Isn’t a khopesh sharp on the other side of the curve from a shotel, though? It seems like sharpening the inside was the big innovation that makes shotels distinctive

Happy Birthday. Just because I want to see what replaces it

while a western sword was like the size of a grown man and very heavy. Because of this western swords just didnt need to be that sharp.

I’m afraid these are both wrong. For a start, there’s no one Western sword. There’s not even, like, one sword used by professional soldiers from 15th century Germany. Some of them were going around with zweihänders (literally “two-hander”), which were straight blades and really could be 2m long and 4kg, while others at the same time were using the messer (literally “knife”), which is curved, half the length, and a quarter of the weight.

They were also absolutely kept sharp. There was little point in maintaining an absolutely razor-sharp edge because that’ll just get damaged, but if it’s not sharp enough to effectively cut stuff then you wasted a whole bunch of your money buying a really ineffective hammer. And you absolutely would have just used a hammer if that was what you wanted.

There were techniques for using swords as bludgeoning weapons, but these evolved as methods to counter increasingly effective armour, not because the swords weren’t effective cutting tools. Holding the blade of the sword and using the crossguard as a hammer is one of the better-known examples of this. But that’s something you do if you do not actually have a hammer with you and nonetheless need to fight a guy wearing plate armour. If you’re carving through the four hundred peasants he brought with him, you want to cut stuff. Even against the guy in armour, rather than bludgeoning it you might prefer to hold your sword with one hand on the hilt and one halfway up the blade so that you can effectively direct the tip into the tiny gaps in the armour, at which point sharpness is very important again.

European cultures absolutely did have refined martial arts for wielding swords. We just didn’t put much effort into to preserving them once guns replaced the swords.

They look like youtube clickbait thumbnails

I personally subscribe to Asimov’s definition of sci fi:

Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology.

While Dune is full of stuff that’s just straight up magic, the story is very much about how humans handle the technology, even when the in-universe basis of the technology is essentially magic. Long before the story ever started, we invented AI, freaked out about it, and then had to figure out how to replace computers in an interstellar society. The main overarching plot of the kwisatz haderach is about the consequences of the “invention” of precognition, even if the means of the invention are very fantastical. Several major factions are basically “what if we did super advanced selective breeding on humans for a thousand years”.

Star Wars, meanwhile, isn’t concerned with that sort of thing. It’s an adventure of good againt evil in the most classic of ways. It’s sword and sorcery. Even when a literal world-destroying superweapon is a major plot point, it doesn’t actually take much of any time to think about what this technology would do to society beyond “be very scary”. The obvious point of comparison is nuclear weapons in real life, and the development of those re-shaped culture enormously. We suddenly had this craze of imagination of all the things nuclear power might do. Humanity conquered the atom and we couldn’t stop dreaming up new ways to wield this power. Most of which were fucking insane. In Star Wars, a power orders of magnitude greater shapes society no more than a particularly big army.

Star Wars is only interested in the characters, whatever technology is present is set dressing to allow for fun visuals. That’s not something I say as a negative either. It’s perfectly valid and reasonable for a story to take more interest in its characters than its setting.

Disclaimer: I’m writing all this thinking only about the nine main series films. Especialy the original three. I’m sure someone has written Asimov-definition sci fi somewhere in the Star Wars canon, “legends” or not. I’ve just never delved into it much at all.

“content warning: bad” is my favourite part about this

It is technically spoilers for Outer Wilds and also the DLC

On Impulse by Animals as Leaders. It’s significantly less intense than a lot of their other work, and while there’s still plenty going on throughout it there is definitely some actual space for a vocalist to work on, rather than just adding another layer atop of an already full soundscape. There is also a video of one of the guitarists playing their song Behaving Badly with a guest appearance from a vocalist, and it’s awesome. I like that she sticks to simpler melodies with notes held for a long time, so that she’s not trying to compete with the business underneath and instead kind of floats gently just above it

I also think that the Last Jedi is one of the better Star Wars films, so I’m quite used to my Star Wars opinions being the subject of definitely very polite disagreement

Star Wars is absolutely fantasy that happens to be set in space

By “bigger” here I should have more explicitly made clear that I meant in population and economic terms. A bunch of largely empty land is not that significant in regards to the international balance of power in North America.

This only leads us back to my initial question. If the point of NATO is to keep the smaller members dependent on the US, why do you think NATO is asking the smaller members to increase domestic production? If you think that any Canadian effort can only possibly be inconsequential, fine, that’s a matter of opinion, but according to you that is not necessarily the case for Europe (or at least, some European countries). So is NATO intentionally undermining its own purpose by doing this?

I ignored the part about Europe because the position of “NATO exists to keep Europe dependent on the US” is just as much at odds with the article’s opening of “NATO says it wants its members to develop national plans to bolster the capacity of their individual defence industry sectors” as it was when it was about Canada.

You said “The whole point is to make the vassals dependent on the US militarily which allows the US to control the politics of these countries.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to be asking about how this relates to Canada when you said “these countries” on an article that is primarily about Canada, and you’re now saying “The point isn’t to make Canada more dependent on the US”

If NATO was disbanded tomorrow, Canada would still have to work with the fact that its neighbour is a lot bigger than it. It seems to me that even if it cannot meaningfully escape American influence altogether, at least not for so long as America has as much power as it does, there are still always degrees of independence. So how is NATO wanting an increase in Canadian domestic military production a move to make Canada more dependent on the US? Or, if in your view it makes no difference whatsoever, how is this request relevant to it at all?

If Canada were to increase domestic military production, how would that make it more dependent on the US in your view?

That seems rather at odds with the opening paragraph of the article, which is explicitly saying NATO wants Canada to have better domestic production and planning

It looks to me like the first one was taken with the front-facing camera of a phone, and those often have a horizontal flip option

Svalbard, according to the photographer. It’s the second image in that gallery, there’s a little “info” button below the bottom right of the image

being too soft or too rough on the clutch is a matter of millimeters is ridiculous

On this point specifically, don’t think of it as millimetres of distance. You act based on how the car responds, not trying to hit a specific distance of pedal movement. You already do the same thing with your other foot - you don’t think “I need to press the accelerator down 55 mm”, you just press it a bit more or a bit less until the car is going the speed you want it to go at. Same deal with the clutch, there just isn’t a dial on the dashboard that tells you where you currently have it.

You’re right that driving involves processing a lot of information at once that nobody is particularly familiar with absorbing when they start. It is difficult and dangerous. That’s why there are tests and licences. But in much the same way that typing was once completely alien to you and is now something you do with little active thought, you’ll get there soon enough with the clutch too. And if you learn it now, you’ll never be caught out in a situation when there isn’t an automatic option available

Not to mention the disingenuousness of leaving out how they lost to Hindenburg and Ludendorff in between those two