There have been public reports by major news organizations on the subject of Israel using big tech companies to surveil the West Bank and Gaza, for a decade. This isn't an issue of customer privacy.
The difference is that pre-2023 it could at least have some plausible excuse of trying to detect terrorist activity. With Israel's current actions in Gaza, there is no longer any plausible excuse or defense for any security action Israel is conducting towards Palestinians.
Israel has a legitimate reason to want to try to intercept and detect terrorist activity, but given what they've been doing in Gaza for the past year and a half, they simply can't be trusted. They've lost all credibility and benefit of the doubt. So they can't expect other entities to help them do something they say is legitimate, because no one can trust them to do something in a legitimate and ethical way.
I think OP’s point is Israel’s legitimate surveillance needs have risen alongside their credibility crashing. This isn’t a simply reduced problem unless one has a horse in the race.
I understand that, and I am sympathetic to those needs to some degree. They do have increased legitimate surveillance needs. But they've lost all of their good will. Partnering with them is too morally and PR-ily hazardous.
I am not saying Israel is nearly as bad as Nazi Germany, but I think this argument is overall kind of pointless because one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland.
> one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland
This is an interesting comparison—thank you.
That said, did the Poles launch cross-border attacks on German civilians? The closest I can come up with is Bloody Sunday [1], which was an attack on ethnically German civilians, but not a cross-border incursion. (Granted, we can only observe this ex post facto, so your argument still stands.)
Israel's incursion into Gaza in October 2023 was more justifiable than Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, yes. I wasn't trying to provide a full comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel, and I prefaced the sentence appropriately. My only point is that a nation having legitimate surveillance needs to protect their soldiers' and civilians' safety isn't a reason to support their surveillance efforts by itself.
Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian land before being handed over by colonial powers and then "won" in subsequent "wars" (read: massacres) on the barely-armed villagers living there? The Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes. Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948. If your country was occupied and members of your family killed, would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?
> Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian
That's how borders work. (Anything else is, by definition, a border dispute.) If the Armia Krajowa had bulldozed into Lithuania on the logic that they lost it due to foreign meddling, they would have tarnished their record. (Despite the claim being true.)
> Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes
On their own turf. And as for the former, against military targets--nobody serious in the Viet Cong or USSR was plotting Al Qaeda-style attacks on the American homeland.
October 7th was a terrorist attack. It was plotted like a military operation. But so was 9/11.
> would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?
Not particularly. But I'd want to be fighting an actual resistance. 7 October attack was a strategic failure. The only reason it might end in a draw is because Netanyahu surrounded himself with maniacs. Even then, permanent damage has been done to the viability of a sovereign Palestine.
(There is also a massive difference between something being understandable and something being justified.)
So the problem is that you don't believe Palestinians are on their "own turf", because Israel "legally" won it from the villagers there in 1948 after having the British install them to it. Got it. Once again, the Palestinian homeland is exactly where the kibbutz (which is a military camp and outpost) was, mere miles from Gaza, and all of the people involved were actively standing members of the IDF (i.e. the occupying army akin to the Americans in Vietnam). You keep calling it a terrorist attack while appearing completely clueless that it's a largely meaningless political term. We considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist while he was locked up for 30 years, and for the UK at least he was only removed from that list in 2013.
> when the entire land was previously Palestinian land
No such thing as Palestinian. Just Islamic Arab. Choosing to label yourself the same as one name for the land doesn’t make the land yours. But also - who do you think occupied the land previously?
Sure, that must be why the very text of the Balfour Declaration specifies "Palestine" and why coins from the 19th century have been proven to show the same. I'm afraid the hasbara isn't gonna work anymore.
> Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948
Correction, Gaza was first occupied by Israel for a few months in 1956, then occupied continuously since 1967.
Regardless, by 1984, nearly half of the people in Gaza would have lived their entire lives under occupation, and the most would have lived at least half their lives under occupation.
Israel may have withdrawn from Gaza and forcibly removed their settlers, but they did not end the occupation since they created a naval blockade and control all entrance and exits from Gaza and decide what is allowed in for two decades
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. Israel's position is that the ended they occupation. The United Nations on the other hand, still considered Gaza occupied under international law this whole time.
The only way one could argue that it is no longer occupied is to say there wasn't a continuous Israeli military presence of boots on ground inside of Gaza. It was still being surveilled by satellite and the entire perimeter, people venturing too far at sea from the coast would be shot, drones would occasionally bomb people, everything and everyone going in and out was controlled by Israel (until Hamas tunnels were built), all cell phones allowed in contained surveillance technology, a fence with military outposts was constructed on the perimeter, and Israel bombed the one airport they tried to build.
So arguing it was "no longer occupied" after they pulled out the settlers is disingenuous, unless you're trying to argue that it couldn't be both an occupation and a concentration camp.
