Like who?

Arguably what Russia seeks is not territory, but to destabilise the Ukraine government and re-establish a puppet state.

Which would mean both sides lose on this deal.

(Not saying it’s a good deal.)

As in

• Not talking about race will solve the lingering systemic race issues, or
• There are no lingering systemic race issues, so we should stop talking about it?

Completely fair - do you have a counterargument? I’d be interested in hearing the other side.

People don’t have a “natural frequency” is the real answer.

It would be naïve to fully rely on the old way of diplomacy, but it would mean certain defeat to do business on the terms of authoritarians. Trump wants unilateral, flashy diplomacy, because that’s where he wins. Small countries like Denmark need to work to bolster multilateral large-alliance rules based diplomacy, because that’s where they win.

By not rising to the bait, but instead presenting a calm, unified European response that there is no way Trump can buy Greenland, but that they’re happy to help him achieve whatever policy he’s using to justify this invasion talk, they at least have a chance of staving him off long enough that the whole thing fizzles out.

This approach also makes it a lot harder for Trump to actually make good on his threats. He’ll have to start a conflict with the whole EU, and he’ll end up looking like a guy who pisses on a cooperative ally rather than the strong man who beats down uppity foreigners.

And yes, that’s probably also fine by him, but it at least doesn’t play into his hand.

No-one is ignoring him. The Danish diplomacy corps is on high alert, and tons of effort is going into both securing support from Europe and trying to talk the US down.

They just don’t do diplomacy through Twitter. Public mud-throwing is Trump’s game, no need to fight him on his terms.

I won an Xbox 360 a long time ago from a Coca Cola competition. You had to use codes from the bottle caps and then quickly answer some quiz questions correctly. But you had unlimited tries. So I just kept clicking random answers quickly until I got all questions right at a ridiculously low time.

Good times. Borrowed Guitar Hero, LA Noire, Batman Arkham Asylum and Red Dead Redemption at the library, had a blast.

Plenty of physics sub-fields are still led by experiments, such as condensed matter physics. I don’t know if your statement applies to anything other than particle physics?

Or: We’re using math to summarise what the experiments have said so far. And then using that to extrapolate what might happen in the next experiment.

I would argue that physics is based more on experiments than math.

They’re also very popular in Denmark.

Realistically it’s not feasible to set up separate systems for separate levels of tech knowledge and expect it to not be abused.

Yes, it’s more of a hassle to do proper 2FA, but it helps the grannies of the world not be scammed out of their life savings, ultimately enabling greater digitalisation, which I find extremely helpful.

Isn’t the point to get bacteria off your hands? Isn’t it better to have them in the air than on your hands?

It’s a lot more likely I’ll eat something I touched than something that’s been sitting in bathroom air.

It’s for sure a product of its time, but it really doesn’t feel like a 1999 movie. Around that time we had

• Sixth sense
• American beauty
• Eyes wide shut
• Being John Malkovich
• Fight Club

Matrix has such a stark level of visual and thematic modernity compared to those. Maybe Fight Club comes near, but the other movies look like they’re from a different decade.

Surely not?

I still can’t believe The Matrix is from '99. The themes and the effects hold up incredibly well, it feels far more modern.

Wasn’t he more criticizing the scale? Like, a sith warrior is great, but he can’t really compete with the power of the Death Star when it comes to sheer scale. Just ask Alderaan.

Arguably it is better than mining for coal, lithium, etc. since those have similar issues, but one gram of uranium contains energy similar to 3 tons of coal.

Fairly so - it isn’t emissions, and does not contribute to the problem in a meaningful way.

The reason why emissions are dangerous is because they trap solar heat at large enough scales to change the global climate. Server farm heating isn’t really anywhere near contributing at that scale.