Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | iqanq's commentslogin

>Wow. In the beginning I found the article interesting before (in my subjective eyes) it turned into a thinly veiled Anti-China propaganda piece.

Domain is .in, you didn't have to open it.


Wouldn't that imply that every single published thing under the .in-TLD is just pro US propaganda. I wouldn't go so far and discredit a whole TLD as a prior in my mind.


Not necessarily pro-US, but definitely anti-China. It's analogous to pro-Russian news coverage in mainstream American media. Not gonna happen.


The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards, wants missiles in Ukraine pointing at Putin's face.


Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so.

Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17


> Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor

Some Islamic terrorists use terror to try to form a Qoqaz caliphate on Russian territory, and Russia fighting this development within their own borders is "being an aggressor". Meanwhile the US flies to to the other side of the world to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which I suppose was a defensive action by its Department of Defense.


If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much.

NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act).

For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors).

The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion

"How Russia Got So Big":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4

My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.


I'm not trying to convince you not to worry about Russia. I'm explaining why NATO is worrisome to many countries. You can be as worried about Russia as you'd like, and they're going to be just as worried about NATO, and so are the citizens of many other countries.


>The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.

As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.


Sure. But when you're building up an offensive stance you can only expect hostility back. And it helps strongmen get into power, too.


It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.


> The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards

If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.


If countries close to Russia both geographically and historically are more comfortable aligning with NATO rather than Russia, perhaps the problem is with Russia.


I suspect "Anne Applebaum"'s loyalty doesn't lie with America.


We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments, flamebait comments, and this sort of comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Without arguing over content, why the quotes? Applebaum is well documented as existing.


"Why doesn't X exist?" Because people generally don't want it.


Then why do people want iPhones in that size but not Androids?


Apparently it does not sell as well there. Apple keeps trying and yet discontinuing it.


The Mini is their worst selling phone and the 13 is rumored to be the last one


The SE is still decently popular and they’re rumored to be releasing a new one next month.


or buy based on hype - controlled by manufacturers - not real needs.


Or maybe the same kind of person who prefers a smaller phone tends to wait longer before replacing it.


The Wild West of Trying to Shove UTF-8 onto a UTF-16 Operating System


Since 2019 Windows has support for a UTF-8 codepage. You can enable it via the application manifest.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/globali...

That's just for the application though, the operation system itself is still using UTF-16.

Edit: ah, nevermind, that's mentioned by the author in the article


The issue there is that the Windows kernel does not validate Unicode. Linux has the same essential problem. Or more so, in that it does not specify an encoding at all.


They're essentially identical problems. In Linux these strings are arbitrary bytes with a rule forbidding byte 0x00, in Windows they're arbitrary unsigned 16-bit integers, I don't know if 0x0000 is forbidden. Not a significant difference.

Rust's OsString provides a structure that has the potentially nonsensical raw data inside it, and offers ways to ask for:

* The Unicode text if that's what is actually encoded (or else None)

* The text after applying Unicode decoding rules and substituting U+FFFD (Unicode's "Replacement Character" �) where errors occur

* The actual raw bytes / 16-bit unsigned integers

If all your program cared about was a filename, this is not coincidentally also how these operating systems spell filenames, so you can just hand the OsString to an OS-level file API, to open it, rename it or whatever without caring if it is Unicode or not.

The U+FFFD option does expose one potential surprise on Unix flavour systems which doesn't exist on Windows because U+FFFD is one UTF-16 code unit, but it is three UTF-8 code units, so such a "decoded" input could exceed the size of some internal storage you'd assumed would never need to be larger than the command line maximum length.


There still isn't a 464XLAT implementation on Windows that can be used in WAN/LAN networks.


>This site will be the first stop for anyone wanting to harass another person online. Some times a little friction is a good thing.

Precisely I was thinking of how much fun we'll be having in efnet with this.


I think broadly the same tradeoffs exist for any search sysetm, like Google or PACER for example.


If you are a feminist activist in saudi arabia, I guess you know the deal


So what do you want, Facebook to hire dicks to investigate employees?


In case the downvotes are for language, "dick" is also slang for a detective, sometimes specifically a private investigator[0], which I infer the parent intended in their usage.

Which isn't to say it's never been used in a double entendre with its more common meaning. See, for instance, the theme to Shaft[1].

[0] https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-term-private-dick-for-a-pr...

[1] https://genius.com/Isaac-hayes-theme-from-shaft-lyrics


Slang for a private investigator, in 1940 maybe.


They already do; they've contracts with Pinkertons to undermine union organizing.


Ooops, virtue signalling gone wrong here.


What is the word for complaining about virtue signalling as a way of virtue signalling?


Is so meta, even this acronym.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: