I was just checking which were the top guesses on polymarket before the announcement and this winner was not even a choice on there. At least we know there's no insider trading at the Nobel foundation.
> In accordance with Nobel's will, the prize is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway unlike all the other awards chosen by the Swedish Nobel Committee.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize</a><p>There's been accusations of leaks in connection to bets with the Nobel Price in Literature.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature_controversies#2018_controversy_and_award_cancellation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature_cont...</a>
Machado’s odds suddenly surged to almost 80% 12 hours before the announcement<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1o383a1/oc_maría_corina_machados_odds_surged_hours_before/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1o383a1/oc...</a><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/10/nobel-peace-prize-bets-polymarket" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/10/nobel-peace-pr...</a>
The prize in economics is even more different, "in memory of alfred nobel"<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...</a>
I wonder...<p>If I had inside information, and didn't want to make it obvious, I'd just take the opposite side of any bet for candidates I knew wouldn't win.
Sorry, but your reasoning is incomplete. They could have bet millions on the negative result for each of the candidates that were listed. You aren't forced to bet on a winner, you can instead bet on everybody to lose.
I hope it gets banned by the next administration.
this seems a bit odd to me (change the link to 1 day)<p><a href="https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2026-139?marketSlug=will-yulia-navalnaya-win-the-nobel-peace-prize-in-2026-261" rel="nofollow">https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2026-1...</a><p>Yulia Navalnaya (widow of Alexei Navalny) had a ton of play, and Navi Pillay didn't even have a market?<p>edit: and what dang just added about the US - ICC sanctions
[flagged]
Related ongoing thread:<p><i>US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066</a> - Oct 2026 (288 comments)
Great to see that they're not afraid to stand up to the rising authoritarianism
And last year it went to someone praising Netanyahu on multiple occasions and tried very hard to kiss Trump’s ass—Trump even got gifted that frigging medal, which was a huge embarrassment for the committee a couple months back. That’s among a long list of extremely questionable recipients. Sure they may have selected the “right” recipient (to some) this year. But why even bother paying attention to a broken clock.
María Corina Machado has stood up against authoritarianism in Venezuela for more than a decade. I don't think awarding the prize should require that the recipient is a perfect person or holds all of the "correct" opinions according to bystanders who have no skin in the game.
The Peace Prize seems somewhat hit or miss. I'm sure we all remember when it was given to Barack Obama for his lifelong work of not being George W Bush. And of course it was given to Henry Effin' Kissinger.<p>Maybe this speaks to the difficulty of peace in general. One asshole warmonger can destroy thousands of lives on a whim, but ending or preventing war takes long, steady efforts by large numbers of people. It's not very amenable to an individual prize.
Looking at the history it was awarded to organizations a decent number of times in the past, (even up to Nihon Hidankyo in 2024 which focuses on impact from Nagasaki/Hiroshima and anti-atomic weapon advocacy)....<p>which to your point does seem to make more sense than singling out an individual.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur...</a>
I think the best recipients tend to be those who are involved in "structural" work to advance the cause of peace, rather than those who have been involved in helping settle specific conflicts.<p>For example, consider the difference between the first five recipients (all for founding various influential peace organisations) vs the sixth (for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War).<p>In that respect, Pillay seems one of the better laureates of recent years.
I think people are making a mistake when they view the Peace Prize as an evaluation of a person's character or their entire career. Often it's targeting specific negotiations or treaties, which in retrospect were failed attempts at peace. This applies to Kissinger in the case of the Paris Peace Accords, Begin/Sadat for the Camp David Accords, Arafat/Peres/Rabin for the Oslo Accords, etc.
Many "hard science" Nobel prize recipients also turned out to be complete embarrassment of themselves... There is even a name for that. "Nobel disease".
These horrible Nobel Peace Prize recipients (and in some cases, Literature Prize recipients as well) are nothing like “Nobel disease”. Said recipient was praising the genocide perpetrator and war criminal (according to this year’s recipient, ironically) as well as performing the ass kissing and inviting foreign invasion before the award was given. The committee bestowed the award knowing very well what they’re getting into, and time and time again it’s nothing more than a political endorsement of a specific kind of “peace”—well, if you consider inviting foreign invasion an act of peace. Actually it’s more like endorsement of a particular ideology, sometimes not even peaceful.
