> First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer
You have named 3 people out of 8 billion alive, so 0.00000004%. That doesn't sound like a consensus, or even a majority. It sounds like 3 dudes saying a thing.
> The timeline is: 2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe...
So as far back as 2007, we have recordings of putin threatening other countries against exercising their sovereign rights, in violation of international law. Not great for russia.
Unfortunately for the world, the timeline starts far before that, with russian invasions and annexations of their neighbors. If we look further back, we see russian genocide of Ukrainians during the holodomor. If we look even further back, we see russian ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian Tatars.
Based on this history, and the admissions of russian officials, we can conclude that russia just wants what Ukraine has, and hates Ukrainians for saying no.
Your response focuses entirely on the people involved, rather than the substance of the concerns raised by one party and upheld by 6 others. I don't care if 1 of the 7 parties regularly drives busloads of orphans off a cliff, if the concerns have merit, they must be addressed. The job of the director is to capitulate to truth, no matter who voices it.
Any personal insults one of the parties lobs at others can be addressed separately from the concerns. An official must perform their duties without bias, even concerning somebody who thinks them the worst person in the world, and makes it known.
tl;dr: sometimes the rude, loud, angry constituent at the town hall meeting is right
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I see one group of people shining it and another shading the first group.
Someone who wants to be seen as acting in good faith (and cryptography standards folks should want this), should be addressing the substance of what he said.
Consensus doesn't mean "majority rule", it requires good-faith resolutions (read: not merely responses like 'nuh-uh') to the voiced concerns.
> Accusing the chairs of corruption may have influenced how seriously his complaint was taken.
If you alter your official treatment of somebody because they suggested you might be corrupt (in other words, because of personal animus), then you have just confirmed their suggestion.
No, because in this hypothetical you have some authority to discipline that someone. That's what's going on here: DJB is calling out people in the IETF leadership -- people who can dole out posting privileges bans and what not. DJB is most likely going to skirt the line and not go over it, which is what's really tricky here, but the IESG could say they've had enough and discipline him. The trouble is that the underlying controversy does need to be addressed, so the IESG doesn't have completely free hand -- they can end up with a PR problem on their hands.
> So all someone who is being abusive has to do to force me to be stand there and be abused by them is to call me corrupt?
In this example, rectifying concerns is your job, so yes, you have to do it, even if 1 of the 7 parties who hold the concern is a jerk*. Officials can't dispense with rules and procedure just because their feelings are hurt.
If you are actually corrupt**, it isn't abuse. If you aren't, it still isn't abuse. Even if it is abuse, and you deal with it sanctions, you must still rectify the substance of the concerns upheld by 6 other parties.
* 1/7 would be a pretty desirable jerk/total ratio, in my experience
** (and officially behaving differently based on personal animus makes one so)
You may misunderstand how the IETF works. Participation is open. This means that it is possible that people who want the work to fail for their own reasons rather than technical merit can join and attempt to sabotage work.
So consensus by your definition is rarely possible given the structure of the organization itself.
This is why there are rough consensus rules, and why there are processes to proceed with dissent. That is also why you have the ability to temporarily ban people, as you would have with pretty much any well-run open forum.
It is also important to note that the goal of IETF is also to create interoperable protocol standards. That means the work in question is a document describing how to apply ML-KEM to TLS in an interoperable way. It is not a discussion of whether ML-KEM is a potentially risky algorithm.
DJB regularly acts like someone who is attempting to sabotage work. It is clear here that they _are_ attempting to prevent a description of how to use ML-KEM with TLS 1.3 from being published. They regularly resort to personal attacks when they don't get their way, and make arguments that are non-technical in nature (e.g. it is NSA sabotage, and chairs are corrupt agents). And this behavior is self-documented in their blog series.
DJB's behavior is why there are rules for how to address dissent. Unfortunately, after decades DJB still does not seem to realize how self-sabotaging this behavior is.
> the work in question is a document describing how to apply ML-KEM to TLS in an interoperable way. It is not a discussion of whether ML-KEM is a potentially risky algorithm.
In my experience, the average person treats a standard as an acceptable way of doing things. If ML-KEM is a bad thing to do in general, then there should not be a standard for it (because of the aforementioned treatment by the average person).
> It is clear here that they _are_ attempting to prevent a description of how to use ML-KEM with TLS 1.3 from being published.
It's unclear why trying to prevent a bad practice from being standardized is a bad thing. But wait, how do we know whether it's a good or bad practice? Well, we can examine the response to the concerns DJB raised: Whether the responses satisfactorily addressed the concerns, and whether the responses followed the rules and procedures for resolving each of those concerns.
