redditmademedoit

It's included, but good lord if that's not a very high price for temporary access to a collection of bargain bin games. You could buy a full price game every other month for that money.

Conceptually, I'm not against the American threat to our way of life being discussed in fewer threads (as opposed to a single megathread). But where you draw the line on what's "a new and important developement" is hard. Most would draw it far before the US invading Greenland, I.e. the probable triggering of the "find god, quickly" phase of human civilization.

I think you just have to live with a lot of posts being about the unfolding break in the world order for a while. I mean, sure, some posts might have been suitable to merge, but mostly they're about different developments. The posts are also getting a lot of engagement and generating discussion.

Sweet synthesis: We need a GrokGPT that tells nazis to kill themselves.

I think we should also focus on using less energy overall – e.g. replace short to medium persinal car trips with walking, bicycles and public transport, medium to long travel with trains, eliminating unnecessary travel that can't be accommodated by those modes of transport. Environmental solutions like replacing fossil fuel powered cars with emissions free, but equally dangerous and still inefficient EVs for personal use will keep us burning oil even longer by tying up investments in highways and hostile, car based infrastructure.

Things like rethinking infrastructure, labor, economy and housing would have been more achievable and, for most, felt more like progressing towards a better future than straighup sci-fi level efforts to continue the status quo without as much oil. But it's the latter we get, they're putting carbon capture machines on Norwegian oil rigs as we speak.

He wants to own Greenland, but moreso he wants to "own the libs".

I think it's better to focus on the tail end of their arguments, as opposed to whether it's technically possible.

European banks and investors are stuffed with Treasuries. If they tumble in value because of a threat of a European boycott, then it would probably end up harming Europe just as much as the US, if not more so. Moreover, a large-scale repatriation of capital would send the dollar tumbling and the euro rocketing, which would alone possibly be enough to send many European countries into a recession.

For example, forcing your bank sector to sell off a bunch of assets that are considered "risk free", comes with consequences.

Also consider that a majority of European leaders seem to be banking on the whole Trump era to blow over at some point soon. They hope to be able to rely on the US again and don't really want to do any lasting harm (probably).

But to be clear, that's still just your "normal" bad day that hits the markets with some regularity (e.g. Jensen Huang has a bad hair day).

Consider that Russia has been failing to take over a neighboring country for several years now, for incomprehensible reasons, displaying immense incompetence on every level along the way. It is inherently very unlikely that Russia simultaneously has masterminded the entire fabric of the US and effectively taken over the country through sheer genius.

No doubt that Trump is playing right into Putin's hands, but Putin is also an idiot: not omnipotent.

I think it's more worth considering that the MAGA doomsday cult has a lot of interests that align with Russia, e.g. shifting U.S focus to the Western Hemisphere for resource dominance, as suggested by Aslı Bâli in the latest episode of The Dig (https://thedigradio.com/podcast/maga-empire-w-asli-bali-and-greg-grandin/).

As far as I'm aware peak oil production has not been recognized to have happened yet.

Over the last century, many predictions of peak oil timing have been made, often later proven incorrect due to increased extraction rates.[9] M. King Hubbert introduced comprehensive modeling of peak oil in a 1956 paper, predicting U.S. production would peak between 1965 and 1971; his global peak oil predictions were predictive through the 1990s and 2000s but eventually were deemed premature due to improved drilling technology.[10] Current forecasts for the year of peak oil range from 2028 to 2050.[11] These estimates depend on future economic trends, technological advances, and efforts to mitigate climate change.[8][12][13] Peak oil, Wikipedia

It is still assumed that global oil consumption scales with economic growth and under 2025 consumption increased.

Global liquid fuels consumption increased by an estimated 1.2 million b/d in 2025 and is forecast to increase by 1.1 million b/d in 2026 and 1.3 million b/d in 2027. Consumption growth rises next year as global economic activity picks up pace. Based on forecasts from Oxford Economics, our forecast assumes global GDP will grow by 3.1% this year and 3.3% in 2027. Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA (U.S. government)

When you have plug-in hybrid tanks or nuclear powered strategic bombers oil will see a diminish in it's strategic relevance as a resource.

Fusion is nowhere near being in industrial use or being profitable. In the future, maybe, pending more breakthroughs.

Whether nuclear is a good idea to cling to going forward or not, it takes time to deploy. Those small reactors don't just come off a shelf, ready to be turned on. Oil, however, can generate power TODAY, anywhere you can ship it.

The question isn't whether it's a good idea to keep burning oil -- it definitely isn't -- the question is whether oil is still a hugely important energy commodity and the answer is a resounding yes. Notably, the article mentions that China's oil use hasn't even peaked yet. China does not use a small amount of oil.