celsoazevedo

Isn't it funny that every change to "protect users" ends up with you paying Facebook more to reach the people that followed your page?

I still remember when Facebook Pages were promoted as an alternative to feeds and newsletters. You could follow a page and be sure to receive all updates from them. Now you even have to pay to share links.

This seems to be a static website managed with Jekyll. I've never used it, but I'd be surprised if there isn't a way to automatically convert images to different formats.

I'm assuming it would take a bit longer to deploy the site and having 2 or 3 different versions of the same image would use more space, but it shouldn't be hard that hard to use AVIF, even if Pixelmator doesn't support it at the moment. It would also ensure that those with older browsers can still view the image, something that won't happen if we only have AVIF or WebP.

Unless you have something solid to back up that intelligence sharing stuff, I'll have to doubt what you're saying. Not actively supporting a war and to want business to keep going, that's one thing, but to work against the state? At the end of the day, Yandex operates in Russia, under Russian law, during wartime, and has to deal with everything that comes with it. No country or government allows companies to do that against them, especially if what they're supposedly doing is already known on Hacker News.

Regarding the rest, every action has consequences. The country you seem to referring to seems to already have paid in different ways and continues to do so. It's just how it works.

But this thread isn't about North American countries, it's about Russia, which decided to break treaties and borders they themselves recognized, to conquer a neighbour by force. While I see this as a huge waste, I can't really be mad at those defending themselves. And from the moment Russia decided to attack civilian infrastructure (eg: power generation, especially in winter, before Ukraine had these long range capabilities) then their own infrastructure becomes fair play. Maybe they shouldn't have done that? Not too late to stop though.

That whirlwind quote, apparently it's from the bible, so it's not new wisdom. But when in the context of war, I'm always reminded of a 1942 Arthur Harris quote:

> "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Now, Harris wasn't exactly a nice guy. Under his command, the RAF Bomber Command levelled a few German cities with people in them. But what he said (and did) is something leaders should keep in mind before starting wars. Those who don't, risk ending up with Yandex data centres in flames.

You're pushing it a bit, aren't you?

Also, I find it hard to believe that at this point any major Russian company is allowed to be aligned with Ukraine, let alone have an intelligence sharing with them.

Anyway, Russia as a country decided to invade a neighbour, attack their infrastructure, etc. "Sow the wind reap the whirlwind".

There goes Kagi's results provider. :-P

I wouldn't mind, but there needs to be a way to remove the "training wheels".

I don't want my computer to always be as closed and restrictive as an iPhone. That's good sometimes and perfect for some users, but not for everyone or all the time.

I'm looking at this more from a practical level. The morality is important, but when you reduce it to "X exists because of ethnic cleansing" you're leaving out a lot of stuff.

For example, Hezbollah is, according to Iran, part of their "forward defence" doctrine. When they're told to attack a technically superior opponent known to often overreact with force, you know what will happen to those on the receiving end, and you also know that some in Israel will take the opportunity to push their agenda. We can talk about morality, but in the real world these orgs are not there just to protect the people.

Perhaps I'm wrong to focus too much on the practical side of things, but to only care about morality? That doesn't work.

The oversimplification is a problem though. From the early days (WW1, Turkey losing control of the area) to the Zionist movement and the support it received after WW2 because of what happened, to the Soviet Union being their main backer and then their switch to Arab countries and the US backing of Israel, the different wars where Israel was the underdog, to the different peace attempts and the attempts from some on both sides to destroy it, to the current day. Then you have a strong religious aspect, which throws a lot of rationality out of the window. Not to mention the external aspect where you have a handful of countries supporting their side and often not in the best interest of the local people.

But maybe you're right and this all very simple. Maybe many generations were too dumb to see it. I personally wouldn't mind if you came up with a plan to fix it! Good luck :-)

If they were negotiating something, then clearly it didn't start there either. This supports my position that 1) this isn't a simple black and white question and 2) "who started it" depends on the date we decide to pick.

We can argue if it's right to do that while negotiations are going on, but that's a different question.

Hezbollah was created in the 80s after the 1982 Lebanon War, when Israel invaded southern Lebanon. But why have they done that? Well, the PLA were attacking them from Lebanon. And then someone will come along to point out that the PLA was attacking Israel because of what Israel did, and someone else will point out that Israel was reacting to the constant ganging up of the arab countries around them, and so on and so forth. Let's not forget the religious side, the cold war politics, etc.

Do you call this clear? I don't.

This mess, for a lack of a better word, was a thing before I was born and I wouldn't be surprised if it still was a thing by the time I'm dead (assuming I live a long life). Every single action has a justification going all the way back.

They all have laid out their ideas. That's why I struggle to see good sides here, why I won't defend Israel's actions or Iran's, and especially why I refuse to take sides with religious nuts of any type.

According to Iran, the proxies are part of their forward defence strategy. Maybe you think that's needed, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Unless you consider that attacking a country known for strong reactions (and over-reactions) is a good strategy for those on the receiving end of said reaction, you can't think of the proxies as organizations that exist to protect the poor civilians.

> if you make that distinction then we'd have to go to 1948 or so; or even way before that

And that's why I wrote this:

> most will "whatabout" their way through a century of history

Every action is a reply to something, and it keeps going. It never ends. Everyone has a different start date to whatever is happening.

> I think it is clear-cut. They refer to Israel and the USA bombing Iran. That's very clear.

But Israel and Iran were attacking and launching missiles at each other in 2025.

I mean, if one thinks that everything orbits around the US and a war only starts when they get involved, then sure... but there was a war going on before February 2026.