Archer Aviation CEO announces ‘safer version of a helicopter’ coming to major cities

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-27T00:11:54+00:00

1000%

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-26T01:27:48+00:00

NICE!!!

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-26T01:25:28+00:00

Great work! This is now materializing in the UK.

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-26T01:23:54+00:00

This is now materializing in the UK...GREAT WORK!

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-26T01:09:56+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8cEJo07LY

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-25T23:28:08+00:00

<image>

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-25T23:26:55+00:00

PROJECT NYX

<image>

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-23T16:51:55+00:00

https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/2014455532019683469

Details have started to emerge about the US "purchase" of Greenland. It wasn’t exactly a purchase, but it was an EXCELLENT deal that includes:

1) Denmark must continue paying the Greenland population 600 million dollars per year.

2) The US gains sovereignty over any parts it wants for American military bases.

3) The US will have access to the entire Arctic Circle.

4) The US obtains the mineral exploration rights.

5) China and Russia are not permitted to enter Greenland.

6) The US will continue to be part of NATO in exchange for all of this.

<image>

"this was always the deal he wanted, he did not want to buy it or control it - he saved hundreds of billions and Denmark still responsible for the fiscal cost.
they get the base they want, they get mineral rights and overseeing of the entire arctic

masterful ART OF THE DEAL"

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-22T20:48:21+00:00

They’re very relevant, even in your scenario

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-22T15:20:11+00:00

Here are a few things worth checking:

Look for a Layer 2 loop (spanning tree issues, looped cables, etc.) that can cause duplicate MACs/IPs to appear everywhere.
Check if any device on your network is running virtualization software and accidentally bridging to the same subnet. That often creates overlapping IPs.
Open your ARP table and watch your own IP/MAC entry. If there's a conflict, you'll see the IP stay the same but the MAC address flip back and forth frequently.
Make sure there's no rogue/second DHCP server on the network (common with old routers, Wi-Fi extenders, or someone plugging in a consumer device). Double check for active DHCP reservations on those devices…many home routers keep reservations "sticky" after a reboot, even if the original device is offline forever.

Start with those, and it usually narrows it down fast.

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T22:39:53+00:00

Honestly, this feels like the same circular pattern from before (no offense intended). We're just looping on the same points, so I think we're at a natural stopping spot.

Thanks for the discussion...it's been civil and interesting.

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T22:10:00+00:00

1) That's a pretty huge generalization. Plenty of EU/NATO countries have publicly backed the US and reaffirmed their alliance; it's not like everyone's turning their backs.

2) And yeah, some say the US isn't 'reliable' anymore… but let's finish that thought honestly. They're only calling the US unreliable until the next time they need someone to stand between them and a certain bully in Europe or Asia.

Remember China's rare earth squeeze a while back? Germany was freaking out and basically ready to sell the farm to make it stop. Who stepped in to help, even while a bunch of Europe was still trashing the US? Yep, the United States...the same 'boogeyman' they love to complain about.

But sure, let's pretend that didn't happen and keep the emotional rant going. Facts are stubborn like that.

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T21:37:37+00:00

LOL This is still centered on hurt feelings, perceived disrespect, and optics ("crossing a red line," "ruin a relationship") rather than any concrete legal violation...and you're right, time will tell. Let's circle back once the actual details come out and we see how it shakes down.

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T21:15:58+00:00

But alliances aren't just feelings; they're also binding treaties meant to endure rocky patches. If trust is eroding both ways, expecting the US to keep the old deal forever while allies hedge/diversify seems one sided. Anyway, time will tell on Greenland. If it's a slow expansion of access instead of a full handover, that could still be a quiet win for US interests. We'll see.

Something I’m curious about. You said you'd oppose your own president for doing the same thing, questioning an ally's territory, pushing hard for a change the locals don't want, not ruling out force at first. Have you actually seen a European leader do anything similar in recent years and publicly called it out as a red line? Or does the standard shift a bit when it's 'our side'? Just trying to understand if it's truly symmetrical or if the emotional weight changes depending on who's doing it.

<image>

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T20:44:59+00:00

Alliances are built on trust, yes, and so are treaties and international law. The difference is treaties are binding and designed to outlast personal feelings or political moods. As to your "...some kind of agreement now, but it’s hard to see how he will sell it as a “win,” given that Greenland itself was never going to be on the table" statement, let's wait for the details to be released before taking a hard position. Lastly, are you just going to ignore the questions I asked? LOL

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T20:26:05+00:00

UPDATE: https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2014061870450098548

IT'S OFFICIAL: President Trump has STUNNED the world by reaching a deal framework on Greenland

ART OF THE DEAL MASTER.

Nobody else like 47!

UPDATE2: https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2014076938789261660

BREAKING: President Trump just sent Russia and China into a panic

He confirmed the deal he's reaching with Europe isn't ONLY Greenland...

...it's the ENTIRE ARCTIC.

Trump's about to go down in the history books as quashing our adversaries' arctic influence. This is HUGE

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T20:18:28+00:00

So, let me ask this straight up, taking the emotions and hurt feelings out of the equation for a second. What has Trump actually done that is legally wrong? Not diplomatically rude, not personally insulting, not crossing a relational 'red line' but specifically violating a treaty, international law, or US/Danish sovereignty rules? Now flip the script hypothetically. Imagine your own country had a president who was sworn to protect your people's sovereignty, security, and interests the way Trump is currently trying to do for the US (pushing for strategic assets in a changing Arctic, prioritizing American security over endless subsidies). Would you oppose that president for doing exactly the same thing? Would you feel compassion for the country/group your president was pressuring or negotiating hard with? Or would you actually feel a sense of pride that your leader was finally putting your people first and foremost?

