cf141q5325

>KF supporters and users are free to say whatever they want in their own forums.

Thats exactly what is no longer the case. We just created the method to even prevent self hosting.

edit: Its also why this is such a big deal. They were a canary and with how they were dealt with its extremely likely that that was a domino. Because there is nothing stopping people from exploiting this now that its here. How ever justified or well intentioned this was, it wont matter for the cases to come.

Nobody is expecting you to pay for server costs and your opinion on the righteousness of your action doesnt absolve you of the responsibility for the delete function that was just created. Or gets you out of the predictable consequences. Old fashioned stuff like checks and balances werent around for fun and censoring stuff doesnt make it go away. Neither is a mob level targeting mechanism a good or safe idea.

Creating means to create holes in the public discourse is utterly reckless as you have no means to tell how big they have become. And no means to address them. You just punched your eyes out because you didnt like the sight of something. The potential to create human misery with this is hard to overstate when people blatantly ignore the consequences. This is a nobody is going to hear you scream type of threat. Its also not a novel risk, we know how horrible attempts to dictate public discourse went in the totalitarian systems of the past. Not because of some evilness, but systemic inertia and no longer functioning breaks. Without the ability to communicate, we are screwed.

I put it as a quote in the post. Would be great if you could recommend a better alternative though, especially as even watching a tweet was disabled for a time.

It should be mentioned that some intelligence agencies have an involvement in extremist groups. Like the Soviet Union supported urban guerillas in the west or Russia dumping its Neonazis (who happened to kill Kremlin-critical journalists) into the Ukraine. With them then purposefully spreading stuff like Christchurch manifest translations through people involved with Azov to pump their "international far right" image.

Trying to solve that problem through attempts to quell public discourse and dictate limits of conversation are misguided and self destructive. Its a race to the bottom as a byproduct of short term power politics. Its not like western actors arent also doing it, strategy of tension in Italy for example. Having a bogey man can be quite beneficial.

There being a communication channel with reduced moderation is hardly the root cause. I would argue its quite the contrary, the heavier you get involved in controlling discourse, the easier it becomes to saw tension.

edit: As an example

>Russia dumping its Neonazis (who happened to kill Kremlin-critical journalists) into the Ukraine

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/02/15/def...

>In an interview published by Azov’s online podcast in May 2015, Korotkih fawned over the Islamic State, and compared the Azov Regiment to the group.

>“I can’t accept ISIS ideology but they’re awesome in what they do. I enjoy their movies very much. I drool over what’s going on in the territories they control”, Korotkih proclaimed during the interview (00:32:45 into the interview), in which he also characterized ISIS as “heroes of that time.”

You might know him as the head of paramilitary training of the NSO in Ross Kemps visit to Moscow. With the NSO likely being part of the same Vladislav Surkov project as BORN. https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russian-neonazi-ilya-go...

Sergei Korotkikh and the NSO and FSB https://www.ft.com/content/21553438-fcda-11df-ae2d-00144feab...

Ross Kemp (introduction in the gym to the NSO in the first few minutes. In case you watch it, the badly faked videos they made were a cover for the police to not investigate attacks on migrant workers. Tesak grew a concision in prison and got tortured and executed through "suicide". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1q3pCfed0

Before Tesak was famously used as a bogeyman for Russia's liberal opposition when he came to a book club where Navalny held a discussion.

There is a real chance the next German election might result in an AFD government. Which after years of tribalistic conflict left them in a state where the most extreme positions are in control.

Just thinking that you ought to have those kinds of laws doesnt mean applying them wont result in a tragedy.

Edit: Might have misunderstood your reference. The KPD NSDAP dynamic is often referenced as the "verängstigte Bürgertum". It was quite the popular reference during Pegida, but it has been a common explanation since it happened and isnt just a modern take. The coups during Weimar, and the political reactions to them has to be seen in that light as well. Can recommend Heinrich Hannovers "Politische Justiz 1918–1933" on the atmosphere of the time.

Edit1: His "Die Republik vor Gericht 1954-1995" is also something i would recommend reading for a more realistic view of Western Germany. And Ingo Müllers Furchtbare Juristen. Might be worth reminding people that actual nazis got quite the nice treatment till very recently. The current wave of prosecutions against KZ guards is a historical abnormality, unless the allies actually hung you you got away with a slap on the wrist and in good social standing. Because you were needed against the Soviets. A AFD/CDU might get really bad, there were already CDU politicians during the burning refugee housings in the 90s that argued for more compassion for the drunk piss stained mob.

