This story has been horribly misreported in the mainstream media. Suffice to say that the AI gaff was the very thinnest pretence for a politically motivated firing. The true reason being that West Midlands Police made the UK govt furious for suggesting that maybe Maccabi were violent thugs rather than persecuted victims, which goes against prevailing official narratives WRT Israel.
I'll share my opposing view point. Whilst Maccabi fans may contain hooligans, that's not really surprising for football fans. Fans travelling within Europe cause trouble all the time.
What is different, is that Maccabi fans were blocked from attending by the police/council when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment. Secondly, the police were aware of plans within the Birmingham Muslim community to attack said fans. Instead of coming down on these people planning violence, they decided to avoid the situation entirely.
Furthermore, they ignored evidence from the Amsterdam authorities who haven't said the Maccabi fans were as riotous as you claim. Using AI hallucinations was just the cherry on the cake.
The "media reporting" section of the article is particularly illuminating - a Zionist influence operation was in full swing afterwards to minimize the bad behavior of the Israeli fans.
Furthermore Maccabee fans have a reputation for hooliganism in Israel itself. So the West Midlands assessment was eminently reasonable.
The manufactured storm over the decision again showcases a broader pattern of insidious Zionist influence over Western institutions. The decision was lawyered to death in a manner only Israelis get the benefit of.
Thank you for actually reading the article. I knew I would get many responses parroting the official narrative because that's what we're being spoonfed, but I'm glad some people are interested in understanding what really happened.
> The Amsterdam police made clear that among Maccabi supporters there were 500-800 ultras visiting the city in November 2024. Like other European ultra groups, these fans were organised and, on some occasions, seemed willing to fight. The Amsterdam police also stated that a lot of disorder in those days were the result of different groups provoking each other.
> At the same time, another development takes place - small groups of pro-Palestinian rioters actively search for individuals they perceive as Israeli, Jewish or Maccabi supporters. At 23:55pm, the first 'flash' attacks on Maccabi supporters begin at Dam Square. Several dozen violent incidents in the city centre follow. The pro-Palestinian rioters use various methods to reach their victims. Some move on foot, others use scooters or taxis to move quickly through the city. This makes it difficult for the police to intervene quickly and effectively. This proves to be a fundamentally different form of violence compared to earlier situations, which involved clashes between groups facing each other. From 1:24am onward, reports of attacks decrease, but fear among Jewish residents of Amsterdam and Israeli tourists remains high. Multiple reports come in of people feeling unsafe and not daring to leave their hotels.
The Macabbi ultras were violent and racist hooligans, as you said. But you can't excuse or leave out the behaviour of their opponents who went on a "Jew hunt" (their words!) and attacked random Jews or Israelis, unaffiliated with the football hooligans.
From your wiki link:
> Most of the people involved in the attacks on Maccabi fans were taxi drivers and youths on scooters,
So yes, if the people attacking the Maccabi fans are taxi drivers, yes, I'd expect to see taxi drivers getting beaten up right back.
> In the nights following the attacks, people thought to be Jewish continued to be targeted, including being forced out of taxis and ordered to show their passports to check if they were Israeli.
Didn't feel the need to mention this? Oh, sorry, random people being forced out of taxis to check if they're Israeli is just an overstatement by the media, "the second coming of Anne Frank", I forgot.
I followed this closely at the time. It was clear that Maccabi supporters were looking for a confrontation and were intimidating anyone with a Palestinian flag. They're kind of known for being massive racists[0].
A group of Maccabi Fanatics chased two men, beating one with a belt as he tried to escape in a taxi. After the police arrived, the group ran away, joining other Maccabi ultras, nearly all of whom wore black clothing instead of team colours, walking towards Rokin. This group of around 50 Maccabi supporters gathered in front of Villa Mokum, a squat where several Palestinian flags were displayed.
> Over the course of the night, police monitoring Telegram and WhatsApp began to detect “messages of aggression and threats toward Maccabi supporters,” according to a report produced afterward by city authorities. The vandalism of the taxi was “oil on the fire” in a community angered by the city’s decision to let the team play, said driver Mohamed Asri, 31, who was not working but watched the chat messages that night.
> At one point, a worker at Holland Casino tipped off a WhatsApp group that Maccabi fans were outside, according to screenshots of the messages obtained by The Post with usernames redacted. Police said there was a call for taxi drivers to mobilize, and cabs began to amass at the site.
