Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | alaricus's comments login

There was no flame war in this thread. But there is clear evidence of abuse and harassment by a mod. I'm flagging dang's post in the hope that a real moderator will look at it.

What an embarrassment indeed. Hackernews deserves better moderation.


Certainly, people can and do have different ideas of what counts as a flamewar. In that sense it's just a difference of opinion and that's fine. However, we're trying for HN to be a particular kind of web forum. The principles of what we're trying for are expressed at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Many comments in this thread broke those principles quite badly.


Apple's attempts to lock customers within it's ecosystem is anti-competitive behaviour that hurts consumers.


Microsoft kills another great open source project. This is sad. Don't rely on Microsoft.


10% sounds too low. Most of what is on Twitter is spam.


Actually it's not.. I was also pleasantly surprised to see live samples. Analyst here who worked on the study


In reality, yes. Definitely. In this study, I think they define spam however they do.


I prefer Firefox.


A lot.


Increasing trade with Russia is a good strategy. No need to follow America to WW3 or a new cold war.


A $10 billion pipe sitting empty is good strategy?


Sitting empty due to American meddling.


Come on now.


Selling off allies in eastern europe to Russia is a good strategy? That's a good way to start WW3, on Russian side...


Increasing trade with Russia is the most effective way to avoid a war. When goods and services don't cross borders, armies will.


Russia was one of Ukraine's largest trade partners, how did that work out for Ukraine?

Not to mention in the case of Germany, Russia's army would be obliterated by NATO if the warfare was purely conventional.


Fun thing is, USSR was contained with little trade. For the past 30 years we had trade and now we have Ukraine war.

Same for China. It was contained for some time. Then West propped up China via trade and now China is starting to flex it's muscles.


Not when that trade directly props up an active war machine.


I guess we should stop trading with USA because of Iraq then.


Trump was yet another demonstration that Americans can't be trusted.


Going a bit far there


Not really.


He left off "Putin and Xi are more trustworthy." That's what he is implying, just doesn't have the courage to come out and say it.


[flagged]


pointless replies that add nothing to the discussion are typical of troll accounts, thanks for pointing that out with your own sh*tpost (very meta!)


Subsidizing an American company is not necessary for Germany's security. In fact, it undermines it.


That's a silly and naive take. This investment will tremendously boost the semiconductor ecosystem in Germany. In the long run, this will do wonders when German companies want to or have to expand their capabilities, find more employees, design, package or assemble chips, buy wafers, equipment, supply chain, you name it.

It's about building an ecosystem, much like SV. People on HN of all places should know this.


Really?

I didn't read anything good about working for Intel.


You likely didn't hear much about any great Intel chips for the last nearly decade.

This is why they have changed the top management, and are changing internally, as much as I can judge by the press.


There will be a huge knowledge transfer into Germany during this process. Fab's are fabulously intricate and difficult to run. $5.5 billion to teach your populace how to make chips? Worth it.


>> $5.5 billion to teach your populace how to make chips? Worth it.

Germany already has advance chip fabrication - see Global Foundries (formerly AMD fab). It's not EUV, but even Intel still needs to figure out how to make those chips.


Companies like Intel don't transfer knowledge. In fact, they often suck local talent out.


Nope. Source: multiple friends who work in Intel fabs. These fabs aren't turnkey.


Ideally, the EU would be trying to build its own semiconductor industry. I don't see that kind of foresight in any of our political leaders, much less mine in Germany. So the next best thing is to ensure that the current company we're reliant on builds local production.


Note that the act of giving subsidies to foreign companies automatically kills any case for investing in a truly local chip company, because you can't easily compete against that.


Competing with Intel is out of the question for any local chip company.

But semiconductors is much much much more than high end CPUs. There’s totally a huge opportunity for local chip companies to grow. And having company like Intel may help, as people who work there will get a lot of know how that they can take to smaller local companies to help them grow.


> Competing with Intel is out of the question for any local chip company.

Why? Intell lost the mobile, and is currently losing desktop/server. RISC-V is more promising each passing day. If India can do this, why can't Europe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31243674


https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/27/india_it_would_be_fab...

