> China has the same air defense and tech as Iran

Lmao, quantitatively and qualitatively China is more than an order of magnitude bigger

Brent isn't security products so not covered under anti insider trading law right?

STOCK Act should cover commodities futures, so Brent and WTI should be covered.

> Attack Greenland ->attack Denmark, attack Denmark -> Attack the EU.

Rhetoric and public support aside, I honestly very much doubt that there will be a solid EU military response. For many countries like Baltic, Eastern Europe and Nordic countries (ironically DK included). US military support means life or death of their countries. I imagine they'd stall response like what Hungary did and hope that Greenland annexed become fait accompli.

> US military support means life or death of their countries.

Meant. They have begun to realize that this has changed and realize that if this were put to the test that the US military would likely not hold up their end of NATO.

What you wrote would have made good sense in 2015, but today it makes a lot less sense and with every passing day that gap is widening. The Baltics have become the voice of reason and ethics in Europe, Poland is much stronger than parties outside of Europe seem to realize, France is always going to be a force to be reckoned with and we have no doubt about where the UK stands, then there are Finland, Sweden and Norway who all are automatically on the side of anything that Denmark is involved in and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Canada would become part of it, because they too have a lot to lose.

There is a good reason why Putin has not risked engaging the EU and that's not just because the United States is still formally part of NATO.

> they have no moat beyond expertise and some tech advancement that could be replicated easily enough

Incorrect, de facto, the only firms invested heavily in the rare earth refineries technology are Chinese for the last 20-30 years. Their moats are as deep as TSMC moats so to say.

Nah it's foolish to think only that it's just Trump war.

That's a very exact number if you know what I mean

You mean round, not exact.

Looks like some block-size thing.

Even if Trump goes Taco, Khamenei Jr won't accept. Remember the adversary also get a vote.

Mojtaba will be dead within a month. What would it say about the entire operation if they just backed off and let Khamenei’s son take over?

It would tell us that they are incompetent buffoons which is exactly what they are.

That it was a stupid operation with a predictably useless outcome. But we also said that about the whole invading Greenland stuff, and it ended like that. And about the war in Afghanistan. And I would presume, about the Vietnam war.

Trump will say he won and move on.

> Trump will say he won and move on.

Then Trump will move on and attack China maybe? Anyway, with Trump in office I expect to see more and more chaos coming.

Cuba is next

I imagine much of US/Israeli intel has been burned on the initial strike, and it's not that hard to hide someone in a bunker at the end of the day.

Seeme like Israel has very strong intel in Iran though. Not sure they got burned, they seem to have infiltrated deeply into Iran. Remains to be seen how it plays out in the end.

The US killed a lot of people in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and it didn't mean squat.

Are we just doomed to repeat this bullshit?

> never put a political sign in your yard or even just talk about the wrong thing with your friend in a WeChat.

Practically, how many care about that? Consider that in other part of the world they also cancel folks based on social media opinion...

and that Benjamin Franklin's opinion on security and freedom? Thats terminally online phenomenon only. I once tried to bring that without specifically mentioned that it came from ol Ben himself to folks IRL. Many thought it was some anarchist blabbers.

> okay, well yes you might be right but you also understand what the point of the interview is.

So the point is? I honestly dont understand.

The point isnt to give a simple answer, even if it's a correct answer. The point is show how much you know and how smart you are.

The question is framed to you as a way for you to show you know x, y and z and talk about x, y and z.

Even if a valid solution is just do a, that's great. But the interviewer has no idea if you actually know about x ,y and z do they ?

> The point is show how much you know and how smart you are.

I like that this sentence can be read both as a productive, well-meaning view on interviews, as well as a highly cynical one.

Also makes me wonder if the person will keep showing how much they know and how smart they are after they are hired, and if that is a good thing.

The point is the interviewers are sometimes obtuse.

Sometimes the point of the interview is to see if the candidate knows an existing solution and "just use postgres" is the good answer. Sometimes it's to test the technical chops and pretending postgres doesn't exist is the point.

The candidate shouldn't be expected to always guess right, unless the position says "a psychic". The interviewer should notice if the candidate is solving the wrong kind of problem and nudge them in the right direction instead of punishing the candidate for the wrong guess.

In an interview you need to explain your thought process and demonstrate that you’re making an informed decision with supporting evidence.

Saying “just use Postgres” and then providing no explanation for why you believe Postgres is sufficient for the job, a general explanation of what type of hardware and architecture you’d use, and other details is not answering the question.