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below.
> people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth
Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead.
> Those who can't will start rioting,
Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine.
But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe.
> It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari
It's easy. The parents tell the kids: "we're doing this, to save the lives of people in Ukraine, who are hiding in basements without food and water. This is how we build a society -- taking care of each other and others, as best we can."
If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy.
> > could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation.
> In practice, many people just can't do that.
Seems I wasn't detailed enough.
There would be subsidies for people on the countryside, who needed their cars (no buses or subways nearby). And for farmers and public transport, and other for society important things, like, like you mentioned, electricians. And ambulances, plumbers, some others.
But most people aren't farmers or electricians.
> Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment.
I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars.
> would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class
Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well -- hit poor restaurant workers.
Seems like insignificant, a luxury problem, __compared to__ tens of thousands dying in the war.
>Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead.
1. While I acknowledge that people you talk about exist, I suspect that they're predominantly middle class, not the poor (ie. "people who can't swallow the cost"). If you don't have a baseline amount of wealth, then it's hard to have a car to go to costco to buy those 48 packs of toilet paper, and if your home is a shoebox 1bd apartment, you'll have a hard time finding place to store all the stuff you bought in advance.
2. there's only so much you can do "planning months ahead". You can hoard toilet paper but not gas.
>Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine.
>If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy.
Why's that not happening right now?
>I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars.
Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?
Sorry for the late reply. Maybe you'll never read this?
>> They bought all the toilet paper
> 1. While I acknowledge that [...]
> 2. You can hoard toilet paper but not gas.
Yes that's true. Actually my comparison here wasn't totally serious. But you're right that the state and energy companies, and the citizens, would need to co-operate a bit for this to work. Or the state could raise the gas and oil prices, for a household that has used too much. And the state could calculate the prices, so heating would work out okay I believe. Combined with jeans and sometimes a jacket and winter cap, indoors.
>> [People wouldn't get angry when] they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine
> see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences
Hmm. Two things: 1) revealed preferences, for example by saying one would care about the environment, but continuing buying environmentally destructive things. This is "passive aggressive", in that they aren't actively trying to sabotage anything -- they're just continuing life as usual, in the old more comfortable ways, not doing what they said they would.
Or 2) revealed preference, by actively protesting against the new policies -- demonstrations, even riots and smashing windows etc. But this is lots of effort. Personally, I'd be surprised if people were willing to spend time demonstrating, instead of just accepting the fact: gas and oil now cost more, so I'll put on another jumper. -- If they go outdoors to protest, they'll need to put on even more clothes! And travel somewhere. That's more work.
Meaning, raising the gas prices, and explaining why, could work pretty well I'm thinking. -- Even if people are dissatisfied, although they said they were ok with it, they are unlikely to protest or riot -- because that's more work, than just accepting the new situation?
>> If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy.
> Why's that not happening right now?
I don't think people see a relationship between their cars and indoor temperature, and how much bombs Putin has. Most humans are already poor at abstract thinking and seeing anything else than what's in front of their nose -- and this, with cars and bombs, is a slightly complex relationship? Plus, humans being a bit lazy and selfish, they wouldn't want to think in this direction at all?
I think the government and newspapers, would need to explain for and motivate the people.
>> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars.
> Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?
I'd think it's simpler to reduce fuel consumption -- there're subway lines built already, and possible to increase the subway train frequency, without having to spend 20 years building new subway lines.
Most, or everyone, I know with a car, use it for convenience, to save time. Probably I'd done this me too, if I had kids to drive from and to school. And I would have been happy if the city where I live, introduced school buses, or built a ride sharing website, so I could let others go with me in my car and save fuel.
(I also replied to a sibling comment of yours, maybe you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 -- did you know that there's just 1.1 - 1.2 people on average, in a car on the way to work. But if people shared their cars, 50% or more fuel could be saved.)
> Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead.
Where you live, people chose to ensure that their comfort would be safeguarded, above all else, even if that lead to shortages for other people. "I don't care if I have too much and other people don't have enough, as long as I am confortable" was their motto. That has to tell you something.
> Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine.
Some might care, and some will accept that. Many won't. It's easy to accept some sort of disturbance when overall you don't need to worry about putting food on the table, or when a few less degrees means putting your thermostat on 21 instead of 23. When it means not being able to sleep because of cold, your view change quickly. And you start wondering why Ukraine just doesn't accept Putin offer, which after all does not sound that bad. Are people in Crimea that much worse ? And do you care so much ?
> It's easy.
No, it's not. Some will manage. Many won't.
> There would be subsidies for people on the countryside
So the solution is to subsidise people on the countryside, subsidise people needing vans or trucks, subsidise people working during nightshift, subsidise people living far away from a public transportation hub, subsidise people working far away from a transportation's hub, subsidise people who adapt to other people schedule, ... the list goes on. Creating a society where people depend on the state subsidies to just maintain their activity is not exactly sustainable.
> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars.
I live in Benelux. I can tell you that people are stopping to work because it does not financially make sense any more with current gas price. Today !.
And Benelux is the poster child for a society built for bicycles, in practice it only works for 5~10% of the population. That number is increasing, but very slowly and we are going to hit a ceiling sooner rather than later.
Anecdotal evidence, but in my social circle, almost everyone moved from "bicycle and public transport" to "cars only" in the past 5 years. Trigger points are : getting a child, changing jobs to something further away from their homes, promotion that gave access to a company car: when you are taxed > 50% taking the cash makes little sense.
None are remotely considering letting go of their car, the value is simply too big to ignore. We are very far away from a carless world despite what politician want you to believe. And this is in a country that is usually considered to be a cycler dream
> Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well
You are acknowledging that what you are proposing puts the biggest amount of the weight on the poor. I don't find that acceptable: if we need to have measures, the more fragile part of the population should not be the one paying for it.
The upper/lower class gap is a ticking time bomb. COVID has increased it. We need to find ways to close it, not extend it even more.
I wasn't completely serious with that comparison (that they bought all the toilet paper). But saving energy, turning down the heating, isn't that mentally advanced? And people do plan a bit ahead, otherwise people couldn't have survived in the cold parts of Europe (if they didn't plan for the winter).
> When it means not being able to sleep because of cold
Seems to me that the state and municipalities should be able to save some gas and oil, for the coldest days.
But I'd say it's not that cold. Where I live (in northern Europe), I frequently wear extra jumpers, instead of using the heaters at all -- works also with snow outdoors and the lake frozen to ice (did you try? Put on a jacket and a winter cap, if it doesn't seem to work, and double trousers and 3 x socks).
> So the solution is to subsidise people on the countryside, subsidise people needing vans or trucks [...] subsidise [...] subsidise [...] subsidise ... the list goes on [...]
Sounds like too much subsidies.
Instead, look at society's covid response: Public transport drivers, and health care workers, and teachers -- all of them got to continue working, in spite of the virus. Such job roles could be prioritized, now as well.
> Benelux is the poster child for a society built for bicycles, in practice it only works for 5~10% of the population
That's interesting. What about buses and subways? Where I live, few people go by bike. Instead, buses and subways.
Couldn't the state hire more bus drivers, in Benelux, so fewer people needed cars. And people could do ride sharing, so there wasn't just 1 person per car. There could be ride sharing websites, and the state could ask everyone to use them.
But one can fit 5 people in a car. This indicates that by coordinating traveling to / from work, the gas needed for commuting, could be reduced (theoretically almost 80% but I suppose 50% would be more realistic).
> Trigger points are : getting a child, changing jobs to something further away [...]
Interesting.
> We are very far away from a carless world
Hmm, what you describe sounds like a careless world to me? I mean, people prioritizing their cars and gas, and being okay with others then more likely getting bombed, elsewhere. (Don't know if you meant to write something else)
> puts the biggest amount of the weight on the poor. I don't find that acceptable
Do you find it acceptable, though, to give money to Putin so he can continue bombing? That sounds like a greater evil to me.
It's about choosing the least bad thing, I think.
There's also rationing -- controlled distribution of gas and oil, so everyone got the same amount. Or, prices could be low, until one's household had consumed X amount of gas -- then, the prices would rise, sharply, for that household. A bit like progressive taxes, but for gas and oil.
People in the EU are not going to freeze to death even if Russian gas and oil is banned. Germany would lose a few percent of GDP, equivalent to couple hundred bucks per capita. I would be surprised if they pull of the ban before this winter is over, though.
FWIW people in Ukraine are already freezing to death, thanks to Russia's deliberate attacks on infrastructure.
There are US companies still selling health products to Russian citizens. What is the expectation, to let them die? I fully understand that cars, fast food, liqueur or perfumes are things to stop selling, but essential products not. The average Ivan and Natasha should not receive a collective punishment (to death in some cases) for what some guy they may not have even voted for is doing.
If a company shows support for the Ukraine, then they are giving aid and comfort to the Ukrainian military who was shelling civilians in the Donbass region for the past decade.
Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that Ukraine was the instigator as far as ceasefire violations go. As far as I can tell, that's not true. However, the real way to find out for sure would be to go through the OSCE SMM reports[1] about ceasefire violations and determine what percentage of them were likely from Ukranian-controlled territory versus separatist-controlled territory.
Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that there are situations where civilian casualties are perfectly acceptable.
My only real point was that who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys are in Ukraine are predetermined by the set of assumptions you start with. Everybody who was paying attention isn't that surprised by the invasion. It's not even a puzzle as to why Russia would do it. They spelled it out quite clearly, and have been saying it for years.