I mean, if the really gave the prize to Trump, they would completely destroy their credibility. That's better left to FIFA (not that FIFA had a lot of credibility before creating a peace prize to award it to Trump).
The committee is independent from politics although some dictators may at times misunderstand that.
Where does it say that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is independent from politics?<p>As stated on their webpage, "As far as possible, the composition of the Committee is to reflect the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting." - <a href="https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/</a><p>It is independent to the sitting Norwegian government, as members can't have current seats both in the committee and Storting, but several committee do represent the political parties in Norway.<p>Currently the committee is made from former Leader of the Centre Party, a foreign policy scholar and writer, former Conservative Party cabinet member that was the Minister of Education and Research, a Political scientist and Chief Executive Officer of Utøya AS, and last the former Labour Party Foreign Affairs Secretary.
I find it hard to see how the committee can be genuinely independent of politics when its members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
Norway is one of the few countries in the world that has ”fuck you” money and a functioning representative electoral system. If the parliament appoints the committee, I find it politically suicidal for any representative to dare to directly interfere with the commissions deliberation and choices. There’s hardly anything positive to gain from it for a representative.
Asle Toje was appointed by FRP and is very much a political appointed member. While there is not really any indication of meddling by political parties with the committee the appointment is very much politically governed.
how does this imply that they can be disconnected from politics, some may argue on the contrary due to what you just stated.
The only country that has "fuck you" anything is unfortunately the US.
The current US administration and its voting population is making sure that this won't be the case soon. It's gonna be hard to win back the good will that was built through decades of diplomacy and trade. Even harder when their conventional armed forces have been underwhelming in the attack on Iran.
Let's be clear that this is just an opinion and ignores China for example.
I think recent events have proven otherwise. Asymmetric warfare hurts the big guy more than it hurts the little one. The US was only ever in charge of the world order because most of it's power was <i>not</i> through military action. The threat is there, sure, but the US built most of it's empire off of soft power and diplomacy. Ironically, flexing it's military muscles too much is one of the few sure ways of destroying the American hegemony.
Good old Roosevelt’s “Talk softly and carry a big stick” worked really well.
american hegemony has been on the decline for decades. flexing its military is a last ditch attempt to reverse course, it’s not the beginning of the decline. whether it works or not is up for debate and for the future to hold, but what isn’t up for debate is that the soft power gig clearly wasn’t working.
Alas, in US art and civic culture, "you" refers to those eligible to serve in the armed forces.
"independent from politics" seems to have a few different meanings. One is inherently bad and another is not necessarily bad. Of course the committee is political and the entire nature of the award is political.
They have really not made the impression that they are independent of politics, all laureates taken together. But if they improve I'm all for it.
There's always FIFA to give out a prize if necessary.
The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament, a political body.
It is not really. They claim so but the members are appointed by the Norwegian government. One of the members, Asle Toje, is very much a political appointed member by the right-wing FRP party.<p>This process is decided by the Alfred Nobel will.
They're so independent from politics they gave a Peace Prize to President "Drone Strikes" Obama after he was in office for merely a year.
giving the prize to Obama was not political at all.<p>/s
It was political, quite possibly a mistake.<p>But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.
As dubious as some of the things Obama did, nothing will ever beat Henry Kissinger winning it.<p>At least Aung San Suu Kyi waited until after her award to do some genocide.
what’s wrong with authoritarianism?
i think there are plenty of books written about the topic. Im not sure hacker news is the best place to get your answer.
It seems like both sides want it, but only one admits to wanting it.
My wife (also of Indian descent and from Durban) was happy when I forwarded her a BBC link of this news.<p>She remembered her late mother used to talk a lot of her as she managed to become a lawyer despite being an Indian in apartheid South Africa.
Yay, congrats Navi! Thanks for contributing to international law!
What a courageous woman. There is so much suffering and horror involved.