> Maccabi fans ran inside the casino and security closed the doors behind them, according to casino spokesman Ilan Sluis. A bartender across the street said a group of about 50 people tried to break into the casino by rushing the doors for about 25 minutes.
> Kobi Itzajki, 34, a Maccabi fan, had just returned to a hotel when he received a message from a friend at the casino.
> “There’s an antisemitic event here,” read a 3:17 a.m. message, reviewed by The Post. “Turkish Muslims attacked Israelis who fled here. We’re locked inside the casino, bring the police.”
> Altercations took place in other parts of the city, too. A video posted online shortly after 3 a.m. shows a man struggling to swim in an icy canal and being forced to say “Free Palestine.”
> “TOMORROW AFTER THE GAME AT NIGHT PART 2 JEW HUNT,” someone wrote in a WhatsApp group just before 4 a.m.
> if the people attacking the Maccabi fans are taxi drivers, yes, I'd expect to see taxi drivers getting beaten up right back.
You have the causality backwards: maccabi fans started attacking taxis before the latter started retaliating.
> At the same time, another development takes place - small groups of pro-Palestinian rioters actively search for individuals they perceive as Israeli, Jewish or Maccabi supporters. At 23:55pm, the first 'flash' attacks on Maccabi supporters begin at Dam Square.
Didn't feel the need to mention the lead-up to this? Everything in the article that came before this line, maybe? Here are some excerpts:
> In the early morning of 7 November, at approximately 12:20am, the control room receives reports that a group of about 50 Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters are pulling a Palestinian flag off a building façade and obstructing traffic.
> Some of the supporters are wearing face coverings, shouting anti-Palestinian slogans, and harassing people.
> Of the group walking along the Rokin, several individuals remove their belts and use them to attack taxis. Scooter riders are also attacked with padlocks.
> The next day, around 12:15pm, the first [maccabi] supporters arrive, and the group quickly grows. They chant anti-Palestinian slogans.
> The fan walk begins around 17:30 at Dam Square. During the fan walk, supporters shout slogans in Hebrew. Afterwards, it appears that these include highly offensive, racist expressions. At the front walks a group wearing face coverings.
> Around midnight, Maccabi Tel Aviv rioters gather at Central Station and move towards the city centre. Along the way, they equip themselves with materials such as metal rods and stones. Stones are also thrown at taxis.
> Didn't feel the need to mention the lead-up to this?
It's mentioned in the GP post. I'm in no way hiding or excusing what the hooligans were up to, only noting that the GP made an extremely one-sided statement, whereas the Amsterdam police statement covers all the disorder, including confirming what the GP said.
> It sounds like maccabi rioters started it.
And if there were no opponents to them, then it would only be Maccabi hooligans being arrested. But instead they had opponents who were equally ready to riot and use violence, including against random people who the attackers simply felt were Jewish or Israeli.
I put it to you that the Maccabi hooligans were not the only thugs in Amsterdam that week.
> And if there were no opponents to them, then it would only be Maccabi hooligans being arrested. But instead they had opponents who were equally ready to riot and use violence, including against random people who the attackers simply felt were Jewish or Israeli.
If there were no maccabi fans rioting and assaulting people the attackers simply felt were Palestinian or Muslim, then it would be peace in the street. Indeed, the responding violence seems to have been a predictable result of the initiating maccabi rioter violence.
Put yourself in the same position: A lynch mob from outside your community marches through it, masked and clad in black so as to be unidentifiable. Some of their racist chants are threats against you, your community, your family, your children. Other racist chants celebrate an ongoing genocide of your family, friends, and people. They vandalize your community and attack members of it along the way. It would not be unreasonable or unprecedented for your community to respond by stomping this lynch mob into the gutters, or at least running it out of town.
As we don't live in the middle ages any more, it would be more than reasonable for the community to demand the riot police step in and arrest the provocators.
It would not be OK to plan a "jew hunt" on WhatsApp and perpetuate violence by performing a "flash mob attack" against not only against Maccabi hooligans, but also non-violent Maccabi fans, and also Jewish and Israeli people who aren't even visiting for the football. And completely random people who you just think look Jewish or Israeli.
No, that's not acceptable. That's retributive bullshit. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
> it would be more than reasonable for the community to demand the riot police step in and arrest the provocators.
