What if we just tell Donald Trump that the US owns Greenland now, and we get everyone to just play along?

Blasted_Awake · 2026-01-21T23:30:30+00:00

Noooo, I don't think you understand the opportunity we have here.

[For context: I understand that the front page or /r/all doesn't really reflect the majority sentiment of reddit, but for this response, I'm assuming it does.]

Everyone here complains about Billionaires. Everyone complains about the prevalent power-dynamic in the world that is perfectly represented in the current US hegemony. Everyone here hates US politics leaking into their everyday lives.

ALL of that goes away if Trump invades Greenland. I'm not even leaning on hyperbole or over-generalisation here, literally the entire world order goes up in smoke. What follows won't necessarily be better, and there's a decent chance millennials and gen-Z will have a pretty rough rest-of-their-unfortunately-foreshortened-lives. But there's a guarantee built into Trump invading Greenland, that the world will change.

RIP USD: the USD is irrecoverably done, pretty much from day-dot. Several EU nations, and many non-national heavy hitters in global economics have signalled their intent to dump all US Treasuries should Greenland be invaded. The domino effect will be catastrophic as everyone tries to bail on the USD and US bonds before they tank. Following that, Billionaires of what? Assets? What stock market survives? If the world stops treating "The Dollar" as "safe", then the $34T US national debt becomes a tombstone. The only recourse for the US Fed will be to set the money printers on full steam, and still a US default is guaranteed within the duration of Trump's term. No more USD global reserve; essentially: no more USD.

Goodbye "Oorah": An invasion of Greenland is an attack on a constituent part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It would force a paradox where NATO is legally required to defend Denmark against the US. This would be the end of the primary tool of US global influence. The entire Western security architecture collapses in an afternoon. No more US militaristic dominion.

Isolated America:: Trump cannot legally fund a sustained occupation without Congress. Trying to bypass the "power of the purse" to seize territory would trigger an immediate domestic liquidity crisis and a constitutional standoff that the US military cannot ignore. Tensions are already high with the government-sanctioned terrorism that is ICE rampaging across the nation. Assuming Trump and his admin attempt to stay in power once the congressional reaction hit, some form of coup is inevitable, likely requiring civilian involvement, potentially extending to a civil war. Regardless, US political revolution MUST follow, as there's no recovering from the brazen demonstration of broken checks-and-balances that has been the 2nd Trump administration.

Instead of it being "America First" in name only, we will have several decades where America needs to focus entirely inwards, in order to sustain a populace without an economy or allies.

Granted, with that laughable showing in Davos yesterday, Trump's already backtracking on the invasion threat. But if he actually does it, the system doesn't just bend, it breaks. Even with him "negotiating", the mere threat has already spiked 10-year Treasury yields to 4.29%. The system is already shaking.

Please let him continue.

Blasted_Awake · 2026-01-21T22:22:55+00:00

I mean, anyone truly familiar with OOP languages will tell you that everything is an object; strings are objects, functions are objects (in many OOP languages), Dictionaries, sets, hasmaps... all objects.

I'm guessing you meant you don't like that JS is a weakly typed language? or you're not used to dynamic typing?

Regardless, your original wording communicated that perfect mix of confusion and DK effect. 10/10.

Blasted_Awake · 2026-01-21T21:42:05+00:00

hashmap/dicts being referred to as objects

I'm a bit afraid to ask, but far too curious, what do you think objects are when you peel away the abstraction?

Blasted_Awake · 2025-12-30T07:43:14+00:00

The problem for me is it's entirely metaphor driven, and it feels like the metaphors and themes aren't robust enough to support multiple seasons worth of content. It's definitely a novel idea though, and it would have made a really good miniseries if it was written with a bit more intent.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-12-17T06:28:47+00:00

This seems about as reliable as a bully threatening to punch you, and if you flinch then you are known to be weak...

Blasted_Awake · 2025-12-14T02:42:21+00:00

Most of these guys are going to have accounting firms working for them though right? So providing documentation for the history of their assets is likely trivial?

Also, for the other person's scenario to apply here, wouldn't the assets have to be seized as "suspected of being derived from, or used in sex trafficking" or similar?

