Looking at the police report, I do wonder what the punishment would be in other countries. It seems the victims were laying drunk on the ground in dark clothing at top a hill (edit: hill not mentioned in police report, but seems logical given the headlight statement), causing the headlight beams to not illuminate them. On top of that, incoming traffic blinded the driver.
This is of course according to his testimony, but I can't imagine I (or anyone else) would have been able to avoid such a situation.
Edit with source:
Citing the actual circumstances of the accident, he emphasizes that he could not notice the pedestrians in a timely manner, as they were below the light level of the headlights of the vehicle(R.G. - lay, P.A. - tried to lift it), were dressed in dark clothes, street lighting was insufficient, he(Pushkarev D.V.)was blinded by the distant light of the oncoming car. Further, the author discloses the contents of the testimony of witnesses A.A., A.Y., A.M., I.K., A.S.,focuses on the behavior of victims at a pedestrian crossing, which contradicted the requirements of p.4.6 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation. It notes that the victims were in a state of alcoholic intoxication, behaved inadequately. It points out that p.14.1 traffic rules of the Russian Federation provides for the duty of the driver to pass pedestrians crossing the roadway, and not lying on it. He insists that he would have noticed the victims and was able to prevent the attack if they were moving on the crossing upright.
I actually think this article makes the statistics seem worse by than they are by presenting them in a way that is easy to misunderstand.
Okay so a third of all pedestrian fatalities have been over the driving limit of alcohol, as the article points out. That sounds horrible. It sounds like you should never drink and walk, ever.
Thing is, there were only 1,547 pedestrian walking deaths in the whole 311 million person country in 2011. That same year there were 32,479 automotive fatalities. Throw in liver disease victims[1] and you’re looking at maybe a 1:60 ratio of pedestrian walking to every other kind of alcohol death.
More people actually die of “natural heat and cold” than alcohol related pedestrian accidents.
Alcohol is generally bad as we all know, and leads to all kinds of bad health outcomes, but I’d argue that pedestrian accidents are the least concern if we are to prioritize.
[1] There’s a bit of a silent fatty liver disease crisis going on, but that’s just obesity doing its thing. I’d love to see more urgent action on obesity.
Isn't that also because of how the US seems to be mostly designed for driving, not so much for pedestrians or cyclists? I mean I was in a suburb in Michigan once, walking to a nearby shop there were just no sidewalks.
How much of this is due to the immediate physiological effects of alcohol (e.g. impaired reaction time, etc) and how much of it is chronic depressed alcoholics disregarding their own well-being and possibly committing suicide?
I've walked home drunk from bars more than a few times and I've never experienced any trouble using crosswalks like normal. I'm pretty certain it's much safer than driving home drunk (not that I drive to bars in the first place.)
Driving at night down narrow streets, I've had some people pop out from behind a wall in front of me. Fortunately everyone involved has always had good reaction times, so I don't think I've killed anybody yet.
Somebody who's not really thinking, or just stumbling around and being goofy. Lots of people including myself have said "DUDE wouldn't it be funny if we did [X incredibly stupid thing]?" while unreasonably drunk. Normally calm people start fights with people who can clearly kick their ass after a couple drinks. Probably a few think they can take on or play chicken with a car. Some people also just blink for a second and suddenly they're asleep, if they have enough drinks.
Depression may be a cause, but honest accidents and impaired thinking are definitely big reasons.
I personally witnessed more than once (and intervened) drunk people appearing to try getting themselves killed by traffic, like erratically running onto a road. Once I also saw a too drunk person that tried to cross a street (outside of a crossing), tripped over, fell to the ground and just passed out.
I sort of wonder if that is heavily dependent on country or area, I mean drunk pedestrian walking in Los Angeles might be more dangerous than in Copenhagen.
Kind of anadotical but the only time I have been around someone who got run into in Copenhagen they were visible drunk. Though I don't have any stats I can pull up.
The following is case assured me that the justice system in Germany is good and just:
A child was fatally hit by a truck at a tram station after another child pushed them. The truck driver tested positive for pot and was ultimately acquitted because the court concluded that even if the driver had been perfectly fit for driving, the accident would have been unavoidable.
I can not remember but I am certain that the driver had to face additional charges for driving under influence but this is another thing.
Having read the facts appeal case you linked to it does not seem unreasonable (colliding with pedestrians on a marked and signed road crossing, travelling at >30mph). In the U.K. there is definitely an expectation that you slow down before a crossing.
In this case the court applied the minimum sentence and appeal rejected the victims’s side request for a harsher sentence.
The facts in the appeal case list many factors, some of which are not in favour of the driver (one pedestrian was trying to pick up the other so they were unlikely to have been lying down on the road and oncoming vehicles were flashing lights as a warning).