Likewise, it would not be unreasonable or unprecedented for your community to respond by stomping this lynch mob into the gutters, or at least running it out of town.
The principle that intolerance should be tolerated is not universally held, and IMO is a bit privileged.
> And completely random people who you just think look Jewish or Israeli
That sounds like it came after the maccabi rioters started their campaign of violence against random people who they just thought looked Palestinian or Muslim.
Indiscriminate targeting of civilians is never ok under any circumstances, but unfortunately it still happens, and ethnic violence tends to beget ethnic violence.
The sibling comment answered perfectly, but I'll add that your advice sounds reasonable in a vacuum, but in reality this event happened one year after the start of genocide. The community had no reason to believe that the state would do anything, as the state allowed a genocidal country's genocide-celebrating citizens to travel to the community's city for a football match and the police didn't do anything while they were chanting death to arabs, hours before the locals took matters into their own hands.
After a year of international inaction in response to the genocide, the Amsterdam community acted quite reasonably, and to be honest quite commendably, by stomping the lynch mob into the gutter, as the sibling eloquently put.
No... This is again the trope that anti-genocide == antisemitism.
Might be the words of one person, but you find crazies everywhere. In this specific case, according to all the foltage I've seen, on one side you had a group celebrating the death of children while their country perpetrates a genocide, on the other you had people by and large talking about punishing that behaviour.
So I'm pretty sure their words were "Free Palestine".
> There was some planned coordination — among taxi drivers and other locals who used messaging apps to organize a show of force, with at least one chat referring to a “Jew hunt.” Those conversations took place after, and in many cases in response to, episodes the night before the match, when Maccabi supporters pulled down a Palestinian flag and damaged a taxi. Neither The Post nor Dutch investigators came across plans for orchestrated violence in the days ahead of the match.
> The Post found that the violence that unfolded was not one-sided. Israeli fans were harassed, chased and in some cases beaten. But video of one of the earliest post-match altercations, shared by multiple news organizations as an example of attacks on Israelis, in fact shows Maccabi supporters as the aggressors.
Both the racist hooligans, and locals, brought violence upon each other, and innocent people.
Neither side's provocations are justified. Neither side's violence is justified. Both groups harmed entirely innocent people.
Here are some quotes from a group of taxi drivers organising reciprocal violence. I'm highlighting them to show that the locals are not exclusively innocent people ravaged by ultras, they also rioted indiscriminately. The rest of the article goes into much further detail about the actions of all parties, and I recommend you read it in full.
> “TOMORROW AFTER THE GAME AT NIGHT PART 2 JEW HUNT,” someone wrote in a WhatsApp group just before 4 a.m.
> After the match, a Telegram group normally used by taxi drivers for traffic updates tracked the fans’ movements from the stadium to the central metro station. “Jews are arriving we are waiting for them brother be ready,” a group member posted at 11.33 p.m.
> At 11:45 p.m., Sektioui posted the first of a series of images and videos showing Cobra firecrackers, some of which are strapped to bottles labeled as paint thinner. Those firecrackers are illegal in the Netherlands, even without modifications to increase their explosive power.
> > when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment
> This treatment is often doled out to clubs' fans. Even in Tel Aviv.
Sorry, what treatment are you talking about exactly? Your parent seems to be referring to the treatment of being "blocked from attending by the police/council". Is that what you mean is often doled out to clubs/fans?
Yes, that's the precise type of treatment I'm talking about: prevented from attending a football game due to security concerns or penalty for poor behavior.
It happens often enough in European football. Search "away fans ban uefa -maccabi" online. You can also look at official UEFA sites, but they often list partial bans (e.g., ban from a particular section of the stadium) in a way that I can't distinguish from complete bans.
According to the UEFA website you linked it looks like BSC Young Boys were the only other club to face a ban on Europa League away fans in 2025. Maccabi Tel Aviv doesn't appear there, of course, since despite UEFA having rules and punishments against fan violence, they didn't consider it appropriate to punish Maccabi. So I wonder how frequently a team is forbidden from taking away fans by the local police, despite not being sanctioned by UEFA.
The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore. Admittedly, because of violence on the morning of the game, not because of concerns well in advance, but I think it's quite reasonable to say that such a prohibition is not some kind of outrageous outlier.