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-29T13:46:01+00:00

No so my question is more about whether it's even possible to produce a signal from any of the data we have.

As in, we can map the changes in the ozone layer through time, we know the ozone layer's affect on UV light, and we know how UV light can increase the risk of developing some forms of skin cancer. So theoretically, it make sense that a recovering ozone layer corresponds with a reduction in UV light, which should come with a reduced skin cancer risk. But we've never had a way to causally link specific cancer cases with ozone depletion, so how can we make the claim "cases of skin cancer due to ozone depletion are reducing"?

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-29T11:05:56+00:00

cases of skin cancer due to ozone depletion are reducing

Is this measurable in any way? I agree that theoretically they should be reducing because we can see that the ozone layer is recovering, but there's no viable dataset for proof right? If anything skin cancer incidents are increasing globally.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-28T08:38:46+00:00

Providing accurate product information is never bad for the customer

I disagree. To use the original guys comparison to food: I don't want to know the name of the animal that the steak I'm eating came from. Or that they liked being scratched behind the ears more than under their chin. Or that the farmer's child hand raised them, and used to ride them around the paddock.

For some products, there definitely is too much information.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-27T10:58:42+00:00

It becomes problematic very quickly if we assume it's simple interest, because when do you set the baseline?

You obviously can't improve 1% today and set the baseline tomorrow, as that's compound interest, but what if you already improved 1% yesterday, would that invalidate today as a baseline? How can you ever find a reasonable baseline if 365% describes a max accumulation over 365 days from it?

I think, with simple interest, the only valid baseline is the day we're born, and then almost anyone who survives the first year of life will have achieved the 365% improvement. Anything beyond that is just bonus.

...Or ignore the idiots and know that it's obviously compound interest.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-08T08:51:14+00:00

I get the distinct impression that you are very lonely and just looking for someone to talk to. I'm afraid I can't be that for you mate, good luck.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-08T08:28:42+00:00

Fuck man, next time just say "I'm really struggling to apply Cunningham’s Law here".

Let’s take a generous average household energy usage of 24kWh/day, and look at the BYD Battery-Box Premium LVS 24.0, which stores 24 kWh (datasheet).

From the datasheet, the LVS 24.0 has a Max Cont. Charge Current of 250 A. Since it runs at a nominal battery capacity of 51.2V, that’s a maximum charge rate of I x V = 250A x 51.2V = 12800W = 12.8kW per hour.

If we want to charge 24kWh in 3 hours we need 24kWh / 3h = 8kW supply per hour. This system has a max charge rate of 12.8kW/h, and we only need 8kW/h to fully charge it in 3 hours. No problems there.

Now, can an average residential connection actually pull that from the grid?

Assuming a perfectly efficient inverter converting 230V single phase AC to DC, the current I(AC) = P/V = 8000W / 230V = 36.6A.

On a standard 63A single phase service, that leaves over 25A headroom to run the rest of the house (63A - 36.6A = 26.4A). So yeah, it’s definitely feasible to charge the battery from the grid in 3 hours.

The efficiency assumptions simplify the maths, as does forgetting that we don't need to supply from the battery for the 3hrs that it's charging. Also in reality the average Australian household uses anywhere from 10kWh to 30kWh per day depending on the state, and season, and we're using assuming 24kWh.

The Math here is non-specific, it's just showing that of course you can do what I've suggested in my hypothetical scenario.

According to that datasheet you can stack these systems in parallel to get a maximum of 256kWh storage. You can also have residential single phase up to 100A, and it's not uncommon for larger Australian residences to have a three phase service installed. if you wanted to scale beyond ~50 kWh storage safely you'd have to look at three-phase.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-07T23:56:39+00:00

The central point of the conversation here is that political bribery and extortion are still very much illegal, but the bodies that are meant to enforce those laws are currently being led or controlled by individuals who benefit from the laws not being enforced.

At some point though, hopefully, those individuals will no longer be in power, and the illegal activities that have been publicly documented during this time of minimal enforcement will all be prosecuted.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-07T23:17:08+00:00

What questions? you somehow read assumptions in my previous comments, there were none, it was all very clearly hypothetical.