And Scandinavians aren't shy to set a statement.
and here you go<p>US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condems as 'assault on rule of law'<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj20vkkx3rdvo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj20vkkx3rdvo</a>
Also here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50017966">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50017966</a>
Unfortunately Nobel Peace prizes are stained with the reputation of going to some pretty undeserving people (Henry Kissinger, Shimon Peres, Obama, etc) and this mars the image of the prize even as a whole.<p>There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort. And then there are people like Henry Kissinger. They share the same prize.<p>More recently, the prizes are even more obviously politicized(1), so when the west is trying to overthrow Iran, it gives the prize to western-backed dissidents fighting for "women's rights" in Iran - the nation that has female airline pilots and university professors, but not to the scores of dissidents executed by Saudi Arabia, where women only recently got the right to drive. None of those murdered by Saudi Arabia, even if they died arguing for women's rights, will ever qualify for the Nobel Peace price. Not while Iran still needs to be overthrown.<p>1. See <a href="https://www.eureporter.co/nobel-peace-prize/2025/10/27/when-peace-becomes-a-performance-the-politics-behind-the-nobel-prize/" rel="nofollow">https://www.eureporter.co/nobel-peace-prize/2025/10/27/when-...</a> for a survey of recent winners and what political agenda was pushed with each award.
><i>"There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort."</i><p>These people would not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, because its rules disallow deceased candidates.
It would be politically untenable to condemn Saudi, so there is that element too.<p>If they cut up the journalist Jamal Khashoggi with a bone saw on foreign soil and get away with it, why would they change?
I'll be amused to see how the administration reacts. Perhaps we'll end up having the Trump Prizes.
Apparently they just imposed sanctions on the ICC, not sure it’s related but it’s a strange coincidence [0]<p>[0] US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-international-criminal-court-hours-after-former-judge-wins-2026-10-09/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...</a>
Apropo to nothing, Jack Smith, who is teed up to try Trump for the Jan 6 insurrection, was an investigation coordinator for ICC.<p>Probably nothing to do with it.
Satire is mostly dead in this world of clownocracy, but someone should prank-call FIFA and ask them who's the winner of this year's FIFA Peace Prize...
I've been thinking that part of the point of handing out a bunch of science prizes to the techbros yesterday was to try to overshadow the Nobel prizes.
> in 2019 she became an ad hoc judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case in which Myanmar stands accused of genocide.<p><a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/</a><p>I wonder who committed said genocide... oh, yeah, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.<p><a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1991/kyi/facts/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1991/kyi/facts/</a>
Committee can’t predict the future man, they only had her actions before 1991. Her showing up at the ICJ was probably a move to appease the military and it didn’t work, they ousted her in 2021 anyway. If you want change argue for awarding it posthumously or that the prize is for worthy actions already done, in which case there are easier targets like Kissinger
She didn't commit genocide.<p>After she won the Nobel Prize, the Burmese legislature banded together to give her the power to:“contact ministries, departments, organizations, associations and individuals" to promote democracy and free market capitalism.<p>Basically, she had the power to talk to people as a figurehead for the hopes and ideals of the country, but no power to actually pass or enforce laws, and no control over law enforcement or the military.<p>What exactly were you expecting her to do? Say mean things about the military officers committing the genocides and hope they got embarrassed enough to stop?
Do you think asking them to stop a genocide is unreasonable?<p>But either way, she wasn’t silent on the issue. She minimised what was happening, talked about violence on both sides and defended the military committing a genocide in The Hague. She helped block investigations into it. She is complicit.<p>‘In December 2019, Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in the International Court of Justice at The Hague where she defended the Burmese military against allegations of genocide against the Rohingya’.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi</a>
Reminder that the US administration is on a campaign to dismantle the ICC for echoing similar findings to this Nobel Prize winner in her role at UNHRC [1].<p>I'm extremely grateful to, and humbled by, these people continuing their brave work knowing they will face the full wrath of the US and Israel govs and their campaigns to dismantle accountability for the worst crimes.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/07/state-department-launches-campaign-to-dismantle-international-criminal-courts-threat-to-american-sovereignty" rel="nofollow">https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...</a>
"The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest. Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICC’s ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans. The ICC previously opened an investigation into U.S. servicemen and intelligence officers and has since refused to close these cases."<p>Yeah, but somehow if i do some illegal shit according to USA they have no problem arresting me when i come visit (or if they really eager they come to visit me). But how dare you tell us what we can do or cant do INTOLERABLE.
Yes, that’s what sovereignty means: a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others. A sovereign state can agree to abide by certain rules or submit some disputes to another arbiter, but it does so consensually by treaty. The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.<p>You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
> You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.<p>And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?<p>Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)<p>1. kidnapping<p>2. bombing<p>3. otherwise assassinating<p>4. sanctioning<p>5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)<p>foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".
