TikTok users are freaking out over a mention of "immigration status" data collection, but lawyers explain the disclosure is related to state privacy laws.

Apple shipped a record 14 million iPhones in India in 2025 and gained market share.

Hexus founder and CEO Sakshi Pratap, who previously held engineering roles at Walmart, Oracle, and Google, tells TechCrunch that her San Francisco-based team has already joined Harvey, while the startup's India-based engineers will come onboard once Harvey establishes a Bangalore office.

“They would not believe it, because it is the unthinkable. That is why we can get away with it.” -Unknown Yes, it is the unthinkable! Why would the modern American Church stand down concerning the homosexual agenda?  Why are politicians in Washington D.C. voting in favor of what God calls an abomination? The wide-spread acts of pedophiles …

Foreign Affairs The Right and the Wrong Way to Get Greenland A Compact of Free Association makes more sense than annexation. Donald Trump wants Greenland—by any means necessary. The president imposed tariffs on Europe last weekend, vowing to raise them even further if the Danish territory isn’t turned over to America. European leaders have pledged defiance against Trump’s action and insist that Greenland is not for sale.  It’s a tense situation, but it appears a meeting on Wednesday may have defused it. Trump announced after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that a deal framework may soon be worked out, and he backed away from tariffs. It’s a good sign that a serious resolution may be found for the Greenland affair. There are plenty of ways to resolve this situation that allow Europe to save face and for America to have a greater footprint in Greenland.  America should not turn Europe into an enemy, nor abuse our ally Denmark. But it is in the national interest to have a more secure footing in Greenland, especially with the Arctic sea lanes opening and the possibility of greater mineral extraction. It would be dangerous to allow Greenland to fall into the orbit of a geopolitical foe. A new deal with Europe could resolve this matter. There are right and wrong ways to go about this. Trump’s tariff strategy is the wrong way to go about it and should not be revived. It would rip up a great deal America made last year and likely stiffen European resistance. An overtly coercive action like this isn’t in America’s best interest, especially if we don’t even get Greenland in the end. It’s important to understand the latest tariffs from the standpoint of the president’s own protectionism. Trump made it clear last year that he wanted to put America first with trade policy. He instituted a radical tariff regime that shocked markets and foreign nations alike. Some observers predicted it would destroy the world economy. It did no such thing. Instead, it forced many countries to negotiate new trade agreements with America that greatly favored the U.S.  The European Union deal was the triumph of Trump’s trade strategy. Despite European leaders vowing to never surrender on Trump’s demands, they caved to most of what he wanted. The EU agreed to dramatically lower tariffs on a variety of American goods while agreeing to a baseline 15 percent tariff on a number of European imports. It was lopsidedly in favor of America and presented Trump with a major win. “I think it’s the biggest deal ever made,” Trump said of the deal last July. However, tariff threats can destroy that deal. The EU parliament paused it “indefinitely” after Trump announced his new threats. Prominent politicians such as Jordan Bardella, leader of the right-populist French National Rally, have called on Europe to scrap the deal entirely. It doesn’t look good for America to get tremendous concessions out of Europe, and then up the ante six months later on a separate issue.  Fortunately, Trump changed his mind. Trump knows that it’s important for a businessman to stick to his word in order to make deals. No one will make deals with someone they can’t trust to hold up their end of the bargain. The same applies to diplomacy. Other countries are going to be leery of making deals with America if we don’t stick to our word. This will especially hurt Trump’s much-valued trade agenda. He wants to make terrific deals like the one he made with the EU. But if he rips that up, then other countries will be less inclined to do business. Even if we did get Greenland out of the tariff threats, it could still significantly damage our diplomatic power around the world. The Arctic territory might not be worth that. Trump’s announcement signals progress and a way for all sides to come away satisfied. If Trump still insists on getting Greenland, there is an idea that would serve the national interest and allow Europeans to ease their wounded pride. Outright annexation likely wouldn’t go over so well. Polls show a strong majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark but don’t want to be part of America. Greenland is dependent on Danish subsidies, which is one of the reasons why it hasn’t separated yet. If it separates, it will need a foreign patron to support it. There is already a way for America to make Greenland firmly a part of the American sphere and allow it to be independent. It’s called a Compact of Free Association (COFA). This agreement allows for an independent state to be closely aligned with America. The Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia are all Freely Associated States under this framework. In return for allowing military bases and economic projects, these states receive plenty of American subsidies. The agreement blocks out foreign powers and keeps the territories firmly in our sphere. This is important when considering the situation with the Chagos Archipelago. Britain agreed to hand over the Indian Ocean islands to China-aligned Mauritius after facing international pressure over its “colonialist” domain. The matter now presents a serious issue for America, as it undermines the ability to maintain a joint British-American military base on the islands.  Something like this could be replicated in Greenland. China is interested in the island. As Denmark and Europe continue to build up their economic partnerships with the Middle Kingdom, the chances of Chinese intrusion into the Arctic territory increase. America should make a new deal to prevent this possibility.  