India is hoping it can convince Intel and TSMC to set up fabs in the country as part of their multibillion-dollar manufacturing expansion blueprint.

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that India's government is making pitches to both companies, backed with a $10 billion subsidy plan that can be used to cover up to half of the cost of a new chipmaking plant. The plan also covers new plants for display manufacturers.


> If India can do this Can do what exactly? AFAIK they haven't actually built anything yet. It's going to be years until they have anything competitive with current gen CPUs. And even if they build something useful there is no guarantee it won't end up like Russian Elbrus (way to expensive and 10 years behind Intel/ARM).

Intel never really had the mobile market and was seemingly never particularly interested in it. They are currently heavily pressured by AMD and ARM based cpus both in the consumer and server markets.


It took Apple, one of the most powerful company in history, about decade and half, multiple acquisitions and many billions of dollars to be able to compete with Intel.

By the time any incumbent in Germany would be ready, even assuming they start right now, that fab will be heavily outdated.

But there’s literally bazillion other semiconductors (and they are the main reason for the shortage, not high end CPUs) that you can competitively manufacture and increase supply chain locality for critical components.


Germany used to have a semiconductor industry like Intermetall (acquired by micronas acquired by TDK). The problem is that IMHO German automotive industry is not willing to pay a cent more than necessary.

They do only care about short term profit. They triggered the chip crisis in Germany by stopping there orders and then restocking. I am not sure if any government can fix this.


>Germany used to have a semiconductor industry like Intermetall (acquired by micronas acquired by TDK). The problem is that IMHO German automotive industry is not willing to pay a cent more than necessary.

How about the three fabs that Bosch has in Germany? Or Infineon, X-Fab, Globalfoundries, TI, Prema, Elmos (now Siltech), Vishay, Nexperia?


Silicon on hacker news pretty much always means latest and smallest logic node, because most commenters aren’t aware of semiconductor applications beyond computer parts and assume everything is about 7 5 3 nm because that’s what gets in the news.


Sorry for being imprecise: I ment a much larger specialized semiconductor industry, that did not survive the market pressure. True that Bosch, Osram and Siemens (now Infineon) have survived. But I think things like RAM production moved out of Germany. Global foundries (formally th AMD fab) is an example of a non-European company, although certainly there fabs and are no clones of US fabs. However, afaik the industry used to be much more diversified and innovative at a time. Actually there is still some interesting exception in the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabric...


Which of them can make a 2010-level ARM chip?


GF in FDX22, possibly also with eMRAM noadays. Surely not sure fathers 2010 cmos process...


Infineon doesn't count?


And there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Fab

"The X-FAB Silicon Foundries is a German group of semiconductor foundries, with headquarters in Erfurt (X-FAB Semiconductor Foundries AG is located in the south east industrial area between Melchendorf and Windischholzhausen). The group specializes in the fabrication of analog and mixed-signal integrated circuits for fabless semiconductor companies, as well as MEMS and solutions for high voltage applications."

And:

https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2021/03/apple-to-invest-ov...

"Apple will invest over 1 billion euros in Germany and plans European Silicon Design Center in Munich"


They are on it [1], but it takes time.

[1] https://on5g.es/en/ec-sets-targets-for-european-digital-sove...


Some of the current German leaders (like Annalena Baerbock) are too subservient to American corporate interests.


I mean, the fab is physically in Germany. That's what matters for national security.

As an American, would I (hypothetically) rather have a Germany company building F-35s in the US than an American defense contractor building F-35s in Indonesia? I think the answer is obviously "yes".


The fab is in Germany. In a scenario where the US and Germany are at odds Germany is the one with a fab. I doubt it weakens Germany's position unless they sacrificed funding some German chip maker, but I don't think they have anything near as huge as Intel.


I mean in theory but not in practice


The factory is located on german soil, so if push comes to shove it is a german factory.


Would you mind explaining why you think this is the case?


America is not part of Europe. No reason to spend European money supporting American companies.


European money for European manufacturing staffed exclusively with Europeans and making chips for European products used by Europeans in Europe.

The question OP asked is why it matters to you that the company that owns the fab is not European? The local investment is what should matter, no?