The main part of the argument is that the US is very happy to apply their laws to foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil and are also happy to legally or illegally extract those citizens from the foreign states. That does in fact directly violate those other states sovereignty.
>foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil<p>When has this ever happened? You might be referring to Maduro's extradition, but that was due to him being charged with smuggling mass amounts of cocaine into the USA.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro_and_Cilia_Flores" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Nicol%C3%A1s_Ma...</a>
During the height of the war on terror(I guess, the laws are still on the books and are being used willy nilly), USA routinely kidnapped people across the globe and put them in dungeons for years, without trial. Probably still happens, who knows.<p>You can't be serious.
> Probably still happens, who knows.<p>Now they just kill them, also without a trial, judge or jury.<p>"American forces have conducted at least 71 strikes and killed 239 people the U.S. alleges are “narco-terrorists” since Sept. 2, 2025."<p><a href="https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6132578-pentagon-drug-cartels-south-america/" rel="nofollow">https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6132578-pentagon-drug-car...</a>
Sanctioning ICC judges. They did nothing relevant to US citizens.
Maybe the purported drug boat bombings have escaped your attention?
The orange buffoon also attempted (either himself or his cronies) to sanction a brazilian justice for applying brazilian law correctly against the last american-backed, coup-happy president. Since a visa ban, asset freeze and travel restrictions didn't work (on part due to the far superior bank transfer infrastructure) they're now brazenly supporting the right-wing candidate.
I mentioned several examples of US sanctioned human rights organizations just in this comment thread. That's some US law applied to foreigners.
i was just going to bring this up, but a different aspect: I'm not curious about the drug charges, I'm curious about the gun charges as unlevied.
Ever heard of extraordinary renditions?
> When has this ever happened?<p>when has it ever not?<p>> Maduro<p>(Not an american citizen btw)<p>> extradition<p>...
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.<p>And the ICC never tried to diminish their sovereignty. Juridsiction at the icc works the same way as it does with states.<p>If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.<p>That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country. The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
Conversely, American individuals are also not sovereign so when they come to a sovereign land where they are sought (by the state or its partners through treaties) for crimes, they are subject to the the state's laws and treaties.
This would more persuasive if the US didn’t have a long history of prosecuting, even kidnapping, foreign nationals on foreign soil for violations of US law.
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.<p>True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.
> a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others<p>Hence, if anyone commits a crime in another country, they fall under the jurisdiction of that country. So while the US doesn't have to recognize the ICC, listen to it, or follow its verdicts, other countries are free to do so.<p>But now the US is threatening the judges of the ICC, which is hypocritical to say the least. It's more of a mafia thing, really. Not surprising, given Trump's background.
So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.
Sure. But don’t come traveling here (Sweden) and tell us we can’t submit you to the ICC.
> campaign to dismantle the ICC for echoing similar findings<p>i feel like this misrepresents what the ICC has found. They found there was enough plausible cause to issue a warrant. That means they think that a trial should take place to figure out what is going on. It does not mean they think anyone is guilty. Lots of people subject to warrants end up being found innocent. Its step 1 of the process not the entire process.<p>And to further clarify, if your implication is that its similar to accusations of genocide - the ICC has jurisdiction over genocide and did not publicly issue a warrant for that charge against any israeli national.<p>To be clear i find the us campaign disgusting.
Warrant issuance is only done if pre-trial chamber deems the suspects would continue the crimes (they very apparently did - total blockade of Gaza in 2025 leading to starvation of around 1 million people), or tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc. - also happened, many journalists were killed on purpose since, organizations tracking harm were banned as "terrorists" in Israel, and that's just what's easy to see, and lots of evidence is being destroyed to this day as Israel continues blowing up and buldozing Gaza, also on purpose, and also against orders of ICJ in the case against Israel as a state, not just against Netanyahu).<p>And you don't know much about the ICC process and could not have observed it if you think warrant is step 1. It's like step 7. If you did not watch the process, you can still learn the ICC procedure from the rules of the court. It's all freely available on their website.
[flagged]
Oh, that’s true. But when you come to a foreign country, you’ll have to recognise its laws. And if that country happens to have ratified the ICC, and the ICC has a warrant for you, well then you’re bound for trial.<p>It’s the same rules you apply yourself, right?
Oh but others must recognize America's laws right? Oh the hypocrisy
doing a pretty shit job at that too tbh
The US is a colony of Israel.