One could go to prison for this in USA, but only if the local police and prosecutors already hated one's guts for other reasons. In most cases a drunk pedestrian would be considered less sympathetic than a sober driver. Yes it is a pretty shabby "justice" when sympathies rather than facts determine verdicts.
Someone I know was driving down a country road and struck a person in the middle of the road and killed them. The person wasn't drunk as far as I know, but their car broke down and they were trying to walk to somewhere. Why they chose to walk in the middle of the road at night no one knows, but due to the desolate region and the unexpectedness of it, they were not seen. There was no jail time and charges filled. It was understood that the pedestrian shouldn't have done that. It really messed the driver up, they're a very nice person and having caused the death of someone really hurt them, even though there really wasn't anything they could have done.
Obviously every instance is circumstantial, and I didn't really read anything about the case, but if drunk people were lying down in the road, at night, in dark clothing, I don't see a crime.
But if one was actively picking up the other while oncoming drivers flashed their lights to warn people, and he drove his motorcycle at an excessive speed through the crosswalk?
The US justice system in general is pretty sympathetic to drivers in general, I doubt a case like this would see over a year of jail time here, and likely none at all.
Does every country allows filming everything outside? I could imagine that some laws won't allow that or won't allow such a recording to be used as an evidence in court.
Honestly I could see that happening to me. Some cars have lights that make it hard to see clearly on my side of the road. I wish car windshields could shield your eyes from lights too bright or something. Especially now that cars have these bright LED lights depending on the angle they are as bad as high beams when they pierce your eyes.
I kinda hate driving at night. People can barely keep from getting into accidents in broad daylight imagine at night time.
Often those LED lights aren't angled correctly (at least here in Australia), on the highway in a non-SUV I sometimes get temporarily blinded by oncoming and following traffic at night on the highway
There are glasses for night driving (yellow ones) which will reduce bright light and increase contrast in low light situations. You might want to check them out.
After reading the whole translation linked in the GitHub issue, and being a father of 6 kids who love to make me practice being a judge every day as if I have nothing better to do, I’m convinced the judgment is reasonable. Even in our tiny library parking lot, I very often see people driving unreasonably fast between all the parked cars and the library door, often within a foot of the cars. Even if they are driving within the speed limit, there are constantly people coming out from between cars in a way that they can’t be detected by cars ahead of time, especially young children who don’t have the life experience to know to come out slower. It’s unquestionably dangerous to drive like that, yet I see it almost every single day. One of these days someone is going to get hurt. And in this case it looks like the same circumstances: a bit of reasonable cautiousness could have possibly prevented the driver from not seeing the people apparently laying on the crosswalk. Unless the driver followed every single procedure of the road perfectly, they are at fault to at least some degree. And someone is dead. It’s just a generally awful situation all around and nobody wins.
Yes, but this wasn't a library parking lot. This was a roadway, at night, and he appears to have been going the speed limit. And the victim was lying down on the roadway in dark clothes. And there was an oncoming car with high beams on according to the court findings.
So you think that he should spend 1.5 years in a Russian prison for that? A sentence that may very well ruin him psychologically for the rest of his life? And/or leave him with TB and/or Covid-19? (and here I note that American prisons are not much better, if at all).
It is worth remembering that the speed limit is not an "it is always safe to drive this speed here" advisory. In particular if your vision is obstructed (perhaps by very heavy rain, fog, or an oncoming car with high beams) then you may need to slow down considerably.
sure, but high beams is sort of really temporary and often sort of sudden. I mean if someone is going the speed limit what does slowing down considerably look like in that instance?
for some reason that got downvoted, but I thought my reasoning was clear and of course reasonable. Poor vision caused by fog is different than poor vision caused by high beams, you should slow down considerably in thick fog, but coming over a hill, high beams in your eyes you probably should probably just ease up a bit.
Agreed, I agree that it can be unsafe. However, if you're going the speed limit, it reduces the chances significantly that you were doing something grossly negligent or unsafe that works warrant an unusually harsh sentence for what was an accident. Normally, such sentences are only given in cases of major negligence, like intoxication, or going at a very high rate of speed.
Unfortunately, pepole go to prison in Russia for lesser things. I've met a guy who has spent 8 months shared between a jail, a Russian prison and a penal colony (the worst of the three) because he was dumb enough to say he had a bomb in his souvenir bag when an aiport guard kicked it and asked what the (obvious) item was. He wrote a book about the aforementioned experience. So be extra careful what you say or do if you happen to travel to Russia.
That happened around 2006? It’s 2 years after Beslan school siege, when terrorists took hostage 1100 children and 334 died. It’s a stupid thing to say, especially when country is still mourning and on high terrorist alert. Try making a joke at a US airport in 2003 that you have a bomb. I’m pretty sure you’d have weapons drawn on you in a second and ending up worse than spending 8 months in a jail.