My general point is, if you think the surface level details of this case are indication of some outrageous singling out of Maccabi fans, then I think that's mostly due to ignorance (in the non-derogatory sense of lack of familiarity).
If you want to debate the details, that's a fine thing to do, and I'm aware of lots of those details too and would still generally find it quite plausible to desire an away fans ban for Maccabi in that case, but that's not the point I'm trying to make on HN right now.
> The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore
I think you mean the match against Hapoel Tel Aviv, which happened before this furore. The Tel Aviv police naturally know and expect that there is often unrest at a derby match, let alone a derby match between teams who share a stadium. But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other? And even if there was, why not cancel the match or play it behind closed doors? Why punish Maccabi specifically?
My recollection is the Tel Aviv derby took place after this Aston Villa ban was announced or raised publicly as a possibility (my meaning of "the furore"), but before the eventual match (another valid definition). Regardless, the sequence of these events is immaterial.
As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match! The report is a poor document, but it contains some valid reasoning, despite the outrageous AI hallucination and some legal linguistics errors (mistakenly saying "communities" themselves were targeted, instead of individuals from said communities).
Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns? https://archive.is/20251218110350/https://www.nytimes.com/at...
> As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match!
A match that happened 12 months prior? Maccabi had played several away matches around Europe in that intervening period. Why should it have been a Birmingham team that saw fit to ban them?
> Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns?
It's not implausible! But bans of all away fans happens rarely.
> But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other?
Emphasis mine, but you said both in a connected statement, so I don't see the point in disputing anything about my quotation.
Edit: I see now have you've removed the dispute of my quotation as being inaccurate where you argued you said "particular relation" and not "particular reason" -- no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because there is a resident population in Birmingham that would be a likely target of racial/religious abuse by Maccabi fans, i.e., Muslim people, or even just "Arab" appearing people, or people showing Palestine solidarity. Amsterdam and Birmingham are similar in this regard (I lived in Amsterdam for years), in ways other cities may not be. I'm not clued into Stuttgart or the cities hosting other games, so I can't say if populations there are similar or not. Expecting a uniform approach from all cities would be ludicrous -- why mandate ignoring particularities?
I don't think this is a form of intolerance towards Maccabi fans, because the logic is identical to that of the Tel Aviv derby prohibition -- it's about preventing reasonably predictable confrontations that exceed some tolerance level.
> Edit: I see you removed disputing my quotation as being inaccurate, no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
Yes, the mistake was entirely mine.
> As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because ...
Fine, that's a perfectly valid reason in itself, but the West Midlands police did keep quiet about that being the basis for the ban, only saying so (in far less detail than you) after the match had taken place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx3d5enx0xo, which in itself seems suspicious.
If your point is "hooliganism happens and is treated on a case-by-case basis, in some circumstances warranting bans" then my response would be to agree, though I still hold that such hooliganism is rare. This isn't the 1980s any more. Any further dispute is about the facts of the particular case, and what I've seen from the Commons committee which questioned the West Midlands police chief doesn't fill me with confidence that your interpretation is the correct one.
The background level of hooliganism is AFAIK a lot lower now than in the 80s/90s when I casually recall it being commonplace and less under control, yes, but that doesn't mean that Maccabi deserve to be treated as if they themselves rarely act as hooligans or racists, etc.
I have read quite a lot on the topic of what transpired in Amsterdam, what generally transpires at Maccabi games in Israel (in terms of genocidal chants, calling Israeli "left wing" club supporters "the whores of Arabs", etc., because they are in my view less racist against Palestinians or "Israeli Arabs"), the level of analysis done by the Birmingham police (a poor document, but to me there is clearly a reasonable argument in there, struggling to be expressed, but mired in unforced errors), etc. I think the standard of discourse by UK parliamentary commissions and debate in parliament, etc., has been very low, and not a sufficient basis to understand the relevant facts, even for a casual overview, never mind for detailed insight.
However, none of that is part of my original point, which is only to say, that banning away fans from a club like Maccabi is not notable, and on the surface level, anyone arguing that it smacks of discrimination is either ignorant or disingenuous. If one admits that there was plausible justification to prohibit Maccabi away fans, but in the particulars it was not justified, then fine, I disagree, but I don't wish to pursue the argument on HN.
