In wartime, militaries face horrific allocation decisions. While it is sensible to use skills effectively, Graphene OS's public messaging that pleads for special treatment for one individual developer because their project is important implies that some individuals' lives merit more protection than others, which is not true.
That messaging is insulting to families of equally skilled people who have died in combat and is also historically a precursor to extreme policies based on perceived human worth.
It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.
Clearly there is no meaningful discussion to be had here. Take care, I hope your absolutist views serve you well and that they don't fuck things up for the rest of us in the process.
> In wartime, militaries face horrific allocation decisions.
There was no decision made on where to assign him based on his skills prior to our intervention. People are assigned to infantry by default.
> While it is sensible to use skills effectively
This is not what they're doing in practice.
> Graphene OS's public messaging that pleads for special treatment for one individual developer because their project is important implies that some individuals' lives merit more protection than others, which is not true.
That's absolutely not what we said.
> It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
No, that's completely wrong. The entire purpose of the post was an appeal to Ukraine's military based on his clear value to them as a very talented security engineer/researcher. The whole point was getting on the radar of high level people who could evaluate that and make the correct decision of having him do work relevant to those skills. That's why we posted about it publicly at all. We had a clear goal and achieved it.
> It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.
Your claim that what we said or did is morally reprehensible is ludicrous. We didn't do anything to harm their war effort and they'll be far better off using him in a sensible role related to his skills rather than as infantry.
Ukraine's military leadership made the decision to have him transferred to a software development role entirely based on merit and his value to their war effort. It was done entirely by the book with many people aware of it. It was officially authorized by their military's general staff. If you think keeping our friend safe was morally reprehensible, good for you. None of the officers we talked to had any issue with what we did.
Do you think it's morally reprehensible for Russian men to flee Russia to avoid military service in a war of aggression? If anything, it's morally reprehensible for them not to do everything possible to avoid being part of it. Do you think people are obligated to fight and die for the state they were born in regardless of the details?
In regards to the actual circumstances, not everyone agrees men are obligated to fight and die for their country against an aggressor simply because they were born in it. You're treating it as if there's a universal moral code where defending the nation state you were born in is part of it. It's entirely possible to be against Russia's war of aggression and to support Ukraine defending themselves without wholeheartedly supporting forced conscription. Other countries could have intervened with their volunteer-based forces instead of watching Ukraine send their male population off to die against a much larger force without adequate equipment. What's moral about you expecting Ukrainian men to fight and die in a war while you do nothing?
You publicly ran a save-our-colleague campaign. “Our priority has been keeping them safe,” you “used our available connections,” called them “incredibly talented,” said it would be “extraordinarily misguided to send them to front line combat” – and (per Meduza’s write-up of your own posts) you tried to get that case in front of military command hoping they wouldn’t end up at the front.
Denying that this was special pleading is absurd; selective protection for an insider while countless other conscripts (many equally talented and important in their fields) get no such advocacy is a moral and ethical failure.
You're obviously right, but I would encourage you not to get bogged down debating moral philosophy with random people on Hacker News, I think you could do it for the rest of your life without running out of candidates and your perspective is obvious and reasonable to anyone more interested in understanding you than in the joys of endless debate.
That messaging is insulting to families of equally skilled people who have died in combat and is also historically a precursor to extreme policies based on perceived human worth.
It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.