> because he was the first Black President in the history
That seems to have hit a sore spot in you. A black man, who could have thought?
Did you read the motivation?
"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world."
As I recall it (somewhat vividly), the world took a sigh of relief after the tensions had been rising for many years between USA and the muslim world. After years of what GWB himself called "crusades" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Obama took action to soothe the tension.
That said. I do agree the prize was premature and a mistake in hindsight. (Obama himself was very surprised and humbled). But at the time, I too felt a big relief because people were actually talking to each other like human beings.
My point is not just that Nobel Committe offered the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, it is that: he went and accepted it in person, AFTER he had already certainly signed off on new wars (you can cross-check their timelines) almost immediately after he took oath as the new President. And he did sign off on new wars, during BOTH tenures.
So Obama is a hypocrite, who shamelessly accepted Peace Prize after starting wars and conflicts.
History tells us:
* Obama inherited the Iraq War and Afghanistan war, started during Bush Jr. regime. But to his credit, Obama ended them.
* However, Obama (USA) and NATO intervened in the Libya civil war and escalated it.
* Obama did the full scale war in Syria (but one can argue it was to combat terrorism).
* But under Obama regime, there was major increase in drone strikes in: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. These were highly controversial due to civilian casualties.
In a nutshell, Obama ended one war, he didn't initiate traditional large-scale wars, but he certainly expanded air, drone, and proxy conflicts.
That's why I said Obama is the only 2-term US President who kept his country at war during both tenures.
Now that is a dubious honor for any politician, whether he be black or white or any color in between.
Now Trump Sr. is following the bloodsoaked footsteps of Bush Jr. and Obama (in terms of warfare, I mean).
Trump has invaded and seized Venezuela, and he's threatening to do the same to Greenland. And he won't stop there. But bullies never do.
FYI, I am brown. But irrespective of skin color, I do not condone a warmonger getting or coveting a peace prize (a highly prestigious and huge amount involved at that: $1+ million dollars prize money).
Perhaps Americans and their NATO allies do not see such perspective, maybe because they think that blind patriotism and war-for-oils are greater than pragmatism and world peace.
Or maybe they think their country being a warmonger bully is justified, to "soothe the tensions".
In the annals of history, Obama and Trump will both be judged, on the same pedestal of warfare. And it won't paint them in a good picture.
The most powerful man in the world, must have a responsibility to help heal the world, not hurt it willy nilly.
The name, gender, skin color, race, religion - all these factors can pale to insignificance under the scrunity and expectations of the world.
Why do you think he got the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place? That's right: the expectations from the world, from what they thought is a pivotal positive change in history, due to unexpected (and hitherto considered impossible) ascension of a person of color to the highest position of authority in the world. They expected great things from him, because they knew he had the authority to do great things, and possibly, help heal a broken world.
He failed though, and proved to the world that he was just one more warmonger, in a long line of warmongers who have held that position of utmost power, to further break and wreak havoc on the struggling world.
Anyone in a supreme position of authority must be held to such idealistic yardsticks of expectations. Otherwise they will continue with such wrongdoings and continue to get away with it.
As the old saying goes:
A man is judged by his deeds. Or misdeeds.
To put it into perspective: the world is running out of time. Climate change, pandemics, etc., are going to bring misery to humanity. Now more than ever, we need the greatest most-idealistic leaders, who can work together to help the world and try to save humanity and this world before it is too late. That's what's at stake - the future of humanity and this beautiful bountiful world.
> To put it into perspective: the world is running out of time. Climate change, pandemics, etc., are going to bring misery to humanity. Now more than ever, we need the greatest most-idealistic leaders, who can work together to help the world and try to save humanity and this world before it is too late. That's what's at stake - the future of humanity and this beautiful bountiful world.
I can understand your disappointment, but at least from my perspective, Obama was the least bad compared to both his successor and predecessor most of those resepects, for example climate change.
And the wars you listed in GP - at least they were not out of greed. And he also got a lot of blame for not intervening in Syria.
The Obama prize was a problem that haunts the committee. I agree
But you are simplifying greatly. He got it because he reached out to Arabic leader to lower the tone set by George "crusader" Bush.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world."
Either way. Stating that you don't care about world peace because you didn't receive a prize. It is a bit childish. I would not let guy near something that requires responsibility. You win some you lose some. Get on with life.
The comments here smell of "real engineers use command line". But I am not sure they ever actually worked with analysing data more than using it as a log parser.
Yes Hadoop is 2014.
These days you obviously don't set up a Hadoop cluster. You use the cloud provider service provided (BigQuery or AWS Athena for example).