Not cross border. The only purpose German surveillance of Poland would have furthered would have been (again, with the benefit of hindsight) their own occupation. Not the safety of Germans in Germany.
If the Armia Krajowa had carried out an October 7 style attack on the German homeland, against German civilians, their memory would be mixed, not the virtually unblemished heroism they deservedly command in the historic record.
All of my comments in this thread are on the anti-Israel side but this is just such a terrible comparison in so many ways. One can detest what Israel is doing without at all trying to defend Hamas's October 7th attack.
The Palestinian-led military operation on October 7 did not involve killing babies.
One baby was killed. Another died 14 hours after birth after its pregnant mother was shot. Only one of those was conclusively shot by insurgents from Gaza (the UN fact-finding report[1], on page 44, notes that many Israelis were killed and injured by "friendly fire")
Out of 1200 non-Gazans killed, 33 were children, or 2.7%, and again, at least some of these deaths can be attributed to the Israeli military response. It should be noted that the casualty rate of Israel's response in Gaza has been at least 30% children.
It's bizarre that you bring up the infant casualties of Hamas October 7, of which there was 1, as evidence for calling it a terrorist attack, when the actual number of babies killed by Israel is an order of magnitude greater than the total number of people killed by Hamas on October 7
Nah, it's pretty undeniable. But this is mainly because Nazi Germany was singularly more of a force for evil than any other nation or organization in many centuries. They were uniquely horrible. So it's hard for anyone to be as bad as they were.
Oh, don't worry, there's plenty of lost credibility to go around. Nobody's coming out of this situation smelling like roses, other than maybe some Israeli and Gazan peace activists.
At some point, when basically the entire world is saying one thing and only two countries (the US & Israel) are saying the opposite, you really need something strong to convince someone that basically the whole world is wrong.
This is some lame right-wing outlet whose front page contains things like:
>The assessment, shared exclusively with the Free Beacon, follows mainstream media claims that cuts to global health funding will endanger life-saving programs
While not mentioning that, yes, the Trump administration's USAID cuts absolutely will kill millions of people.
The rest is shitting on Democrats and supporting Trump. Obviously some right-wing site is going to say whatever they can think of to try to defend Israel's actions.
I see the war in radically different terms than you. It's not a battle between who has the better historical claim to the land. It's a religious battle. It's a battle between radical Islam and the secular west.
For a fuller treatment of the defense of Israel from a secular view point.
At least you're honest. This is why the vast majority of Westerners support Israel, its colonialism and its right to kill as many brown people as they can, they just don't say it out loud.
Isn’t it the inverse? Gazans voted for Hamas, and still support them per polls. Hamas’s charter is to destroy Israel in particular but also to subordinate women, subordinate all other religions, undermine Western powers, etc. Their goals and ideology are explicitly in conflict with liberal orders that support things like women’s rights, gay rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and so on.
Do you really think Hamas has killed more Israelis than Israel has killed Palestinians? Do you even know why Hamas exists? Do you have any idea how many years passed between the occupation in 1948 and massacres like the Nakba and Deir Yassin before Hamas was established? Also, no matter how much you want it to, your racism against brown people and fetishisation of "Judeo-Christian civilisation" doesn't justify killing them.
That's funny. In mid-October 2023 the narrative was "It doesn't matter who killed more" and now that so many Palestinians are dying - both by Israeli bombs and by Hamas rockets (1/3 to 1/5 fall back into the densely-populated Gaza strip) - the narrative is "Hamas has killed less Israelis than Israel has killed Palestinians".
The pro-Palestinian narrative adapts and changes as per the tides of war and the media. The Israeli narrative has remained consistent, even when it hurts.
Furthermore, your ideas about the colour of people's skin is an artifact of you dragging American racial issues into a place where they don't belong. The varied skin colours here favour neither side as darker or lighter.
No, the Palestinian narrative for those of us actually knowledgeable of history has not changed since 1948. As for Israel being consistent - how are those hostages doing? Cause it definitely doesn't care about any of them now (those it hasn't killed itself), and Netanyahu and others in the cabinet have admitted they want to occupy the land once more.
I'm not American, but you must be if you think racism magically stops outside of America. The racism most Americans and Zionists have towards brown people and the Islamophobia they have towards Muslims are some of their most prejudiced, and at least equal to any form of anti-Semitism you've ever experienced, but for some reason, you only believe in one of those. To be clear, "brown people" don't have to be "brown" just like black people aren't all black, it's a generic term that indicates a rough place of origin, and the point that you're clearly trying to obscure is that racism towards Palestinians is still racism no matter what colour they actually are.
You're right - such association with colour is not limited to Americans. I almost forgot being told about the slaves in the Gaza strip.
