Likely contentious but my experience has been “newb” has a slight vocal raising to indicate light-heartedness, ie:

Noob: no͞ob Newb: nyo͞ob

And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you linked:

The work of Elinor Ostrom, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics is seen by some economists as having refuted Hardin’s claims.[1] Hardin’s views on over-population have been criticised as simplistic[2] and racist. [3]

…

Hardin’s work is criticised as historically inaccurate in failing to account for the demographic transition,[191] and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources.[192][193] Environmentalist Derrick Jensen claims the tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership.[194][195] He says it has been used by the political right wing to hasten the final enclosure of the “common resources” of third world and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the Washington Consensus.[196]

…

Other criticisms have focused on Hardin’s racist and eugenicist views, claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible population control, particularly for people of color.[210][211]

The “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things that’s very Intuitive, but doesn’t actually hold up to much scrutiny.

Do you want to share those “eyebrow raising” numbers?

Best summary I can find stating the elections were “rigged” is the report from the Carter center which uses almost entirely qualitative data or hearsay arguments to support the claim and conveniently forgets to mention any of the surrounding context around US interventionism.

In contrast the argument for fair and open elections is well summarized in the report from the NLG delegation’s report which does a good job of providing quantitative data as well as useful context to support the conclusion it was fair.

Can you provide those quantitave arguments from these “third party left-wing governments”? Because I am having a hard time finding any of them…