Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48018095

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47373994

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

In Europe, valuation is still largely tied to tangible assets and steady EBITDA. This creates a massive 'Patient Capital' gap. While US investors have evolved to price the long-term unit economics of digital scaling, where high initial burn is the cost of building a global moat, European private equity remains culturally risk-averse. They prefer the predictable, incremental returns of a specialized factory over the 'winner-takes-most' volatility of digital platforms. By prioritizing collateral over code, our domestic capital is effectively subsidizing the past rather than financing the future. That's our problem.

If I remember correctly, the message was originally sent as a text message, but when a head of state sends a written message to another head of state, and that message is then circulated as an official FYI to the sender’s ambassadors, it is widely regarded as official communication.

The article itself is an opinion piece, yes, but the letter has been extensively reported across Europe and internationally. I could just as well have referenced one of those reports.

Dear Jonas:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT

Setting politics aside for a moment: Is there actual public support in the USA for demanding territory from Denmark? I see polling suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Americans, around 75%, oppose the idea of purchasing or seizing Greenland. It clearly isn't a popular demand among the general public. But do the people who voted for Trump actually back him on this specific issue?

To us in the Nordics, this is baffling. Greenland has been Scandinavian territory since the year 10th century. It was part of the establishment of the nation of Norway in 1261 and remained with Denmark after the Kalmar Union ended. The land has been inhabited by the Thule people and Scandinavians for over a millennium. Yet, the US Government now argues it 'should' belong to the USA and is threatening close NATO allies with tariffs to force a sale.

I am especially curious about the 'Golden Dome' justification. President Trump claims full control of Greenland is 'vital' for this new missile defense shield. Do Americans accept this narrative? From our side of the Atlantic, it looks like a pretext—existing treaties already allow the US to operate the Pituffik Space Base for exactly this kind of defense. Why is annexation suddenly considered 'vital' when the current alliance has worked for decades?

High-profile Republican Senators have publicly called the idea 'absurd' and 'weapons-grade stupid.' How is it, then, that the US Congress and Senate seem unable to stop these threats?

I would appreciate an American perspective: Is this seen as a legitimate foreign policy move or an overreach by the executive branch? Are we just witnessing a train wreck in the making on both sides of the Atlantic, with no option to stop it?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46682790

Points: 81

# Comments: 46

That said, I believe it is important to aknowlegde the fact that human memory, experience and interpretation of "what really happened" is flawed, isn't that why the body cameras are in use in the first place? If everyone believed police officers already where able to recall the absolute thruth of everything that happens in situations, why bother with the cameras?

Personally I do not think it is a good idea to use AI to write full police reports based on body camera recordings. However, as a support in the same way the video recordings are available, why not? If, in the future, AI will write accurate "body cam" based reports I would not have any problems with it as long as the video is still available to be checked. A full report should, in my opinion, always contain additional contextual info from the police involved and witnesses to add what the camera recordings not necessarily reflect or contain.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45788804

Points: 8

# Comments: 0