Local investment is good. Subsidies to American companies is not.


They are dependent on and subservient to the US and its geopolitical interests. We see this right now with Germany self-sabotaging it's own economy and industrial power by cutting off cheap Russian energy at the direction of US policy interests (Nord Stream 2 was agreed upon for years between Russia and Germany but thwarted at every turn, sanctioned etc by US).


It wasn't thwarted at every turn. Maybe we should have but we didn't, at least not at every turn.

We did warn then it was a bad idea. Other countries especially countries in Eastern EU warned them it was a bad idea. And lo and behold trying to bring peace through trade didn't work with Russia.

Unless Germany wants to exit the EU like the UK it does have to take the interests of other EU countries into account, many of them are much more anti Russia then America for obvious reasons. And even if Germany were to leave, not sanctioning Russia now would still be bad even if only considering German interests


US sanctioned Swiss and Russian suppliers constructing the pipeline, and debated in Congress and Whitehouse various policies to ban it's activation.

>it was a bad idea

It isn't a bad idea. It's a very good idea for Europe. Cheap plentiful energy supply from your neighbor and expanded economic relations would be a very good thing for making Europe economy strong.

Sanctioning Russia is hurting Europe severely. They have massive gas and oil needs supplied by Europe. The sanctions hurt German industry and this energy cannot be replaced by other sources anywhere near similar prices or volumes


It was a very bad idea. "We don't need nuclear power, we have Russian gas" is pretty hard to defend as an idea, really. Especially after Russia went pretty overt in its ambitions to re-establish the empire. And the invasion of Georgia was years before construction of Nord Stream 1 started and Nord Stream 2 went into planning. The annexation of Crimea years before the construction of Nord Stream 2 started.


Fun fact: the rabidly anti-Nuclear part of German politics is the Green party. Who are also the most pro-American and pro-War faction these days. It makes 0 sense.


I do think that the only pro war faction is not found in german politics but in russia. How are the greens in favour of russians war of aggression in ukraine?


It was also hated by other EU countries:

>President of the European Council Donald Tusk said that Nord Stream 2 is not in the EU's interests.[19] Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have questioned the different treatment of Nord Stream 2 and South Stream projects.[19][20] Some claim that the project violates the long-term declared strategy of the EU to diversify its gas supplies.[21] A letter, signed by the leaders of nine EU countries, was sent to the EC in March 2016, warning that the Nord Stream 2 project contradicts the European energy policy requirements that suppliers to the EU should not control the energy transmission assets, and that access to the energy infrastructure must be secured for non-consortium companies.[22][23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_2


Diversify the gas and oil supplies after you lock in a consistent steady supply, not before lol. Now European industrial capacity will crater. They need energy to fuel their economy. No nation ever became strong or a world power by consuming less energy, or paying more than their peers.

And, just because they want to diversify, doesn't mean the present geological and economic reality allows for it. Utopian policy in place of realpolitik is foolish. Same with ESG and insane green anti hydrocarbon, anti-nuclear policies.


Nord Stream 2 was opposed by Americans who want to sell overpriced LNG to Europe.

It was also opposed by Eastern Europeaners such as Tusk who (understandibly) dislike Russia.


Now it's proved that Eastern are right.


Hardly


Ah yes, the US interest of not funding Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Heaven forbid any Europeans have any interest themselves in not helping a warmonger. Obviously they can only do this at the behesr of Uncle Sam.


It is only my claim that their interests are not completely aligned. US is much more energy independent and gepolitically secure across the ocean from whatever happens on the "world-island" [0].

Whereas Europe might directly suffer from instability and chaos, as well as loss of Russian energy supplies, the US would not and in relative terms becomes stronger if Europe is severed from Russian energy, and the continent is in conflict and chaos.

Europe having tight relations with Russia, economically especially energy-wise, is greatly beneficial to Europe and detrimental to US hegemony.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...


> Europe having tight relations with Russia, economically especially energy-wise, is greatly beneficial to Europe

You're once again excluding any calculations of Russia using the money to run around overthrowing democracies. "It's greatly beneficial if you ignore all the mass murder."