Which is why I find the media narrative annoying. It's an almost perfect example of gaslighting. The only response to Russia's complaints about NATO meddling in Ukraine being provocative is to make some kind of counter-offer to offset the provocation. To suggest that there wasn't any meddling, or that Russia just invaded out of the blue for no good reason other than sheer evilness, is either staggeringly wrong, or a deliberate lie.
All I'm saying is that they have legitimate national concerns here. There are distinct parallels to the Soviets trying to put missiles in Cuba. I don't have to be a big fan of Putin to recognize this.
Interestingly, at least I am making arguments. The media narrative of Putin simply being crazy is deeply unserious.
But if Russia is the bad actor here for invading a neighboring country that was attacking ethnic Russians in their territory and was flirting with joining a specific international coalition that was anti-Russian, what does that make the United States with all of our foreign adventurism?
They’ll most likely use it to pay their employees, since employment costs are the biggest chunk of expenses for many companies. From the money that goes to the government, some will go to fund the war, but some will go towards social support, maintenance, etc just like any other country.
Where does this black and white caricature of an idea come from if not twitter? Acting like all the money in Russia is used to make bullets which are sent directly to the front.
Not to mention that there’s quite a few countries killing people today and nearly nobody’s boycotting them.
I know this will get labeled as whataboutism, so to pre-empt that I am suggesting sanctions and Hague charges for all perpetrators, but what is uniquely bad about killing Ukrainians over Syrians, Libyans, or Iraqis?
From the point of view of American isolationists, there is no difference. There is a difference for Europeans, in that Ukraine being engulfed by a full scale war will result in around 40M refugees in the EU, almost 10% of EU population. That's an order of magnitude bigger than the previous migration wave. It's also an order of magnitude faster. Over 10M people have been displaced already.
I think you are reversing causality here. No doubt the EU could have seen similar numbers of refugees from Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, had they allowed them in.
Before the current crisis, there were >1M Ukrainian workers in Poland, hundreds of thousands in Slovakia, Czechia, etc. The world where Polish, Slovak or Baltic people watch dying Ukrainians through their border fences was never going to exist. The possibility only ever existed in the minds of some confused Americans and maybe western Europeans. German policy in the previous refugee crisis (especially with regard to non-Syrian migrants) literally made the present course the only possible one -- something along the lines of "If we are letting random Africans in, how can we not let the Ukrainians in." is hard to argue with.
On the other hand, accepting even less refugees in the previous crisis is something that was definitely (politically) possible at the time.
After ISIS rose I gave up the idea that countries like Syria, Iraq etc can ever become anything more than "hellholes", at least in my lifetime. Certain areas like Kurdistan excepted (and I hope and support their recognization as a state), but in general there will always be one strongman or another.
But Ukraine was different (and I hope it still will be), turning from the world of the strongman and toward Europe and modern freedoms. It was on the same trajectory that Poland went on 18 years ago: a massively better life for the average, ordinary person. Ukraine had troubles, but those were solvable because that is what they wanted.
All of that is now ground up along with so many children under the ruble in the streets because Putin had to establish a slightly larger state.
So when Ukraine was killed, not only was the civilians there massacered, so was the future of the entire country or at least pushed another generation into the future.
I hope neither of the perpretators ever make it the Hague, a few years in prison is nowhere near enough punishment.
All this comment shows to me is you knew very little about Syria & Iraq. The cultural & population centers of Syria were never taken by ISIS and Damascus prior to 2011 would not have felt as "hellhole"-esque as I think you are imagining.
> turning from the world of the strongman and toward Europe and modern freedoms
Towards Europe, certainly, but also towards nationalism - undoubtedly. It is not a "modern freedom" to ban minority languages from schools and government, restrict regional autonomy, etc.
Please, it's not a ban. The relevant law only applies to state-funded schools and makes sure that students who don't speak Ukrainian gradually learn it over the years and start using it in school:
If Ukraine hasn't been the target of Russian territorial expansionism, we could argue that this law is overreaching. However Russia had claimed the right to "defend Russian-speaking people" outside of Russia before invading Ukraine in 2014 (the law was passed in 2017). Under these conditions, passing such a law was practically a question of self-preservation.
> Please, it's not a ban. The relevant law only applies to state-funded schools and makes sure that students who don't speak Ukrainian gradually learn it over the years and start using it in school:
Really? Reading your source it seems that it explicitly states "Ukrainian as the only means of instruction in schools after the primary division." Saying that this only applies to "state-funded schools" may be true, but you're papering over the fact that your own source indicates that fewer than 1% of students attend non-public schools.
