"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?"
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?
What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe.
see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396
>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?
>> 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 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.
Look at this:
Occupancy rate (passengers per vehicle), Commuting to/from work: 1.1 - 1.2
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029....
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.
FWIW people in Ukraine are already freezing to death, thanks to Russia's deliberate attacks on infrastructure.
They're almost all (except India) moving away from that. It's not something that can be done overnight. It's been in the news for almost a month now.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-...
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.
As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
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.
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.
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.
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's not like there's a Netherlands invasion of Germany for us to all use as a neutral reference.
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.
> 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:
_https://ukrainian-studies.ca/2020/08/01/ukraines-russian-lan...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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”.
Some numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ukrainian_refugee_crisis , note the dates.
On the other hand, accepting even less refugees in the previous crisis is something that was definitely (politically) possible at the time.
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.
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?
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 actions of the node-ipc maintainer's seem to provide evidence against this assertion.
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.
"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.
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.
"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?"
Oh wait.
Both the sanctions and wiper malware targeting Russia are good things.
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”
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
Arguments like this are similar to the BLM protest that try to equate property with human lives.
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.
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.
And in this case the 'horrible act' is not wanting your free labour to be used in another country.
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 believe the crux of the political theory is that in a representative democracy, nobody has no influence over the issue.
If you burn down people's houses, you will be arrested and go to jail.
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)
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.
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.
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?
>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.
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).
Nobody was forcing Russia's ruling class to have all their money in overseas bank accounts.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...