Might as well declare himself the Queen Of Sheba.

Obviously it’s needed to refuel the Nuclear Subs on their way to Russian waters.

More in general, “American support” isn’t necessarily a positive thing in the mid or long term, especially in Latin America and even more in the present age when Fascism is normalized in American and Fascists get elected to lead the US.

For her it risks being like a drowning person getting a nose to put around her neck to be pulled out of the water.

Yeah, I’m surprised that she actually asked the Nobel Comittee about it - just give Trump the medal and shut up whilst he loudly harps about how he has a Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s not as if that guy cares about objective reality or rules (or even has a fully adult mind) - having the shiny token is more than enough for him to go around showing it and saying he has a Nobel Peace Prize.

The most logical option for her is just giving the medal to Trump, telling him he now has a Nobel Peace Prize and letting his infantile mind twist that into him feeling like a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

I don’t see what’s the problem with that.

It’s not as if, after giving one to Kissinger, the nobel peace prize is anything more than a bitch to political propaganda.

Whilst I have no evidence for it (it’s not like we have an alternate timeline to compare to), I believe that the changes to Intellectual Property legislation in the last couple of decades have actually slowed down innovation, probably severely so.

Certainly in Tech it feels like there’s less of a culture of tinkering and hacking (in the original sense of the word) nowadays than back in the 80s and 90s, even though with the Internet and the easy access to information on it one would expect the very opposite.

Instead of countless crazy ideas like in the age of the generalisation of computing, open source and the birth of the Internet, we instead have closed environments gatekept by large companies for the purposed of extracting rents from everybody, all of which made possible by bought for legislation to stop users from breaking out and competitors from breaking in.

I mean, outside the natural process of moving everything done before from analog to digital-online (i.e. a natural over time migration to the new environments made available by the inventions of computing and the global open network from the late part of the XX Century) the greatest “innovations” in Tech of the last 30 years were making computers small enough to fit in your pocket (i.e. smartphones) - a natural consequence of the Moore Law - and a digital parrot/mediocre content generator.

Now wonder that China, with their “we don’t give a shit about IP” posture has powered through from Tech backwater to taking the lead from the West on various technologies (first solar, now EVs) even though (from what I’ve heard) their educational systems doesn’t reward innovative thinking.

So in my view only if Europe ditches the IP legislation pushed by the US in Trade Treaties does it have a chance to be part of any upcoming Tech revolutions rather than stagnating right alongside in the US whilst trying to extract ever diminishing rents from the tail ends of the adoption phases of last century’s technologies.

I did not just very purposefully refrained from watching Qatar, I actually started boycotting sponsors - such as Coca Cola - from then onward.

Mind you, thanks to Trump since I’ve expanded that boycott to cover all American products and companies.

Shit peddler wants people to stop calling what he peddles “shit”.

Yes, that’s a big question.

The thing is, as we’ve seen with Russia, letting a bully keep what they stole only leads to even more bullying and stealing later.

If, instead, you fuck the bully up, they don’t do it again an go look for targets that don’t resist as much.

Having a Resistance relentless blooding an occupying American presence in Greenland and destroying the infrastructure they would deploy to exploit Greenland’s mineral resources (which are the whole point of trying to get Greenland) would definitelly fucking that bully up.

I suspect hope that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine after letting it have Crimea some years ago has retaught most European leaders the lesson that giving in to an earlier aggression will just mean more and greater aggressions later.

This is pretty much a “all Tech companies have to jump on the AI hype train” pressure on publicly traded companies and those who need lots of investor money, and little if at all customer pressure.

All investors want their money to be in the same place as those who invested in Google before it made it big, and the AI hype promises exactly that to the “winners” of the AI race.

Customer needs and demands are well below secondary to investor pressure, especially for companies which have dominant market positions (so general customers have no decent alternatives) and startups whose entire business model is AI.

God forbid people want the compute they are paying for to actually do what they want, and not work at cross purposes for the company and its various data sales clients.

I think that way of thinking is still pretty niche.