The whole reason why they're now cancelling NS2 is because of this. Germany likes cheap energy, sure, but they're less than enthused about the money paying for that cheap energy going into executing and raping civilians in Ukraine.


The world doesn't revolve around "America vs Russia". There are lots of other things going on.

And if you are looking for a mass murderer, is there a bigger mass murderer than USA after 20 years of mass murder in the Middle East?


That would be the Middle East itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State

To fight ISIS, it is mostly a joint effort of US + NATO + Allies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_%E2%....

> The United States accounts for the vast majority of airstrikes (75–80%), with the remainder conducted by Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.


This made me laugh.

Isis was a direct consequence of American invasion of Iraq. You can't do what America did in Fallujah and not expect some kind of blowback.


> Since at latest 2004, a significant goal of the group has been the foundation of a Sunni Islamic state. Specifically, ISIL has sought to establish itself as a caliphate, an Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader – the caliph – who is believed to be the successor to Prophet Muhammad.

Furthermore, it is worth studying the Arab Spring and what the underlying causes were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes


Doesn't change the fact that America spent the last 20 years on a mass-murder spree in the Middle East.


If you want to call wars mass murders, that’s your call. I support complete defeat of ISIS/ISIL to the last member. Seems like you have a rhetorical axe to grind, mass murders sounds like a dog whistle to the people with anti-US sentiments. Not an objective argument.


America was murdering people in the Middle East more than a decade before ISIS was formed. How is what America did in Fallujah any less evil than what Russia did in Mariupol?


Yes it doesn't revolve around America vs Russia

You have to consider the EU vs Russia.

It's not in EU's or Germany's intrest to keep trading with Russia


It is in EU's interest to keep trading with Russia

It is not in US's interest to let EU keep trading with Russia

USA wants the EU to be their giant marketplace where they can sell their culture and products

USA also wants to weaken Russia so they can finally contain China North, East, West and South

Seems like you were sleeping the past century, blurry days ahead!


> It is in EU's interest to keep trading with Russia

Russia's been blatantly assassinating people across Europe for years and would invade Poland in a second for personal pleasure even if it caused an economic loss for them again.

They haven't evolved past Mongol horde methods of living with their neighbors and are relying on everyone else always taking the "rational" result of appeasing them rather than fighting back. The correct response in this iterated game is to punish them and let their more productive people immigrate to you.


the US has been blatantly assassinating people across the Middle East and across the entire American continent

They haven't evolved past Far West horde methods of living with their neighbors, they are killing each other with firearms and countless death in schools

They let their people die, and their house burn because they have no money

They impose trade sanction to whoever doesn't want to knee and show their submission

They'll also impose their military base in your country [1]

Look at the evolution of Russia past 3 decades, and look how it has improved significantly, same can be said with China, they are barely in debt, what can be said about the USA? during that timeline

Ohhhh, yeah, the USA can trade with Saudi Arabia, no bid deal there ;)

But yeah they are good at seducing people, so the pill is easier to penetrate, i will give that to you

[1] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-16/Japanese-protest-U-S-m...


> the US has been blatantly assassinating people across the Middle East and across the entire American continent

Have you noticed that literally nobody cares about this? Even the people we killed don’t care. Even Greenwald, who started this line of argument, doesn’t really care - he just hates Obama, he dropped it the second the next guy did it even more. (And Biden has completely stopped doing it.) Even you don’t care, you’re just doing whataboutism.

That’s because the ME countries aren’t actually allies just because they’re next to each other. More importantly, we don’t lie about it when asked, and we don’t use wacky spy methods like poison and radioactive weapons.


> Have you noticed that literally nobody cares about this?

well, it's like saying people left SF because the grass is greener the other side of the country, not because it'll be a nuclear warzone


America spent 20 years on a mass-murder spree in the Middle East, and we ended up having to take care of millions of refugees as a result.

America is not a friend to Europe. We have no business joining America in a struggle against Russia.


It is though, they get something like 40% of their gas from Russia, and 30% of oil imports.

It is immensely in the interest of Germany to have good relations and continued trade with Russia.


No it's in Germanys interest to f*ck Russia up as much as they can financially (and in terms of weapon shipments ( in the hope it ends the war sooner. And diversify their energy.

