joakleaf

Not sure if you still conflate "poor" with "GDP/capita". If you do, that is an incorrect statement. Mississippi's GDP/capita is lower than many EU members' (e.g. Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark... ). If you look at purchasing power parity (PPP) it also becomes a lot more muddy.

The EU is not a single country. It feels like a lot of Americans at the moment think of the EU as a single homogeneous entity that they often also just confusingly refer to as “Europe”.

Even the EU is a lot of different countries. Some of them quite poor, and some of them wealthier also with high GDP per capita.

GDP per capita does also not give you the whole picture. It is a number. Other numbers are median life expectancy, shootings per capita, PPI, median income, average vacation days, average distance to nearest high-speed rail station, physicians per capita, average number of pupils in a school class. Unemployment rate. Air quality.

GDP per capita is one indicator among many that says something about the country’s or region’s inhabitants, but in itself it is just a measure of how much money is being moved around annually. And it is potentially quite misleading. You could have a high GDP per capita and a poor population, if all the money went to large cooperations and billionaires.

I am not saying that everything is rosy in the EU, but just that there are also other important indicators and that it is a lot more complicated than just looking at GDP per capita across the entire EU.

It feels fake, because they speak in a way that sounds unnatural and overelaborate.

It is so long, with so many unnecessary sentences. And it feels like everything is said at least twice; First a generic statement about the new feature. Then a specific example, or a deeper explanation of what the first generic statement was. Then a demo. And then a conclusion to the future.

The old Steve Jobs keynotes focused on the most interesting things, but now it feels like they are afraid not to include everything. So everything gets diluted.

It would help a lot if they would stop saying the same lines:"And now...", "We cannot wait for you to try our new XXXX ... ", or "We could not be more excited to...", "We are excited to... ".

"With that, now over to person-X"

I disagree.

I am old enough to remember the iPod nano -- Especially the 2nd generation. They were effectively low-priced and smaller iPods.

Apple sold millions of these much much quicker than the iPods and iPod minis (which came right before). Especially in 2006, it was _the_ "Christmas gift" just before the iPhone, iPod touch and later iPad mini took over. Possibly Steve Jobs' demo where he showed how they fit into the otherwise useless small jeans pocket helped convince the world.

The iPod nano effectively wiped out the competing music player market.

The Neo reminds me of the iPod nano and iPad mini. It is smaller and cheaper version of an existing successful product.

I think the iPhone SE and E are the outliers.

Technically, the Apple Developer Transition Kit Mac Mini from the Apple Silicon transition (just before the M1 release) ran on an A12Z.

Enhanced mode was already in 3.0 (and I think allowed for flat addressing)

However, Win32s was introduced in 3.11 which a subset of the Windows 32-bit API from NT.

3.11 also introduced 32-bit disk access and 32-bit drivers.

Microsoft did 32-bit in steps -- it was confusing already back then.

Mera Peak is said to be possible without any climbing experience, and it looks like the trek from Lukla is about 2 weeks. Is that true? How hard is the trek -- Looks like it requires well above average fitness level?

Neither Europe nor EU is a single country with a single foreign policy. There are around 40 different small and large countries in Europe each with their own foreign policy, history, culture and language. Two of the countries are currently at war with each other (if we still include Russia in Europe). Historically, Europe is a continent of wars and full of disagreement, where countries have done much to benefit themselves.

I really don't know much of what is happening in China or India or how you would ever measure something as subjective as morality. The point was, that it isn't just European (or EU) nations that don't stand up to the US. Nobody really dare -- Even those other heavy-weights. So it doesn't seem fair to me to single Europe (European nations) out for not doing anything.

I would say that Europe has a lot of bad history and guilt and we know it. And there is an aspiration in many of the European countries to be better and do "the right thing" now, but it is definitely debatable whether those countries actually do it, or if we even know what "right" is.

Yes. You are right. Unfortunately, many countries that were/are part of EU sent forces to Iraq (not all).

You mention that Asia was suspicious, but the "coalition of willing" actually included Asian countries such as Phillippines, South Korea, Japan, Uzbekistan, Singapore.

I believe the current overarching feeling in Europe is that we were mislead by the US administration more than our own politicians. Already back then, there was quite a lot of skepticism and significant doubt in the media all over Europe about the justification of that war. Also in the coalition countries.

And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point? How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading? Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?

I agree that it wasn't pretty, and that the European nations and EU should have opposed more, but even as it was back then, it was not a clear "cheering on" moment. I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started. Although a large group did support the war (I think many were still emotionally affected by 9/11), I actually don't remember talking to any one of them.

The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.

This doesn't really align with CNN's view, but may apply to another even more popular US news channel that seems to be much more aligned with the current administration...

Greenland and Denmark are not the same. Greenland is a self-governed territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. The US administration wishes to take over Greenland from Denmark completely. So you should replace your headlines with "Greenland" and "Greenlanders".

Note: There have already been discussions about making Greenland independent from Denmark, but there is uncertainty over how to handle economic and defense situations. Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.

Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq.

The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its actions.

Because there are many financial and military interests, it is very hard to do much for e.g. the EU, and the politicians are very careful with their words. Just as it is for the rest of the world...

Note: Europe is not a single entity but a continent full of different countries including (part of) Russia. Even the EU doesn't really have one single foreign policy.

It may not just be about the minerals....

It could be about leaving NATO.

US (Trump) feels they need Greenland for "security".

They currently have (almost complete) access to use Greenland via NATO and the existing agreements with Denmark. So there is no need to extend this.

However, if the US would want to leave NATO, they would no longer have access to Greenland under existing agreement.

Therefore, if the US wants to leave NATO and still use Greenland (both militarily and for resources), they need to acquire Greenland.

Acquiring Greenland would allow the US to control the entire western hemisphere, leave NATO, and abandon the eastern hemisphere entirely.