Lots of managers don’t understand the tech, and an outright majority have no way of measuring productivity beyond in-seat time, which is supposed to be their whole job.

Oh, okay. AWS is actually a good analogy. It’s a huge pillar of the existing infrastructure, and if it was gone it would be a pretty huge, unprecedented crisis. The internet would still come back, though. (Since I’m on all alt platforms already, I actually didn’t notice it was down until I saw it on the news!)

Similarly, NATO would be in a bind, but I have every reason to think the considerable power and common interests of the remaining parties would see it through. One big question I’ve seen mentioned is the American officers that staff parts of it. Either they could keep working there even if the US is not a member, which is possible, or there would be just be a period of interruption to it’s coordination functions while the ranks are refilled. Since Britain and France are nuclear powers, just article 5 is a strong protection already, though.

Oh, so there is more than the US’s say-so at play.

It’s almost like it’s a voluntary agreement to coordinate and defend each other. One which doesn’t intrinsically depend on the US in any way, but just happens to have the US as by far the largest member.

If NATO is just the US, why wasn’t it in Iraq? Because the US didn’t want help? I was there, that was not the message they were putting out.

Yeah. I would trust NATO without America a lot more. That’s a kind of credible alternative organisation of it’s own, which their membership precludes.

That’s not really what I meant.

To do this properly, OP would have to start with the relevant timestamp and a brief transcript. The context would then be, like, why this is being mentioned in that video and at that place in the video, even if it’s as simple as “this is a prominent Linux YouTuber talking about the drama a bit in passing”. Just so that it’s not quote mining from irrelevant people and places.

(It’s worth noting that a guy I’ve never heard of being fashy isn’t really a crazy claim, anyway. I’m not going to make final judgements based on it, but then I wouldn’t ask for a source, either)

So if the US genuinely invade that would be considered triggering Article V as the article doesn’t have an exemption clause of said invader being a different NATO Member.

Sort of? Turkey actually tested this once. Since it was Turkey and Greece it all kind of just got smoothed over. If it was the US the entire thing becomes a farce, and the treaty is just a piece of paper.

Furthermore the way NATO is structured is it can’t function unless the US is at the steering wheel.

Are you just thinking about all the US officers involved in running it? It’s not like the US actually, officially calls the shots.

TIL! Oh well.

Hopefully NATO is one of them and we can just rip the bandaid off now.

Edit: Huh, downvotes. Does Lemmy think NATO is in great shape and will definitely hold for the foreseeable future?

As it is, it’s in the way of other, more credible alliances forming, because nobody wants to weaken NATO. But, the moment the US does something in Greenland, all that delay will be for naught.

I would guess that the layout doesn’t equal brand. They would have different models, and other brands might have awkward corner faucets as well.

So, it doesn’t change your point, but “legal property” isn’t really the right word for an entity that makes up it’s own laws and can ignore the laws of everywhere else. I’d stick with “territory”, because it’s about their local monopoly on the use of force, and mutual recognition by other sovereign powers.

So he invaded Venezuala for oil money, but is planning to take a loss so that other people can sell that oil for him.

A genius businessman, everybody.

Well, that’s a little too far the other way. It was still a single comment.

TBH I feel the same way when someone sends me a source that would take a good fraction of my day to check.

Why don’t you put in a little bit of your own time to extract the relevant parts, and explain the surrounding context?

Is it? I think internally is a reasonable way to read that requirement. Even failing that, somewhere else would have to be more equal and just, somehow.

Happy cake day, by the way.

I know it’s the theory that the Western lifestyle in general is built on that, but Denmark’s state budget is pretty easy to verify as coming from Denmark.

You’re getting a lot of “none” answers, but that’s overly pessimistic, given that you used relative terms for almost everything, and free healthcare and education are standard first-world features.

The usual statistics wondercountries would be my answer. Canada, the Nordics and select other places in Western Europe like the Netherlands and Switzerland. New Zealand is having problems these days, but maybe them too, I’m not sure. They all lean towards these stances relative to other countries.

Cheap food is probably hardest thing. It just comes with a certain cost to produce or ship in.

Where from? Greenland is a big resource sink.

Okay, but we were talking about the people themselves, so that point stands.

Sure, the system lacks.

Money Identity Coercion Ego. Those are the primary motivators.

Being rich means you’ve solved money and probably coercion. You can either rest on your laurels or chase the other two, for good or for evil. There’s rich philanthropists - some who give almost everything away - and then whatever Elon Musk is, but most go for the rest on their laurels thing, and so you probably haven’t heard of them.

Dehumanising someone also serves our identity and ego, FYI, which is where this thread came from.