From your own source:
> The Law determines three patterns for Ukrainian-language instruction in secondary schools of Ukraine. The first concerns indigenous peoples such as the Crimean Tatars, who have the right to be educated in their own language, with Ukrainian taught as a separate subject, at any school stage. The second pattern addresses Ukraine’s national minorities whose languages are official languages of the EU. The primary school division is available for them in their minority language (with Ukrainian as a separate subject), while higher divisions see a graduated expansion of Ukrainian-language instruction—from twenty percent in fifth year to forty percent in ninth year of middle (junior high) school and to sixty percent of all subjects during the three years of high school. The third pattern applies to “other minorities,” i.e., Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians who attend Russian-language secondary schools. For them, Ukrainian-language instruction should be at a minimum of eighty percent in both middle and high schools, with the opportunity to have Russian taught as a subject or elective. The Law also clearly states that these provisions apply to state-funded schools only and entitles all private schools to a free choice of their language of instruction; nevertheless, private schools must teach the Ukrainian language and ensure that their students acquire the fluency standard defined by the state.
Seems from reading this that Russian is specifically targeted and proscribed from being taught in schools. Keep in mind there are entire regions of Ukraine where Russian is the predominant language. And we wonder why people in Crimea wanted to leave after Euromaidan...
> Under these conditions, passing such a law was practically a question of self-preservation.
By eliminating Russian speaking people in Ukraine? Not a great justification.
> Seems from reading this that Russian is specifically targeted and proscribed from being taught in schools
Seems to me you cited the part where it is explicitly allowed to be taught in schools, both private and public, contradicting your claim that it is “proscribed from being taught in schools”.
This law was passed in 2017, 3 years after the Euromaidan, because Russia invaded Ukraine giving the mere existence of the Russian language in Ukraine as the reason for the invasion.
> And we wonder why people in Crimea wanted to leave after Euromaidan...
> By eliminating Russian speaking people in Ukraine? Not a great justification.
I see. I made the mistake of assuming you were arguing in good faith. Won't happen again; have a nice day!
> This law was passed in 2017, 3 years after the Euromaidan, because Russia invaded Ukraine giving the mere existence of the Russian language in Ukraine as the reason for the invasion.
Russia also invaded Ukraine in 2014. The parliament voted to ban Russian language in schools immediately after 2014, it was only vetoed by the president at the time.
> I see. I made the mistake of assuming you were arguing in good faith. Won't happen again; have a nice day!
I am arguing in good faith - you claimed that the reason they stopped teaching Russian in schools was due to the Russian invasion, but there is ample evidence of attempts to do this prior to the Russian invasion.
Then, if you live in a western country, stop paying taxes because it supports killing innocent people, and to a much larger extent than what is going on in Ukraine.
Leave your job because tech companies have contracts with the government/"defense industry" and also pay taxes.
Don't buy anything from the grocery stores.
Cancel your flight if it's on an Airbus/Boeing.
Otherwise, it's all empty talk. To be clear, it absolutely is in my opinion.
What specifically is empty talk? Someone can support Ukraine for a number of reasons that don't require withdrawing from all life in a western nation. They might trust that their rulers have evaluated most alternatives before deploying military options and do not kill indiscriminately. You might scoff, but I suspect most people are at least somewhat in that boat; even if they think that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, for example, they probably think it wasn't that bad and that murders of civilians were minimal. That doesn't mean that they don't or shouldn't protest the invasion of Ukraine, though it probably does mean that they should reflect further.
They might also believe that invading Ukraine is uniquely bad because it is a developed western nation within mainland Europe, setting a terrible precedent. Or they might simply not have thought very much about the contradiction. And I note that you're lumping every western nation under the same category when some are much less objectionable than others; in how many developing nations has Finland engaged in extralegal murder?
That said, yes, the costs are lower to protesting the invasion of Ukraine than protesting everything the US government does overseas. So what? The costs are lower for me to buy Kroger brand soft drinks, too, that doesn't mean my opinions about the flavor is just empty talk.
But nobody (AFAIK) is contesting that the US killed more civilians in Iraq or in Syria (or second-order in Libya) than Russia has killed in Ukraine.
Your argument is that people perceive it as okay because the intentions were good? Our government could not forsee that these people would die, it was unexpected?
Or were they unintended consequences that were foreseen? I don't believe such a distinction is defensible, if you foresee the consequence and do it anyways, you intended such a consequence.
> Your argument is that people perceive it as okay because the intentions were good?
Even worse, I think the argument is that the intentions were good because it was our rulers who did it, not theirs. Our rulers are careful and thoughtful, while theirs are evil and cruel.
> But nobody (AFAIK) is contesting that the US killed more civilians in Iraq or in Syria (or second-order in Libya) than Russia has killed in Ukraine.
That's missing the point. Nobody with knowledge of the matter is contesting that, but plenty of people lack that knowledge. This means that they're not willfully ignoring the kind of contradiction that would make their opinions about Ukraine "empty talk".