It turns out that Gazans call black-skinned Gazans "slaves". I've met black-skinned Bedouins but not black-skinned Gazans, and I don't know if the black-skinned Gazans are also Bedouins. I actually didn't know the word for slave in Arabic, but it was similar enough to the word in Hebrew that I was able to figure it out. I'd later have it confirmed. Not only do they called the black-skinned Gazans "slaves", they treat them as such as well. No lack of colour-motivated racism in the Gaza strip. Yes, I speak with Gazans in Arabic, and before October 7th I'd have conversations with them face to face.
As for Israeli racism - I think that we're the only country in the world who went out to help dark-skinned people immigrate en masse. Israel has a large Ethiopean community. I've had Ethiopean commanders in the army, and I work with quite a few Ethiopeans. I don't feel that they treat me in any unusual way, nor do I treat them in any unusual way.
I'm sure the Gazan friends you spoke to will be overjoyed you had face-to-face conversations with them before going online to advocate for their genocide, and that those conversations you had make them clearly savage enough to justify said genocide.
Are you really so wrapped up in your tech bubble in Tel Aviv that you can believe that? Here's some reading on a story even I knew off from the top of my head: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-wome.... And here's the rest of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel. Israel is easily the most racist "Western" country in the world, ahead of even the modern US. Hmm, maybe a genocide against Israelis would actually be justified because Israelis are just racist savages that think black people should be forcibly sterilised against their will?
> I'm sure the Gazan friends you spoke to will be overjoyed you had face-to-face conversations with them while advocating for their genocide, and that those conversations make them clearly savage enough to justify said genocide.
Since October 7th I haven't seen any Gazans face to face, but we have spoken on the phone and on Telegram. And I've never advocated for their genocide, rather I've advocated against the genocide of Jews. Anybody who supports Hamas, their goals, or their idealogy supports the genocide of Jews. It's right there in the Hamas charter.
I'll say it clearly. There is no genocide of Arabs, or Muslims, or Palestinians, or Gazans in the Gaza strip. There are many Gazans dying, and many of them are children. Many of them are killed as a result of Israeli actions, and many of them are killed as a result of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other organizations' actions. Israel does not systematically target children, only Hamas benefits from dead children. They say it clearly themselves.
So in your warped logic, the few thousand combined killed by all of the groups you named are more evil than the 60,000 killed by Israel (likely 100,000+ after Israel finally lets the UN in) and the true cost of the genocide can be calculated. Also, Israel just accidentally ended up with a collateral damage rate of 50%, just like several medical doctors have attested to it accidentally sniping tens of kids and people waiting for aid, and accidentally shooting 300 bullets into the vehicle holding Hind Rajab. I suggest you wake up and start moving toward the right side of history, along with the UN, Amnesty International, Oxfam and virtually every other major human rights organisation, because very soon it'll be too late and history isn't going to forget active enablers and propagandists like yourself.
I can only tell you that when I was in high school decades ago, I shared a viewpoint that was similar to yours. But after watching history unfold in real time for the last 35+ years, my viewpoint has had to shift. And shift a lot it has. I have had to begin accept some uncomfortable truths that were not yet reaching me. I see them now.
Considering that your view point is bolstered by a vast ecosystem, I do wonder what propaganda are you thinking of that is responsible for my change in views? Like what do you think I tune into that promotes the viewpoint I hold? I'm asking because I'd love to know what is so that I can listen to more of it! Mine is very hard to find. So if you know where it is - please tell me.
If this was how the world worked, we'd all be using Athenian democracy. There are plenty of things the whole world once believed that turned out to be wrong.
I wouldn’t have believed this until a few weeks ago. I then stated finding a lot of social media posts where people at pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protests talk about their goals, and many of them flat out say it is to bring down America and end its “empire”. They seem to use the same phrases in talking about this - I wonder if they get a script to use from the nonprofits they are a part of.
It is obvious that Israel is committing genocide. They don't even try to hide it! Indeed they revel in their cruelty. [1]
This historian[2] argues that openly committing genocide is a feature, not a bug, because it will lead to anti-semitism that will make diaspora Jews feel unsafe and bind them to Israel.
There is no doubt that people are suffering. But trying to pin that on Israel is only prolonging their suffering.
Let me ask you, who benefits from Palestinians dying? Or did you think that Hamas care about the Palestinian people. They do not - they care only about the Palestinian state.
> Let me ask you, who benefits from Palestinians dying?
Israel does. There's no need for a two state solution, the project of Greater Israel can be accomplished if they just kill anyone who they aren't able to forcibly expel from the land.
> Heroku, Shopify, Basecamp, Github, 37 Signals, and others have spent in terms of money and developer-hours
Companies are legal fictions that we allow to exist. The _people_ are the ones who did the development, management, and all the other things that had to be done.
The companies may have _paid their salaries to do so_ but there are plenty of open source communities that exist without the direct funding of work.