> They regularly resort to personal attacks when they don't get their way
This is certainly unfortunate, but 6 other parties upheld the concerns. DJB is allowed to be a jerk, even allowed to be banned for abusive behavior IMO, however the concerns he initially raised must nonetheless be satisfactorily addressed, even with him banned. Banning somebody is sometimes necessary, but is not an acceptable means of suppressing valid concerns, especially when those concerns are also held by others who are not banned.
> DJB's behavior is why there are rules for how to address dissent.
The issue here seems to be that the bureaucracy might not be following those rules.
This is still understating it. Any barely competent crew should be able to handle a single engine failure on takeoff (in a normal scenario, not this one).
> Overall, we rate the NGO Monitor Right biased based on support for the right-wing Israeli government. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on the consistent promotion of pro-Israeli propaganda.
maybe, even though NGO monitor is not associated with a terrorist organization , however that's still a photo, unless you claim it is doctored or the people themselves are not the people purported.
> NGO monitor is not associated with a terrorist organization
The link I provided shows that this is not true: they seem to be biased towards a terrorist organization that is currently perpetrating a genocide.
> that's still a photo
Someone being in a photo doesn't disprove what OP said. Maybe you can dispute OP's factual statements with factual statements from a source that isn't aligned with a genocidal terrorist organization?
Yeah, it must suck to get brutally JDAM'd (along with your whole family [0]), sniper-droned (seeking to main and kill [1]) and mown down by "gaza humanitarian foundation" machine-gun fire (while queueing for food) [2] in Palestine, just for disagreeing with israel's position that your land now belongs to them. If you're lucky, you won't be thrown into one of israel's rape-and-torture-camps [3][4].
But anyways, great submission and great work. Remember though, your cell phone signals will earn you a JDAM, because you might be a terrorist for using a cell phone. So stay on the move.
Hamas supporters like you really make my skin crawl. Remember when they massacred hundreds of people at a concert and paraded the body of a young German woman they murdered like a hunting trophy? Is that what you support?
If you're criticized by someone who supports israel's terroristic raping, torturing, killing, and genocide of innocent civilians, that's a strong indication that you're in the right, since they're in the wrong.
The critic can pretend to be as offended as much as they want, but since they're supporting israel's terroristic raping, torturing, killing, and genocide of innocent civilians (an act far worse than the one they're criticizing), the criticism rings hollow: they don't actually care about innocent civilians, only about their "side" getting everything it wants.
No sane person is "pretending" to be offended by the despicable actions of Hamas on Oct 7 2023. Even if Israel is committing war crimes (a reasonable position to argue), that doesn't make Hamas not a totalitarian theocracy that kills its opponents. These facts can coexist. Refusing to acknowledge Hamas's nature while condemning Israel's actions isn't moral clarity it's selective blindness.You're claiming moral authority to dismiss criticism by asserting I support worse actions committed by Israel, while simultaneously excusing far worse actions by Hamas. This is just "whataboutism" and it just attempts to silence criticism through tu quoque reasoning. This means neither side's conduct gets properly examined.
Massacring concert-goers, taking civilian hostages, and using rape as a weapon of war are either categorically wrong or they're not. If Israel's killing of civilians delegitimizes its supporters' moral standing, then Hamas's deliberate targeting of civilians on Oct 7 2023 equally delegitimizes yours. You can't claim the moral high ground while excusing incredibly evil actions when they are committed by Hamas. You remind me strongly of Trump supporters who support him when he does exactly the same things they criticized Obama and Biden for doing.
> No sane person is "pretending" to be offended by the despicable actions of Hamas on Oct 7 2023
Interesting how your memory starts and stops at that very moment, ignoring israel's terroristic hostage-taking, raping, torturing, killing, and genocide, which happened before and after that date, in greater numbers.
To me, that sort of whataboutism when deflecting the criticism of israel which was the original topic, indicates the speaker doesn't actually care about innocent civilians, unless they are israeli. Indeed, refusing to acknowledge israel's nature while trying to redirect to someone else's actions is selective blindness.
Massacring children, taking civilian hostages, using rape as a weapon of war, engaging in war crimes, engaging in crimes against humanity, and engaging in genocide (all of which israel did and is doing) are either categorically wrong or they're not, regardless of what you think of hamas or any other 3rd party.
You can't claim the moral high ground while excusing incredibly evil actions when they are committed by israel (actions which are even more incredibly evil than those of hamas). You remind me strongly of trump supporters who support him when he does exactly the same things, and much worse things, than those they criticized Obama and Biden for doing.