> Your argument is that people perceive it as okay because the intentions were good?
No, my opinion is that many people don't realize how objectionably the US has behaved in the past (and currently), so it's not apropos to call them out on a contradiction that invalidates their outlook on Russia's invasion. Call them out on ignorance all you like, though.
It is kind of crazy when one remembers all the human rights abuses that companies providing popular products and services tolerate and benefit from, and where the tax money goes. It is almost as if if the goal is to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, the only two options are abandoning modern lifestyle... or not protesting at all.
Actions speak louder than words and the reaction to the current conflict is certainly unique. I haven't heard of people pressuring companies to stop doing business with the US due to the Iraq war.
The simplest explanation is that US companies + media + government is the only group with enough clout to do this, and they will not sanction themselves.
It's not like there's a Netherlands invasion of Germany for us to all use as a neutral reference.
I think you are conflating things here. Sure, US govt is not going to sanction itself. But I don't perceive the general populace as being as outraged by lives lost when the US bombs a hospital in Afghanistan as opposed to when Russia bombs a theater in Ukraine.
I would posit that the ratio of the number of people who know about it to the number of people outraged about it is similar in both examples. It's really about which got the 24/7 coverage.
They are obliquely complaining that the US gets a free pass to blow up civilians in other countries in the course of pursuing its own geopolitical goals, an by extension the US armed forces are exempt from international prosecution.
As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
None of this is hate against the citizens. No one wants to hurt the innocent people in Russia. But pulling out of Russia is about the only thing that anyone can do to slow the flow of money that will be used to fund the invasion of Ukraine.
The optimal thing would be to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, though that is also going to leave many dead. Just because they're soldiers doesn't mean they deserve death. But that's not an option anyway, because a NATO country joining the fight directly will cause World War 3. At best we end up with multiple countries from both sides joining the fight. At worst the nukes start flying.
> The optimal thing would be to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, though that is also going to leave many dead.
And the primary victims will be Ukrainian. Even considering that Europe has its arms open to this particular class of refugee, the country that they left will be a smoking crater. I wish we'd stop pretending that we're arming the Ukrainians for the Ukrainians' sake; we're trying to extend the war as long as possible in order to economically destroy Russia. The end stage of that is Western and central Ukraine being reduced to dust.
Russia has committed something like 15% of its military so far IIRC. This is just a matter of time. Ukrainians are being pushed through jingoistic nationalist propaganda (which is enforced at the borders if men who are old enough to carry a weapon try to leave) to destroy their country, and letting extreme-right minorities of the population (who are basically Banderaite lost-cause Nazis) lead. Those groups are happy to burn their country so the disgusting muslim commies won't rule it, and to die in glorious battle against them.
The disgusting thing is Americans are parroting the Azov rhetoric, too. Fat slobs sitting on a couch watching MSNBC/FOX/CNN all day and yelling at the television are calling Ukrainians traitors for leaving, and demanding that they be armed and sent back in.
The optimal thing is not to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, it's for Ukraine to give up. The world has shown it's willing to take white refugees, so those that fear Russian persecution can escape. Plenty would have happily emigrated without the Russian invasion, but the doors to Europe and the US were shut to them before. NATO re-promises not to put their alliance whose animating premise is anti-Russian on the borders of Russia. Ukraine rebuilds and normalizes.
What have they lost anyway? They were dominated by the Russians (and hopelessly corrupt), then a Western-incited and funded coup used the extreme-right element to install a (hopelessly corrupt) puppet who left office with a 5% approval rating, so the public elected an actor who played a president on television (also fully owned by an oligarch), which is an act so desperate, it would seem insane if the US hadn't elected a guy who played a boss on television to be president, or Italy hadn't handed its politics to a comedian playing the wise fool, or Boris Johnson hadn't been. Russia and the US trashed Ukraine, and we're cheering them on while they finish the job.
Even better, maybe we can push Russia into using some tiny nuke that we can't justify destroying the entire world over. Because the fact is, if they nuke Ukraine, we're not going to do shit. They know it. Lets make them feel so victimized to the man that they do it to reclaim some face, and piss the average Russian civilian off so much that they feel like there's nothing left to lose but their pride.
>"Hm, maybe if I put malware into a community-trusted module that destroys files of people in a certain geopolitical region, the countless innocent citizens that are affected will realize what they did wrong! Wait, who am I actually targeting again?"
"yeah but countless ukranian women and children are getting murdered by russians! surely a few wiped hard drives is worth it to raise awareness?"
/s of course, but people who hold this view sincerely isn't hard to find.
Worse, he also provides ammunition for Kremlin propaganda. Which already is easier because people don't trust the press. Which is also understandable because some write a lot of bullshit.