This splitting of hairs between the legal entities and the work of their paid teams/employees isn’t adding strength to your argument. Companies are run by people and those people get to make decisions on the allocation of resources. If they decided to put substantial resources into OSS, the company does get to claim credit there.
> there are plenty of open source communities that exist without the direct funding of work.
Great! Maybe the Ruby community can strive for this in the future but it does not reflect the OPs point that these companies and their outsized contributions via time and money are still core to the existing community we have today.
> On September 9th, with no warning or communication, a RubyGems maintainer unilaterally:
> renamed the “RubyGems” GitHub enterprise to “Ruby Central”,
> added non-maintainer Marty Haught of Ruby Central, and
> removed every other maintainer of the RubyGems project.
> On September 18th, with no explanation, Marty Haught revoked GitHub organization membership for all admins on the RubyGems, Bundler, and RubyGems.org maintainer teams
Which is important context that was left out of this board member's statement.
How you can tell this is all lies from the board is simple:
> How do you tell someone that has had commit and admin access to critical infrastructure long after that need has expired that you need to revoke that access without upsetting them?
The first thing is they didn't tell them. The second bit is simple:
"Hi [x], I'm sure you've seen the news about npm. Given supply chain attacks directed at them and the one recently foiled against the python folks, we're [doing fill in here], including reducing permissions. [More info here.] Further updates as soon as we have them."
There's a bunch of red flags here. The author of the article is desperately trying to sound like pert of the Ruby developer community, not some corporate type power player trying to maximise profits and their own bonus...
In the linked post the author claims to be just some grateful Ruby developer volunteering their time to mundane bookkeeping tasks for an organisation they feel lead to support, describing themselves with:
When I first discovered Ruby, watching some crazy video where a blog was built in just a few minutes, I was just a young man working at a bank who would sometimes get paid to build software for other people on the side. Ruby opened my eyes to the idea that code could be a craft, a skill I could hone and develop. It also introduced me to the idea that code could be poetry... code could be art.
20 years later, and here I am, a reasonably successful person who's built a career out of building software.
Freedom Dumlao is a seasoned technology executive with experience at leading companies like Vestmark, Flexcar, Zipcar, Wayfair, and Amazon. Currently the CTO of Vestmark, Freedom brings strategic insights that will help drive Ruby Central’s efforts to expand the Ruby ecosystem and build stronger connections with top companies and startups.
The post appears to be signed as "MINASWAN", a well know pseudonym for Yukihiro Matsumoto, the chief designer of the Ruby programming language. Hard to imagine a scenario where that was accidental and not an attempt to manipulate readers into assuming Yukihiro has something to do with writing the post.
It's posted to a Substack launched 1 day ago. With the username/subdomain "apiguy" - suspiciously not 'ctoguy' or 'seasonedtechnologyguy'.
I place pretty close to zero respect for the OPs position, compared to well known names in the decade long Ruby Gems committer community.
> Initialism of Matz is nice and so we are nice: a motto of the Ruby programming language community, in reference to the demeanor of Yukihiro Matsumoto (nicknamed Matz) [...].
Reasonable people would've accepted that fine. And you don't have to worry about unreasonable people, because most people will find them unreasonable and dismiss anything they say.
No, reasonable people would not have accepted "we're unilaterally deciding to lock you out with no advance notice, over something we could and should have been discussing for many months or years, but instead screwed up so badly that we're doing it ten minutes from now".
Tekin's conclusion: "it will send a clear message to the wider Ruby community (and those who may be considering joining it) that the majority does not stand with DHH and his toxic views."
He is going to be ultra surprised to learn what the majority thinks and how it's not what he thinks it is.
Using your personal brand to espouse the values of ethnonationalism fundamentally serves the capital class wishing to divide and exploit social order among those who labor. This is so rich, coming from the guy who literally created a tool that increases the value of labor.
So, if I had to guess, the smart, critical thinkers in the _global_ Ruby community might find this whole situation reeks.
If I were an immigrant to the UK and a Rails developer, and DHH is getting re-platformed while saying crazy stuff like this, I would think twice about my career choices going forward — Or, push the Ruby community not to stand with a garbage attitude like this, even if from a BDFL-type personality. I _invested_ my life into promoting the use of your tool, while you disparage me based on skin color and country of origin for the sake of some 'ye olde country' vibefest?
Wow! When that one DHH blog went around the other day, I didn't actually pay attention to who the author was. All I saw was yet another bigoted rant and just skimmed it and rolled my eyes. (e: here it is to save people the effort: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 )
I should not have skimmed it. From your link:
> In the same post he praises Tommy Robinson (actual name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon), a right-wing agitator with several convictions for violent offences and a long history of association with far-right groups such as the English Defence League and the British Nationalist Party. He then goes on to describe those that attended last weekend’s far-right rally in London as “perfectly normal, peaceful Brits” protesting against the “demographic nightmare” that has enveloped London, despite the violence and disorder they caused.
