How much personal responsibility should we expect children to have? Genuine question. Because there was a time where some people believed that it was ok for kids to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
This is absurd in the extreme. In actual war there is absolutely no possibility of success for Denmark, even with the help of allies. Failure to capitulate results in nothing but death and destruction with no hope of strategic gain to begin with. What you are likely experiencing is a modern belief that screaming and shouting will bring popular diplomatic pressure to bear on the opponent, thus arresting their actions.
There was similar tough talk in 1940 and Denmark lasted 6 hours. Without capitulation the country would have been razed. But surrender saw it able to keep some level of control and thus extricate the Jewish population in relative safety which would not otherwise have been possible.
No, what is absurd is the number of people that can't wait to go back to a world with endless wars of conquest. We already know what that looks like.
If you have never seen war up close then I am happy to forgive you, but trust me, in 'actual war' there is no possibility of success for anybody, there are only degrees of damage and degrees of grief and illusions to the contrary are focused on the few people that manage to get out of war with the profits in their pockets. Everybody else suffers.
I'm sorry but you are not interacting with the rational suppositions of posters in various threads here. No one is arguing for a war except you. People are explaining to you the strategic reality and you are espousing rhetoric that I honestly can't decipher.
1. Denmark cannot win militarily
2. You are suggesting Denmark would not capitulate and indeed enter into a state of war
Denmark cannot win militarily, but can the US? What war has the US won recently? They're great at destroying things, but not at winning. There's nothing for them to win in Greenland. It's an indefensible chunk of ice. They can kill the people who live there, but what would that gain them?
Meanwhile they stand to lose a lot. There have been many NATO exercises that showed US aircraft carriers to be vulnerable to European submarines, so they can't park their fleet too close. They have to fly between NATO members Canada and Iceland. How would soldiers feel if they're forced to fight all their former allies? How would the US citizens feel?
You think there's a game theory scenario in the book where France launches a nuclear weapon at mainland USA over a land dispute between them and Denmark?
France has the only first strike nuclear doctrine in the world, with the specific policy of shooting nukes to "protect it's vital interests", a term Macron has recently clarified "has a European dimension".
Make of that what you will, but if I were you I wouldn't go around poking the hornets nest that has an explicit sign "these hornets will sting" attached to it.
See, this is what is so dumb about this: you are treating this as if it is some kind of board game. It is exactly why the US gets into these messes over and over again, the incredible overconfidence that because they somehow have battlefield superiority they can do whatever they want. You are exemplifying precisely where the rot in the USA is located.
> I'm sorry but you are not interacting with the rational suppositions of posters in various threads here.
The one thing that is common about 'rationalists' is that they share a lot of the viewpoints with other ra*ists and that's not the world many of us want to live in.
Sure, you can take it. But can you afford to take it?
The answer is most likely you can't. And so far every attempt to show John Mearheimers superiority has been the equivalent of 'just relax and enjoy it'.
Guess what? We won't. Alliances are made voluntarily, not through conquest.
> In an actual war there is absolutely no possibility of success for Denmark, even with the help of allies.
Assume that Denmark's strategic success criteria is not "win up-front battles with US armed forces". And that they understand the difference between "lost battle(s), got occupied" and "nation permanently removed from existence".
Also, US service members are not slavishly loyal Clone Troopers. That I've heard, the greatest fear of most senior American officers is that the CIC will issue orders sufficiently offensive to the lower ranks that they will be disobeyed at scale.
So your supposition is strategic national defense game theory should be based on hoping for a mutiny from the opposite side? Is rationality dead? What are you lot talking about.
No. But Denmark lacks the armored divisions, bomber wings, carrier task forces, etc. to pursue a "we've got a bigger stick" strategy. And undermining your opponent's will to fight was routine back when the Old Testament was written.
> Is rationality dead?
By a couple accounts I've heard, desperate senior US officers used the pre-February situation with Iran to lure Trump's attention away from Denmark/Greenland.
(If you want rational behavior from the current POTUS - um, yes, my deepest condolences, but...)
Keep going. Denmark capitulated and suffered relatively little damage. Austria capitulated, and what happened to them? Czechoslovakia capitulated, and how did that work out for them? Sure, neither suffered losses in the initial invasion. Their people still got to die fighting for Hitler, though. They still got bombed and bombed and bombed and then invaded by the allies, though.
And, Norway did fight back, and lost. How much worse did that work out for Norway than for Denmark?
Ukraine is rapidly becoming one of the hardest countries in Europe. They fought a former superpower to a stand still and are innovating on weapons systems and integration at a pace that makes LM's skunkworks look like sloths. And on a budget that is insane.
Just like Ukraine, Europe does not want war, doesn't want to see their kids die for the umpteenth time so that fat cats can line their pockets. But if push comes to shove we would be absolutely capable of doing it, either outright or by slower guerilla like means. Bombing shit is easy. Taking over territory and holding it is much, much harder, infinitely more so if the population holds a grudge. Note that the Dutch resistance killed more German soldiers than the army ever did. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, lots of countries in Europe. Examples aplenty.
