Skua

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

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.

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?