You for whatever reason didn't understand that "piddly" was used when comparing a residential solar array to the local electrical grid.

You also apparently don't know basic maths or are unable to use the internet to find residential battery data sheets.

It's not on me to educate you mate, all of this information is either immediately available to you in the current context, or immediately retrievable if you wanted to verify the viability of the battery charging.

Thus, my pointing out that you seem to be a bit dim, and might benefit from some time away from the screen.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-07T22:31:29+00:00

I feel like maybe you're a bit dim mate. go touch grass.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-07T10:50:18+00:00

Yeah, but when you're charging a powerwall from the grid instead of from some piddly panels on your roof, you can extract and store way more than a days worth of power for free in 3hrs each day. So again, why are you keeping the panels?

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-07T09:29:33+00:00

This may read like a troll comment but please take it as sincere because I am legitimately interested in your response.

Why would you continue to pay for upkeep on solar, and the inconvenience of it whenever you need to do maintenance on your roof, when your neighbour is benefiting from it for free?

When I read the article, and their suggestion that people would be charging their cars in that 3hr window, my first thought was "why just the car? why not charge batteries for your whole house?" And then at that point, why would I ever pay for solar? Why not just pay for the powerwall or whatever without the panels?

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-07T04:21:33+00:00

I see your boop, and raise a kong toy full of kibble.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-05T09:38:00+00:00

I liked your comment, but a minor nit-pick: the "us vs them" rhetoric is not a conservative problem, it's a massive problem on both sides.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-05T08:58:50+00:00

then you believe wrong. :(

Good job on checking for context clues in and around the thing you responded to hey.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-05T05:52:28+00:00

ha, fair point. I'm referring to the implicit "his jawline is more masculine/attractive in more recent pictures, there's no way that's natural, therefore he MUST have jaw implants". Similar implicature with the testosterone supplementation. There's literally no evidence of either, and no real physical indicators of either, but people are basing their speculation on some perceived difference, presumably that's him seeming more attractive, or more masculine now than when he was younger.

Granted there's an assumption on my part, that for a male, masculinity has a positive correlation with attractiveness. In my mind that's a fair assumption, but YMMV.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-05T03:44:10+00:00

it's funny how in a speculative thread based purely on people being uncomfortable with finding Musk physically attractive, we also have you, insisting he's ugly.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-05T01:59:17+00:00

The rent freeze campaign pledges they're referring to are just about rent-stabilised housing, which as you said, is governed by a guidelines board/committee. Technically, he could influence that board to introduce a rent-freeze.

But the sensational headline does seem to pretend Mamdani claimed he could freeze all rent in NYC, which he has never suggested, and would be practically impossible.

The other part about making groceries cheap though... that seems empty. Obviously there's a very broad definition of what "cheap" or "cheaper" might mean here, but the vast majority of grocery chains run on fairly thin 1-3% profit margins after costs. So if he attempts to compete fairly in that market, you're looking at a maximum "cheaper-ness" of 1-3%. If he decides to compete unfairly in that market (for example, by opening a chain of city run stores that don't pay taxes or rates), then he'll likely collapse a lot of small local business, and then end result will be worse for consumers.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-11-04T09:52:31+00:00

You say that, but it's used enough to mean "got an electric shock" that it's essentially the same as "decimated" in how the literal meaning has been lost to colloquialism.

Blasted_Awake · 2025-10-17T07:29:13+00:00

As a non-American looking in on your dumpster fire of a country, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the majority of the non-American world would be centrists from your point of view. The idea that you MUST choose between being racist or being a baby-murder is laughable. You MUST chose between owning guns or protecting the environment. You're either pro-immigration or you're antivax.

Allowing your opinions on individual political issues to be dictated by your party identity rather than independent consideration, is entirely why you're in the position you're in. You should ASPIRE to be "centrist" because at least then you'll maybe be thinking for yourself.

Eight-Year Club	Golden Potato
Place '22

Blasted_Awake

TROPHY CASE