> 56% of Greenlanders answer that they would vote yes to Greenlandic independence if a referendum were held today, 28% would vote no, and 17% do not know what they would vote for.
Bit strong to say "Greelanders want to be independent" when it's only 56%, it's about half the ones surveyed. But more importantly:
> The results show that 85% of Greenlanders do not want to leave the Realm and become part of the United States, while 6% want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United States, whereas the remaining 9% are undecided.
Since a common tactic to gain a pretext for an invasion is "These people want to be independent!" I feel like it's important to point out than Greenlanders overwhelmingly don't want to be a part of the US, judging by that same survey you linked.
So if the choice were to be "Be a part of Denmark" or "Be a part of the US", the majority would stick with Denmark.
Also, the survey is from "22nd to 26th of January 2025", pretty much a year ago, with ~500 people answering, and I'm pretty sure the results would look different today, especially since yesterday.
As mentioned, I'd love to see another survey from this month. My guess, at least based on talking with some acquaintances who are Danish with ancestors in Greenland, is that many now realize that "independent" isn't a realistic choice, given the current circumstances. So it really is between "Denmark with the protection of NATO" or "US with the protection of US by itself".
Yes, of course, the organization with its bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels, IS obviously just the US and the US only.
I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US, regardless of what your current media is trying to tell you. If the US actually dared to attack Denmark, an ally, I'm fairly certain France and The UK would stop being allies to the US, because suddenly "ally" doesn't mean anything anymore.
>I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US
Let me tell you since you think i am from the US, i am not.
>France and The UK would stop being allies to the US
No they don't because there's one other choice and that's china, the right of Denmark to keep Greenland is simply not important enough in a multi-polar world.
>bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels
Yes and you can bet that Belgium would rater lick Donald's boots then help Denmark.
> I don’t think people want or need to be loved by their enterprise software.
I absolutely want a good partnership with the people who make my enterprise software. If I end up loving one of them, even better. However, paying Oracle, for example, and constantly fearing being sued sounds more like domestic violence, a bit like #WhyIStayed
The issue has less to do with intelligence silliness, and more to do with the fact that the overall geopolitical objectives of the US can not be trusted, and that rift has grown to a point where self-reliance on critical infrastructure may be in Europe’s best interest.
US started to eavesdrop on Turkey and Greece first. Germany pulled out of the project by citing this is going too far for them. Some citations from news:
The Germans were taken aback by the Americans’ willingness to spy on all but their closest allies, with targets including NATO members Spain, Greece, Turkey and Italy [0].
Operation Rubicon [1] has a map of spied countries, incl. NATO allies and "friends".
I failed to find that great long-read article. If I can find, I will attach it here, too.
As far as I know, access points only identify via their SSID. Which is a string like "Starbucks". So there is no way to tell if it is the real Starbucks WiFi or a hotspot some dude started on their laptop.
There is nothing wrong with using public networks. It's not 2010 anymore. Your operating system is expected to be fully secure[1] even when malicious actors are present in your local network.
[1] except availability, we still can't get it right in setups used by regular people.
And when you connect to a non-public WiFi for the first time - how do you make sure it is the WiFi you think it is and not some dude who spun up a hotspot on their laptop?
Why does it matter? I mean I guess it did in this case but that is considered a top priority bug and quickly fixed.
I guess my point is the way the internet works is that your traffic goes through a number of unknown and possibly hostile actors on it's way to the final destination. Having a hostile actor presenting a spoofed wifi access point should not affect your security stance in any way. Either the connection works and you have the access you wanted or it does not. If you used secure protocols they are just as secure and if you used insecure protocols they are just as insecure.
Now having said that I will contradict myself, we are used to having our first hop be a high security trusted domain and tend to be a little sloppy there even when it is not. but still in general it does not matter. A secure connection is still a secure connection.
Hmm. Are you sure that your stack wouldn't accept these discovery packets until after you've successfully authenticated (which is what those chains are for) ?
Take eduroam, which is presumably the world's largest federated WiFi network. A random 20 year old studying Geology at Uni in Sydney, Australia will have eduroam configured on their devices, because duh, that's how WiFi works. But, that also works in Cambridge, England, or Paris, France or New York, USA or basically anywhere their peers would be because common
sense - why not have a single network?
But this means their device actively tries to connect to anything named "eduroam". Yes it is expecting to eventually connect to Sydney to authenticate, but meanwhile how sure are you that it ignores everything it gets from the network even these low-level discovery packets?
I may be missing something, but it is almost a guarantee that you would not receive a RA in this scenario? eduroam is using WPA2/WPA3 enterprise, so my understanding is that until you authenticate to the network you do not have L2 network access.
Additionally, eduroam uses certificate auth baked into the provisioning profile to ensure you are authenticating using your organizations IdP. (There are some interesting caveats to this statement that they discuss in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7593#section-7.1.1 and the mitigation is the usage of Private CAs for cert signing).
reply