> Our email yesterday was imprecise relative to our actual new Terms. To be specific:
> You must be at least 18 years old to use the Service (Zed’s AI-enabled software-as-a-service offering, including features like account creation/sign in, Zed Free and Zed Pro, and collaboration). See https://zed.dev/terms#21-eligibility. We set the threshold at 18 due to children's data privacy obligations under COPPA, equivalent international frameworks, and an increasing number of state and regional laws that extend protections to anyone under 18. Those regulations require parental consent verification, age-gated data handling, and separate retention policies for minors. Building and maintaining that infrastructure is a real cost for a small team, and getting it wrong carries regulatory risk. Setting the line at 18 lets us maintain a single privacy framework for all account holders without carve-outs.
> Zed's Software (open source code editing software) is governed by our open source licenses. In cases where the open source license can govern, it will over the Terms. See https://zed.dev/terms#24-restrictions.
A simple single page indicative UK tax calculator with some novel metrics and calculations. Accepts other forms of income to give a more complete overview. Rationale: I disliked most of the existing ones and they are full of adverts and such. Should handle the complexities around income bands and child benefit tax traps. Also handles Scottish tax bands and shows Cost To Employer incorporating employment taxes.
So if I write a piece of software that does the job I designed it for, and you decide you want it to do something else, you should be handed the source code and right to redistribute it? Simple like that?
For rooms with closed windows this stuff has in my experience a 100% success rate. (they always manage to get in somehow). Spray the room an hour before bedtime and it eradicates them. Guess it's similar to that stuff they spray on airlines.
It is not a repellent but seems to actively kill them/render them unable to fly [Metofluthrin (Pyrethroid)]
I researched that before and I think it's considered generally safe. Toxicity required huge doses.
Though the instructions recommend ventilating the room a little after letting it settle, and I don't use it every night. Also I like to cover pillows before spraying.
Really? It seems very coherent to me. Sweden did not benefit from a free rein policy. On the contrary, the country's death rate for 2020 was in the EU top 10. And the reason it escaped the worst of the second wave is it vaccinated rigourously before any of the other Nordics.
> This law sucks for so many reasons, and is inane, but the risk to micro-bloggers of £18M+ fines is, in reality, nil.
A little naivety methinks. You should say rather
... the risk to micro-bloggers of £18M+ fines is, in reality, nil. ...should the bloggers not publish opinions contrary to the state and its current objectives.
I am cynical as the next guy. However, I think the UK government is just trying to protect people (children in particular) from what it considers harmful content. They are just being heavy-handed about it.
The previous and current UK government have also been steadily hacking away at UK citizen's right to peaceful protest. But I think that it is a different issue, and it doesn't help to conflate the two.
However, I think the UK government is just trying to protect people (children in particular) from what it considers harmful content.
I can't come close to agreeing. The same minister pushing this, who is by his own admission semi literate and can't understand very basic concepts, has basically no understanding of technology (or indeed expertise in any area), has made no secret of the fact this is about censoring online speech he personally does not like[1]. He is a paid up yes man deep in the pockets of companies selling low effort AI solutions to governments for the purposes of enforcing speech[2] who wants, all said and done, to shut down twitter/X because people express opinions there he doesn't like. This has almost literally nothing to do with the old fashioned pearl clutching "think of the children". So much so he's going around holding anyone with reasonable opposition to this bill for child sexual assault, future, past and present[3]. This is obvious overcompensatory zeal. And it is week one.
What he has not done is engage earnestly with legitimate concerns about privacy and the bill. And he never will.
Peter Kyle has not been on my radar. I agree that giving a senior government post to someone with a reading age of 8 (assuming that is true) is alarming. It is also noticeable that Rayner, the deputy Prime Minister, left school at 16 with no qualifications. Hardly confidence inspiring.
I despise Farage. But I think equating him with Savile because he didn't agree with a bill, was totally unacceptable and Farage deserves an apology (probably the only time I am ever going to say that).
I am in exactly the same Farage-wise. I think he is a vile human being, but equating him with Savile is the worst kind of gutter politics, the kind I never thought we would see in the UK. I now resent this Labour government even more, for making me feel sympathetic towards Farage.
I have no great love for the Labour party. The Conservative party even less so.
However many of the challenges the UK is facing come from the fur-lined, ocean going balls-up that is Brexit. And Farage was the main architect of Brexit. And that is just for starters.
Can you explain why that is though, Brexit being such a big deal?
I don't know how to reconcile that with other countries doing fine on their own two feet (especially when that country has very much done fine on its own feet before)
Obviously not all homes are suitable for this. Not all people buying a home will want the maintenance burden, the insurance risk is higher. I have a massive solar array on a house in a very sunny country and even in winter there the cost benefit is limit. In most of England it's nearly pointless. This doesn't mandate battery storage, making it almost literally pointless.
reply