There was this great picture of a piss stained drunk doing a nazi salute during one of the Pogroms that i cant find on google and bing anymore. But luckily i dont have to worry about such things anymore because everyone means well.

Any moral judgement that ignores the direct practical implications of that judgement is deeply immoral. You cant have meant well when you could have known better but didnt want to.

>So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice.

The rise to power of the NSDAP was aided by being able to frame themselves as the lesser evil in comparison to the KPD representing the totalitarian soviet system. Censoring stuff and combating people creates reactions, once you go down the path of opinion control you end up with the choice between totalitarian systems that are dysfunctional by nature and represent the worst and most extreme versions of a tribalistic conflict. Having a common enemy becomes an end in itself and at that point anyone will do.

This is not an abstract risk, its visible across many western democracies right now. The naive assumption that intention alone will be enough and allows you ignore the consequences, might become the death of the current form of democracies. Its arguably how we got to the point where there are far right parties across Europe in and about to become governments. With at the same time a historic high in population and opinion control measures.

In the end, during the most horrific phases of humanity that were intentionally created there is always a desperate demand for two things. The ability to challenge genocidal narratives (See Romeo Dalaires pleas to just be allowed to broadcast) and having as many rifles as you can get once that fails (See the incredible risk people (including children) took when smuggling weapons into Jewish ghettos. I dont see how attempts to make the first harder, let alone impossible, are anything but evil. Especially with a blatant disregard for the risks this entails. Humanity payed the price for this insight already multiple times over.

Alleging nativity when at the same time championing just simply banning stuff you dont like, the consequences be dammed, might be funny, but this discussion has too high stakes for undisclosed satire. Still made me chuckle though.

edit: Apparently not satire. Quite sorry to hear, that was me giving the benefit of the doubt. That leaves either stupidity (not realizing the consequences), malice (not caring) or me overlooking something.

So, how do checks and balances for mob justice look like? Other then just meaning well and being the good guys? Pretty sure somebody could elaborate if it was really just me overlooking something.

They dont need to be equivalent, they just need to be treated the same. What do you think will happen once "your side"/"the correct side" gets removed from power and replaced by the unguided reaction it created?

Thanks to all this stupid nazi fearmongering and virtue signaling i am currently faced with a far right party possibly wining my next election as a reaction. With the government having gained unprecedented powers to quell and control dissenting opinions.

The existence of that simplification is however often exploited. A lot of malice gets dressed as stupidity. Its also especially easy when stupidity is triggered maliciously.

That source is a bit thin for that kind of statement.

Regardless, thank you for pointing that out.

Here the Glenn Greenwald post from the time of the Kiwifarms debacle is worth referencing.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1567292900312064000

>But the worst is watching people whose job title in corporate HR Departments is "journalist" take the lead in agitating for censorship. They exploit the platforms of corporate giants to pioneer increasingly dangerous means of banning dissenters. These are the authoritarians.

Its especially despicable if it happens consciously as a means to an end. Signaling towards a common enemy is highly profitable in a tribalism ridden society. Doing this despite an understanding of the risk it entails can hardly be described as anything but malice.

I can only think of imploring people to read Meerloos "Rape of the mind" about the existential risk totalitarian systems pose. And even if someone already went full Stalinist thinking the ends justify the means, its worth mentioning that its a self destructive delusion. It cant work and the revolution eats its children reliably. Be it the SA or the red guard, they always end as the victims of the monster they created. Unfortunately the rest of society is then stuck in the dystopian nightmare these delusional maniacs created.

edit: On this note, Arte recently had a documentary about the Chinese gulag system https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/106702-001-A/china-s-concentra...

edit1: The only one saving you from this fate is yourself. So maybe dont put it off till you are in prison.

>In the same text, Martsinkevich said he’d finally read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's “The Gulag Archipelago” for the first time. “If I’d read ‘Gulag Archipelago’ before I sat down to write ‘Restrukt,’ I wouldn’t have even started it!” he confessed.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/09/17/in-the-end-it-doesn-...

And how should you be treated? Arent you just a totalitarian yourself if you are gullible enough to think targeted censorship is a good idea?

Genuinely asking, from where i stand your simplistic view on reality is one of the most dangerous currents out there right now.

If you sleep tight in a censored echo chamber you might be in for a rude awakening once you realize what atrocities that enables. But luckily you will only find out once you are at the receiving end of it?

