smeenz

... followed by a less than subtle reminder that Greenland is protected by NATO.

It has captions, but here you go:

"I have a message for our American friends, and all others who are listening. Much is being said these days. Many accusations and many allegations have been made. And of course, we are open to criticism, but let me be completely honest - we do not appreciate the tone in which it is being delivered. This is not how you speak to your close allies. And I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies. We respect that the United States needs a greater military presense in Greenland, as Vice President Vance mentioned this evening. We - Denmark and Greenland - are very much open to discussing this with you, with an open mind. We still have the defence agreement from 1951; it offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland, if that is what you wish, then let us discuss it. In 1945, The United States had 17 bases and military installations in Greenland with thousands of soldiers. Today, only one American base is left - the one VP Vance visited a few hours ago, and something like 200 soldiers. We can do more. Much more, within the framework we have today. Let us make use of that, and let's do it together. The VP also stated that Denmark has done too little in the Arctic. The other day, he said the United States has also done too little, and the fact is that we have all been harvesting the peace dividend. We all acted on the assumption that the Arctic was and should be a low tension area. But that time is over. Status quo is not an option, and that is why we have stepped up as well, with a billion dollar investment in Arctic security just a few weeks ago. An investment that will provide more drones, more ships, more personnel, and more will come later this year. And let us not forget - Greenland is part of NATO. Today, NATO's security guarantee also covers Greenland. "

Yes, but that assumes that a military presence for "security reasons" is genuinely what trump/putin wants here, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if what they're really after is access to the minerals underneath the ice sheet (estimated to contain up to 25% of the global reserves of rare earth minerals), just a soon as it melts, and trump is doing everything he can to make it melt more quickly. He's also extremely anxious to get control of Ukraine's minerals, so it would be consistent for him to be after them in Greenland too.

*further

I think you mean Bad putin and Worse putin. Neither of them are good.

Not wanting to seem like a windows fanboi in the slightest, but.. I guess they're saying that if you log in to your windows box using their cloud authentication, then they can better protect your account, force regular password changes, force password complexity requirements.. and because they're in a position to see all auth attempts against that account, they can react to attacks and patterns of attacks.. having said that. a lot of those advantages go away if you're not actually connected to the internet.. but then, you also lose timely updates by not being connected... it's a difficult question.. I can see how it could be better for a non computer-savvy user to log in using a microsoft account, but also worse and more frustrating for advanced users who don't want to touch microsoft's cloud at all. I guess they made the decision based on what was better for the majority of users. If you're upset by this, you're not really their target audience.