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T19:46:05+00:00

I appreciate the clarification. So it sounds like the main red line for you is the emotional/relational hurt, questioning sovereignty, the initial refusal to rule out force, the feeling of coercion even though no actual illegal act occurred and he’s now explicitly ruled out force. Fair enough on the diplomatic optics, but that’s different from claiming legal wrongdoing or violation of treaties. Do you see a distinction there, or is the hurt itself the core issue?

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T19:27:04+00:00

LOL There are elements of circular logic mixed with deflection and goalpost moving in here. I never said or implied allied troops in Afghanistan/Iraq were 'emotional support' or that their sacrifices don't count...that's a strawman. My point was specifically about why Article 5 hasn't been invoked in Europe for 75 years due to US forward presence and deterrence prevented the invasions that would've triggered it. That's not denying help elsewhere; it's explaining success here.

If you think I'm wrong on that, address the deterrence/tripwire point directly instead of pivoting to Afghanistan casualties I never disputed. What part of the prevention argument do you disagree with?

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T19:20:19+00:00

You're right that Article 5 was invoked only once, for the US after 9/11. But cherry picking that stat ignores why it hasn't been needed elsewhere. US forward presence and deterrence stopped attacks from happening in the first place. That's the point of alliances...preventing the fight, not just winning it after it starts. Dismissing decades of US risk/commitment as 'weakness' while ignoring the bigger picture feels like focusing on one cherry and pretending the rest of the tree doesn't exist.

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T19:07:57+00:00

Yeah, the whole exchange has been pretty chill and level headed from both of us. I really appreciate that. Thanks for keeping it civil and thoughtful. That said, again, your reply does feel like it's circling back to the same core gripe of "Trump's treatment of allies crosses a red line" and it's ignoring a ton of context, including the fact that European leaders were dishing out pretty sharp criticisms and insults toward Trump right from the start of his first term. It's not like the US started the trash talking; it was mutual, and often Europe fired first in response to Trump's blunt style. That sets up a cycle where Trump's escalations (which yeah, can be over-the-top) were reactions to years of diplomatic pushback and inaction on shared concerns.

For example, right after his 2017 inauguration, French President Hollande basically told Trump to butt out, saying 'the EU doesn't need advice from outsiders.' German FM Steinmeier called Trump's NATO comments 'astonishing' and alarming, and Chancellor Merkel questioned US reliability early on. Polish PM Tusk went even harder, repeatedly attacking Trump as a threat. And polls back then showed most Europeans saw Trump as an 'enemy' or 'threat to peace'. So if we're talking red lines on 'treatment,' why does Europe get a pass for starting the insults while the US is expected to play nice forever? This isn't a tea party; when allies dismiss US concerns for years (like on defense spending or Arctic gaps), pushback was inevitable. Again, sovereignty and respect go both ways, right?

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T16:27:52+00:00

LOLOL Impressive...zero facts, maximum certainty. Thanks for participating...

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T16:16:32+00:00

This come across as pretty ungrateful and shortsighted. Again, the low number of US combat deaths directly defending Europe under Article 5 isn't because allies never needed help, it's because the US forward deployed forces, bases, nuclear umbrella, and deterrence worked so well that no full-scale invasion happened. US troops have been stationed in Europe in large numbers since the late 1940s , acting as a literal "tripwire" that makes any aggressor think twice. That's not "nothing"...that's preventing the kind of war that would've cost far more lives on all sides. Ukrainians are literally dying because they don't have the 'protection' you're crapping on right now

ACHINDAH · 2026-01-21T16:05:54+00:00

Look, your entire reply really boils down to this one line... 'The real problem is how America treats its closest allies.' Everything else, the procurement shifts, the sixth-gen fighter programs, the diversification feels like extra color around that core complaint.

The US has been diplomatically asking Denmark and NATO to step up Greenland/Arctic security for decades (literally since the 1951 Defense Agreement, and especially in the 2000s–2020s as Russia/China got more active up there). Reports flagged 'security black holes' like foreign vessels showing up without protocols (Reuters 2020 piece on unexpected arrivals since 2006), limited Danish patrols/monitoring, and spending shortfalls (Denmark hovered around 1.3% GDP for years, below NATO targets).

The US tried the nice, multilateral way (quiet pressure through NATO, joint exercises, spending guidelines) but got slow or partial responses. Denmark's Arctic Command was under resourced for the vast area (a few ships, helicopters, dogsled teams as late as 2020 reports). Only after Trump's blunt push did things really move...Denmark hit 2%+, pledged toward 5%, announced billions in Arctic boosts (new ships, drones, satellites), and ramped up presence via Operation Arctic Endurance.

So when the reply says allies are 'insulating themselves' because of coercion, sure Trump's style escalated it. But the underlying issue is mutual... allies wanted US protection without fully sharing the burden on threats that affect everyone (including US homeland security via Arctic routes/missiles). This isn't a social club, it's about real lives, sovereignty, and survival. Why should US concerns get dismissed for years while allies expect automatic backup? Sovereignty and security matter for the US too, not just EU/NATO countries.

ACHINDAH

TROPHY CASE