> To all of that he ads a dash of Islamophobia, citing “Pakistani rape gangs” as one of the reasons for the unrest, repeating a weaponised trope borne from a long since discredited report from the Quilliam Foundation, an organisation with ties to both the the US Tea Party, and Tommy Robinson himself.
This is ... disqualifying. That's the best word I can summon here to express my dismay. This is a crossed line. Absolutely nutso.
edit2: Uh wow I really should not have skimmed it. Here's one paragraph from DHH's blog itself:
> Which brings us back to Robinson's powerful march yesterday. The banner said "March for Freedom", and focused as much on that now distant-to-the-Brits concept of free speech, as it did on restoring national pride. And for good reason! The totalitarian descent into censorious darkness in Britain has been as swift as its demographic shift.
Well, if that doesn't speak volumes as to DHH's values, I don't know what does.
> To all of that he ads a dash of Islamophobia, citing “Pakistani rape gangs” as one of the reasons for the unrest, repeating a weaponised trope borne from a long since discredited report
Were independent inquiries also repeating weaponised tropes from long since discredited reports?
“By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction
from their managers not to do so.”
The ultimate problems lie in the police: they are generally terrible at handling rape cases, and in this case there are claims that they were actively complicit in some of the rapes.
Using the actions of some members of an ethnic minority to justify .. well, any action against people who were not actually personally involved, is textbook discrimination.
He makes his position clear enough in the second paragraph,
for those who know how to read between the lines.
"London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits."
This post is full of outright nonsense. I was in Central London last Saturday and watched a lot of it go down, before heading to Islington and then catching the last dregs of the crowd nearer Euston and chatting in the pub with some of them.
As a "native Brit" and "native Londoner" that DHH wouldn't recognise as such, he can absolutely do one.
Yeah, it was funny the first time a YouTuber[0] did something like that but now I feel like the joke got out of hand a bit, I blame the uptrend of opinionated configs to turn code editors into bona fide IDEs[1][2][3] for this.
Welp, looking forward to the holy wars between people running different influencers' configs five years from now. Who knows, maybe we'll see premium versions of those too.
Not all _that_ surprising. From where I see things, pretty much every time you see "Cloudflare" and "free speech" in the same sentence, it always end up being about Cloudflare supporting free speech for nazis or white supremacists. DHH's racist and xenophobic views are totally on-brand for them.
This comment is so off the rails I'm not going to bother responding to it, but it does make me think about why political discourse is so deeply broken today.
When someone lives this far into an alternate relatity it leaves basically no room for discussion. The amount of work that has to be done just to get everyone back to some relative place of sanity is damn near insurmountable. It leaves no time or energy left to have an actual discussion.
"People" have differing opinions, but the one I mostly see from the left is that they want Palestinians to live in the land they owned before Israeli colonisers invaded it and forced them to relocate to subhuman conditions. What I haven't seen is the desire to expel the Israelis currently living there, as long as they agree to let the Palestinians lead a decent life.
Do you think that the long-term answer to the Israel-Palestinian dispute is for Arab states to absorb the Palestinians, for there to be two states, Israel and Palestine, or for Israel to be ended and given to Hamas and the Palestinians?
When the Israeli government says it, they mean removing or exterminating all Palestinians on "their" land. When Palestinians and their allies say it, they mean they want to live in their land without fearing for their lives.
Not sure what land is “their” land in the first sentence but the are as many Palestinians citizens of Israel as there are Palestinians living in Gaza - and I don’t think the former fear much more for their lives than other citizens of Israel.
Maybe you don’t think that most college-age people in the US - who according to that survey would like Israel to be ended and given to Hamas and the Palestinians rather than see a two-state solution - are allies of Palestinians but surely they are not allies of Israel.
Oh this sort of thing is far from new for DHH, there's long been a desire to oust him from Rails or fork it, but it's never quite came to fruition, and unless Shopify were to back it, it is unlikely it would survive :-\
I guess I wasn't aware since I'm not really involved in the Ruby community. I always knew he was kind of an oddball from a few of his posts I've seen and podcasts I've heard him on. Never would have guessed it was this bad.
Until now I thought his craziest idea was that dynamic typing is better than static typing. (Just a joke, not trying to start a war over dynamic vs static lol)
As a fellow Scandinavian, DHH is just writing what the vast majority of us think. And it isn’t racist. That word is being misused until it soon has no value left; you sure you want that?
I've been thinking about whether "$some_country rape gangs" seems racist to me. I've come down on "yes".
The reason might seem odd. But it ocurred to me that if you want to use immigration to reduce crime, including rape, the obvious solution is to ban all male immigration.