Or map your data into DuckDB or use polars if it is small.
It depends. I’ve done plenty of data processing, including at large fortune 10s. Most of the big data could be shrunk to small data if you understood the use case— pre-aggregating, filtering to smaller datasets based on known analysis patterns, etc.
Now, you could argue that that’s cheating a bit and introduces preprocessing that is as complex as running Hadoop in the first place, but I think it depends.
In my experience, though, most companies really don’t have big data, and many that do don’t really need to.
Most companies aren’t fortune 500s.
I used to work at Elastic, and I noticed that most (not all!) of the customers who walked up to me at the conferences were there to ask about datasets that easily fit into memory on a cheap VPS.
> But I am not sure they ever actually worked with analysing data more than using it as a log parser.
It really feels that way. Real data analysis involves a lot more than just grepping logs. And the reason to be wary of starting out unprepared for that kind of analysis is that migrating to a better solution later is a nightmare.
In many ways HN is Reddit in denial at this point :) Comments and upvotes that are based mostly on vibes, with depth and discussion usually happening somewhere towards the middle of the comment tree.
“Greenland joined the then European Community in 1973 with Denmark, but after gaining autonomy in 1979 with the introduction of home rule within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland voted to leave in 1982 and left in 1985, to become an OCT.”
It is very easy to read about Greenland gaining autonomy also in more detail. I don’t know what is happening on your end that you have trouble with it?
It’s a tiny country with very few people, it’s obviously not “sovereign” under the classical definition of sovereign. I no longer subscribe to the modern definition because I believe it is a twisting of language to make it appear that many nations are not in fact vassals of the American empire (Germany, for example).
To illustrate, if Greenland wanted to leave Denmark but Denmark didn’t want it to, could it? No, therefore it isn’t sovereign.
Even more on it but Greenland right now is unsustainable and funded by Danish govt. who is willing to fund it because it sees potential in the Area
But its still Greenland's which is sovereigen/autonomous. Trump/America right now are the opposite of it.
Also all the points trump makes is bullshit and danish govt and everyone is always willing to help since they dont want russia either in the area but yeah I do feel as if this is just a smokescreen.
> willing to fund it because it sees potential in the Area.
This is a very transactional point of view that you put on them. I would rather guess that Denmark funds Greenland because the citizens are part of the kingdom. Not because the "see potential".
Not everything is about money. Money is just means.
I am not saying that they are doing it for the money. Of course the national identity is something which can't be expressed within words but my point was that Greenland and Denmark have a healthy relationship (unlike other colonies) and Greenland is happy being part of Denmark for multitude of reasons and Denmark's happy too.
So if the sovereign people of Greenland chose denmark and think its right for their country (and they are given autonomy as well by Denmark)
I just don't see how America gets any right in Greeland and wanted to debuke the claim that Denmark can get the claim as well.
Y'know the thing is America effectively tried to bribe the average Greelander to get away from Denmark but they still don't think its worth it to get into the mess, that's how happy Greenland is with Denmark and prides themselves to be part of Dane culture and neither is Denmark interested in selling Greeland (quite the contrary)
In all of these cases, as such America got literally zero argument ever and that was what I was trying to say. It's got the same argument as that of "mine" or just bullying
Denmark has sold virgin islands to America once and also for greenland, they could've gotten complete support of Danish govt/Greenland govt to make bases/mineral deals even in diplomatic ways and they literally tried to say that
Up until now. I don't see why America would want to do such a blunder not unless they just want to have the flag show Greenland as part of America just for the sake of it which is such a crazy thing when you think about it.
Also Greenland's as close to Denmark (around 2000 miles) as it is to America, so saying its in America's backyard because the map makes one think so is a crazy statement too.
Are we 100% sure that these guys didn't just look at mercator map and decided all this stupidness in it with 0 reason? This seems so silly even a teenager can tell this so much.
> America effectively tried to bribe the average Greelander to get away from Denmark.
When did they do that? Since I believe approaching individual citizens to pay them for opposing the country they belong to would be seen as an act of war.
Well personally I don’t think the USA has a strong claim to Hawaii. It’s basically a strategic military outpost that got retconned into being a state after the war.
It’s kind of weird, like sure Wikipedia articles exist but it’s not as if people who have some position are basing their position entirely on the Wikipedia article and I can infer the structure of their position from the Wikipedia article. So I’m asking about what people think, and all I hear back is “reeeeeee”.
This is the first phase of the deescalation, that will eventually result in basically nothing.
And the world lost two weeks for nothing.
reply