I don't buy this argument. It's the same argument used for "Well the Democrats can't talk about/attempt doing X because the Republicans will misrepresent it and twist their words" when at the end of the day the Republicans will manufacture whatever they want regardless of what the Democrats say. Better to be called a "socialist" while actively trying to do something that will help people verses still being called a "socialist" while doing nothing.
Kremlin is going to Kremlin, aka lie and spread propaganda. Let's not pretend that protestware is making their job so much easier, it's a tiny drop in a tsunami of lies and disinformation that the Kremlin puts out daily.
And he used third party service to do the geolocation, so that whoever maintains that could have caused significant damage by changing it to return fake responses.
I just don't understand what Western governments were thinking when they sanctioned Russian businesses.
"Hm, maybe if I put laws into the books that destroy the economy of a country and drives people in a certain geopolitical region into poverty, the countless innocent citizens that affected will realize what they did wrong! Wait, who am I actually targeting again?"
Poverty and economic distress, deliberately exacerbated by the West, was what took down the USSR... and the fall of the USSR was one of the great achievements of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Exactly, demonstrating how laughable the comments here are. Malware is somehow supposed to be worse than the far more painful sanctions, it's fascinating to see how detached from reality many commenters here are.
Both the sanctions and wiper malware targeting Russia are good things.
Surprised I didn't see this elsewhere in the thread but what they were thinking was totally different. From what I've heard the code wasn't meant to destroy files, it was buggy.
Sure it was negligence with a bad outcome, but the intentions were good.
“Actors in this geopolitical region are killing people and destroying infrastructure, and I am going to do everything in my power to disrupt them”
“If more people stood up like this, then either bad actors would have to abandon open-source and pay a dramatic penalty in cost and speed of IT, or they would have to pay open-source maintainers to ensure the . Either way is a win”
“People who don’t like this don’t share my values - they can prioritize the lives of Ukrainians and get on board, or they can maintain a project and provide an alternative, or they can get out of my way while I do something I think is very important”
I’m ok with it as long as the maintainer is consistent and does it for “the current thing” every time. That means Sudan, Darfur, Iraq war, ISIS, Assad’s regime, etc… Heck why not even Florida after the “say gay” thing?
This is a cool idea. You would probably want to run the PCCaaS as a non-profit and donate some of the money (5% seems generous?) to appropriate causes. The main API would be for displaying an appropriate banner of course.
Another API would be to determine if a specific domain subscribes to the service and how much they care about the appropriate topic (in terms of "points" which are partly correlated with how much they spend on the PCCaaS, but also with some human input). This would be useful to people looking to vote with their wallet. I bet there are plenty of artists who would love to make custom banners, kind of like Google's doodle of the day.
A third API would be to get notified when a customer downgrades or terminates their plan with the Protest Current Thing as a Service. Journalists could subscribe to this last API to get ideas for news stories. /s
That's a great idea. The only problem would be determining the correct set of things to be protested at any given time. So I'd suggest grouping them into flavors - say US liberal or US conservative flavors. You just choose the one you subscribe to and then let the service decide whether to insert say BLM or anti-CRT messages at any given time.
>Arguments like this are similar to the BLM protest that try to equate property with human lives.
Yeah, but the problem with this is that, taken to its logical conclusion, you end up with a nihilistic view that's basically "do you support The Cause? if yes then any protest action is acceptable, if no then any minor transgression should be cracked down by law enforcement". This works especially well when The Cause is something that could plausibly affect tens of millions of people, so you can excuse quite a lot of damage.
I have a legal (and moral) right to defend my property, often with deadly force. My property came into my possession by my own labors and time, i.e. by sacrificing part of my life to obtain it. Even if the property was gifted to me, that means that someone else sacrificed part of their life to give it to me. When someone violates my rights in the process of "protesting" something, I am legally and morally justified in using force to protect my rights. This includes the right to the property that I own.
Where is this true? In the US you have the right to murder if the person is in your home and in some states you have the right to murder if you feel your life is being threatened, in this case because you're being robbed.
If you left your car running while you ran into the store you don't have the right to shoot the guy in the back as he drives off. You file a police report and potentially sue for damages.
You definitely don't have the right to shoot someone for burning down your local Target.
If someone is trying to burn down my house with me in it, I have a right to shoot them in pretty much every jurisdiction in the US. If someone is burning down my store with me in it, I also have the right to use deadly force to defend it.
Let’s step back a little, please. This original context was about some BLM protests doing property damage, which included smashing storefronts and trash fires on the street.
Arguments like this are superficial and justify bad behavior. Destruction of property isn't murder, but it's still not ok and it still causes harm to living people who have no influence over the issue.
That is obviously not true, and even if it were, the country in question is Russia, an autocracy. What is our poor hypothetical node developer expected to do, march down to the Kremlin and beat Putin with his MacBook?