Yes, it is very stupid. At least read the book's description, it's a bit more complicated than that, a bit surreal. Maybe he just snapped under stress.
I am. You can check my prior comments on our prison system.
I think both the US and Russia should dramatically rethink their approach to non violent crime. Both countries have ridiculously high incarceration rates.
I may be wrong, but I believe most people on HN feel the same way.
Also, to be clear, are you sympathetic to the incarceration of drug dealers and thieves but not sympathetic to the incarceration of someone who accidentally killed someone in an auto-pedestrian accident?
> Also, to be clear, are you sympathetic to the incarceration of drug dealers and thieves but not sympathetic to the incarceration of someone who accidentally killed someone in an auto-pedestrian accident?
Didn't see this because you added it in an edit. I think we should generally avoid prison time as much as possible, for all of these cases.
I just get frustrated when I often seem to see people defending people with similar social status to themselves, but having apparently no sympathy for people of different social circumstances.
Clearly the consensus on HN is not entirely the same way, as some of the other replies to my comment show.
I am sorry for having assumed intentions that you don't have, though, more trying to comment on a general trend I've observed.
I think this is the correct take from this. It's also one of those situations where US law would be superior over poorly coded civil law (like Russia apparently has). As I understand they only evaluate that the violation occurred (i.e.: person dead, in crosswalk, done by attacker on vehicle). Absent additional information like cam footage showing them jumping out of a bush at the last moment into the crosswalk for insurance fraud, the case will result in a conviction.
It is simply the case that things happen out of a driver's control. In the US you'd be looking at a consideration for involuntary manslaughter charge (or perhaps a lesser negligence charge) if it was found that they were speeding or impaired. Absent those circumstances, it's unlikely any charge would be brought forth. There are some other ways a similar charge could be brought in an investigation, but that's generally how it goes.
A final note on the topic of getting drunk and playing in traffic. I highly recommend you get people that do stuff like this to sign up for organ donation. I have a good friend who had a congenital heart defect that benefited from a heart transplant. This was after the donor walked into traffic blitzed on holiday. So it might be that out of the tragedy of a wasted life they might be able to save someone else's.
In 2020 hindsight, operating a motor vehicle in conditions and a manner resulting in the death of a human being represents at the least negligence.
Circumstances as described possibly mitigating some aspects of this, but driving (or motorcycle riding) is an inherently and widely known dangerous activity. Situational awareness is a requisite practice.
At night time, coming over a hill, coming up to a crosswalk, being met with oncoming headlights, it’s reasonable to expect a little more caution than just driving the speed limit as if it’s broad daylight on a flat road. The report seems to indicate that one person was on the ground and the other was helping them up. This doesn’t sound as completely unavoidable as your example.
The only way you do not notice incoming shit at this speed riding a bike is because the shit literally jumps at you.
I know only too well what the "courts of law" are like in Russia. My opinion is that the guy got a wrong lawyer who either could not pass a bribe to the judge, or the other side passed a bigger bribe.
So you can not envision any scenario where a person could "operate a motor vehicle in conditions and a manner resulting in the death of a human being" being completely avoidable accident?
I said the judgment is reasonable but reserve my judgment on the sentence. I’m saying people should drive safer. That’s all.
A good portion of my reasoning comes from my daily dealings with my kids. This case bears many strong resemblances to arguments they come to me with.
Edit to clarify: when my kids come to me with an argument because one was careless and hurt another, the defense is usually that they were acting as reasonably cautious as could be expected. My justification in grounding them (after getting the facts and eyewitness testimony) is that I would have acted more cautiously than they did given the circumstances, and would not have caused the same injury, so that their caution wasn’t really as cautious as should reasonably be expected.
If this judging happens as much as you imply here and in your other comments in this thread, you should probably look at the parenting dynamic you have created and look for ways to change it. It sounds like are encouraging your kids into a dysfunctional competition for your approval and by extension love. You should be teaching them to work out their own differences, not teaching them to appeal everything to you. The former is a great life skill, the later is not.
We try to teach them to resolve problems on their own. But when one of them is negligent to the point of hurting another, then we have to administer justice. Usually writing a sentence a few dozen times to instill the idea for a need of being more careful. Sometimes a grounding, if our judgment is met with a stubborn defense claiming pure innocence despite the evidence, and belligerent accusations of us being unjust judges (ie. “contempt of court”).
But your criticism was about my take on the judgement, not the conditions that are common in Russian prisons (and no, it's not hyperbole, I have an acquaintance who worked with MSF on TB in Russian prisons: https://www.msf.org/tb-prisons-containing-catastrophe).
And I'm not. The Russian justice system convicts 99.75% of those accused. The police work may or may not have been reasonable, but the judgment is a rubber stamp.