For example, at any duel between Ajax and Feyenoord the away fans have been banned - since 2009. The Den Haag municipality banned away fans at ADO Den Haag - Ajax games for over 10 years. NAC - Willen II didn't allow away fans during the 2022 season. Fans misbehaved badly enough during N.E.C. - Vitesse games that they were threatened with a 10-year ban on away fans. Amsterdam banned the Italian fans at Ajax - SS Lazio in 2024, due to repeated antisemitism and racism. Lille didn't allow Ajax fans during their game last January. In 2023 the Amsterdam police seriously considered banning all away fans during all high-risk European games.
And that's just the first few results of a trivial search for a single country. I could probably find a hundred more without much effort.
They were banned because during a match in Amsterdam they shouted racist abuse, sang racist songs, did plenty of vandalism, threw an innocent member of the public into a river and assaulted Muslim taxi drivers.
Moreover, most of them have military training which makes the racist abuse, vandalism and assault that much more terrifying.
If an antisemitic football team was half that bad they'd be hauled off to prison never mind banned from football matches.
Barcelona vs Athletic Bilbao had no away fans. It happens a few times every year across Europe. If you’re only looking at UEFA matches you’ll find fewer, but it’s not that unheard of. Argentina had a 12 year ban on away fans recently lifted as well.
That list confirms that during 2025 there was one incidence of UEFA banning a Europa League team from bringing fans. There are nearly 200 matches in one season of Europa League, so it's rare, I think.
There are multiple “no away fans” bans in 2025 on that page. It is common-ish and contradicts your earlier claims of it not happening to anyone but Maccabi.
Just incredible how little people understand football on here, but confidently say things like this.
Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany.[1] This is a far bigger response, which affected all Germans entering Italy, not just the football fans. This is a far bigger response and of questionable legality.
> Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany
Are you sure that all away fans were banned? Doesn't look like it. It looks like they imposed controls to forbid the travel of particular people, which, as I said, often happens.
> Airlines operating Germany–Italy routes were asked to verify passenger identities against watch-lists before boarding
Yeah, bans are rare because hooliganism is rare. But in the instances of hooliganism, stadium bans are common! "Oh no, Maccabi fans are being targeted". No more than any other hooligans.
Ah, well that I agree with! I suspect the only remaining point of disagreement is whether the level of hooliganism of Maccabi fans warranted the ban. My guess, based on what I've seen from the evidence to the Commons committee is no, but I'm not particularly inclined to get into a debate about that.
My guess based on what I've seen from Amsterdam, is that there would have been clashes in Birmingham, just as there were clashes in Amsterdam. Without getting into who was at fault and who would have been at fault, we're all better off for having avoided the violence. This would be unfair if the Maccabi fans were entirely blameless, but based on the reports from Amsterdam, the Maccabi fans weren't.
Btw, you clearly don't know much about Maccabi. Here there are a decade ago, with their fans being investigated for racism by the Israeli FA (https://newisraelfund.org.uk/issue/kick-it-out-complaint-lea...). Is the Israeli FA anti-semitic too? They've also been banned from Israeli stadiums in the past for hooliganism.
It later transpired the real reason the Police wanted to ban the group:
"West Midlands Police did have "high confidence intelligence" that members of the local community in Birmingham were planning to arm themselves to attack Maccabi supporters."
Because the police didn't want to upset the "local community" (which is predominantly Muslim), they hunted around for reasons to ban them as that was easier than EG enforcing the law and stopping people getting attacked by mobs.
Asian/Asian British: A very large majority, with some reports showing over 70%, including a significant Pakistani community (around 38% of the total population).
Black/African/Caribbean: The second-largest group, making up about 26%.
White British: Around 18%.
Foreign-Born: Over 44% of the population was born outside the UK.
Religion: Islam is the most prominent religion (around 54%), followed by Christianity (26%).
The local community near Aston Villa's grounds, Villa Park, is predominantly Muslim.
Take a look at this map of data from the 2011 census. The dark green lumps in the north-west (>70% Muslim) and the green lumps surrounding them (45%-70% Muslim) are Perry Barr. The whitish lump (0%-5% Muslim) immediately to the east of a dark green lump is Aston.
> But the decision has been welcomed by Ayoub Khan, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, the constituency where the match will take place. He organised a petition calling for the match to be either cancelled, relocated or held behind closed doors [...]