Hamas's explicit goal is the destruction of Israel and creating an Islamic state to replace it. Do you support this? What is your ideal solution to the conflict?
Hamas is essentially a less ambitious ISIS. Hamas similarities to ISIS:
-Sunni Islamist organizations seeking Sharia-based states
-Totalitarian control in their territories
-Systematic killing of political opponents and "collaborators"
> [person complaining about whataboutism proceeds to make a post consisting entirely of whataboutism to distract from the topic of israel]
Considering israel is guilty of everything you listed and worse (including genocide), and in greater amounts, this isn't even a good 'whataboutism' from you. Indeed, no amount of whataboutism, nothing hamas has done or can do justifies israel's crimes. Either way, try to stay on topic (israel) rather than engaging in whataboutism (deflecting from israel with 'whatabout hamas!?') and spreading anti-jewish slurs.
By the way, I think our fellow poster is still waiting for an answer from you here:
Please stop ignoring everything I say about Hamas with "Israel bad too". Do you or do you NOT want Hamas to replace Israel with a ISIS style Islamic state, as that is their goal. Have you ever read their insane rant of a Charter?
First, I ask that you please stop ignoring everything everyone is saying about israel with "hamas bad too" [0][1][2][3].
Remember, israel was the topic until someone engaged in whataboutism w/r/t hamas. 'But hamas' here, on the topic of israel's bad behavior, is a tu quoque fallacy. Someone's bad behavior cannot be solely defended on the basis of 'but so and so did X', and israel's behavior in particular (oppression, civilian kidnapping, rape, torture, mass killing, collective punishment, crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide) is indefensible, period.
Do you or do you NOT want israel to continue their campaign of oppression, civilian kidnapping, rape, torture, mass killing, collective punishment, crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide?
Have you ever heard the insane rants of their leaders about Palestine and innocent Palestinian civilians [4]? It's the same language hitler used to describe jews like myself, and advocate for our extermination: "human animals"; "it is an entire nation out there that is responsible"; "they should starve to death"; "we must make sure that Gaza is empty of Gazans". That's bad!
As a kid visiting Holocaust museums, I was taught the lessons of "never again", and recognized that it meant for all people. Let's all learn from that horrible genocide, and stop this one being perpetrated by israel.
Are you sure you aren't looking for stormfront or elmu's twitter, rather than HN? It's not nice for you to comment on my jewish faith (or anybody else's) in such a negative manner.
But I didn't interpret your posts as irrational anyways. You are pretty coherent, just disagreeable in your religious discrimination against jews.
[READER NOTE: parent "UltraSane" edited their post after I replied, above is UltraSane's original antisemetic post to which I replied]
Irrational? That's like saying the Allies response to the Nazi's was irrational.
Come to think of it, maybe that's the solution. After WW2 the Allies "DeNazified" Germany by dismantling Nazi organizations, removing Nazis from public life, and trying prominent war criminals.
It also included symbolic actions like changing street names, as well as re-educating the German population in democratic values.
I'm keenly aware that there are significant sections of Israel and non-Israeli Jews who stand shoulder to shoulder fighting against what is happening in Israel.
But it's not enough. Israel should go through a process similar to DeNazification.
I live in Germany and I can tell you German denazification was a complete failure. Yes they're not run by a party calling itself NSDAP. Yes there haven't been concentration camps. Yes everyone knows you have to protect Jews. But the underlying feelings are still there - they're just directed towards different groups. Germany is inching closer to doing it again with Muslims.
Interesting perspective. However (and give me some rope here), I'd still argue that, somehow, Germany emerged from WW2, eventually, as a relatively sane and democratic country compared to where it had been during and prior to the war. So it wasn't a complete failure.
All countries, as we're sadly finding out now, have a nasty undercurrent. Particularly now, but nothing compared to Nazi Germany in terms of its ideological underpinnings.
However, the indiscriminate hatred, dehumanisation, and, yes, genocide on display from Israel echoes what I've studied in Hitlers Germany.
And so, again, I'll argue Israel needs a similar program of DeNazification. I don't know how you get there, because they haven't been "defeated" and are in fact being supported. But that is what is needed in Israel.
The use of the term Nazi is deeply stupid. But Israel does need to chill a bit and care more about their global PR. But they are surrounded by countries that really DO want to destroy them so I can understand why they are so trigger happy. The way they destroyed Hezbollah was brilliant. The Hamas charter is a giant Islamist Jew-hating rant.