The defendant actually admitted guilt, seemingly readily. His argument was not that he did nothing wrong, but instead that the sentence should be adjusted. Instead of the minimum jail time of 1.5 years, he was asking for the maximum suspension of driving privilege time of 3 years. If jail is for criminal activity and suspension of driving privilege is for poor driving practice, I can see his point. Of course it gets blurry when you have criminally poor driving practice.
Yes but assuming negligent driving is the cause of death of another person, it seems that just not being able to drive for a while is not taking into account the seriousness of the permanence or the consequences of the events. I am no fan of jail and don’t wish prison on anyone. But justice seems to demand at least some kind of serious retribution for the loss of life if there is any accountability. For intentional murder people get 20+ years. Accidental death having only 1.5 seems much smaller than that. That’s all I’m saying. If it wasn’t negligent but reasonable then I agree that no jail time makes most sense. But slowing down at cross walks at night in Russia seems like a reasonable thing to expect. But I’m no judge.
a. He was driving a motorcycle and
b. One of the victims was not lying on the road, but instead standing and trying to pull up the other (or so I've read)
I haven't read the full coverage, but it does appear it occurred at a pedestrian crossing, and there doesn't appear to be any dispute that it was properly signposted.
Most countries require greater care at pedestrian crossings.
I don’t know man. I’m sorry I don’t know the language, looks like Russian? Or something closely related? But based on the parent comment translation, and the translation on the issue page, I’m not sure we should be quick to condemn this person.
The court report says he was going 60kph. That’s barley over 35mph, a normal speed limit for city streets. So it appears he was not speeding.
If it really was a drunk guy, literally lying down in the road, at night time (!?!), I don’t think anyone could be reasonably expected be able to respond to that in time.
We don’t know, but assuming that is actually how it played out, it doesn’t sound like the driver did anything malicious. He’s lucky he wasn’t killed himself. I don’t think it’s fair to say ” Most countries require greater care at pedestrian crossings.”
We have no idea what the road or crossing looks like. An awfully unfortunate series of events for both parties it sounds like. Very sad.
We have a clear idea of what the crossing looks like, "переходящим проезжую часть по нерегулируемому пешеходному переходу, обозначенному знаками 5.19.1 и 5.19.2, а также дорожной разметкой 1.14.1," means that it was a "zebra crossing" marked on the road and with appropriate street signs before it.
In Russia, pedestrians have right of way on such a crossing, and drivers are required to be able to stop so that if a pedestrian starts crossing, they can yield (is that the proper term in English road rules?) to that pedestrian - i.e. even if you can't see any people, the marked crossing is considered as a warning to drivers that there might be pedestrians crossing and they must be able to stop and yield there.
So in cases of poor road conditions (e.g. ice) and poor visibility, they would be legally required to choose a speed so that they can do so suddenly if needed. This necessity to drive slower given the street signs and conditions is also explicitly mentioned in the court ruling as part of justification of why the defendant is considered guilty.
So it's not really an analogy of a person lying on the road, because that's not a "normal" stretch of road - if someone decides to drunkenly crawl across such a pedestrian crossing, then that would be stupid and reckless and dangerous, but legally they still would have right of way and cars would required to stop and yield as if they had a red light.
I've been driving around Poland a bit, one of the things I always watch out for are drunk guys on.tbe road at night. It could happen that one passed out in the middle while crossing.
My uncle told me a story once how he stopped just in front of one, and the only reason why he saw him was because of a reflection from an incoming car didn't look right on the road surface. His intuition is quite good as he's an experienced driver. He just said he slammed on the breaks because it looked funny. I never forget that story and always make sure that I can completely see the surface I'm driving on. I'd imagine it would be the same thing quite common in Russia, or anywhere really... Especially around crossings
I don’t think anyone is accusing the defender of malice. But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously. Especially at night, near cross walks. I’ve seen far too many reckless drivers even in suburban streets, almost always young adults or teenagers, on streets that have kids playing at the edge of their yards. They’re testing Murphy’s law. This isn’t a necessary condition of life. This is preventable behavior. Granted, the solution to preventing it starts when they are young, it starts by instilling discipline and humility and self control in youth before they are sent out into the world. Trying to apply these after the fact is like putting on safety goggles after getting an eye injury.
Edit: To make my main point more simply: when my kids come to me because one hurt the other through carelessness, but they’re defense is that they were reasonably cautious, I would answer them, “it wasn’t reasonably cautious because the outcome was that you hurt someone else in a way I don’t believe I would have because I would be more cautious than you were given the same circumstances.” Driving 35 MPH when it’s marked 35 MPH isn’t as cautious as is reasonable when you add in factors of nighttime, hill, and oncoming headlights (effectively high beams).
> But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously
It is. But the underlying point being made by several people appears to be that they believe he _was_ driving cautiously. And that it just so happens that, even doing so, the situation was such that it was still reasonable for him to not be able to avoid the collision.
