Most Venezuelan oil is very heavy and sour and needs to be mixed with lighter oil to be refined and they need access to restricted chemicals for the process. As it was explained to me a few months ago Iran provides lighter oil, solvents and materials for the refining and they take the heavier oil to sell it in the black market.

Sanctions aside the tanker was there for the taking by any government. Spoofing location and flying a false flag are enough to justify boarding and seizure by any country since it's a stateless ship likely involved in illegal activities.

In short yes, USA does it because it can and there's legal justification for it beyond "Trump oil, Trump bad lel", but as usual HN devolves to a potato when world events touch USA politics.

I remember a few fights in a few of my local LUG and communities that were very heated, but never death threats and almost always was online trash talking and in real life going back to being normal people with some snarky comments here and there.

There are plenty of more politically motivated people that have no contributions on anything, haven't built a thing and all they do is preach OSS. Some lean left, others more to the right. Although I would say I've seem more leftists like this because there's this believe among many that OSS is socialist, but to each their own as long as they're not trampling on other people's rights.

The problem I see is with some of the crazy people becoming more and more emboldened and the moderate majority just there bending backwards to appease them as if in hopes that it will calm them down, but they just increase the threat level.

If it was just a normal exchange of ideas it wouldn't matter and DHH would be just whining, but first response was "he's a nazi" "lets take away his project".

There's crazier stuff in Lunduke's tweets from days ago including death threats and inciting violence against him on public events. I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community but to threaten to kill people because someone attends a conference is crazy.

That is not the way to behave in a civilized society and is time people stop bending backwards to appease the lunatics otherwise there's no telling when any of us will be on the wrong end of the mob.

as you were comrade

They're already starting with the wrong incentive which is not to improve the thing but to spite someone.

It's like when they were adding caveats to licenses in the vein of "if you believe this or that then you cannot use my software because you're trash" (paraphrasing, but similar enough).

It's time we end up this shit. FLOSS is supposed to be about contribution and building something that's useful for all of us regardless of our political leaning. Instead we have assholes poisoning the well and idiots that follow them thinking that the monster they're creating is not going to eat them if they clap hard enough.

This comment will probably get flagged but whatever.

Calling anyone who is conservative or with whom you happen to disagree with a "nazi" is disingenuous and in current times probably dangerous since there is a lot of crazy people preaching the "it's ok to punch a nazi".

If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views.

Just looking at their channel selection is clear that they consider extremist only some forms extremism. Particularly those often considered as aligned with right wing politics.

From the Ledwich and Zaitsev paper they reference only the "white identitarian", "anti-sjw" and "men rights activism" categories are selected. But there are more categories that could be considered extremist at a glance like "revolutionary" and "anti-whiteness".

Other categories in Ledwich and Zaitsev's paper: Conspiracy, Libertarian, Anti-SJW, Social Justice, White Identitarian, Partisan Left, Partisan Right, Anti-theist, Religious Conservative, Socialist (Anti-Capitalist), Revolutionary, Provocateur, MRA (Mens Rights Activist), Missing Link Media, State Funded Channels, Anti-Whiteness. Some channels in other categories could be considered extremist but would require a nuanced analysis.

About the other lists or what actual channels they looked into I can't really say because I can't seem to find the actual list they used. If someone has the full list and categories they used please link it.

While it could be possible to analyze the behavior of extremism using only right leaning extremism, it is possible that this pattern does not apply to other forms or ideologies.

They're not victims. They knew the risks and decided to venture.

[looks like whatever you're writing has already been written in this workspace]

That's already the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/20/musk-tw...

Twitter as a public company was a money pit. Now is Elon's money pit.

Although I'd say the tag kind of fits, but Bush is in another category. All the people I mentioned had in common the persecution, imprisonment and execution of their own people at a massive level and maintained power by force. Bush went after other countries and was voted out in the end.