This announcement has become an annual troll event for the lunatic in the office; I heard he was pretty pissed off this morning, although that’s usually the case with him.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
> "At this point"<p>Of the original 5 Nobel prize categories, 2 were always not about science.
That's what I was thinking.<p>I'm a lifelong scientist but it should be obvious that the <i>Peace Prize</i> is supposed to be bigger than science.
yes ... but who is she? and what has she actually done?<p>for comparison, i knew nothing about margaret hamilton or bill draper before reading their obituaries on HN this month. it literally took a few sentences to understand what legends they were .. not just in their respective domains, but in terms of their broader impact on humanity ..<p>with this navi lady, i've scrolled through two pages of text and still don't have a clear picture of what she actually DID to deserve whatever greatness the Nobel seems to bestow upon her.<p>i mean, if you can't even explain to a layman, in plain english, what someone actually DID to earn a prize of this stature .. without resorting to a laundry list of causes and buzzwords ... then what exactly are we rewarding here ? Her kindness ? Decency ? Morality ? wtf
You didn't understand her accomplishments and merits so she doesn't deserve it. Oh my, maybe ask your favorite llm for an eli5 then?
you seem pissed that they wasted a noble on someone that you don't approve of. do you not think that it might be YOU who might not have the ability to understand every field with as much clarity as you understand software after reading a few lines.
The announcement pretty clearly lays out what she's done to earn it, acknowledging that while international law isn't perfect, the fact-finding process of its practice is important and sets a precedent for continued adherence to legal principles. Her devotion to that practice and influence on introducing sexual assault and propaganda as charges of incitement to genocide are significant contributions backed by legal victories she was instrumental in winning.<p>My opinion is that yes, while international law rarely leads to punitive justice as many would like to see it executed, bad actors attacking these legal institutions demonstrate their importance in the court of public opinion and legitimacy.<p>Hope that gave you some Gyan, Mr. Chawdhary. Please remember that it's a big world out there and human endeavor has many paths to take beyond just science or what one person can understand by skimming an announcement.
[dead]
I suggest looking at the original Nobel* awards before deriding "modern politics" as a boogyman
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It is, like many things, how much meaning you attach to it yourself. Apparently Donald T. thinks it's very important, he makes a lot of fuss about it.<p>Anyway, the NPP is one of the things that tries to push humanity on a broad scale in a better direction, and I'm grateful for that. It is important to at least speak out about injustice, and to celebrate those who do so, otherwise those injustices are never going to be fixed (I'm not even talking about punishing, although that <i>should</i> be done).
I get the sentiment, but if you hijack peoples attention by pretending "look we are civilized, we have humanitarian organizations" instead showing the ugly reality, this in my book is worse.
Fair enough, too many western countries including my government keep supporting countries perpetrating war crimes/genocide (often ignoring popular sentiment btw).<p>And luckily we have journalism prizes as well, often for people showing the ugly reality.
Don't tell me that you think there's genocide in gaza?
Look at any recent pictures. Gaza was basically nuked
I would describe it more of a massacre/war crimes, you can't compare it to something like the East Timur genocide, that said it is going on for a long time.
[flagged]
Good read
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eel...</a>
A clear FU to the Cheeto, love it
Has she openly opposed Trump? I don't recognize the name, and the linked article is pretty vague.
next year it should go to a heckin pupper!
[flagged]
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological/political/national/religious battle. That's a line at which we ban accounts, regardless of what you're for or against. There's further explanation at <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...</a>.<p>If you'd please stop doing this and instead review <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a> and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
The problem is you have to be noteworthy enough to be considered; and are going to be in close proximity of atrocities (hopefully trying to prevent them). Realistically this means a higher percentage of laureate are now generally accepted to have some complicity in atrocities then the percentage of normal people.
Which maybe is ok? It’s not a “most perfect person” prize, it’s a “did the most to advance peace” prize.<p>It makes people uncomfortable, but maybe someone who reduces net suffering <i>despite</i> being responsible for some suffering is doing more than normal people who do no harm, but do no good?
Yikes, never looked at it that way. I always think of the people making things better, or that move the needle more worldwide but you are very right, the Nobel Prize is going to be awarded to someone who has been in war zones where there are tough decisions to be made
[dead]
The problem with the Peace Prize in general, or this time? It's not entirely clear to me what you're trying to say.
They went for the IvsP and chose a side, nothing interesting here.