if you have an existing skillset they're not going to throw you into the infantry.
odds are the dev is in some sort of signals intelligence unit or doing dev on some sort of drone control system, etc.
ditto for if/when they draft doctors, dentists, welders, etc. -- put people with skills and experience in those fields into areas where they can be used.
doesn't mean the graphine dev ain't working 20 hour days and ain't getting targeted by drones -- just they're not line grunts.
> if you have an existing skillset they're not going to throw you into the infantry.
There are a lot of highly qualified people in the combat corps.
> ditto for if/when they draft doctors, dentists, welders, etc. -- put people with skills and experience in those fields into areas where they can be used.
Many of which will be very close to the FEBA.
But the Graphene OS commenter seems to be making a moral, not utilitarian, argument, which is both odd and somewhat reprehensible.
How is it immoral to say that people should do what the things where they can do the most good?
Thousands of people rely on GrapheneOS, many of whose lives would be in danger from repressive regimes or criminals if GrapheneOS makes a security blunder or even stops being maintained. Working on GrapheneOS probably saves far more lives than being just another frontline soldier.
> How is it immoral to say that people should do what the things where they can do the most good?
It is blatantly immoral to say that a person's life should be valued more because of they are a software developer or because of the software they produce, or that it should be protected more than the lives of other people.
> Working on GrapheneOS probably saves far more lives than being just another frontline soldier.
And it doesn't make a life one iota more valuable than anyone else's.
This is not about whose life is more valuable, that's a deep phisolophical question that can't be answered.
Why do armies send people to the front? To defend their citizens' lives from an invading army. By taking the developer away from a project where he saves many lives to the front where he can save few lives if any at all, you're the ond saying that the lives in Ukraine are more valuable than the lives of political dissidents, journalists, refugees, etc. everywhere else.
In wartime, militaries face horrific allocation decisions. While it is sensible to use skills effectively, Graphene OS's public messaging that pleads for special treatment for one individual developer because their project is important implies that some individuals' lives merit more protection than others, which is not true.
That messaging is insulting to families of equally skilled people who have died in combat and is also historically a precursor to extreme policies based on perceived human worth.
It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.
Clearly there is no meaningful discussion to be had here. Take care, I hope your absolutist views serve you well and that they don't fuck things up for the rest of us in the process.
> In wartime, militaries face horrific allocation decisions.
There was no decision made on where to assign him based on his skills prior to our intervention. People are assigned to infantry by default.
> While it is sensible to use skills effectively
This is not what they're doing in practice.
> Graphene OS's public messaging that pleads for special treatment for one individual developer because their project is important implies that some individuals' lives merit more protection than others, which is not true.
That's absolutely not what we said.
> It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
No, that's completely wrong. The entire purpose of the post was an appeal to Ukraine's military based on his clear value to them as a very talented security engineer/researcher. The whole point was getting on the radar of high level people who could evaluate that and make the correct decision of having him do work relevant to those skills. That's why we posted about it publicly at all. We had a clear goal and achieved it.
> It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.
Your claim that what we said or did is morally reprehensible is ludicrous. We didn't do anything to harm their war effort and they'll be far better off using him in a sensible role related to his skills rather than as infantry.
Ukraine's military leadership made the decision to have him transferred to a software development role entirely based on merit and his value to their war effort. It was done entirely by the book with many people aware of it. It was officially authorized by their military's general staff. If you think keeping our friend safe was morally reprehensible, good for you. None of the officers we talked to had any issue with what we did.
Do you think it's morally reprehensible for Russian men to flee Russia to avoid military service in a war of aggression? If anything, it's morally reprehensible for them not to do everything possible to avoid being part of it. Do you think people are obligated to fight and die for the state they were born in regardless of the details?
In regards to the actual circumstances, not everyone agrees men are obligated to fight and die for their country against an aggressor simply because they were born in it. You're treating it as if there's a universal moral code where defending the nation state you were born in is part of it. It's entirely possible to be against Russia's war of aggression and to support Ukraine defending themselves without wholeheartedly supporting forced conscription. Other countries could have intervened with their volunteer-based forces instead of watching Ukraine send their male population off to die against a much larger force without adequate equipment. What's moral about you expecting Ukrainian men to fight and die in a war while you do nothing?
You publicly ran a save-our-colleague campaign. “Our priority has been keeping them safe,” you “used our available connections,” called them “incredibly talented,” said it would be “extraordinarily misguided to send them to front line combat” – and (per Meduza’s write-up of your own posts) you tried to get that case in front of military command hoping they wouldn’t end up at the front.
Denying that this was special pleading is absurd; selective protection for an insider while countless other conscripts (many equally talented and important in their fields) get no such advocacy is a moral and ethical failure.
You're obviously right, but I would encourage you not to get bogged down debating moral philosophy with random people on Hacker News, I think you could do it for the rest of your life without running out of candidates and your perspective is obvious and reasonable to anyone more interested in understanding you than in the joys of endless debate.
> It is blatantly immoral to say that a person's life should be valued more because of they are a software developer or because of the software they produce, or that it should be protected more than the lives of other people.
We never said anything about his life being worth more than others. We posted an appeal to Ukraine's military leadership explaining his value to their war effort with the goal of keeping our friend safe. What's the problem with that?
> And it doesn't make a life one iota more valuable than anyone else's.
What's the problem with trying to keep our friend safe in a way that helps Ukraine to defend themselves?
> But the Graphene OS commenter seems to be making a moral, not utilitarian, argument, which is both odd and somewhat reprehensible.
We posted an appeal to Ukraine's military leadership which was obviously not a moral argument about conscription. Our thread explicitly stated that we aren't taking a position on forced conscription in an existential defensive war.
Asking for this specific developer to be protected is different to asking that they be assigned where would they provide the greatest operational benefit (which may or may not be a position of greater safety).
The former is morally reprehensible and an insult to the families of the war dead.
If this is not clear to you, I think some self reflection is in order.
software is a useful skill during a war. The same way you probably wouldn't send a doctor to a fight as the doctor is more useful to help with the wounded, a software engineer with an infosec background(as I assume the lead dev of graphene would) could be extremely useful to the war.
Software is a common skill, especially among military-age men. Probably around 5% of those employed in that group have software-related jobs. Doctors are rarer, and they also need more training to become productive, which makes them harder to replace than software developers.
You can argue that a specific individual has specific skills and experience that make them more valuable to the country in a non-fighting role. But software developer is just another common job.
Software development is a common skill, but software security is a niche. I imagine any army can make good use of someone who's an expert in finding (and patching) security holes and coming up with new exploitation techniques (to thwart).
This isn't so much about being worthy of protection as it is about the army dealing the most damage it can. Exploiting software vulnerabilities to disable production (like the Ukranians did for that drone production company) can save as many lives as sending someone to the front can. Breaking into networks to gather OPSEC is crucial for any military operation, offensive or defensive.
It would be quite stupid to send one of the most talented security engineers/researchers in their country and beyond to fight as infantry in trench warfare. Our thread was posted as an appeal to Ukraine's military leadership. The end result is that he'll avoid being highly likely to die and Ukraine will be better off than if they'd wasted him as infantry. Where's the downside?
> We're in communication with him and he has been diverted away from combat.
https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/1933311869122720069