Hope it’s becoming more widespread, but in my experience most people don’t actually concern themselves with “my device does some stuff in the background that goes beyond what I want it for” - in their ignorance of Technology, they just assume it’s something that’s necessary.

I think were people have problems is mainly at the level of “this device is slower at doing what I want it to do than the older one” (for example, because AI makes it slower), “this device costs more than the other one without doing what I want it to do any better” (for example, they’re unwilling to pay more for the AI functionality) or “this device does what I want it to do worse than before/that-one” (for example, AI is forced on users, actually making the experience of using that device worse, such as with Windows 11).

Vietnam was definitelly “all out” but I grant your point that America wasn’t trying to make it part of its territory, not least because since the days of Puerto Rico and taking territory from Mexico, America’s Imperial strategy has always being one of installing puppet governments rather than direct control.

As for the rest, I disagree on it being possible for even America to 100% occupy Greenland unless the locals agree - remember it’s 25% of the territory of America, most of it being far harsher. As long as support for a Resistance keeps on arriving from Denmark and Europe, an American occupying force would keep suffering casualties.

This is actually the basis of my point: America invading and occupying Greenland’s cities is probably easy, its actually controlling a territory the size of 25% of America with very specific characteristics that totally favor the locals over American troops (hence my reference to Afghanistan, were the territory was equally large and almost equally harsh and Poshtun were in a very similar situation vs the American occupiers) is impossible unless to locals overwhelmingly side with America.

IMHO Greenland would quite possibly turn in the kind of quagmire war that happens at the stage of empires when they’re starting to fall and engage in reckless military adventures to try and prop-up the elites, which end up overextending their military and draining most of their power.

Truthfully we’ve never seen the US engage in a total war to conquer a nation.

Ahem: Vietnam.

Also I think you’re missing a massive point here: You can’t “topple” Greenland by totally destroying or taking over Greenland because it’s part of Denmark and the seat of the Danish Government isn’t there, nor are their main military assets, and this is before you even consider their European allies.

If Greenland was a country relying only on itself, it would totally make sense that it could be taken by just taking its major cities, but it’s not, it’s an independent region of Denmark, a country which in turn is allied with almost all other European countries.

The US can invade and totally crush Greenland’s big cities and that will still do very little to crush resistance because that’s not were most of it will be coming from. This also brings us around the whole carrier group thing: the carrier group would be how the US would be trying to stop the feeding of resistance in Greenland from Europe, since that would be coming from the very opposite side of the island (and as “islands” go, Greenland is huge, with 25% of the area of the US, so that’s a pretty insane task).

IMHO what the Greenlanders and more in general the Danish should be doing is not to try and stop the elements of warfare that the US does best - such as the actual initial invasion - but actually try and make that as costly as possible whilst at the same time setting up the conditions for a long term Resistance effort from the areas outside the cities to turn Greenland into a graveyard for American soldiers, something which is far more likely to end up with an outcome like Vietnam were the daily procession or american coffins turns an overwhelming majority of the population against the War and the end result was that America ultimatelly lost it.

Finally on the last point, fighting Greenland is fighting Denmark and there are way more people in the rest of Denmark than in Greenland. That said you are right that many (if not most) of the people living in Greenland who know the whole place including the hardest and most remote areas, are probably descendants of the Innuit rather than of the Vikings (both people colonized the place rather than being originary from there).

Well, sorta.

The US’s main power projection strategy is still (and has been for decades) to have an aircraft carrier group parked about 1000km away from the coast of whichever nation they’re attacking, pouding their target with airpower and cruise missiles whilst being far out enough that most cruise missiles can’t even reach them and those which can take so long that the carrier group has plenty of time to prepare and defend itself.

The Chinese and the Russians both developed hypersonic missiles exactly to counter that, as such missiles get there much faster so the carrier group has maybe half a minute of advanced warning to try and take them down rather than 10+ minutes.

This strategy has been very successful against militarilly second and lower tier nations, which is why the US has been using it since the first Iraq war.