This is Russia we are talking about right? A country that has had countless uprisings of literal serfs with farming implements replacing their government.
It's not acceptable to burn down someone's house because you disagree with them. Even if you disagree with them a lot. Please don't burn people's houses down.
If you burn down people's houses, you will be arrested and go to jail.
Charitably, it creates a new friction for Russian business in deploying open-source software. That drag further diminishes Russia’s economy, and thus, its warmaking ability.
This is the line that every extremist group uses to justify their horrible acts.
Weaponizing open source is such an awful precedent. There are extremist groups of every shade who harbor ill intent towards some other group or institution. For a rather mundane example: "My malicious npm module detects you are running the Brave browser? The evil Brendan Eich runs that, say goodbye to your filesystem!" Never mind if you are part of a group that is mired in controversy, chief among them at this time being Russian.
At best, this operation could be construed as an act of vandalism or at worst an act of CYBER terrorism. This indiscriminate and malicious act of hostility was carried by what amounted to be a cyber weapon (think IED) housed in a very ordinary and non-suspicious package to cause the greatest damage to the users' data.
> this operation could be construed as an act of vandalism or at worst an act of CYBER terrorism
Could be. But by whom? To what effect?
One of the downsides of losing credibility as a nation state is the concepts of deference, retaliation and proportionality lose weight. There is no indication that the facts on the ground would affect whether Putin deems something a cyber attack. Worse, one's own policing actions are likely to cause more damage as propaganda pieces than ignoring the issue.
Yes, in an international law framework this would be prosecuted in the U.S. But in that framework Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine. Add to that it's tacit approval of its own hackers, and it's difficult--in a realpolitik frame--to find support for doing anything about this other than minor finger wagging.
The general public. I speculate that publicity was one of the main objectives behind this operation to draw attention to his political grievances and maybe demands.
Perhaps we should focus more on the issue of bragging rights. The perpetrator probably thinks he's some kind of a hero having conducted this operation and it was some kind of a heroic feat sticking up to Putin when he in fact is more of a lousy vandal destroying some poor guy's store window than an epic warrior conquering foreign lands and subduing evil emperors.
The more people realize this and esp. people who are prone to commit these acts, the more innocent people would be spared the damage incurred by those reckless attacks.
This isn't a charitable take, you have reinvented total war from the first principles. If all of the currently in war countries start engaging in total war, the world wouldn't be worth living in.
A) IP geolocation is far from perfect, quite a few completely unrelated people could have been affected.
B) There was a chance of massive collateral damage to stuff like hospitals, water company, etc. and therefore affecting civilians, including children. If you think Putin wouldn't use that to rally Russia and launch a massive war, you haven't observed Putin for long.
We got very lucky this software equivalent of a warcrime was stopped early. Yet the punishment was absurdly light. I will staying away from NPM after that.
> If you think Putin wouldn't use that to rally Russia and launch a massive war, you haven't observed Putin for long.
Do you believe that node-ipc would do this but the current vastly more impactful sanctions regime wont?
Also, everybody capable of thinking understands that Russia isn't capable of launching another "massive war" when it already has almost all of its conventional combat power committed to Ukraine.
If you think Putin would launch a nuclear war over wiper malware, you're an idiot. There's no other kind of "massive war" he could launch at this point.
> this software equivalent of a warcrime
Why not call it software holocaust if we're gonna go there? What's wrong with you?
>Do you believe that node-ipc would do this but the current vastly more impactful sanctions regime wont?
>There's no other kind of "massive war" he could launch at this point.
Russian society isn't anywhere near enthusiastic. That's why Putin has been searching for ever dumber excuses. Give him an actual indefensible incident to rally society around, and he'll get a lot more manpower. That could expand the war to Odessa and Moldova, and also 'retaliatory' cyberwar in the West.
Now, there's a level of escalation I'm fine with risking - say, over stationing peacekeepers in parts of Ukraine. Stuff that actually helps Ukrainians. But over an self-appointed idiot's personal action which doesn't help anyone and nobody asked for? $#@! no.
>Why not call it software holocaust if we're gonna go there? What's wrong with you?
It's attacking civilians as to influence their government (except Russia is a dictatorship and the government doesn't even care). I have more pointed comparisons in mind, but I'll spare the thread.
There's an obvious difference between trying to hurt people and not trading with them yourself. If the distinction is difficult, there are laws to define this 'war crime' thing, you may wish to consult them.
Also, Russia is relatively self-sufficient foodwise. There'll be shortages but no starvation. I'm sure though that if starvation was serious possiblity the West would exclude food imports.
>Ah yes, because seizing Russian assets overseas is the same as "not trading with them".
Your bank account is held under terms. There are cases where freezing withdrawals is allowed.
If you wish to avoid that, you are entitled to store your money under your mattress (or use the latest crypto fad and be subject to absurd exchange rate variations).