If the google translation wasn’t too faulty, one was still lying down, one was getting up and probably trying to get out of the way.
The main impediment to seeing them seems to be the headlights of oncoming cars, possibly while coming over a hill. I always slow down in exactly those circumstances (hill and oncoming headlights) for similar reasons: you just don’t know what’s over the hill, and it’s an extra few seconds of travel time. There’s no downside and only extra caution and safety for all involved.
There's a medium between being a super careful driver like you and I, and being a grossly negligent driver who drove in such a grossly negligent manner that they deserve over a year in a harsh prison system.
I highly recommend driving like you say, and do so myself. The last points on my license were were over 15 years ago. But I don't think someone who was failed to be extremely careful to this level deserves 1.5 years in a harsh prison system. Maybe lose his license, but not prison.
Some background: CoreJS is a widely used JavaScript library, apparently used for polyfilling by Babel. The author was previously know for asking for a job in npm install logs (https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/issues/548), and recently seems to have gone to jail for vehicular manslaughter, leaving the project without a maintainer.
Evidently, it was his legal problems that provoked the job request and console ads, so I'm sympathetic. And based on the description above, it's highly unlikely that he would have been charged in most countries. The person who died was lying on the road at night, in dark clothes, intoxicated. Sympathy to her family, but that would count as an exculpating circumstance in most Western countries, I'm fairly sure.
I sure as hell that I'd do whatever I could legally to avoid going to a Russian (or American) prison, if what I'd done was an accident and of very doubtful criminality from the perspective of most countries. Wouldn't you?
Now he'll be stuck in a Russian prison for 2 years because of a tragic accident in which he was arguably not that negligent.
Edit: All of this is based on the facts as I have been able to find them online. I may be wrong in my interpretation.
Fair enough. That's why I wrote that disclaimer. If one victim was dragging the other, that changes my perception somewhat, although not entirely.
And in terms of "culture", are there not people in Russia who just ride motorcycles as an inexpensive transportation option, and not as part of any particular culture or group? The guy in question looks like a typical geek, not a motorcycle gang member or something similar.
It’s definitely not considered as inexpensive transportation option. Not with Russian winter, roads and environment.
Geeks though are the likely buyers, because riding a bike is a kind of a statement.
I think that it’s better to stop victim-blaming. There’s no reason to assume that in this case justice failed. Russian courts aren’t perfect, but they are not worse than anywhere but few countries.
When you are sending someone to jail, you want to make sure of their degree of fault, don't you?
The person lying on the ground wasn't killed. The woman trying to drag him out of the road was. She was presumably innocent. (although she may have played a role as well, I understand she was intoxicated too, but in the moment she was trying to help her friend to safety)
Regardless, who suffered is a completely separate issue from who is responsible. Do you really want to distort the process of determining who is responsible, out of fear of "victim blaming"? It could have happened ever-so-slightly differently, and it might have been the motorcyclist who was killed. Does that automatically shift responsibility?
I don’t get your argument. Two courts already decided who is guilty, there’s no process to distort unless you consider this thread a retrial. What happens here is that despite court decisions people still try to prove something and shift responsibility to victims of the incident. This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case.
"This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case."
Well, you're mixing issues. Those are two completely separate arguments. 1) victim blaming, and 2) it's already been tried
On point 2. I don't necessarily agree that once a court has tried something, it is automatically correct and shouldn't be discussed. I'm not a lawyer, but I spent a full week in trial in San Francisco, against corrupt lawyers, representing myself, and was one of the very few that prevailed in such a situation. I have seen some awful stuff, so no, I don't trust the legal system to always produce correct results, even here.
Regardless, that wasn't my point.
For people such as yourself being so quick to cry "victim blaming" is a very good indication to me that bias in such situations is common. Again, why should you assume that because one person was harmed that the other person was responsible? Surely you recognize that there can be a clearcut cases where the victim (i.e. the one harmed or killed) was the one who caused the accident? Right?
And again, the real "victim" (the woman killed) isn't the one I am suggesting might be partially to blame.
Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not try to stretch the experience of legal process in the Default Country to the other side of the planet where legal system is different. Now, to your question.
I assume that if court decided twice that someone is guilty, this person admitted that and there’s no reason to see corruption in this case, then that person is indeed responsible. Anything else is speculation not based on facts and is an attempt to shift responsibility to a victim, seemingly because the convicted guy belongs to a certain group. So, if you want to talk about bias, look at the mirror first.
Let's say instead someone gets ripshit drunk and drives the wrong way down a highway in a smartcar. A snowplow runs into them, can't avoid. Kills drunk driver, truck's damaged only slightly.
Who's the victim?
The trucker's still got to live knowing they killed someone. Has to pay for damage to their truck. Dead person doesn't have to deal with emotional trauma or bills, they're dead.
