Danes put up a courteous face right now to get through this, but the relationship to the US is permanently harmed. Even the most pro US politicians are saying the relationship will never go back to what it was before this.
Not the parent, but getting US to quit NATO won't help his European ambitions. Russia is weak now, and has solidified the European hostility for years to come.
"European hostility" is not going to matter when there's no EU. No matter how weak, Russia will always be stronger in terms of the number of warm bodies they are ready to throw into the meat grinder than any country in Europe.
UPD: If you don't believe me, look at the European right-wing leaders (including a sitting head of state, Meloni) currently banding up behind Orban, a widely known Putin's shill in Europe.
Dissolution of NATO has been his wet dream for decades.
Next up is dissolution of the EU; the hard-right shift all over Europe (that he gets some credit for by financing right-wing parties and propaganda) will eventually make that dream of his come true, too.
>US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to
Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.
And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.
What are you talking about. Trumps US-EU trade deal has been halted, and a response to Trumps 1th. feb tariffs is being drawn up right now. EU not doing anything in your head, try following the news.
An opioid addiction is no where close to dropping a hundred Euros a month on video games. I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games. And my comment is in response to the general sentiment that this represents some kind of "anti-consumer" behavior, when there is a large organic market for this and consumer actively want these features.
Personally I am very paternalistic and would support a total ban on these mechanics, together with legal limits of how much money people are allowed to spend on activities like these. Of course making any of these activities available to kids, should be banned as well. This is obviously an extremely unpopular position, since, as I said, consumers really enjoy these mechanics.
> I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games
The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino.
And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go. But we surely shouldn't let kids in the casino, or let casinos advertise to kids, etc.
>The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino.
I do not think you understand how these games work or how they incentivize spending. Lootboxes and gachas work very different to a Casino and equating their reward structure just makes no sense at all. Psychologically they work in very different ways.
I hate to be defending lootboxes and gachas, but the psychology behind those is very different to how a Casino works. Gambling addicts are at an especially high risk of suicide, because they expect some amount of returns on their gambling activity, if those returns fail to materialize the player can be in immense debt. This just can not happen with a gacha, where you know upfront that every euro you spend is a 100% loss. Again, this should not be a defense of lootboxes, but we have to be honest about these mechanics.
And the psychological mechanisms are also different, gachas and lootboxes appeal very much to a collector mindset, where people play until they get a certain rare digital good, but playing after that would be pointless. This is a different mechanism to gambling in a casino.
>And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go.
I see no reason why either should be legal, to be honest. We exclude kids from casinos, because their ability to make informed decisions is limited, but the same is true for a gambling addict. Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy.
To be honst I think state run lotteries are a pretty good idea, if they would replace other forms of gambling, which apparently is becoming less and less true, especially with the rise of the completely under regulated prediction markets.
Regarding the subject at hand, I think a very obvious and necessary first step is banning children from participation. Obviously this is easily circumventable, but at will at least be some form of harm reduction.
I think another possibility as a first step is a forced limit on how much an account is allowed to spend in a given time, e.g. the company is only allowed to add digital goods not exceeding X euros to the owners account, together with restrictions on how these items are traded, this will make whaling impossible, which is apparently the most important demographic for developers. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 ]
reply