Germany's intrest is for Ukraine to win as quick as possible

Before the war Germany at least had a reasonable sounding argument (peace through trade) but it's been proven totally wrong they need to admit they were wrong and move on


Ukraine can't win.


By most reasonable metrics they are winning right now, so if I remember my modal logic correctly, this statement can't be too accurate.


Ukraine is not winning right now. Unless your definition of winning is "slowly losing territory". Check the map: https://liveuamap.com/


I don't give a fuck about tactics and crap, this isn't Starcraft.

My definition of winning is the same definition of winning war has had since the beginning of time: achieving one's political objectives.

Ukraine's political objectives are:

* To be in the strongest possible position at the peace table

* To get military and political support from the West against Russia during the conflict and after the conflict is over (EU membership, military protection from NATO if not NATO membership).

They are on track to achieve both.

Russia's political objective was clearly regime change, which miserably failed, and then control of Donbas, which they are struggling to achieve.

So, who's winning?

The only way Russia wins is if nonsense Russian talking points infest Western public opinion so much that we stop arming Ukraine.


How does losing territory put Ukraine in a strong position in the negotiating table? Longer this war lasts, more territory Ukraine will lose.

The only place Ukraine is winning is in Western media.


It is amazing how propagandized people in the West are during this conflict. Of course this exists on all sides, but it boggles the mind to hear that Ukraine is "winning" this conflict. You know who else isn't winning and is hurt the longer it goes on? Europe, and Germany particularly!

Russia's currency is stronger than before the conflict, their trade surplus is larger, they are making more money from elevated energy prices, they have and will have more territory.

Europe / Germany through stupid sanctions, and talk of more, against Russian energy have inflated energy prices and now have to purchase energy in Rubles after they confiscated Russian Euro and USD foreign exchange reserves. Whereas before they could purchase all in their own currency and were in talks to expand gas supplies through Nord Stream 2, now they've cancelled that project and on the margins have to buy Rubles to buy energy.

Prediction: The pain will increase on Europe and they will realize their bread is buttered in the east, they will come to the conclusion that positive trade relations with Russia, compared to the US are more advantageous and eventually they will approve Nord Stream 2. They will do everything they can to regain the ability to buy all or most energy and commodities from Russia in Euros, meaning ending sanctions and not expanding them.

Good video describing the geopolitical dynamics of European / Russian trade relations after the war ends in Russian victory: [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/pdUYtvk4sqE


Which is yet again a blatant and obvious lie.

Two months ago Russian forces controlled a greater fraction of the territory that they do now.

While wars are fundamentally unpredictable, most military experts agree that further Russian advances are extremely unlikely, and that the best result Russia can hope for is a stalemate along the front as it is right now.


> Two months ago Russian forces controlled a greater fraction of the territory that they do now.

Two months ago Russians were still trying to take Mariupol and Sievierodonetsk. The first one is now taken, and the second is almost taken.

> most military experts agree that further Russian advances are extremely unlikely

Most military experts you are reading maybe. Russia has been slowly and steadily continuing its advance.


They were also trying to take Kyiv, from which they retired in disgrace.

You are making assertions all over the place and don't seem to care that you're getting assertion failures from all of them.


I was about to say the same about you :)

Yes, Russians didn't manage to take Kiev or Kharkiv. But that doesn't change the fact that they are making progress in the east and the south. Wars have more than one front.


they've failed to achieve their major objectives and now are struggling with much smaller objectives. But evidence suggests they still want to conquer the whole country no matter how ridiculous.

https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-likely-still-wants-much-... And the thing is even if they conquer Donbas and declare victory that wont end the war since Ukraine will keep fighting to reclaim them.

Russia does not have what it takes to dissuade Ukraine from continuing to fight and they can't sustain the war effort as long, the longer the war goes the larger the Ukrainian military gets and the more hardware from the west it gets while Russia struggles with recruitment and military manufacturing under sanctions.

I know youtube videos from random people are rarely convincing but Perun has a really good one going step by step how Russia is unable to win this war just based on their difficulty with waging a long war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ptG1IxZ08


>Ukraine to win as quick as possible

It is not possible for Ukraine to win, they are slowly but methodically getting their country destroyed. What does Germany lighting money on fire funding this destruction do for German interests?