That shocked me because it seems so wildly discriminatory. Yes, most violent crimes are committed by men. But very few men commit violent crimes. Banning male immigration would punish a large group for the appalling actions of a few. Making it about "$some_country's men" doesn't seem a whole lot better. It's still unjust to punish someone for someone else's crime.
If anyone is curious about the exercise, I recommend trying it. It was disconcerting to sit with the idea of banning male immigration, really seriously consider it and realise how viscerally shocked I was by the idea.
Edit: for context, in the UK right now, phrases like "rape gangs" are part of the debate/argument about immigration.
Your solution of banning male immigration makes perfect sense to me. Maybe not ban it entirely but at least ensure a 1-1 ratio of men to women (male surplus has a tendency to turn countries into shitholes).
Disallowing someone from immigrating is not a punishment because there is no right to immigration anyway. In fact I believe we should go even further and see immigrants as investments. If the immigrant is unlikely to have a net positive tax contribution (or at least not being a rapist, for a more realistic target), I don't see any reason to allow him or her to be here. If you accept this idea, there is nothing wrong with training a neural network on characteristics of existing immigrants to predict the future value of a particular potential immigrant.
The Grooming Gangs feature a lot of nationalities, but some more than others.
There's nothing racist about the facts. How one responds to it can indeed be racist -- ie. "all people of one of said nationalities are like these ones" would be racist. But observing that a nationality of immigrants are vastly overrepresented is just using your eyes to observe reality.
I'm happy to say that ~80% of Sweden and Norway don't vote for right wing populist parties like SD and Fremskrittspartiet, so "vast majority of us" might be a bit of a stretch.
That's a misrepresentation of statistics though. FRP is the second largest party this election, with 23,8% of votes, only second to AP who got 28%. But many people won't vote based on the immigration issues, because so far, other issues are more pressing.
But my point was that I am absolutely sure the majority of Norwegians _want Norway to remain a country that retains its cultural history_ while not being exclusive to one ethnic group. It's about retaining a majority.
I don't understand why that sentiment is so problematic here on HN, because simultaneously people are clamoring for a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.
Why can't Norway have a Norwegian state for the Norwegian people? Or Denmark? Or the UK?
> That's a misrepresentation of statistics though.
I can't speak for Norway, but in Sweden the only party worth keeping an eye on that adheres to the usual combination of pro-Russia, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-EU rhetoric etc is Sverigedemokraterna (formerly Bevara Sverige Svenskt, a party based solely on the idea of an ethnostate). They're hovering around 20%.
> But my point was that I am absolutely sure the majority of Norwegians _want Norway to remain a country that retains its cultural history_ while not being exclusive to one ethnic group. It's about retaining a majority.
Is the existence of history dependent on the ethnicity of the person reading it? I'm sure you've met non-native people who are in all other respects very much Norwegian.
Unless you mean to imply that culture is constrained to genetics. I deeply hope that that is not what you meant.
> I don't understand why that sentiment is so problematic here on HN, because simultaneously people are clamoring for a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.
How many Norwegian cities were leveled by bombs this year? How many were murdered by foreign military?
> Why can't Norway have a Norwegian state for the Norwegian people? Or Denmark? Or the UK?
Frankly, I might be sympathetic to this view, except for a few countries: The US, the UK, France, Belgium and maybe a few others. The US is a country of immigrant, so none of that cultural history nonsense holds, except maybe for the Native Americans. As for France and the UK, yeah no one told them to go colonize a bunch of countries around the world and impose their culture on them. They don't get to complain about retaining their cultural history. Belgium doesn't get to complain either after the atrocities they committed in Central Africa.
The word racism is not diluted. It is that just some full on racists feel like it says something negative and thus don't want the label put on racists stuff they like.
So do you consider what the Danish PM said racist?
> There are really a lot of us Danes who believed that when people came to this ‘world’s best country’ and were given such good opportunities, they would integrate. They would become Danish, and they would never, ever harm our society. All of us who thought that way have been wrong.
That's objectively observed reality in Denmark. And in Scandinavia in general. It's not about race, it's not about skin color, it's about cultural heritage and values.
All we're saying is that to retain a country's cultural heritage and carry it -- and obviously shape it -- into the future, you have to retain a majority of that heritage, and integrate newcomers. Otherwise it's no longer Denmark.
you have to retain a majority of that heritage, and integrate newcomers. Otherwise it's no longer Denmark.
what you are asking is not possible without rejecting immigration.
that is the delusion. it is the same all over europe. people expect 100% integration. yet at the same time, prejudices will reject them if they are not completely invisible. that is not possible, and it is not the integration i would want. i have written about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746099
London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
Copenhagen, by comparison, was about eighty-five percent native Danes in 2000, and is still three-quarters today. Enough of a foreign presence to feel cosmopolitan, but still distinctly Danish in all of its ways. Equally statistically evident on streets and bike lanes.
But I think, what would Copenhagen feel like, if only a third of it was Danish, like London? It would feel completely foreign, of course. Alien, even. So I get the frustration that many Brits have with the way mass immigration has changed the culture and makeup of not just London, but their whole country.
no it isn't because everyone has a different idea what limited, controlled immigration means. for some 20% is ok, for some 10% is to much. and for some only those who can integrate to 100% and become invisible is ok. practically speaking, for most people controlled immigration means: only allow the people that we like, and don't allow any of the people that we don't like.
We will never solve the scale of what's acceptable or not. That will always require dialogue and will change over time with the economic state of a country and many other factors, including culture.
However this argument is usually used to imply "there should be no limits", and that's obviously not practical nor ethical for anyone involved.
yes, the limits are economical. not cultural. you can't control the effect on culture by limiting immigration. economics is a different issue. the problem of course is that these issues get mixed, and people use economics as a reason when culture is their problem. and they are blaming their own economic situation on to much immigration when often that is simply not true.
germany has 200.000 open positions in IT right now. what would happen if we invited 200.000 experienced IT people from india? half the people without a job would complain that the indians are taking away their jobs. and lots of people would rant about how all these indians change our culture.
and what about the civil war in syria that produced 5 million refugees leaving the country? or ukraine, another 5.7 million refugees?
do you want to reject them just because you feel they threaten your culture?
since you claim that not having a limit is not ethical, let me quote the german chancellor merkel at the time: "The fundamental right to asylum for the politically persecuted knows no upper limit; that also goes for refugees who come to us from the hell of a civil war."
when merkel said "everyone is welcome" this was literally the first time in my life that i was proud of germany. and you should know that in germany being proud of germany is a politically very sensitive statement usually associated with extreme-right groups.
so when it comes to refugees there can't be an upper limit.and beyond that, the limit depends on the economic situation. if we need the workers, the limit goes up. it has to. culture doesn't factor into it at all. you can't have it both ways.
And look at Germany now. I have friends and family there. Merkel’s utopian naïveté has certainly not benefited Germany at this point. It went way too far.
I can’t believe people are like this. But it explains why Europe is more and more split on this topic: It’s two irreconcilable worldviews and one of them requires ignoring observed reality.
you are completely missing the point. what exactly should germany have done? let those people suffer? stick them in crowded refugee camps?
you do not get to turn a generous humanitarian aid gesture into blaming germany for being dumb to let all these people in.
this is not ignoring observed reality. observed reality is a consequence of people not being welcoming enough. of not being supporting and considerate of the foreign culture and not doing enough to befriend these people. as i linked in my other post, i wrote about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746099 we are not letting these people integrate in a way that allows them to keep some of their culture while giving them an opportunity to learn about our culture.
yes, the current reality may be rough. but those are growing pains. and they are consequences of war, and not consequences of allowing to many people to enter the country. by sharing the consequences of these wars germany becomes an ally to the victims, and that is a good thing. rejecting refugees would have turned germany into a villain and an ally of the perpetrators. i'd be ashamed if that happened.
I’m sorry, but not being welcoming _enough_!? Seeing the incredible, life altering strain the German model has put on the lower and middle class while they’ve bent over backwards to be more welcoming to strangers that share none of their values and consistently and purposefully alienate themselves from the general German population, I simply cannot agree we are observing the same reality.
Full disclaimer: Some of my friends are also immigrants from the 80’s. And they’re equally exacerbated by the state of Germany because the country and culture they love is deteriorating out of suicidal empathy.
i have traveled and lived in countries all over the world. first in europe and western countries. already there i found there is a gradual change of friendliness the farther south i went. among western countries the US is the most friendly. despite their issues with racism, the people are welcoming to foreigners and immigrants.
then i visited asia, and i was shocked how much more friendly and welcoming people are there. if you haven't been there it is unimaginable. same goes for africa. seriously. on a global scale, europeans are the worst in being welcoming. so, yes. germans are not welcoming enough. they are principled however, and it is those principles that made them invite those refugees.
the state of germany is not deteriorating because of empathy, but because of the unwillingness of some people to adapt and adjust to the new reality. this lack of adaption leads to confrontation, and that confrontation is the cause of any deterioration. the culture is not destroyed by immigrants. it is destroyed by lack of tolerance and unreasonable expectations.
No it's not. Stop diluting terms. You're making this problem worse for everyone, even the people you think you're on the side of, whoever they might be.
Tekin, what makes a Turk less white than a Greek or Spaniard?
If it's cultural (religion, music/sports related subcultures and codes) then it's chosen. Nobody can force you into a subculture in the West. As soon as you turn 18 you can essentially do what you want, most likely even way before that.