> Khan is one of the five independent MPs elected at the last election wholly or partly because of their outright opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and his petition suggests that his opposition to the match going ahead is motivated as much by the desire to make a political point about Israel’s conduct as by concerns about the risk of violence. The petition cites three reasons why the match should not go ahead. One is the “track record of violence by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans”, but the others are the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and the “wider European context”. The petition says:
> As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, killing thousands and devastating civilian infrastructure, sporting fixtures involving Israeli teams cannot be separated from the wider political context. Hosting such teams sends a message of normalisation and indifference to mass atrocities.
With this in mind, perhaps you can see there was as much a political and sectarian religious element to WMP's decision as there was a security element.
Don't know what the "wider European context" is, but a public official campaigning to boycott and sanction a country carrying out a genocide is not in any way bad. That the UK authorised that match to happen instead of sanctioning Israel is the shameful part, not Khan's conduct.
And your opinion about there being a "religious sectarian element" is very subjective even though it's presented as fact. People from Arabic/Middle-Eastern countries (who are majority Muslim) are indeed especially sensitive to Israel's apartheid/killings, but that has much more to do with their own marginalisation and history than with their religion I'd wager. As evidence, I'm sure these matches were happily going along before Israel started killing 100 people per day, no?
In short, that a public official did the right thing when his country's government couldn't is, again, laudable.
This is I think the third reply I make to you, not because I follow you around, but because every time I read a post full of "implications" and concern for the innocent citizens having to deal with evil people, it happens to be you posting it...
The people of Gaza are a bit like a somebody that climbed into a cage with a lion, hit it with a cricket bat, and then start crying when it retaliated.
If the people of Gaza actually possessed the inclination to create a functioning state with a football team, that team would obviously have been banned after the mass rapes and murder on October 7th.
You seem to have chosen one specific viewpoint, and are lauding those that you already agree with.
Birmingham's Jewish community is under attack. That's not coming from nowhere, it's coming from people riled up about Gaza, finding an excuse to attack innocent people in the UK:
I have no love of football hooligans. But I'm not blind to the implications of a police force favouring one group of people over another. It's WMP's duty to protect all citizens, including from each other. They clearly failed in their duty here, especially because they were caught out with a hallucinated post-hoc justification for their decision.
I'll repeat what I said earlier: If you're angry about Israel and Palestine, don't take it out on Jews in the UK. Don't assume Jews support Israel or the IDF, don't assume Muslims support Palestine or Hamas. Thanks.
First: before speaking about the Jewish community, go to a protest, you'll find plenty of them there. The Jewish community is not under attack, the tired "antizionism/antigenocide = antisemitism" trope doesn't fly much nowadays. I'd be extremely certain that a lot of those who voted for that mayor, and who campaigned for the football match to be cancelled, and who got ready to bash the fans if need be were Jewish people (haven't been to a single protest without Jews being represented and very vocal about their protest of the genocide).
Second: believe it or not, but for hours after writing that comments, it kept popping up in my head until I realised what I was doing.
I'm arguing with someone who:
- during an ongoing genocide harps on about the great injustice done to genocide-celebrating football fans
- plays the moderate by saying we should all defer to the public authorities (the good ones, those that don't do anything, not the public authorities like Khan, who is a dishonest guy who wouldn't even have gotten elected if there hadn't been a genocide around in the first place)
- mentions that indeed, it's complicated, there are problems on both sides, etc. The sides you're equivocating being a group of pretty much Nazi football fans and the (gasp) the Muslamists!
- jumps into a comment about Muslims being the problem whipping out a Muslim map of Birmingham. Imagine any other discussion about risks of violence and someone helpfully jumping in with a "Jew map" or "Chinese map" and making dark innuendos about the Jewish mayor. And then has the gall to squeak out "and don't you dare be an islamophobe"!
- is all over the discussion, making disingenuous, weaselly arguments.
Again, stop reading opinion pieces on WP and looking at Muslim maps, go to a protest, you'll see you're imagining things.
Maccabi fans were also found guilty by the UEFA governing body just in December of racist chants (referring to an Arab-Israeli as a "terrorist") in a separate episode:
The main European football association also found them guilty recently of anti-Arab racist chants and fined, gave them a "suspended one-match away fan ban":
I thought it was very funny that a military parade has sponsors. But there is no hypocrisy here, from Coinbase's point of view. They would argue that "A military parade isn't political, it's just patriotic!"