A COFA offers a nice compromise for all parties. Denmark is no longer on the hook for expensive subsidies, Greenlanders get their independence, and America gets greater security guarantees. It’s the right way to get Greenland for the U.S. The post The Right and the Wrong Way to Get Greenland appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Opposing Greenland’s Annexation Should Be About Sovereignty, Not Saving NATO A more principled stance from Europe would find broader appeal outside the Western world. Credit: Kin Cheung/Getty Images President Donald Trump’s continued efforts to seize and annex Greenland have shaken many in the European security policy establishment. Instead of narrowly focusing on the indispensability of sovereignty and potentially finding common cause with the Global South, European leaders and policymakers have prioritized the preservation of a military alliance by largely focusing their criticism of the Trump administration on the basis of Denmark being a reliable and longstanding NATO ally. By seeking to distinguish themselves from the non-West and by continuing to pay lip service to supposed Russian and Chinese security threats in the Arctic, European governments are implicitly legitimizing the logic of aggressive expansion while seeking to carve out a European exception.  With many European leaders having either overtly or tacitly condoned the U.S.–Israeli bombing of Iran and the United States’ subsequent kidnapping of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, governments across the continent have already weakened global sovereignty norms in a bid to shore up U.S. commitments to NATO. In trying to ward off an American invasion, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen even argued that the island’s situation is not comparable to Venezuela on the basis that the former is democratic and the latter is not.  But by arguing that some places should not be conquered on non-sovereignty grounds, Atlanticists are arguing that all states are equal but some are more equal than others.  Danish, European, and NATO officials have sought to placate Trump by agreeing with the claim that Russia and China pose a threat to the Arctic in general and to Greenland in particular. When answering a question on Greenland, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte even credited Trump with bringing attention to the alleged Russo-Chinese dangers to Arctic security:  ​​It was President Trump, in his first term, as I said, who basically alerted us to the fact that sea lanes are opening up, that Russia and China are more active, and that you have to do more there together. Of course, as NATO chief, Rutte has a strong incentive to affirm the U.S. president’s views on Russian and Chinese aggression to preserve American support for the alliance. However, by buying into Trump’s rhetoric, opponents of Greenland’s annexation are radically inflating the supposed threat to the island and distracting from the core issue of sovereignty. In the case of Russia’s Arctic posturing, little has changed since February 2022. According to Kristian Friis, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, “despite claims to the contrary, military day-to-day business in the European Arctic remains relatively unchanged. Russia’s activities appear to signal a desire to maintain the status quo rather than revisionist stance [sic].” Meanwhile, China’s Arctic presence is a direct result of Western efforts to isolate Russia and China. A senior fellow at the Institute of the North, Barry Scott Zellen, notes that  the Moscow-Beijing Arctic alignment has been in lockstep with the West’s economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia, and the increasingly militarized efforts by America and its partners to sever trade links tying Russia’s Arctic energy resources to European markets. European statements, whether by national leaders or by the EU’s Commission and Council presidents, have mentioned the importance of sovereignty. However, even these statements frontloaded the importance of Arctic security and the survival of NATO instead of beginning and ending with sovereignty. Efforts to justify Danish/Greenlandic territorial integrity on the basis of being an American ally not only assume only U.S. allies are uniquely worthy of sovereignty but also gives way to mythmaking. In a piece for The Atlantic, Tom Nichols offered as evidence that Denmark was “our ally during the world wars of the 20th century,” despite the fact that Denmark was neutral during the entirety of the First World War and under German occupation for almost the entirety of the second, with the government staying in place in Copenhagen. Though the article has since been corrected, the view that World War II and the transatlantic legacy it spawned are reasons not to annex territory continues to predominate in Western discourse. European officials and Beltway commentators are not the only ones accidentally affirming the legitimacy of military aggressiveness with a North Atlantic carve out. U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the ​​NATO Unity Protection Act, which would prevent the Pentagon from using its funds “to blockade, occupy, annex, conduct military operations against, or otherwise assert control over the sovereign territory of a NATO member state.” Considering that the Charter of the United Nations already prohibits such unilateral actions, efforts by members of Congress to protect only 31 foreign countries from American use of force undermine the territorial integrity and sovereignty of more than 160 UN member states. Defenders of Danish sovereignty over Greenland should not try to emphasize Copenhagen’s steadfast military alliance with Washington, which has resulted in the loss of Danish lives in disastrous wars like Iraq. Instead, sovereignty needs to be safeguarded on its own merits. If not being a (good enough) ally is sufficient to make one the subject of conquest, then most of the world could be taken over. As long as Europe continues to frame Greenland as a moral position while ignoring territorial violations elsewhere, the continent will continue to be increasingly marginalized by the non-Western global majority. However, if Europe links Greenland’s sovereignty to a defense of the sovereignty of all states, the fate of the icy island may transcend its current state of being a transatlantic psychodrama. The post Opposing Greenland’s Annexation Should Be About Sovereignty, Not Saving NATO appeared first on The American Conservative.

What were they thinking? The post The disastrous attempt to turn ‘Sgt Pepper’ into a musical first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

from The National Pulse: Housing affordability is one of the defining issues in American life. President Trump waxed lyrical about it from the stage at Davos this week, decrying major corporations for gobbling up U.S. housing stock. “Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters,” the President told the World […]

Everyone from Ozzy to Voivod has covered this groundbreaking masterpiece