You can chose your subculture, how you dress, style your hair, talk and are read by the mainstream society. Actual racists go by skin color and ignore your cultural choices, fuck them.
Not really, racists often include ethnic features such as hair texture or even nose shape within their criteria for racial exclusion.
While in certain cultural contexts Turks may be read as white, within Europe there is a history of excluding them from whiteness and presenting them as a threat to European culture, mostly due to Islamophobia
The last paragraph is funny because Turks themselves use the expression White Turks to refer to the modern/secular/Western (as opposed to the Black Turks, conservative/Islamist).
Ethnic features = things you can nothing for, same category as skin color.
I was talking about the culture you chose and the stereotypes that go along with it. Stereotypes override ethnic features unless you actually deal with real racists.
DHH might not be street smart enough (like most people in tech) to see through those stereotypes on the streets of London.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying.
You start your original comment by asking what makes Turks non white which I answered, and from what I understand you believe that choosing to participate in a culture from the diaspora you are a part of means that you have to bear the burden of the stereotypes about that culture, even if they are racist in nature?
And furthermore, you believe that people that believe these stereotypes are not real racists because real racists only care about skin color?
Again, I could be misunderstanding, but I don't think that you need to only care about skin color to be racist. I think that DHH's anxieties about replacement of naitives being mostly focused on MENA people feels like a pretty clear sign he believes that non European (aka non white) immigrants are a problem, which to me, is racist.
It was not left out of the statement. I understood that was essentially what happened by the time I got to the end of his piece. The only exception being the “with no warning or communication” part. Obviously there is disagreement about whether that is true or not.
Everything you're quoting is from one aggrieved person, who clearly felt slighted, and who left out a whole lot of context in their own post. The article above is a lot more reasoned, less emotional, and seems completely reasonable to me. Ruby Central clearly has issues with both internal and external communication. And the above article isn't an official statement either; it's just one person, not involve in the decision, offering another perspective.
Between the initial removal of access, then giving it back after explaining it was a mistake; the people involved started a conversation about governance to clarify/fix things.
The conversation terminated because the majority of those people then had their access revoked again.
When weighing the facts here; which group or claimant has the most evidence for their claims?
The technical folks with lots of commits over many years, or the treasurer of an organisation who says the impetus for this was a "funding deadline" so all access had to be seized?
I think this person has good cause for being very upset at the lack of communication and the sudden removal of them from the organization. They were a maintainer of RubyGems for a decade.
Right now the board is acting indistinguishably from Andrew Lee during the Freenode collapse, and, like, everyone else who ever did a hostile takeover of an open source project ever. Supporters of the board are acting indistinguishably from supporters of Andrew Lee during the Freenode collapse.
Less emotional? It comes from someone who has no personal stake in the outcome, and was in the loop for the decision making. Versus someone who was personally slighted and was not properly communicated with about such a big change.
A maintainer of RubyGems was forcibly removed from the RubyGems GitHub org — which was renamed to Ruby Central — along with every other maintainer. Then access was restored, then revoked again. There was no explanation, no communication, and no understandable reasoning for this.
This wildly transcends "issues with both internal and external communication" or "we're just a bunch of makers who can't be expected to be good at organization or communication" (to highly paraphrase TFA). This is an absolutely disastrous breach of the community's trust.
> We doubled the labour pool with women entering it full-time, but we didn't double the value created.
How can you say that? GDP _grew_ by adding more workers to the workforce.
You didn't even bother making an argument about households being forced to have double-incomes in order to sustain their standard of living. You just think the cause is women entering the workforce and the effect is cost of living increases.
Someone has to manage your kubernetes environment. Depending on the nature of your workload, it may not be worth running kubernetes and instead just run everything via podman on your hosts. It really depends on how much investment you have in Kubernetes YAMLs.
I suspect a lot of places pour them into Azure Kubernetes Services and Azure Container Apps for this exact reason. I assume other cloud provices have similar services.
Though as someone who's used a lot of Azure infrastructure as code with Bicep and also done the K8s YAML's I'm not sure which is more complicated at this point to be honest. I suspect that depends on your k8s setup of course.
This is very true. My circumstances are a little unusual where using Azure costed more than running it internally on VMs, and running k8s or an equivalent didn't really add much value since I would have had to manage that, and my workload is uniform where each VM runs the same services so just running a podman pod was easier. There was no need for dynamic scheduling and scaling would just be launching more VMs and running more podman pods, and the entire deployment is just an Ansible playbook that preps the VM after boot then launches the containers. It didn't make sense to have another kind of YAML file to deploy the containers.
I have been running Podman in production for a number of years now, and have been very happy with the results.
Podman pods have been super useful, and the nature of my workload is such that we just run a full pod on every host, so it's actually removed the need for an orchestrator like Kubernetes. I manage everything via Ansible and it has been great.