Where cases like this get complicated is whether the driver killing the other driver abandoned their duty of care and contributed to causing the collision. Maybe the trucker was texting, now in some states he'd share some of the burden for this collision.
Does the person who was lying on the street drunk bear no responsibility? Is it the case they bear no responsibility because they turned out to be a victim afterwards?
I'm not sure I understand the concept of "victim-blaming". If a bank robber gets hurt during a bank robbery, will you say they're a victim and shouldn't be blamed for the bank robbery?
Jesus npm is a cancerous dumpster fire. Guy must have been a saint to continue maintaining the project in spite of all of entitled "developers" using his package and scolding him for DARING TO ASK FOR A DIME.
Actually, while I think npm is the worst example, I am of the opinion that this is the largest issue facing OSS today.
Companies using lots of OSS packages without ever giving back a dime. The argument is always that this helps developers get a job, but often enough the jobs don't allow the developers to work full time on those packages, but they are still somehow expected to continue the work in their past-time.
The guy posted the results of his call for funding, he got to $50 a month on patreon! For maintaining a package that likely 100s or 1000s of companies depend on for the work.
On the other side, GitHub minted 3 billionaires in the acquisition by Microsoft! Chris Wanstrath walked away with 1.8B and probably would have been best positioned to defend the community which enabled the exit. Funny how the open source ecosystem mirrors the world at large
A big part of this problem is "BSD license everything". Make your work Affero GPL, and charge for commercial use. Stop giving away your labor and expertise for free. Solidarity.
I'm not surprised at all. I bet there are plenty of multi-billion dollars companies using that project who never contributed a cent to its author yet sent their developers on GitHub to complain about the state of the project.
It happened to a few maintainers I know. These companies save millions in development cost on the back of a few developers in developed countries. This is open source, I get it, but this isn't fair either.
Look at that comment:
> ....yikes. Sounds like a fork needs to happen. And github should really look to provide a 'risk' rating to projects from a maintenance PoV... a project depended on by 4.5m users with 1 maintainer should visualise as a high-risk dependency.
It's not up to GitHub to do that, it's up to the individual or the company to audit a project and its dependencies and be prepared to be able to maintain it themselves. Or pay the only developer to do exactly that.
Another comment (quoted by another guy):
> Babel maintainer here
We are probably not going to fork core-js because we don't have enough resources to maintain it.
And people expect a single developer to have the resources to do exactly that? look at babel and the list of sponsors, yet they don't have the resources:
Another part of the loop is that many hiring groups also expect to see some public code out there. Maybe it's some library or widely popular project that helps your hiring chances or maybe it's just a toy project. None the less, you better have something sitting out there active for free.
Then, once you're hired and they're paying you, they certainly don't want you wasting their resources (paid time, IP) contributing free software.
The entire tech industry is morphing more and more into a dumpster fire itself.
I'm curios why do you think that. If the codebase is a fruit of his efforts, why shouldn't he do as he wants with it?
I would understand that in cases where a maintainer adds malicious code - but that's not the case here. Author asks for donations, the only negative effect of it is NPM logs getting longer. I think he's well within his moral rights here.
Why can't he add malicious code then? It's his code, right?
Who decides who can, and cannot advertise? There are many ways to solicit donations - the problem here is he chose to go against convention and put those ads in a common space. Does every other contributor of JS packages not have this right to advertise?
Perhaps NPM requires specific rules against advertisement, but the moral aspect wrt is "this is why we can't have nice things", or in this case, why we need explicit rules.
Then fork it and remove the message yourself.
Sitting on your hands and moaning about the size of your logs being “immoral” is peak entitlement. He doesn’t owe you or npm shit.
It's not "the size of your logs", it's adverts, specifically.
Misrepresenting the argument, and name-calling, also don't help.
There is also the fact that not including ads would require less labour than including them, even if removing them requires further labour. being "entitled" to correct behaviour isn't unreasonable. IS it OK for me to spam you, because I don't owe you shit either. morality is a society/community-level contract. It doesn't matter what is owed at a labour level, quid-pro-quo is you don't put adds in npm, we all don't put ads in npm. Breaking a social convention should require community consensus.
What planet do you live on? The one I am from is filled with tech companies making money selling ads and user data without scruple. But god forbid someone providing their labor gratis would DARE ask for a piece of it.
Why should an individual contributor not be allowed to partake in that, when the people who are using his work are making money off it?
A social convention, who put you in charge of that? There are plenty of bad conventions in this world, no one should be obligated to follow them.
Program logs are not the place for ads. If everybody did it, your logs would be unusable. The fact that this author didn't care about that reeks of entitlement.
Despite the fact that big tech makes money selling ads - none of those companies exhibited such trashy behavior.