Swiss military is a really interesting topic from so many perspectives. With such a high percentage of the population trained and involved in the military the terrain was also supposed to massively aid asymmetrical warfare. Holding mountain passes with light troops if need be.

There were even some books that were discussed to become regular army manuals and had to be vetoed by the chief of staff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book) The article doesnt cite a source, but there are other sources claiming the same. https://www.fr.de/kultur/literatur/renne-fahrzeug-weg-109971... https://blog.tagesanzeiger.ch/historyreloaded/index.php/2401...

Pls be advice that depending on local law, you might be better off sticking to the wiki page.

>Nonetheless, the book remains part of the curriculum of the Swiss Army Military Academy at the ETH Zurich as one of the "classics of the history of strategy and the theory of war."[3]

It was part of the Tizzard mission, quite an amazing story, including the origins of the nuclear weapons memorandum.

Another amazing topic in this regard is the battle of the beams over Britain.

The tax aspect is also referenced in the article, the dimensions are quite impressive.

>When reconstructing consumption from taxes there is also the matter of personal production not captured by taxation, beer being a major product of consumption was consuming 12.5% of people’s salaries and was subsequently contributing around a 1/3 of government revenue in England and a 1/4 of government revenue in Holland, an amount equivalent to the contribution of Spanish silver to the revenue of Spain in the mid 17th century.

Earlier discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36850113

Not mentioned is, that the answer to the headline and the explanation for the drop in England is very likely the introduction and wide adaptation of Laudanum among the poorest segments of society. Like Lobster being formerly food for the poor (its icky insects after all) same pattern is visible with opiates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_trade Wiki also mentions it being the most effective treatment for dysentery and cholera. Here its worth mentioning that drinkable water was the initial reason for the adaptation of alcoholic beverages.

I do appreciate the feedback, i hope this isnt a language barrier. I do agree that your advice is valuable if you are stuck in an environment where you have to manage malicious people. But i can not overstate how much effort that starts to suck up for every person. You are then working on them instead of the project at hand. Setting the default environment is really important here, because it determines the risk of creating conflict with people who would have normally defaulted on mutually beneficial cooperation if communication hadnt broken down over assumptions of intention.

Your approach results in an overall reduction in cooperation potential for the sake of managing the excess of toxic actors short term who will be a constant burden anyway. Even if you keep them from acting out, you still have to work around them. By being given the benefit of the doubt and getting engaged towards cooperation people are pushed on either higher or lower levels. Either the negative behavior piles up or you manage to open actual communication. It tells you who you need to be concerned about and what motivates them. Its a filter that looks at peoples intention and ability. Which makes it possible to differentiate malice from stupidity. Which reduces the overall burden immensely as problems from stupidity often stem from misunderstandings and reactions turning into cycles because people get emotionally involved in a conflict.

Some coworkers not wanting to make the journey towards a professional work environment doesnt mean its not a beneficial thing to do either way. Letting such people drag everyone down is the worst case, even if its done to prevent short term direct conflict.

The pictures from their report are a bit problematic. They sprinkled in pictures of the power plant among the pictures of the trenches. https://media.greenpeace.org/shoot/27MDHUHQAT5X

I posted the sources in the edits of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37182828#37183914

Do you have another position for the trenches?

He is right, that part of the exclusion zone is relatively harmless. Greenpeace has the coordinates in their report, if i am not too far off people still eat mushrooms from such conditions.

The story here seems to be tanks driving off the roads, not the digging at the camp site.

You could(/can?) also travel the exclusion zone as a tourist. Including to one of the excavator claws where the adventurous couch warriors are able to test their meter and make selfies.

The even dumber are getting smuggled in for illegal tours. Meaning you get somebody who knows the area and run past the patrols and sleep in the ruins. Quite stupid but there is youtube. They are also coming after the people who stole all the scrap metal.

Chernobyl is also not the only place, people also visit abandoned cold war bunkers which can look quite amazing. But are also often heavily contaminated and off limits to the public.

Some examples are at @ExploringtheUnbeatenPath (NATO command bunker) and @shiey (Chernobyl) on youtube. Legal options are already quite nice and dont give you too much cancer. In Russia you will also go to Prison for a very long time when caught climbing a derelict antenna, let alone visiting bunkers. If i recall they got very annoyed when Russian teens climbed all the Stalin towers.

You can tell by the signs.

The point is the camp site was fine from a health and safety perspective. There are more heavily contaminated areas outside and it saw little impact due to the weather back then.

