For example, Trump and Obama have a few interesting things in common. They both became President. And they both defeated Hillary Clinton in order to get there. In 2008, the real race was between the Democrats - Bush was so unpopular it didn't matter who the GOP ran, the Dems were going to take it (in my opinion that's why McCain was allowed to get the nomination). America had the chance to do something really different multiple times and put a woman in charge but it never happened. Now it will almost certainly never happen.

In terms of voting to burn the place down, I think that's really the point a lot of folks have missed. When the existing system doesn't serve you at all, why vote to preserve it? Governments have failed us, totally. Both parties have kowtowed to corporate interests for years and things like NAFTA have had the effects that were warned about in the 90s. Now we are reaping the results.

Very sad state of affairs.

The thing that would for sure not happen is Canada becoming an actual state in the US. Way too liberal for that and logistically it wouldn't make sense.

I think you're making a couple of shaky assumptions. You're assuming civil society will stand up to Trump. This seems increasingly unlikely to happen.

Also, in the military, there are really serious consequences if you don't do what you're told. It's not the same world as the civilian world. So if an enlisted soldier gets told to suit up for a mission, they'll do it.

Think of the Ukraine war. Many of the Russian soldiers thought they were on an exercise that day, they didn't realize it was a for-real invasion until they got the order.

Lastly, invoking that less than half of Americans voted for this just doesn't mean very much. Trump could have been kept out of office if enough people had gone and voted for Kamala Harris...but they didn't. The people who voted for Trump, hey, say what you like about them, but at least they went to the polls.

This mess is 100% the karma of all Americans.

If I put on my realpolitik hat though, it makes sense why Trump & friends want Canada, same reason they want Greenland: access to the Arctic. Look at a world map and how Canada and Greenland are placed relative to the US. Trump is a real estate guy and lots of land is always the best thing to have.

For Greenland, the United States has no need to flex its military muscle if they want to take it over. The Greenlanders want to be free from Denmark and this is a great opportunity for them to achieve that.

Possible timeline of events:

* Greenland leaves the Danish Realm

* Greenland becomes sovereign nation

* Greenland enters Compact of Free Association with the United States (similar to Kiribati and Micronesia) - boom, best of all worlds for the USA. Juicy real estate, military boost, a local indigenous population that will be able to do nil about it.

* With Greenland secure, the United States finds a pretext for NATO withdrawal.

* The United States either pressures Canada into joining the US or invades outright. European partners do not come to Canada's defence and NATO is officially over. Maybe a European version of it rises in the aftermath.

From there, hard to say what will happen. I would be worried if I was an Icelander.

The United States would simply roll tanks and troops across the border, making it to Ottawa in fairly short order. Canada would then surrender, and the Stars and Stripes would be raised across all the provinces and territories. From there, Canada could consider itself officially annexed.

Their energy, their focus, their attention. Your attention. All the time people spend in stress / outrage / fear / whatever in reaction to these events, that's time and energy not available to look at the news that get less coverage (which are usually the more important).

It also sucks all the air out of other internal political discussion - US trade relations take #1 priority and so everything else either gets forgotten or put on hold.

Easy way to set your opponents back when you have the upper hand like the US does.

I am trying to learn what options exist out there that would let someone develop software with "all the amenities" in a nearly or actually fully airgapped environment. Bonus points for low-power consideration.

So version control, LLM, Agent, etc. but assume no access to the internet. Local hub server on a LAN is okay to assume. I am thinking a tower under a desk and one or more people working on a laptop.

For context, the situation I'm thinking of is a friend who does a lot of environmental field research in remote locations (like truly middle of nowhere places). Sometimes the local office will have decent internet but most of the time it's a situation with a super spotty or non-existent connection. Remarkably, people still need to write code in environments like this at times!

Any and all answers very much appreciated, thank you.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43284633

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Follow-up question - what's your take on using AI to maybe generate a driver for a different language?

But they'll be fucking rich.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43284367

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

A couple of questions:

* How / where did you get the inspiration for this? To me it's one of those things that seems "obvious" once I see it, but I wouldn't have thought of it on my own first.

* What does that thermal imaging camera "see?" Just heat? Could it detect a person vs. robot vacuum vs. house cat? (relevant for kitchen monitoring especially!)

* From the article, it looks like you're using Python? Are there good libraries available for other ecosystems as well?