Asking for a piece is not the problem. If I asked you if I could marry your daughter - no problem asking that right? But if I asked you while I was banging her right in front of you that would be a bit trashy. See the difference?
Personally, I've used this piece of software - but if it didn't exist, there are many, many other options for me and I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it.
In bus factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) considerations, I guess I’ve never considered that legal matters can take the driver out of commission as well as the person hit by the bus!
The entitlement in that thread is mind blowing. A lot of people who are complaining about there being only a single maintainer, seem to have no open source contribution history on github. If the project is important to so many people, they sure didn't show it by donating to the maintainer. Saying XYZ project is important to me, and there should be some js foundation taking care of it, (implicitly also saying I have zero intention of making any effort) sounds too hard to believe unless you see this in real life.
As Joe Biden said:
"Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value."
This really reminds me of most my interactions with the JS community. I'm sure not everyone is that way.
Whenever my projects use FOSS I always remind them exactly what a 'dependency' is. You should know and understand your dependencies and risks associated with relying on them.
You need to be willing to lock-in to a version if need be or replace it entirely. Some developers I work with that throw together one-off web applications tend to inject dozens (sometimes hundreds) of dependencies (which they like to dynamically pull from latest builds) into their projects, enough to make me dizzy looking through the list.
Typically development starts, they meet some initial goal and keep gluing more and more packages together to meet some goal/desired functionality. Then something breaks and they conveniently have other internal work that has to take priority, leaving a broken application they don't want to deal with for someone else to fix because they know it's an absolute mess they created. Rinse repeat.
Now you've established an expectation of functionality you have no clue how to maintain and did not clearly explain that to your client when you took shortcuts to glue everything together.
Seems really sheepish to bother the guy in jail over this.
Also, publish creds aren't the problem. The problem seems to be that nobody else really wants to maintain it including anyone at Babel, core-js' biggest user afaict.
If nobody steps up, it should just be a reminder of how flimsy open-source can be when there are so many bus-factor-of-one nodes out there that we depend on. It's a pretty big downside of depending on the hobbytime charity of random people, especially when we (or github comment culture) are so hostile when anyone dares to seek a penny.
You could write a library that every fortune 500 company uses to save a cumulative hundreds of thousands of dollars in employee-hours over the library's lifetime, but you're the asshole if you use your library's popularity to seek work or donations. People will come out of the woodwork to scold you.
Not if the credentials are in a password manager. Will I divulge my master password just so that someone else could maintain a project that I can’t? The most likely answer is no.
Considering he's sitting in prison, I'm sure he has much more pertinent things to be worrying about.
Add to that the fact that when he reached out to the community he worked hard (for free) to support, and they told him to basically FO, I doubt he's going to spend even a microsecond trying to be helpful in this situation.
That’s why forking it’s a thing. It’s certainly inconvenient but transferring the access of the original project to another party sets a very bad precedent. Maybe when the maintainer dies, but this guy is very much alive.
It is his work and he chose to give it freely to others through an OSS license. That doesn’t automatically grant anybody access to the original project. If somebody wants and needs to keep updating it then they should just fork it.
The left-pad issue is also different because in that case the original maintainer took it down which broke a bunch of packages that had dependencies on it.
This project is still in the registry and it will still work as it is for the foreseeable future.
Here's a hypothetical, but extremely plausible scenario.
Lets say tomorrow a major security vulnerability is discovered in CoreJS. Full root access because I'm making this all up.
NPM says core-js has 19k dependents, so it would be very preferable if an X.Y.1 release could be pushed with a security only fix, to be picked up in as many projects as possible.
In that case, I think it would be extremely reasonable for NPM to decide to take action. For example, they could take the package over themselves and publish a patch release.
Or they could temporarily add maintainership to a trusted member of the community.
No solution is without problems in this scenario, but there would be good arguments for either of those serious actions.
You're conflating two things: the npm package, and the GitHub repo. In your hypothetical, I agree with you that action would be needed: the repo should be forked and patched, and NPM should publish the new release as the official npm corejs package. This has accomplishes the same while trampling as little "ownership" as possible.
The project still exists. It's just unmaintained and needs new leadership. This is something almost every long lived project or company will go through.
Would you want all packages you're responsible for being taken over by whomever happens to be NPM's preferred forker in the event of your getting into legal troubles? I'd be strongly against that.
This should be handled the way any other fork happens: people create forks, other people audit them for stability and choose which to update their dependencies to. This isn't up to NPM to decide.
I'd rather hear Microsoft's suggestions on libraries to use than some random Joe Developer. They have/had unethical business practices, but their tech is really good and they have very smart people working for them.
A lot of people are making fun of Microsoft but most of them don't know or appreciate that you can run software compiled in the 90s on the most recent Windows 10 1909 without problems. Microsoft's backwards compatibility is off the charts.