Which leaves either damage to roads that might not have seen much use before (doubtful, they have police driving around to catch real life Stalkers), lost Russians or the fires Greenpeace mentioned.

Some context for the heightened readings would be nice. Especially in comparison to the fires in March and 2020. They seem to be an obvious cause.

edit: Vehicle impact sounds quite likely https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/unprotected-russian-sol...

Maybe dont drive tanks through the red forest.

You dont really need a blackout. How many people can actually tell you the size and location of the contamination? Even the official limits of the exclusion zone are nonsense dating back to Soviet Bureaucracy. Wind meant there are contaminated areas outside and harmless areas inside. Also like the article stated, they are unlikely to have experienced any negative impact themselves.

Also, the Greenpeace statement mentions fires, which are a far far better explanation for a spike in measurements. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/54762...

They also have pictures and mention the Russian camp was at "Stantzaya Yanov" which i cant find a reference to outside of the Greenpeace report. But i would suspect that wouldnt be directly in front of the very visible sarcophagus.

edit: Maps in the report https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20220718-greenpeace-... Page 6 says the camp was 26km from the plant.

edit1: Estimates from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/339/2018/

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/339/2018/essd-10-339... with longitude and latitude and Greenpeace puts the camp at 51.1663, 29.9645 SSW of the reactor. Which would put it in a safe area. Meaning they were right to be not worried if the trenches were at the camp.

edit2: It being the byproduct of Russian navigation efforts is quite a compelling explanation. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/unprotected-russian-sol...

Again, i see the cost and risk of doing this. However

> Moreover, the regular insults and unaddressed put downs will accumulate.

> If you treat passive aggression or thinly veiled insult as something genuine or harmless fake compliment, you are in for a very bad time. Because you will be target of more and more of it.

is working as intended. We arent talking schoolyard but workplace. You are checking if cooperation is possible so you have to spend less effort on managing the people around you and your reaction to them. Getting a clear signal on that means you can go over to actual conflict if you enjoy that and use some levers. Or just get a better environment so you can focus on work.

The image that presents for third parties is another issue and brings us back to short vs long games. That you shouldnt be reacting is besides the point. You arent describing a professional, let alone cooperative environment if they reward pointless personal short term conflict dragging everyone down to that level. And even if you are stuck in a dog kernel, your approach isnt without its own dangers. Goating somebody into overreacting is a tried and true strategy to make them look bad / unstable.

In the end defaulting on personal workplace conflict means you opt into playing emotional games. Which i see no reason to do, especially as idiots doing this have home field advantage. If they really made a decision for conflict and you fancy joining in make sure you have the advantage and mop the floor with them. They arent all too smart after all. But cooperation will be off the table, you will have to constantly mince every word.

edit: This is really about job description. Do you really want to be a dog trainer?

Thanks for the elaboration, i meant i fail to see the distinction beyond intention. Since determining intention is error prone and unreliable giving the benefit of the doubt might still be a beneficial strategy. Even with you giving a good description of the problems that incurs.

I think it boils down to what kind of costs are at stake. False positive for negative intention leads to conflict and breakdown of cooperation, while entertaining a passive aggressive person increases the burden on you in favor of continued cooperation and additional information.

While a direct stop is beneficial for short games, reducing false positives is beneficial for productive long games and comes at only temporary costs.

Or differently put, while stupidity is not always the better explanation then malice, assuming stupidity first can be beneficial regardless. If people are then unwilling or unable to fix stupid it becomes another discussion. But those false positives sum up quickly.

>I for one wouldn't describe myself as an idiot.

That might be the problem and the reason for your unsupported overconfidence. And its no wonder given your unwillingness to consider different perspectives.

You are welcome.

edit: I would hope nobody sees that as a confirmation for the stereotype of Poles being racist. I see no reason to not suspect a Russian sock puppet and neither should you.

As one of the idiots living there yes, very much so. Calling the DDR Osteuropa can not be racist.

I would however be happy to hear your qualification on this.

You can make the exact same argument for Russia and Turkey being European. This kind of vocabulary works through consensus about attached meaning. Usage determines validity. You can tell by there being no agreed upon geographic line on a map going through countries.

>Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA.

I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe.

edit: Its also worth mentioning that framing that geopolitical conflict as racist is highly oversimplistic and counterproductive. The only upside i can think of is signaling and the stakes are far too high for such selfish endeavors. Stuff is just complicated and geopolitical conflicts even more so.