>Russian society isn't anywhere near enthusiastic. That's why Putin has been searching for ever dumber excuses. Give him an actual indefensible incident to rally society around, and he'll get a lot more manpower. That could expand the war to Odessa and Moldova, and also 'retaliatory' cyberwar in the West.
That's just absurd fanfic. Sending in untrained "manpower" with no equipment would not help advance Russian goals.
"Cyberwar"? Russia has never before needed any excuses to unleash wiper worms like NotPetya onto the whole world.
>It's attacking civilians as to influence their government
Exactly like sanctions. Are you against sanctions too? If not, how do you explain that inconsistency?
>That's just absurd fanfic. Sending in untrained "manpower" with no equipment would not help advance Russian goals.
Some of them probably have military training, and quantity has a quality of its own. Regardless, Russia will not be able to subdue Ukraine, but there's nothing good coming from a more enthusiastic Russian society.
>"Cyberwar"? Russia has never before needed any excuses to unleash wiper worms like NotPetya onto the whole world.
Our tolerance for that was absurd. As is our tolerance for this action.
>Exactly like sanctions. Are you against sanctions too? If not, how do you explain that inconsistency?
I'm for sanctions. It's not inconsistent. There's a law for these things. That law allows sanctions but not attacking random civilians. It also prefers actions by legitimate authorities and not random vigilants. It also states that any possible harm to civilians must be incidental to the method, and that any harm be proportional to the possibility of achieving a legitimate goal (kicking Russia out).
This action was by a random person (not even an Ukrainian), unauthorized by anyone (definitely not any Ukrainian authority), and was at best counterproductive (nobody has given me any way where this advances kicking Russia out), so any possibility of civilian harm is criminal.
> Regardless, Russia will not be able to subdue Ukraine, but there's nothing good coming from a more enthusiastic Russian society.
You are mistaken if you believe that Russian society isn't already enthusiastic. But this isn't a country with the warrior culture US has, dying for your country isn't cool in Russia, it just means that you were too poor and/or stupid to dodge the draft.
> There's a law for these things. That law allows sanctions but not attacking random civilians.
Which law is that?
> It also states that any possible harm to civilians must be incidental to the method
Many of the sanctions are specifically targeting civilians, civilian businesses.
> and that any harm be proportional to the possibility of achieving a legitimate goal (kicking Russia out).
Oh no, you're deeply mistaken. The sanctions will not go away even if Russia gets kicked out of Ukraine, they're very much intended to be punitive.
>You are mistaken if you believe that Russian society isn't already enthusiastic.
It's a society where showing up for what the authorities do is common.
>Which law is that?
A long codicil of war conventions (Geneva, Hague) and anti-terrorism conventions. What I wrote is a common exegesis.
>Many of the sanctions... The sanctions will not go away.
As I wrote, there's a difference between 'we won't trade with you' and actively harming someone. Also, if Russia withdraws completely and lets Ukraine join NATO, I'm pretty sure the West will drop sanctions. There'll be no point in maintaining them - if you want to change Russia, you'll need a finer instrument.
>It's a society where showing up for what the authorities do is common.
For a variety of reasons much of my circle of friend consists of Russians living abroad, you're mistaken if you believe that they support Russian leadership out of fear of what might happen if they didn't.
>A long codicil of war conventions (Geneva, Hague) and anti-terrorism conventions. What I wrote is a common exegesis.
But sanctions do exactly that. Attack random civilians.
> As I wrote, there's a difference between 'we won't trade with you' and actively harming someone.
It's not "we won't trade with you", that's a dishonest way of putting it. It's "we won't allow others to trade with you", which is very much actively harming someone.
In case you haven't checked, both targeted countries are authoritarian regimes where any kind of civil protest is ignored at best or actively suppressed at worst. And violent regime changes (aka revolutions) coming from the people don't work, at least not without the support of part of the governing elites (which aren't impacted by that kind of actions)
Revolutions have succeeded time and again. The problem is that in most cases, the kind of people who lead successful revolutions are not the kind who can form a non-autocratic government. It can take generations to correct the resulting chaos and totalitarian excesses.
Yeah well most software developers, just like most people, would rather engage in warfare with their fellow working-class man than the man, which is unfortunate because that should be everyone's target - not one another. We should be asking ourselves how can we write software the frees us from the tyranny of government, and instead helps us to foster self-reliant, communities of support and mutual-aid, which serve the best interests of those who participate in them.
These are the tenants of anarcho-communism and FOSS - not sticking it to Russia and cheering on the dumping of weapons into a war zone...
"Hm, maybe if I put malware into a community-trusted module that destroys files of people in a certain geopolitical region, the countless innocent citizens that are affected will realize what they did wrong! Wait, who am I actually targeting again?"