Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 352 posts

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#151

Post by gpm »

threemux wrote: post #119
pcrh wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenland needs protection from whom? The only country threatening it is the US.

The Arctic will be the battleground and trade route of the future as it warms. Being associated with the US is preferable to the other options (Russia, China most likely). There won't be an option of the status quo.

Greenland, as part of Denmark, is part of and protected by NATO. As its in the Atlantic it benefits fully from that treaty.

It is also protected by Denmark's membership in the EU and the CSDP by virtue of the EU's collective self defense clause (which protects all of all member states territory, not just the parts in europe).

The status quo - apart from the part where the US is threatening to violate its NATO treaty obligations and invade something it is obligated to protect from invasion - is just fine.

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#152

Post by thaumasiotes »

jb1991 wrote: post #112
Waterluvian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a moment to realize there’s a place called Gary, Indiana. And that there isn’t just some guy who is so infamous that he’s just known as Gary.

It’s actually a very famous city, but not for entirely good reasons. For starters, it did in my youth have the highest per capita rate of murder in the United States. However, Michael Jackson is from there. So there’s that.

> it did in my youth have the highest per capita rate of murder in the United States.

> However, Michael Jackson is from there.

There are no coincidences.

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#154

Post by jb1991 »

kyledrake wrote: post #124
jb1991 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase “got tired “is not referring to the modern populations but rather the people who founded those original settlements in those states centuries ago.

They didn't "get tired", they found rich soil and ample water to do farming and milling, which is what they were intending to find. It's called the bread basket of America for a reason.

In some places, some people absolutely could not endure the long travels to the West Coast, for example the Oregon Trail was extremely difficult and many people quit somewhere in the middle and settled into those Midwestern states. Yes they did in fact get tired, in some situations.

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#155

Post by macintux »

hinkley wrote: post #100
W-Stool wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

East St. Louis, Illinois would like to have a chat with Decatur about which is worst.

The thing about the middle of Illinois is they consider Chicago to be a separate state and East St Louis to be Missouri’s problem. “Oh you’re from Chicago” is a common reply any time you found out you’re from an exurb. Often said with just a hint of dismissal. That’s not the real Illinois. Nobody talks about Rock Island and Moline (the Illinois half of the Quad Cities) this way, for instance. Carbondale is slightly b…

Indiana is seriously considering annexing much of central/southern Illinois. It’s amazing just how aggressively divisive politics have become in the last 20 years.

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#156

Post by vintagedave »

JohnLocke4 wrote: post #106

I happen to be one of the Danes who partially grew up in Greenland that he talks about in the article. I even recognize the places from the article. Some of my cordial childhood memories are from there and it is a place I will forever love. One of the most visceral memories I have is looking across the ice fjord listening to the thunderous breaking of the ice bergs - you can hear the sounds on videos, but combined wi…

Thanks for sharing. Can you tell us where the “if you know where this is” photo is, please?

And how would you make local connections before visiting?

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#157

Post by Sammi »

marcosscriven wrote: post #133
iagooar wrote: post #83

I have been to northern Norway and Iceland a few times. It all started when I was running my previous SaaS at the peak of its growth. I needed a break, and wanted to go far away, while still being close enough if sh*t hit the fan. My co-founder had recently talked to some friends who had been to Tromsø, Norway. The place looked perfect, so I booked a 5-day solo trip there. Places that are so distant, with such harsh…

I had a similar feeling in the Faroe Islands. Even in mid summer the weather was rather inclement. But the landscape was breathtaking, and the locals friendly in a low key way. I’d love to go back.

More wind means less mosquitos. One step forward and one step back.

Also don't fly with sas to the faroes. They turn back and try again the next day like in the article. Fly atlantic airways, they have equipment to fly through the fog or they will refuel in iceland and try again same day.

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#158

Post by iagooar »

sandworm101 wrote: post #140
iagooar wrote: post #83

I have been to northern Norway and Iceland a few times. It all started when I was running my previous SaaS at the peak of its growth. I needed a break, and wanted to go far away, while still being close enough if sh*t hit the fan. My co-founder had recently talked to some friends who had been to Tromsø, Norway. The place looked perfect, so I booked a 5-day solo trip there. Places that are so distant, with such harsh…

And when you want to experiance true issolation in the face of nature, Alaska and Westerm Canada are waiting. Try a drive north through BC in winter. Fish on an Alaskan river only accessible by floatplane. Wake up to watch the northern lights only to realize you are looking south. Or pan for gold only to look up and see a grizzly cub walking cassually past. Norway: 15 people per sq km. Alberta: 6.7 British columbia:…

Finnmark in Northern Norway is more like 1.5-2, Troms is 3-6. But I agree, Alaska and Western Canada are places to go some day.

Funnily, as a student I had this offer to go to work as a waiter on Alaska. For different reasons that didn't materialize, but definitely this makes me want to go see it even more.

Not so much for the possible bear encounters. I do not think I am ready yet for that.

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#159

Post by TMWNN »

impossiblefork wrote: post #34
danielscrubs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my thoughts. I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.

>I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) What would that even mean? Especially the use the word 'ownership'? I think there's zero chance of US long-term influence on Greenland. They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. I would place independence + EU membership as more probably than any association with the US, and I think them staying within Denmark is much mo…

>They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign.

No, they can't. The likes of Palau are (barely) viable as sovereign countries, because at least the geographic size is as small as their populations.

It is absolutely, positively, completely impossible for 50K Greenlanders to by themselves maintain a the world's largest island, even aside from the completely frozen-over aspect. The $600M annual subsidy by Denmark does not include the funds Copenhagen spends on also running Greenland's foreign relations and defense. But in reality, Denmark spends a relative pittance on those things (like "six dog sleds" pittance); the vast majority of the cost of defending Greenland is borne by the US, as has been the case since 1940. Why should the US shoulder the burden without commensurate political power?

Re: Greenland is a beautiful nightmare

#160

Post by SilverElfin »

coryrc wrote: post #66
SilverElfin wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a good material? I would think steel or reinforced concrete would be better, with cheap corrugated metal paneling. And either way you need reinforced concrete foundations right?

Wood is a much better insulator than those two materials. At cold temps even the fasteners holding on cladding over foam sheets is a significant source of lost heat, so if screwed into wood instead of steel framing, you conduct much less heat.

Can’t you put some insulation on fasteners? Or just hold insulation on from the inside without piercing the outside wall?
Post reply on HN