ttybird2

Traffic related deaths should not be underestimated, they are more common than people think. In fact, so far more civilians have died in car accidents in Ukraine (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...) than in the conflict (using statistics by the UN https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115042).

Although I personally don't understand the point of this argument. If "only" 40 people die then it's somehow ok but if 1000 die then military action is suddenly justifiable?

I usually see Canada being described the other way around, and to be honest if someone asked me for the most free countries Canada would not be the first in my list.

I find the idea that someone who has not pledged their allegiance to a particular country can commit treason against said country to not make much sense.

"Just a couple national security secrets okay?"

He shouldn't have access to any such secrets afaik.

"I agree, he shouldn't be locked up. He should had been sentenced to hanging, from the neck."

I understand that it is easy to say such things online, especially since it is hard to humanize someone that you have only seen being talked about in various sites, but I think that you treat human lives way too cheaply, especially for something as minor.

Just because NK has victims does not mean that his actions have victims as well.

"It has nukes pointed at Seoul"

Every nuclear country has their nukes pointed at somewhere. US included.

"holding ... US troops hostage"

I really do not get what you mean by this.

"It should've been life imprisonment"

It is easy to call for absurd amounts of vengeful punishment towards someone that poses no danger.

"for aiding and abetting terrorist organizations like North Korea"

I think that your definition of "terrorist organization" is too wide. Might as well call the US a terrorist organization at that point.

"Can you say the same for someone caught laundering money for Hamas or ISIS? That it's a victimless crime?"

He did not launder money. He just did a cryptocurrency presentation.

He is the creator of WikiScanner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiScanner https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1...

He also created Tor2web with Aaron Swartz and used to work for the tor team.

Seems like an interesting guy. It's a shame that this happened.

The situation is kinda similar to the one with Bobby Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer

"In 1992, he reemerged to win an unofficial rematch against Spassky. It was held in Yugoslavia, which was under a United Nations embargo at the time. His participation led to a conflict with the US government, which warned Fischer that his participation in the match would violate an executive order imposing US sanctions on Yugoslavia. The US government ultimately issued a warrant for his arrest. After that, Fischer lived as an émigré. In 2004, he was arrested in Japan and held for several months for using a passport that the US government had revoked. Eventually, he was granted an Icelandic passport and citizenship by a special act of the Icelandic Althing, allowing him to live there until his death in 2008."

He also created Tor2web with Aaron Swartz and used to work for the tor team.

Seems like an interesting guy. It's a shame that this happened.

The situation is kinda similar to the one with Bobby Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer

"In 1992, he reemerged to win an unofficial rematch against Spassky. It was held in Yugoslavia, which was under a United Nations embargo at the time. His participation led to a conflict with the US government, which warned Fischer that his participation in the match would violate an executive order imposing US sanctions on Yugoslavia. The US government ultimately issued a warrant for his arrest. After that, Fischer lived as an émigré. In 2004, he was arrested in Japan and held for several months for using a passport that the US government had revoked. Eventually, he was granted an Icelandic passport and citizenship by a special act of the Icelandic Althing, allowing him to live there until his death in 2008."

It should be easy to do as well, given that they have an option for it in about:config.

This is my first post in this thread... And no, it is not moving any goalpost.

"However CSS came out to separate content from style, so doing that wouldn’t have made much sense"

The first is true, but it does not imply the second.

This part is false, also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30726286

"That conclusion goes against the intent of the drafters of the AGPLv3"

This is true, but I personally believe that the position held by the court (that it applies only to downstream licensees) makes much more sense. After all the original developer could have selected another license in the first place.

"Any effort to change the terms of an open source license should be met with suspicion because they are likely designed to take away freedoms, or else an already OSI-approved license would have been suitable"

I wonder when this start being true in their opinion (after the approval of GPLv3?). The threats to FOSS evolve and licenses must try to match them. It seems like an attempt to attack SSPL without explicitly mentioning it.

"Sticking to OSI-approved licenses"

There are also FSF-approved licenses which are not mentioned. The last part is pure advertisement.

Same for Iraq, Libya, etc. Declarations of war mostly died after WWII.

"Hence, they're not prisoners of war"

They are to be treated as civilians then, according to the Geneva convention.

"By default, the Russians are lying, unless there's evidence that they're not"

This is true for pretty much every sovereign state active on geopolitical games. Everyone will try to use PR/propaganda to justify their actions and get more people to support their cause, it is only natural.

Anyway, this does not explain your plan to keep the restriction permanently. After all they will not be paying taxes that fund the war effort after the war is be over.

Also please do not misunderstand, people mention the US acts in order to point out the hypocrisy shown, not to justify the invasion.

- Supporting an annexation that has already happened is not the same as supporting a war.

- That being said, even the liberals in the US supported the various invasions and occupations. Don't forget that Libya happened under Obama.

- Even the liberals in Turkey are supporting the annexation of northern Cyprus, even the liberals in China support the annexation of Tibet, etc. It is not something unique to Russia.

"In Russia there are some good people but they are in extreme minority"

Bush's approval rating was the highest when he declared the invasion of Afghanistan (90%) and when he declared the invasion of Iraq (70%).

In addition to that this is typical racist rhetoric, I have heard exactly the same thing about Mexicans, Blacks, Albanians, Jews, Roma, etc.