Point is, companies (and individuals) that claim to have 'no politics' also don't understand what politics is.
From listening to Feldman's podcast, this doesn't really come as a surprise to me. The rigor that Rust demands seems not to jibe with his 'worse is better' approach. That coupled with the fact they already switched the stdlib from Rust to Zig. The real question I have is why he chose Rust in the first place.
Zig was not ready or nearly as popular back in 2019 when the compiler was started.
Not to mention, Richard has a background mostly doing higher level programming. So jumping all the way to something like C or Zig would have been a very big step.
Sometimes you need a stepping stone to learn and figure out what you really want.
> The real question I have is why he chose Rust in the first place.
If you read the linked post carefully you will know.
> Compile times aside, the strengths and weaknesses of Rust and Zig today are much different than they were when I wrote the first line of code in Roc's Rust compiler in 2019. Back then, Rust was relatively mature and Zig was far from where it is today.
It's obviously going to be much much more difficult to steal $450K from an actual bank account and get clean away - you're going to need a lot more proof of identity than a google login. From that POV, owning a lot of cryptocurrency is painting a target on your back.
Could just be people talking about crypto on social media directly saying that they own some. Would not be too hard to find accounts where you can clearly identify the person behind the twitter handle, facebook profile, instragram account or whatever talking about that online. We're only hearing about people who happened to lose a huge amount of money but lots of people probably fell for this scam and lost money on the scale of $100 or $1000.
I found this video, titled 'To Catch a Scammer: How a real-life criminal steals your bitcoin' pretty informative. An employee is able to go into detail on how scammers find their marks:
https://youtu.be/pskUt4ZjM4M
The video linked in the article by Junseth also goes over some of this.
You're being downvoted but as a lefty European tech worker this rings true. I come to HN for interesting technical content (obviously) but I find the politics of the site by turns confusing and hard to stomach.
It is certainly the case that many well-meaning, Dem-voting Americans don't seem to know what leftist politics is (having never been exposed to it), and don't seem to realize that they are right-wing. It's an interesting phenomenon, but quite alarming when the consequences for the rest of the world are Not Good.
Kind've interesting that the author is now a big Zig advocate. Presumably he likes Zig for the same reason he likes Go and dislikes Rust - because Worse is Better.
I love Rust and you couldn't pay me to write Go (haven't tried Zig). It's The Right Thing.
Lots of people seem surprised that the new government apparently have no desire to improve the dire state of the UK. But that was never on the cards and the idea that they might have done so is pure projection. The current leadership of the Labour party are from the right-wing Labour First faction who have always been very clear that their aims are not to improve the country but to keep the left out of power. They will govern in the same business-as-usual nothing-can-ever-get-better vein as the Tories and their Blairite predecessors.
However I don't blame the public for not knowing this fact. There was (and to some extent still is) a media lockdown on reporting who is behind the Starmer project. (Because if it had been reported on it might not have succeeded).
To me, just is make without features I don't need. There is not a lot of benefit for me, but there is a lot of benefit for other people who need to learn the repo and have no knowledge of either make or just.
Another benefit is that justfile just cannot get too complex and tangled. Simplicity at its finest.
Do you have any insight into crypto ecosystem or just troll here?
First of all, zcash is focused on private payments and Tor helps its users to stay anonymous while using third party wallets, etc. It's their dependency and relevant privacy project so they decide to support it. But this is nothing new, crypto ecosystem has been contributing to Tor for a decade, starting in Silk Road era. Many privacy related project have anon contributors only funded in crypto. It's literally FOSS native payment method.
These days, public goods funding of free and open software is one of the most active areas in crypto scene. They activate individual donors and organizations/DAOs to donate towards impactful non-profit projects. Quadratic funding platforms like Gitcoin are used to funnel millions of dollars to FOSS.
As much as I dislike cryptocurrency, you're being unfair here. Some people of that crowd have privacy as central principle, Tor is then more than clearly related.
Most cryptobros are very pro open source and pro privacy, it's the whole reason they're trying to amass resources in crypto, to make it stronger and also to direct others to build up more resilient systems.
I have only found one news source that actual tells the story properly (warning, long read): https://whispering.media/the-maccabi-gospel/
reply