It’s hard for me not to have a “black pilled” view of this region. They’ll never have peace until they actually want it. There’s too many nuts on every side whose whole purpose for living is to see anyone who isn’t just like them dead.
Unfortunately the regular civilian who live in this region suffer for it. The only way out I can see would be some kind of cross border cross culture mass uprising against all the fanatics and those who fund and enable them.
It should also serve as a warning for us. We can have peace and prosperity because we have, as a culture, managed to restrain these kinds of impulses. We flirt with hyper polarization and fanatical ideologies at our own peril. Those who promote this stuff for short term political or economic gain should be compared, maybe, to people playing around with dangerous gain of function research on disease organisms. This stuff takes hold and our countries will look like the war zones of the Middle East.
People really like to gloss over how deeply rooted Jew hatred is in Islam. The Koran contains blatant hate speech against Jews and this is the primary reason why Muslims resent the existence of Israel so irrationally
Because it isn't symmetric at all. Mohamed added all the of hate speech about Jews because they sensibly didn't believe he was a prophet. It is remarkably similar to how L Ron Hubbard taught his followers to hate Psychologists because they rightly called him out for his bullshit.
> Particularly now, but nothing compared to Nazi Germany
This statement is copium, and part of the problem. The first half of Nazi Germany was nothing compared to the second half. Hitler was chancellor for 11 years, and every year was worse than the one before. The war and the Holocaust only happened towards the end. And the trajectory the USA has been going on so far is not dissimilar to the first half of the Nazis.
> At a point, all you can do is apologise, offer compensation if possible, and plot out how you’re going to prevent it going forward.
I totally agree – You've covered the 3 most important things to do here: Apologize; make it right; sufficiently explain in detail to customers how you'll prevent recurrences.
After reading the post, I see the 1st of 3. To their credit, most companies don't get that far, so thanks, Checkout.com. Now keep going, 2 tasks left to do and be totally transparent about.
> Comparing rope and an LLM comes across as disingenuous.
What makes you feel that? Both are tools, both have a wide array of good and bad uses. Maybe it'd be clearer if you explained why you think the two are incomparable except in cases of disingenuousness?
Remember that things are only compared when they are different -- you wouldn't often compare a thing to itself. So, differences don't inherently make things incomparable.
> I struggle to believe that you believe the two are comparable when it comes to the ethics of companies and their impact on society.
I encourage you to broaden your perspectives. For example: I don't struggle to believe that you disagree with the analogy, because smart people disagree with things all the time.
What kind of a conversation would such a rude, dismissive judgement make, anyways? "I have judged that nobody actually believes anything that disagrees with me, therefore my opinions are unanimous and unrivaled!"
A rope isn’t going to tell you to make sure you don’t leave it out on your bed so your loved ones can’t stop you from carrying out the suicide it helped talk you in to.
You are 100% right, a rope likely isn't going to tell you anything. There's one of those differences I mentioned which makes comparisons useful. We could probably name a few differences!
So, what makes you think comparing the 2 tools is invalid? You just compared them yourself, and I don't think you were being disingenuous.
Just because I used italics to emphasize something one time doesn’t mean you get to talk to me like that. I am not a child and you’re being unnecessarily patronizing.
I let it slide in the previous comment and gave you the benefit of the doubt despite what I saw but this comment clearly illustrates how disrespectful you’re being.
I think you, as you put it, rudely, patronizingly, disrespectfully responded to the wrong post: mine was a polite one about a comparison between 2 tools and your statement that the comparing posters must be acting in bad faith (whereas you, with your differing opinion, are acting in good faith).
I'm not interested in focusing on tone-policing, since it is one of the lowest forms of debate and usually avoids the substance of the matter. So, I'm happy to return to our discussion about the 2 tools anytime you want to review my previous post and respond to the substance of it. If you're not into that, have a nice day comfortable in the knowledge that I've already turned the other cheek.
You have named 3 people out of 8 billion alive, so 0.00000004%. That doesn't sound like a consensus, or even a majority. It sounds like 3 dudes saying a thing.
> The timeline is: 2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe...
So as far back as 2007, we have recordings of putin threatening other countries against exercising their sovereign rights, in violation of international law. Not great for russia.
Unfortunately for the world, the timeline starts far before that, with russian invasions and annexations of their neighbors. If we look further back, we see russian genocide of Ukrainians during the holodomor. If we look even further back, we see russian ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian Tatars.
Based on this history, and the admissions of russian officials, we can conclude that russia just wants what Ukraine has, and hates Ukrainians for saying no.