Well... Windows 10 have the record of the being the only windows that breaks backwards compatibility sometimes. I saw Visual Basic 5/6 applications stooping to work because Microsoft break something on a update.
Also, good luck trying to run any Windows 16 bit application on a modern Windows 64 bit installation.
Finding a vulnerability in core-js which would highlight it in `npm audit` and then making a fork which fixes such vulnerability is much more ideomatic imho.
It's probably a better idea for individual depending projects (all 19k of them!) to evaluate their own use of this module. They may issue new versions with new dependencies, or they may not. It's not as if this code will start killing puppies just because the maintainer is unavailable.
I would imagine a better answer is for someone else in the community with familiarity on the project to create a semi-official fork.
Perhaps a less destructive change that someone with access (Github, NPM, Microsoft, etc.) could make, is to link to the new project from the readme.
Eventually when something breaks, this could be surfaced as an `npm audit` response (Core-js is no longer maintained. Switch to core-js-fork to resolve issue xyz).
Not a great precedent, is rather have them forcefully depreciate the package, eventually, suggest a few alternatives in the error log, and let the user decide.
He will be able to maintain the repo. From the sentence [0] you can see that he is sentenced to spend his term in an open prison [1] (Russian колония-поселение)
It means he will be able to have internet access without any problems.
What if the person lying on the road survived and the person driving the motorbike died. Would the person lying on the road be charged for manslaughter? And if yes, how is this situation different to shift the blame from one person to another.
The court determined that in this case (on a marked pedestrian crossing where pedestrians have right of way) the bike driver broke the rules of traffic as he should have stopped before the crossing; and it did not determine that the pedestrians broke the rules of traffic.
So if the person lying on the road survived and the person driving the motorbike died, then it's plausible that the person lying on the road would be charged for manslaughter in order to determine the situation (I believe that in case of fatal traffic incidents involving more than one party, in Russia almost always a criminal investigation is opened) but would be found not guilty.
At least in US there's a pedestrian's duty of care that's involved in determinations like this. A pedestrian could be found guilty of negligence and the burden shifts to them partially or in full depending on the state and the exact circumstances. Examples could include intentionally running into traffic, attempting to disrupt traffic, or even things like ignoring walk signals. However, in the last case it's unlikely that would relieve a driver of their duty of care as they'd still be in a crosswalk, it would just usually reduce the portion of their liability and move some onto the pedestrian... in some places (like NY). That type of scenario probably would have played out in this case for the states that have compensatory systems, but I'm really not 100% sure once it involves death.
I think even Russia has this situation covered if you can prove on a camera that someone intentionally jumped out in front of you. It's just way less open to interpretation by the court.
Don't panic! No need to bring out the towel, the dolphins aren't leaving just yet. Someone else has access to this repo and stated that security fixes will be maintained.
The CoreJS author blocked me and many other people on github for simply making a suggestion to tone down the "looking for a good job" npm install logs because it'll invoke other people to try the same thing which would result in unnecessary log pollution. It seemed like strange behavior for someone maintaining a very popular community driven project.
What I meant is that he implements features based on community feedback and responses. The community was largely opposed to NPM install log ads but he became pretty passive-aggressive towards people with opposing opinions.
It seems partially related, if you read the linked threads. It goes on to link to various other issues detailing what is going on with the author, including the ultimate reason he added the job message (he had a ton of lawyer fees he needed to recuperate.) He ran out of money, it would appear, to continue paying and ultimately had to take his sentence if I got the general gist.
Looking at the police report, I do wonder what the punishment would be in other countries. It seems the victims were laying drunk on the ground in dark clothing at top a hill (edit: hill not mentioned in police report, but seems logical given the headlight statement), causing the headlight beams to not illuminate them. On top of that, incoming traffic blinded the driver.
This is of course according to his testimony, but I can't imagine I (or anyone else) would have been able to avoid such a situation.
Edit with source:
Citing the actual circumstances of the accident, he emphasizes that he could not notice the pedestrians in a timely manner, as they were below the light level of the headlights of the vehicle(R.G. - lay, P.A. - tried to lift it), were dressed in dark clothes, street lighting was insufficient, he(Pushkarev D.V.)was blinded by the distant light of the oncoming car. Further, the author discloses the contents of the testimony of witnesses A.A., A.Y., A.M., I.K., A.S.,focuses on the behavior of victims at a pedestrian crossing, which contradicted the requirements of p.4.6 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation. It notes that the victims were in a state of alcoholic intoxication, behaved inadequately. It points out that p.14.1 traffic rules of the Russian Federation provides for the duty of the driver to pass pedestrians crossing the roadway, and not lying on it. He insists that he would have noticed the victims and was able to prevent the attack if they were moving on the crossing upright.
https://kraevoy--alt.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_...
Transalted by Bing.