How does this solve their energy needs? It doesn't, it along with sanctions makes energy more expensive. Where they used to be able to buy all energy in Euro's, now some of these purchases now require buying Rubles. Thus Ruble exchange rate is up and Russia's trade surplus is growing.

Germany's alliance with NATO expansion and US meddling in Ukraine along with following US lead to cancel Nord Stream 2 is crushing their economy. Self-sanctioning out of Russian cheap energy supplies will further destroy their industrial output.

>hope it ends the war sooner

hope. That's all they have. It will only impoverish them sooner. Diversification of energy is a worthy goal, but it insane to do this now by first cutting off their primary cheap energy supply. First, continue to buy as much cheap energy as Russia will sell them (instead of selling it to the East). Then, cancel ESG green insanity and pursue oil/gas investments and nuclear expansion wherever possible. But at the end of the day if your neighbor wants to have good trade relations with you, you shouldn't throw that away in service to your "ally" across the ocean.


Ah yes, the word soup defense of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, do tell us more!


I told you a lot. You tell me something in opposition...


> It is not possible for Ukraine to win

This is backwards, its not possible for Russia to win since Russia is having much more trouble with getting recruits and training them then Ukraine is and can't easily manufacture replacements for lost hardware while equivalents are being provided to Ukraine. The longer the war goes the worse it goes for Russia. Yes Ukraine faces death and destruction but the mood in Ukraine is a determination to keep fighting and Russia is incapable of inflicting enough damage to change that.

Russia was the one meddling in Ukraine, not the US, to Russia's detriment. They are the ones who have set Ukraine against them with their actions. Their actions have led to Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO.

Based on Russia's actions its clear that Nord Stream 2 should never have been built

>But at the end of the day if your neighbor wants to have good trade relations with you, you shouldn't throw that away in service to your "ally" across the ocean.

Russia is not willing to have good trade relations with Germany. Decades of German politicians have bet on buying Russia's good or at least tolerable behavior through economic interdependence.

Russia made all of them into fools and proved their critics right.

This isn't about America. This is about the EU, about Poland and Czech Republic and Lithuania and Finland. And most of all this is about Germany. Russia is the one who threw it away and proved that Germany's interest was not to buy from Russia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-depend... (Germany has been forced to admit it was a terrible mistake to become so dependent on Russian oil and gas. So why did it happen?)

> In recent weeks even Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German president, a totemic figure of the Social Democrats and greatest German advocate of the trade “bridge” between east and west, has recanted. He admits he misread Russia’s intentions as he pursued the construction of a new undersea gas pipeline. “My adherence to Nord Stream 2 was clearly a mistake,” he told German media in April. “We held on to bridges that Russia no longer believed in, and that our partners warned us about.” This is an extraordinary admission for a man who acted as chief of staff to Gerhard Schröder, the Social Democratic chancellor from 1998 to 2005 and thereafter a lavishly rewarded, and much reviled, lobbyist for Vladimir Putin. Steinmeier was also foreign minister under Chancellor Merkel, and a great evangelist for Wandel durch Handel, the concept that trade and dialogue can bring about social and political change.


Maybe in the short term, but it's become clear from this conflict that Russia uses its economic exports as political leverage-- as does any nation.

The problem comes from what they've decided to use their exports as leverage for.

Economic interests don't have to perfectly align for one nation's relationship and favor to be preferable over another.

Economic interests don't exist in a space devoid of cultural, ideological, or emotional ones.

Reaching the conclusion that relationships should be normalized is only truly ideal if you're viewing it: A) in an economic only vacuum and B) from a lens of maximizing Russia's resource based leverage, because that's all they have.


Russia has been a hostile actor to germany and the rest of the EU for more than a decade. Russia financially supports radical political movements with the sole intention to harm/destroy the EU.

Russia has regularly ppl killed on european soil. Sometimes using chemical weapons that cause collateral damage.

Russia has an extensive propaganda and disinformation network running in europe.