However, for all its underinvestment in its military, Europe isn’t second tier (and neither is China).

As for the second part of your post, “boots on the ground” is exactly were the US massivelly sucks beyond the initial invasion stage: they’re great at getting there and breaking shit up whilst completelly sucking at actually holding territory. Personally, from the videos I’ve seen of US troops trying to “create good will with the locals” in places like Afghanistan, they seem to be completelly shit at understanding and respecting the way of life of the locals and they reeking with a mindset of “I’m a member of a superior civilization trying to civilize the barbarians” (which, as an European, I find hilarious, since America isn’t actually all that culturally or societally civilized - especially in treating people as actual human beings - compared just about all European countries).

All this to say that the US invading Greenland would succeed, but directly cost the US far more than even Afghanistan and in a far shorter time, and they would almost certainly lose control of it in at most a decade or two, not least because they totally suck at getting the locals around to support them: trying to take on the most hardcore and resilient of the descendants of the Vikings in a land which in some ways is the polar equivalent of Afghanistan - huge, harsh and with massive uninhabited and hard to occupy areas - whilst the people there don’t at all feel they have an inferior culture to America’s (so they’re hardly attracted by the prospect of becoming American citizen) seems to me like an impossible task.

Code made up of severally parts with inconsistently styles of coding and design is going to FUCK YOU UP in the middle and long terms unless you never again have to touch that code.

It’s only faster if you’re doing small enough projects that an LLM can generate the whole thing in one go (so, almost certainly, not working as professional at a level beyond junior) and it’s something you will never have to maintain (i.e. prototyping).

Using an LLM is like giving the work to a large group of junior developers were each time you give them work it’s a random one that picks up the task and you can’t actually teach them: even when it works, what you get is riddled with bad practices and design errors that are not even consistently the same between tasks so when you piece the software together it’s from the very start the kind of spaghetti mess you see in a project with lots of years in production which has been maintained by lots of different people who didn’t even try to follow each others coding style plus since you can’t teach them stuff like coding standards or design for extendability, it will always be just as fucked up as day one.

Even my shitty-shit country - Portugal - which most definitelly can’t afford the costs of a single aircraft carrier even though it has a massive exclusive economic area in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, some years ago had a submarine win a NATO exercise when it popped up undetected in the middle of the carrier group.

Even with its main focus of “force projection” being on Trade rather than Military power, Europe is a whole different beast to face militarily than Latin America, and not just because it’s far more likely to be united in its response.

This is probably why Trump hasn’t invaded Greenland yet - his military people know very well it would be a very different story militarily and his diplomats know it would be a very different story in terms of the broader consequences.

A Mini PC with an N100 (exact same performance as the microprocessor in the Pi5 according to this) and 8GB RAM will cost you around $140, which per what a previous poster dug out is exactly the same price as a Pi4 with only 4GB if we’re talking about something with the equivalent kit (i.e. with box, dissipators, power supply and HDMI cable)

Funny enough I recently bought an N100 Mini-PC with 8GB (as a Christmas present to replace somebody’s aged Windows 8 PC) for just a bit over $140 (more precisely €123, so $143 at today’s exchange rate).

According to this the performance of the microprocessor on the Pi5 is at the same level as that of the N100.

So basically if you buy a Mini PC with an N100 and 8GB memory you can roughly get the performance of the Pi5 at the price of a Pi4 with only 4GB.

I think the point of the previous poster that “this is wild” is exactly right.

Unless you actually need the actual pins with I/O ports, I2C, SPI or such for controlling some electronics, you’re better of with the Mini PC and even if you do, you’re probably better of with a Banana Pi or an Orange Pi.

You almost certainly could do it with an ESP32 (a microcontroller with Arduino support and which supports WiFi and bluetooth).

An ESP32 Super Mini board costs about $5.

Of course, forget about an UI other than web-based for the ESP32 or proper OS (like Linux) support, as that stuff is on the embedded systems side of things (though kinda powerful for one) rather than the Single Board Computer side.

I did not know that.

Took them two decades but better late than never!