EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies • Hacker News Board

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#351

Post by jacquesm » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

proxysna wrote: post #278

jaynetics wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just out of curiosity, are you worried that posts such as this one could land you in trouble at some point? or are you taking steps like using a VPN for this?

I am living outside of Belarus right now in a country with decent government, so i don't really worry about this. But ofc i use my own wireguard vpn and mtproto proxy for telegram when i am traveling to Belarus. I am not going to censor myself, but it pays to be cautious.

As proven by the fact that a regime critic just caused a plane to be diverted, living outside of Belarus is by itself unfortunately no longer a guarantee for safety. So please be very careful.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#352

Post by jacquesm » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #317

cnlevy wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia and Belarus are very close allies. I doubt anyone who is at risk by transiting in Moscow would be safe in Minsk

You think Russia would risk having their planes banned all through Europe to give a two bit dictator a reporter?

They shot down a passenger jet not all that long ago and got away with it.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#353

Post by ivankolev » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #329

londons_explore wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few countries who will pretty much let anybody in. Migrants often bring with them skills that the locals don't have, and in any mass migration, those who migrate (vs stay where they are) tend to be the fitter, smarter, richer people. The main reason not to take migrants is you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. You might alienate your existing popula…

> There are a few countries who will pretty much let anybody in. Which ones? Any particularly large ones among them? "Mass migration" implies that there a ton of people inbound.

Canada certainly does not allow anybody in, but still more than a quarter of a million people are in each year.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#354

Post by triceratops » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

ivankolev wrote: post #353

triceratops wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a few countries who will pretty much let anybody in. Which ones? Any particularly large ones among them? "Mass migration" implies that there a ton of people inbound.

Canada certainly does not allow anybody in, but still more than a quarter of a million people are in each year.

Canada has pretty high standards though. You need some combination of language proficiency, education, skills, youth, health, and wealth.

There are countries that will let "anybody" in. There are countries that take large numbers of immigrants. I seriously doubt there are countries that do both.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#355

Post by briandear » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:31 PM UTC

ridethebike wrote: post #347

_ZeD_ wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also treating this "incident" as a war act

As a war act? What does it mean in terms of practical steps?

Bomb one of their airbases. Russia can annex Crimea with no real response, so why should the EU show restraint? (I am not suggesting a bombing campaign, just a targeted strike on the airbase from which the intercepting fighter jet departed.) What’s Russia going to do? They want that Nord Stream pipeline. They aren’t going to militarily respond over some two bit dictator, even one friendly to Russia. The Nord Stream energy revenue is probably going to be much higher than the entire Belorussian economy.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#356

Post by joejerryronnie » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

3np wrote: post #328

stjohnswarts wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Russia would risk having their planes banned all through Europe to give a two bit dictator a reporter?

You think EU would give Russia the same treatment as Belarus?

The EU knows it can’t risk a major energy supply (as evidenced by Gazprom running roughshod over Vestager).

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#357

Post by briandear » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #221

refactor_master wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to human rights, though. What would countries stand to gain from this, realistically? No country wants economic refugees.

There are a few countries who will pretty much let anybody in. Migrants often bring with them skills that the locals don't have, and in any mass migration, those who migrate (vs stay where they are) tend to be the fitter, smarter, richer people. The main reason not to take migrants is you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. You might alienate your existing popula…

> in any mass migration, those who migrate (vs stay where they are) tend to be the fitter, smarter, richer people.

Completely not true. Look at the migrations to the EU, as well as to the US. The “smarter, fitter, richer” people aren’t mass migrating from Latin America. Not at any significant percentage at least.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#358

Post by EliRivers » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #331

EliRivers wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If the US prints a million dollars, and some does a million dollars' worth of work in the US (or someone outside the US sends over a shipload of electronics in exchange for that big back of dollars) and moves that million dollars overseas, and those dollars never come back to be spent in the US, the US has gained. The US got a whole lot of work done, and did not have to give anyone goods or services in ex…

> In the future, someone might come back with those dollars and exchange them for goods and services which they move outside the US. That's pretty much the only reason anyone has for taking any foreign currency.

I disagree. A lot of the US dollars that are held outside the US seem to be held not with an intention of spending them in the US, but out of trust that everyone will always agree they're valuable.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#359

Post by triceratops » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:39 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #358

triceratops wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the future, someone might come back with those dollars and exchange them for goods and services which they move outside the US. That's pretty much the only reason anyone has for taking any foreign currency.

I disagree. A lot of the US dollars that are held outside the US seem to be held not with an intention of spending them in the US, but out of trust that everyone will always agree they're valuable.

USD has inherent value* because it can be exchanged for goods, property, and services in the US. Or to pay US taxes. The US has a lot of goods, property, and services that people want. US taxes are not a consideration for most people outside the US.

*Since most global trade is denominated in USD, and many countries use USD as their official currency, it can also be used to pay for goods, property, and services outside the US. But arguably it wouldn't have this global status if the US itself didn't have valuable goods, property, and services.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#360

Post by jiofih » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

newdude116 wrote: post #349

jiofih wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t aiming to discuss that “galactic power” growth scenario since it’s just ridiculous. At some point that 3% compound growth becomes more energy than the entire planet consumes in a year, it’s just a dumb extrapolation like folding paper. Back in reality, Germany’s energy consumption has grown about 5% in the past two decades, is currently falling, and the renewables capacity is more than enough to provide powe…

"Back in reality, Germany’s energy consumption has grown about 5% in the past two decades" Then Germany is just extremely lucky, economically declining or outsourcing energy intensive production tasks. You iPhone was grown on a tree in Germany? "dumb extrapolation like folding paper." This guy is a physics professor. I have meet many stupid people with a STEM degree in my life but stupid people seem somehow extraordi…

It’s impossible to have a sane discussion if you keep moving the goalposts. You initially ROFLed at the statement that “Germany could become power independent” and said it shows “ignorance and lack of basic math skills”. The data clearly shows that not to be the case. The country is en route to becoming 100% self-sufficient using renewables in the next few decades.

Except in that absurd growth scenario you decided to pick. The thesis that growth is unsustainable, and the math, are correct, I’m not questioning that. It just has no bearing on a more realistic timeline at stake here.

If I invest $500 right now at a 3%/year growth rate, I’ll have about 4,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars after 1400 years. Does that make this investment impossible?