Russia massively buys political influence by shopping for ex politicians, this way corrupting the political process.

Russia has a history of military conflicts with its neighbours, see occupation of Trnsnrista in moldowa, abchasia and south ossetia in georgia, the annihilation of chechnia, all the stuff in ukraine and helping belarusian dictator Lukachenko suppressing his people.

Looking at the levels of gas storage in europe by gazprom it is very obvious that its behaviour was not driven by good faith financial interests but as a weapon of the kremlin against europe.

And lets not forget the shooting down of MH17 where, not only did the russians deny any responsibility, they even clogged the public discourse with disinformation campaigns of tons of ridiculous and contradictory theories.

So, no it is not immensely in the interest of Germany to have good relations and continued trade with Russia as long as this regime is in power. Flood ukraine with heavy weapons till the russians are driven out. Then put up a new iron curtain till something substantial changes for the better.


EU and Russia are practially neighbours. Our interest is in peace and trade, not war.


[flagged]


wow, first time on HN ive seen both arguments and counterarguments this ridiculous. but wait, what am i saying, they are claims devoid of proof, references or even arguments.


HN is turning more like Twitch chat, I feel like. People just throw-out the most ridiculous opinions without any effort.

At least Twitch chat has more fun memes.


We invaded germany in 1940s and we've been occupying it ever since. You know like how the soviet union invaded germany in the 1940s. But then they eventually left. We didn't. We are still there. Hopefully germany will become a free nation one day. We talk so much freedom and sovereignty and yet we deprive so many of freedom and sovereignty.

> they are claims devoid of proof, references or even arguments.

It's basic history. Do you need references for ww2 and the occupation of germany? You are only responding like this because it's the obvious truth which you don't want to confront.

Imagine if china or russia was occupying germany and forced them to subsidize chinese or russian companies.


We aren’t remaining there by force. Germany wants our base there.


The fab is still here. Ownership can change in the worst case. It would be nice to have a leading EU-owned chip maker, but we just don't have that yet. For the short term and the worst of cases, just having the thing matters a lot more than the profits staying here.


That fab won't make any sense without Intel's suppy chain.


It's time to move away from GitHub. There are better alternatives such as Codeberg or Gitlab.


I'm pushing for Gitlab (who have an SLA built into their similarly priced offering), but obviously the stakeholders need to decide how we eat this risk.


See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31411169 I don't think GitLab is better in this front.


I use both GitHub and Gitlab for contributing to various open source projects. In my experience Gitlab is far superior. Github is too sluggish and buggy compared to Gitlab.


Gitea is very pleasant to self host...


I always see Gitea recommended, but is it as mature as gitlab self hosted? From authentication methods (SAML, Cognito) to code review, issues, wiki?


Lacks search functionality (among other features)


True, I forgot Gitea!


Gitea has CI now?


Gitea and Drone CI work really well together and are so much ligher, easier to deploy and manage compared to Gitlab that is not even funny.


Does "lighter" really matter in this case? From first-hand experience with Gitea, I can tell you that it most certainly is not more reliable than Gitlab. I've gotten 500 internal server errors from just clicking around the UI too fast while it was running locally on my machine. Constant errors and bugs after running it for about 4 months were ultimately what pushed me to Gitlab.

Don't know anything about Drone CI, but it seems to me like a lot more work to manage two separate systems than it is to manage a single Gitlab instance, where everything is already nicely integrated.

I'm not a sysadmin by any stretch of the imagination, but I was still able to set up Gitlab, Gitlab CI with a bunch of runners, Gitlab Pages, and offsite backups with very little effort on my self-hosted instance. All I had to do was edit one config file to enable the various services (backups were with borg and systemd via the "gitlab-ctl" CLI)

Been running that setup for probably 2 years no with the only outages being external internet/power outages. I'm the only user, so my usage isn't at all going to reflect OP's needs, but it's still more reliability than I ever got from Gitea.


There is also Woodpecker CI if you want a lightweight Drone fork.


Not built-in, but it's documented and supported by the community somewhat. Take a look at the docs and previous hn threads


I think you're comparing free GitHub to Codeberg. GitHub is a lot more than code hosting for open source.


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

Search: