#geopolitical events examples

[sharemarketinsider]

Understanding the Influence of Geopolitical Events on the Stock Market

#stock market #influences on indian stock market #how does the stock market work? #stock market crash #geopolitical #how to trade the news #geopolitical events meaning #geopolitical events forex trading #geopolitical events #geopolitical events 2021 #markets #stocks #geopolitical events examples #global economy and indian stock market #stock market investment #indian stock market #global impact on indian markets #world countries and indian stock market

[artbyblastweave]

Something I find interesting about the Lizard League is that these guys are supervillain supervillains, costumed in the classic mold- Salamander with the impossibly-skintight patterned-cloth costume, Iguana with the tight-tights-and-animal-headpiece combo, Komodo with that 70s-style strongman cowl-and-jersey, King Lizard with the Baron Strucker-style double-breasted greatcoat. These guys are unrepentant in their design. And in the comics, where the Sequid arc didn't happen till around issue 40, these guys were part of this established stable of villains who'd show up as fodder for montages and one-off fights where they needed to have a hero beating up someone who's clearly a supervillain, never mind who. That meant that their eventual escalation to nuclear terrorism after 30+ issues of low-rent stuff, and the ensuing clusterfuck, actually parsed as a meaningful escalation from the established status quo. These guys are breaking the rules. Supervillains do stuff like this sometimes, sure, but not this kind of supervillain- these guys are doing MCU-style unmarked-Kevlar terroristic supervillainy when they should be doing lizard-themed gimmick crimes or Super-friends stuff!

Well, no, that's not quite true. It feels true, but honestly there are plenty of examples of campy big-two villains doing flat-out nuclear terrorism pretty early on, actually. Just to pick some examples from X-Men, Magento did it in his first appearance, and the ANAD lineup's first real outing was to stop Count Nefaria from hijacking NORAD. Screwing around with the military's world-ending shit is downright commonplace for supervillains, once you start tallying it up. But between the goofy kid-gloves approach of a lot of early silver-age comics and the sheer volume of Stuff that's happened in the Marvel and DC continuities, the impact of attempted nuclear terrorism inevitably gets sanded down, it just becomes one more data point in the endless ebb and flow- hell, it can result in actual nuclear detonations, and eventually it's going to get sanded over. In the nineties, Vandal Savage actually nuked Montevideo using depreciated USSR stock. Is that salient, these days? This event that would have reshaped geopolitics had it happened in our world? So yeah, supervillains make a run on the nukes all the time- but it doesn't count if you do it in a onesie with your initials stenciled on it.

But Invincible, as a self-contained continuity, actually has the ability to maintain perspective and appropriately weigh a grab at the nuclear arsenal - it's very much not business as usual, it's not part of the typical cops-and-robbers runaround. It's not stealing a priceless diamond, it's not a bank job, it's not even rampaging through the city center with a giant robot. It's a credible attempt to end the world, it's a challenge to government power that they won't let stand, costumes or no. It's the government sponsored super team coming in guns blazing trying their damnedest to kill you from the word go, and its you trying to kill them equally hard because there's really no coming back from this if you lose. And it ends up that treating this situation with a commonsense level of gravity acts as a deconstructive backhand against every similar situation in the comics that ends with the villain shaking their fist and escaping at the last minute.

#every capeshit beat becomes fresh when freed from the cement-shoes of continuity #invincible #thoughts #meta #invincible show #invincible season 2 #lizard league

[bijoumikhawal]

hello! i hope it's alright to ask you this but i was wondering if you have any recommendations for books to read or media in general about the history of judaism and jewish communities in egypt, particularly in ottoman and modern egypt?

have a nice day!

it's fine to ask me this! Unfortunately I have to preface this with a disclaimer that a lot of books on Egyptian Jewish history have a Zionist bias. There are antizionist Egyptian Jews, and at the very least ones who have enough national pride that AFAIK they do not publicly hold Zionist beliefs, like those who spoke in the documentary the Jews of Egypt (avaliable on YouTube for free with English subtitles). Others have an anti Egyptian bias- there is a geopolitical tension with Egypt from Antiquity that unfortunately some Jewish people have carried through history even when it was completely irrelevant, so in trying to research interactions between "ancient" Egyptian Jews and Native Egyptians (from the Ptolemaic era into the proto-Coptic and fully Coptic eras) I've unfortunately come across stuff that for me, as an Egyptian, reads like anti miscegenationist ideology, and it is difficult to tell whether this is a view of history being pushed on the past or not. The phrase "Erev Rav" (meaning mixed multitude), which in part refers to Egyptians who left Egypt with Moses and converted to Judaism, is even used as an insult by some.

Since I mentioned that documentary, I'll start by going over more modern sources. Mapping Jewish San Francisco has a playlist of videos of interviews with Egyptian Jews, including both Karaites and Rabbinic Jews iirc (I reblogged some of these awhile ago in my "actually Egyptian tag" tag). This book, the Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, is avaliable for free online, it promises to be a more indepth look at Egyptian Jews in the lead up to modern explusion. I have only read a few sections of it, so I cannot give a full judgment on it. There's this video I watched about preserving Karaite historical sites in Egypt that I remember being interesting. "On the Mediterranian and the Nile edited by Harvey E. Goldman and Matthis Lehmann" is a collection of memiors iirc, as is "the Man in the Sharkskin Suit" (which I've started but not completed), both moreso from a Rabbinic perspective. Karaites also have a few websites discussing themselves in their terms, such as this one.

For the pre-modern but post-Islamic era, the Cairo Geniza is a great resource but in my opinion as a hobby researcher, hard to navigate. It is a large cache of documents from a Cairo synagogue mostly from around the Fatimid era. A significant portion of it is digitized and they occasionally crowd source translation help on their Twitter, and a lot of books and papers use it as a primary source. "The Jews in Medieval Egypt, edited by: Miriam Frenkel" is one in my to read pile. "Benjamin H. Hary - Multiglossia in Judeio-Arabic. With an Edition, Translation, and Grammatical Study of the Cairene Purim Scroll" is a paper I've read discussing the Jewish record of the events commemorated by the Cairo Purim, I got it off either Anna's Archive or libgen. "Mamluks of Jewish Origin in the Mamluk Sultanate by Koby Yosef" is a paper in my to read pile. "Jewish pietism of the Sufi type A particular trend of mysticisme in Medieval Egypt by Mireille Loubet" and "Paul B Fenton- Judaism and Sufism" both discuss the medieval Egyptian Jewish pietist movement.

For "ancient" Egyptian Jews, I find the first chapter of "The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words 1000 BC-1492 AD” by Simon Schama, which covers Elephantine, very interesting (it also flies in the face of claims that Jews did not marry Native Egyptians, though it is from centuries before the era researchers often cover). If you'd like to read don't click this link to a Google doc, that would be VERY naughty. There's very little on the Therapeutae, but for the paper theorizing they may have been influenced by Buddhism (possibly making them an example of Judeo-Buddhist syncretism) look here (their Wikipedia page also has some sources that could be interesting but are not specifically about them). "Taylor, Joan E. - Jewish women philosophers of first-century Alexandria: Philo’s Therapeutae reconsidered" is also a to read.

I haven't found much on the temple of Onias/Tell el Yahudia/Leontopolis in depth, but I have the paper "Meron M. Piotrkowski - Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period" in my to be read pile (which I got off Anna's Archive). I also have some supplemental info from a lecture I attended that I'm willing to privately share.

I also have a document compiling links about the Exodus of Jews from Egypt in the modern era, but I'm cautious about sharing it now because I made it in high school and I've realized it needs better fact checking, because it had some misinfo in it from Zionist publications (specifically about the names of Nazis who fled to Egypt- that did happen, but a bunch of names I saw reported had no evidence of that being the case, and one name was the name of a murdered resistance fighter???)

#cipher talk #I find Leontopolis fascinating because after the first time a bunch of Egyptian Jews built a temple in Egypt a second guy did it #And allegedly had a not terrible scriptural justification! And the temple lasted for THREE EXTRA YEARS after Jerusalem was sacked! #Never let anyone tell you there was only one temple #There's also other stuff but this is what I immediately had #Some books I have I'm pretty sure just aren't good to start with lmao they're about very specific stuff #Modern Middle Eastern Jewish Thought: Writings on Identity politics and culture is interesting and includes Egyptian Jews #But it's definitely got a zionist bias. It's mostly essays #I'd definitely recommend reading up on Joseph Cattaui and Murād Farag because they were simply so influential #Even though Farag was a dumbass that wrote the first Arabic defense of Zionism #Ya‘qub Sannu‘ is also fascinating- he spent a lot of his time defending Muslims to European audiences so some people assumed he reverted #He didn't he just took a hard stance on it. Also he got exiled for criticizing the Khedivate #All 3 are in MMEJT iirc

[thewriteadviceforwriters]

Hello! Do you have any tips for writing 'geopolitical' relationships between kingdoms in a story?

In The Forgotten Legends of Chima, there are tribes of anthropomorphic animals (separated by species) who have their own lifestyle and culture. There are certain tribes with more privilege than others (e.g. some are more rich than others, some withhold more Chi than others), which of course will cause some kind of resentment from others. Not only that, but the actions the leaders/kings take also affect their relationship with other tribes. The people suffer from all of this too; if a king, for example, dislikes a certain tribe, his people will also dislike it too.

I'm trying to write these kinds of relationships as realistically as possible, because TFLOC's story is almost entirely based on the coexistence of Chima's tribes. How do you, or any other writer, tackle this in their stories? Any tips? Thanks :)

How to Write Geopolitical Relationships Between Kingdoms in Any Fictional Story

Thank you so much for this submission, I'll try my best to give you a professional, and detailed explanation so you don't have to do as much research as I did (lol).

Introduction

Geopolitical relationships are the intricate connections and dynamics that exist between kingdoms in a fictional world. These relationships play a crucial role in shaping the political, social, and economic landscape of your story. By understanding and effectively portraying these relationships, you can add depth and intrigue to your narrative. I'll try my best to provide you information and help you explore the elements of geopolitical relationships and provide tips on how to write realistic and engaging connections between kingdoms in your fictional story.

What are Geopolitical Relationships?

Geopolitical relationships refer to the intricate connections and interactions between different kingdoms in your fictional world. It encompasses various aspects such as geography, history, culture, and economics. These relationships determine how kingdoms interact, cooperate, or clash with each other, shaping the overall political and social landscape of your story.

Why are They Important in Fictional Stories?

Geopolitical relationships are important in fictional stories for several reasons. Firstly, they add a layer of realism and authenticity to your narrative, making the world you've created feel more immersive. By understanding the geopolitical dynamics, readers can engage with the story on a deeper level.

Moreover, these relationships serve as a catalyst for conflict and suspense. They provide opportunities for power struggles, alliances, betrayals, and dramatic plot twists. When done effectively, geopolitical relationships can captivate readers and keep them hooked throughout the story.

How to Write Realistic Geopolitical Relationships

(Now, the good part.)

To write realistic geopolitical relationships in your fictional story, you need to consider several key elements. These elements include geography, history, culture, and economics. Let me help you explore each of them in detail:

Geography

Geography plays a crucial role in shaping geopolitical relationships. Consider the physical location of the kingdoms, including their natural resources and borders. A kingdom located near valuable resources may have an advantage in trade negotiations or military capabilities. By understanding the geographical factors, you can develop realistic relationships between kingdoms.

History

The past interactions between kingdoms significantly influence their present relationships. Historical events such as wars, trade agreements, and alliances shape the attitudes, trust, and animosity between kingdoms. Take into account the history of your fictional world and the impact it has on the geopolitical landscape.

Culture

The different cultures of the kingdoms are an essential aspect of geopolitical relationships. Explore their distinct values, beliefs, customs, and social structures. These cultural differences can create tensions, misunderstandings, and alliances between kingdoms. By delving into the cultural aspects, you can enhance the authenticity and complexity of your geopolitical relationships.

Economics

Economic systems and trade relations are crucial factors in geopolitical relationships. Consider the economic capabilities of each kingdom and how they influence their interactions. Trade agreements, rivalries, and military capabilities are all elements that can be influenced by the economic dynamics between kingdoms. By incorporating these aspects, you can create more realistic and engaging geopolitical relationships.

How to Write Realistic Geopolitical Relationships

Now that we have explored the key elements of geopolitical relationships, let's discuss some practical tips on how to write them effectively:

Do your research: To create believable geopolitical relationships, take inspiration from real-world history and geography. Understanding how real nations interacted can provide valuable insights for crafting realistic relationships between your fictional kingdoms.

Be consistent: Once you have established the geopolitical relationships between your kingdoms, strive for consistency throughout your story. Ensure that the actions and decisions of the kingdoms align with their established relationships. This consistency will make the narrative more coherent and enhance the credibility of your world.

Use conflict: Geopolitical conflict can be a fantastic source of drama and suspense in your story. Introduce clashes of interests, political intrigue, and power struggles between kingdoms. Utilize the tensions and rivalries to create compelling conflict that drives the plot forward.

Don't be afraid to change things: If you find that the initial geopolitical relationships need adjustments to serve your story's plot, feel free to modify them. As long as the changes are well-justified within the context of your story, altering the relationships can add unexpected twists and keep readers engaged.

Conclusion

Geopolitical relationships are a vital component of fictional storytelling. By understanding and portraying these relationships realistically, you can enrich your narrative and captivate readers. Remember to consider the elements of geography, history, culture, and economics when crafting these relationships. By conducting proper research, maintaining consistency, utilizing conflict, and being flexible with adjustments, you can create engaging geopolitical relationships that truly bring your fictional world to life.

(That was a handful of words lol)

Additional Tips I Use for Writing Geopolitical Relationships in Fictional Stories:

Think about the motivations of the different kingdoms. What are their goals? What are their fears?

Consider the role of individual characters within the geopolitical landscape. How do they influence or interact with the different kingdoms?

Use the geopolitical relationships to create conflict and suspense in your story.

Don't hesitate to change the geopolitical relationships as your story progresses. Flexibility can lead to more exciting plot developments.

Copyright © 2023 by Ren T.

TheWriteAdviceForWriters 2023

#creative writing #on writing #writing #writers block #how to write #thewriteadviceforwriters #writeblr #writing tips #writers and poets #royalcore #royalty #geopolitics #worldbuilding #fantasy fiction #novel tips #novelist #novel writing #new novels #original novel #fiction #short story #short stories #romance novels #politics #fantasy worldbuilding #fantasy writing #urban fantasy #character creation #world creation

[kokote]

The Korean War, which broke out on June 25, 1950, followed the example set by the United States during World War II of massive bombing campaigns targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Nevertheless, throughout the war, American leaders claimed that U.S. airstrikes were being used in a “discriminate manner,” avoiding harm to civilians.

During the war, the American military stretched the term “military target” to include virtually all human-made structures. Under this logic, almost any building could serve a military purpose, even a minor one. Nearly all of the civilian infrastructure on the side of North Korea was deemed a military target and open to attack.

“More than 428,000 bombs were dropped on Pyongyang alone, the number more than that of Pyongyang citizens at that time. The U.S. had completely reduced the whole territory of Korea into ashes by showering bombs of nearly 600,000 tons, 3.7 times greater than those dropped on Japan during the Pacific War, even using napalm bombs prohibited by the international conventions."

On December 15, 1950, under the guise of preventing the “communist imperialist” threat to world peace and the liberties the American people enjoy, President Truman declared a state of emergency and the necessity to increase the military budget given the “recent events” in Korea. About a month later, on January 15, 1951, Truman requested from Congress 71.5 billion dollars (840 billion dollars today, adjusted for inflation) for a new defense budget.

President Truman’s December 15 proclamation stated:

“whereas if the goal of communist imperialism were to be achieved, the people of this country would not longer enjoy the full and rich life they have with God's help built for themselves and their children; they would no longer enjoy the blessings of the freedom of worshiping as they severally choose, the freedom of reading and listening to what they choose, the right of free speech including the right to criticize their Government, the right to choose those who conduct their Government, the right to engage freely in collective bargaining, the right to engage freely in their own business enterprises, and the many other freedoms and rights which are a part of our way of life…”

Despite the U.S. state narrative, the U.S. sought the division of Korea to secure and advance U.S. political and economic interests in Northeast Asia, economically and militarily expanding into new markets and puppet states for cheap labor and resources.

Korea and its proximity to Northeast Asia represents strategic importance to the U.S., and the Middle East occupies just as important, if not a greater position, in U.S. geopolitical interests. Access to cheap oil is essential for the economy of the U.S., and since 1945, the U.S. has made continuous and sustained efforts to secure its grip on the region.

Back in 1948, the same year the United States divided Korea into North and South, the U.S. became the first country to recognize the state of Israel over the land of Palestine. From 1948 until this day, Israel has received more than $280 billion in direct military assistance and economic support, making it the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Israel has U.S. interests in formulating its foreign policy. U.S. and Israeli military presence furthers its economic interest in oil, controlling the trade route of the Suez Canal, and maintaining a monopoly on the extraction of resources from the Middle East.

The U.S. genocidal support for Israel’s crimes is not out of the ordinary. Israel is a carbon copy of what the U.S. did to the indigenous people of Turtle Island, and all the crimes it has since committed against anti-colonial struggles in the global south in the name of “freedom” and "democracy." Israel is a continuation of American and European capitalist expansion post-World War II and its project of European white supremacist dominance over the world. 

Their methods and lies for destruction are all the same. The U.S. pays, the media lies, and civilians are gunned down in the name of “peace”.  

Today Palestine shows the world the truth and depth of American intervention and imperialism overseas. 

#for the two people who engaged with my go posts here #palestine #korea #anticommunism #israel #us war crimes #gaza #imperialism #DPRK #north korea

[tanadrin]

@sadoeconomist

Something politically aware people on every part of the political spectrum from the left to the right think is true and leaders of the Russian, Chinese, Israeli, etc. governments believe in enough to talk about publicly and make major geopolitical decisions based on maybe is not just a crazy fringe conspiracy theory, could be that there's some truth to the CIA, NED, etc. having more involvement in these events than the video author thinks I watched all this stuff happen in real time, and I read your notes, which went over how Russian hybrid warfare succeeded in Crimea in 2014. Every major power takes hybrid warfare seriously, what's objectively stupid is your mischaracterization of how it works. Trying to astroturf a revolution out of nowhere simply by paying random citizens en masse to overthrow the government would indeed be stupid but that's not what it is. Your notes seem to suggest that the video says US was paying little attention to eastern Europe until 2013 but Russia was frequently reacting to imaginary US provocations because they are stupid. It's like there's a giant America-shaped hole in the video's narrative. Ukraine was understood to be a NATO-Russia geopolitical battleground long before Euromaidan, it wasn't just Putin shadowboxing imaginary opponents out of pure stupidity that led to this.

You seem to be operating on the basic assumption that governments don't do stupid things for no reason, or fall prey to obviously inane conspiracy theories. That's simply not true; governments are led by human beings, human beings are subject to a common set of cognitive biases, and when you're an authoritarian right-winger (as the leaders of Russia, China, and Israel all are right now), an explanation for your apparent unpopularity that pins all the blame on the CIA instead of your shitty policies and your attempts to cling to power flatters those biases.

But we don't need to speculate about the propensity of governments to do stupid shit, because we have plenty of historical and contemporary examples of governments believing in nonsense: Havana Syndrome in the US, AIDS denialism in South Africa, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Nazi Germany and Imperial Russia, etc., etc. And often these false beliefs lead to real strategic blunders: the Bay of Pigs, the Iraq War, World War II, etc. Sometimes world leaders are stupid! Like, leadership probably tends to select for some kinds of intelligence and ability--charisma, social intelligence, and so forth--but it doesn't automatically make you a geopolitical genius, or make you immune to believing false things about the world.

And the biggest problem with the conspiracy theory outlined here isn't just that we can trace its origin to a fringe American political cult, it's that it's not necessary to explain any development in politics since 1989. There is no problem in understanding the revolutions of '89 or 2000-2014 that CIA involvement is necessary to solve. Indeed, as the videos point out (if you would actually watch them), trying to use "the CIA did it" as an explanation adds considerable problems, bc color revolution theory doesn't work. It's based on misconceptions, misunderstanding of data, and a healthy dose of paranoia.

The only real problem is trying to explain Putin's behavior--and that doesn't require color revolution theory to be true, only that Putin believes it is true. And why he would believe something is true, when he has the supposedly vast power of the Russian state at his beck and call, is easy to explain: authoritarian dictators surrounded by yes men do not have accurate pictures of the world! From Idi Amin to Saddam Hussein to Vladimir Putin, there is a common pattern of authoritarian dictators losing touch with reality, getting really weird, and coming to believe all kinds of counterproductive stuff that flatters their egos. It would be an even bigger problem to try to explain why Putin was immune to that dynamic after 24 years in power.

"World leaders don't shadowbox opponents out of pure stupidity" is an assumption that seems wholly ungrounded to me. Why not? World leaders do foolish things all the time on large and small scales. World leaders make mistakes. World leaders can become paranoid and out of touch--and if they lead countries without functioning electoral democracies, they can stay in power regardless. World leaders are not a magic special class of human being. They're just people. And whether it's because they're your uncle who watches nothing but OANN and Fox, or they're the President of Russia and they have yes-men and the Global Research guys telling them only what they want to hear, they can end up making absolute nonsense a load-bearing part of their worldview.

#like putin has benefited from this myth of being hyper competent and calculating for years in the west #and i just don't think that was ever true #he's not some super capable genius supervillain #he's just a run of the mill authoritarian #who was willing to placate russian elites to get what he wanted #and once in power gradually solidified his power base #in a very run of the mill fashion

[cowboyhorsegirl]

Why do you think the MCU made an ults adaptation instead of a 616 adaptation? I have some theories but lmk know what you think of this conundrum

This is such an interesting question!! I will preface this by saying that I haven't yet read a lot of Ults or 616, and a lot of what I've learned of canon has been gained through osmosis from other, much more knowledgeable people in the fandom (@sineala, I'd love to hear your take on this ask!). That being said though, I think the main reasons why the MCU was adapted primarily from Ults instead of from 616 was because:

Ults had less canon to work with than 616, so it's a bit easier to ascertain a linear narrative that hasn't been rewritten and retconned multiple times. (For example, in 616 Tony had originally helped found SHIELD; this was completely retconned later on.)

Ults isn't as fantastical as 616, or as we all say colloquially, Ults is the grittier, 'more realistic' version of events that happened in 616. This would be particularly beneficial for a live-action remake, where the commonly held industry thinking is that audiences don't have as high a capacity to suspend their disbelief as they might for animation or live theater. The realism of the medium would necessitate a more grounded comics canon to build off of.

Ults origin stories lend themselves to the strategic vision of MCU Phase 1 much better than 616 origins. I think this is most apparent with Steve's origin: in 616 he was discovered only by the Avengers whereas in Ults, Steve was found by SHIELD (though I believe some of the other Ultimates were also there). I imagine this version of events would be much easier to tweak so that each member of the MCU Avengers had their own separate movie establishing background and characterization before throwing them into a very busy ensemble cast.

I don't actually think that all of these reasons for choosing Ults as the main canon to base the MCU on ended up working in the MCU's favor though. Like, Iron Man 1 is clearly set within some sort of nebulous Middle Eastern conflict that the US is involved in, for a variety of reasons. This conflict would have been easily recognizable to American audiences in 2008: at the time, the US has been in war in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003. You don't have to waste precious movie minutes establishing a war for Tony to be making weapons for when American audiences are already primed to fill in the blanks if you give them the implication of a war in the ME. The setup of a vague Middle Eastern war acts as cinematic shorthand to establish Tony Stark's background and character to a broad audience, and to the many who hadn't read any Iron Man or Avengers comics, this was their first introduction to Tony Stark's origin story. Additionally, the setting acts as a plausible 1:1 retelling of Tony's original introduction in 616 (elements such as Yinsen, the life-threatening shrapnel to his chest, and Tony inventing the Iron Man suit instead of building weaponry for the terrorists who had taken him captive are all taken directly from his 1960s origin story), revamped for 21st century moviegoers by changing the indeterminate Southeast Asian war from the 1960s comics to an indeterminate Middle Eastern war for the MCU.

However, you literally never see MCU movies dedicate themselves to this level of realism again, for good reason. Whatever cultural shorthand you draw on by placing Tony Stark's weapons-manufacturing backstory in the context of an actual real-life geopolitical conflict also comes with the baggage of all the Islamophobia, xenophobia, and imperialism that comes with that conflict. In Iron Man 1, the inciting incident that causes Tony to want to halt SI's weapons production is the fact that his weapons are being used by the terrorists to harm American soldiers. But what about all the hundreds of thousands of innocent Middle Eastern people your weapons harmed and killed Tony?? What about them, huh?! What about the instability that America has wrought in the region, Tony, backing up political capital with firepower that YOU provided to them??

Immediately, the MCU backs off of America's actual real-life military operations as a basis for their fictional world. I like to think that they did this because they realized that it's very difficult to make your billionaire weapons-manufacturer superhero sympathetic in a world where both billionaires and the American military are coming under more scrutiny by more people every day. I'll guess that the real reason has to do with the fact that those story elements made it much harder to sell international audiences on the franchise.

It's frustrating too, because to this day I would say that Iron Man 1 is one of the best MCU movies out there, but in my opinion, the reasons for this aren't that IM1 was the most realistic or the most plausible or the most grounded superhero movie. What drew me to the MCU in the first place was the emotional depth of the characters and the stories, a depth that I think is best exemplified in Tony Stark. As the MCU moved forward and began to (but never fully) shed it's commitment to realism, the movies started to lose their ability to tell emotionally-compelling stories with high stakes that actually leave you in suspense of the ending. The fatal flaw of the MCU is in believing that audiences don't have the capacity to accept emotionality in stories that aren't limited to the bounds of our reality, when the whole point of a superhero story is to challenge ourselves to imagine more fantastical worlds than our own.

#yanderefreud #signed sealed delivered #616 #1610 #mcu #meta #avengers #the irony of the WW2 in CA:TFA being more fictional than the vague ME conflict in IM1 #I suppose they did specify that it takes place in Afghanistan so there is that #i hope this at least answered your question! and probably several others that you did not even ask jfkdjsf #also to go back to your original question it is important to note that they do take a lot of inspo from 616! i feel like as the mcu goes on #it moves away from ults & towards 616 #but of course through the veneer of shittier & shittier CGI

[usafphantom2]

The 1,000th F-35 Has Been Built

Delays with a key upgrade program mean Lockheed Martin has yet to deliver the 1,000th F-35 and others to their customers.

Tyler RogowayPUBLISHED Jan 10, 2024 1:28 PM EST

Lockheed Martin has built the 1,000th F-35, but delays with a key upgrade program mean it is parked away awaiting delivery.

A newly produced F-35 is seen in its primer colors in Fort Worth, Texas. Lockheed Martin capture

Lockheed Martin has hit a huge milestone in F-35 Joint Strike Fighter production. However, that accomplishment, while outstanding, is complicated by the ongoing saga surrounding the development and testing of Tech Refresh-3 (TR-3) hardware configuration. TR-3 underpins the F-35's future capabilities, known collectively as Block 4. Delays with TR-3 mean that F-35s are being parked and not delivered after they are constructed, waiting for these features. So is the case for the 1,000th F-35.

Lockheed Martin

We asked Lockheed Martin about the status of deliveries of F-35s, including the 1,000th example, and they gave us the following statement:

"We continue to produce F-35s at rate and have jets in various stages of the final production process. Once these jets receive the necessary TR-3 hardware and final TR-3 software is available, they will continue through the production process, including parking, until they are delivered."

Regardless, hitting the 1,000 mark is really an incredible accomplishment for the controversial program that has struggled significantly at times.

As of early January, the F-35 enterprise has amassed over 773,000 flying hours, trained over 2,280 pilots and 15,400 maintainers across 14 flying services around the world, and flown more than 469,000 total sorties. There are now 32 bases and 11 ships hosting or capable of hosting F-35 units. As of now, there are a whopping 17 countries participating in the international Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.

Current and expected future F-35 operating bases/ships. Lockheed Martin

Demand for the F-35 has never been higher. Recent geopolitical events and shifting threats have spiked orders. For newer customers or existing ones that are ordering more jets, getting TR-3 jets and potentially Block 4 capabilities will be of significant value. They will be receiving a far more mature aircraft and one with drastically expanded capabilities and growth potential than past versions.

Block 4 will include many new features, including much-expanded processing power, new displays, enhanced cooling, new EOTS and DAS electro-optical sensors, and a slew of additional weapons that will really unlock the F-35's potential. Above all else, the jet's new radar and electronic warfare suite should give it its biggest boost. The electronic warfare aspect alone is the biggest advantage Block 4 will bring, according to the Air Combat Command's top uniformed officer.

Some of the unclassified upgrades are expected to be part of Block 4. The exact configuration is not publicly disclosed just yet. DOD

The current issue is that F-35s need a new hardware backbone and associated baseline software, collectively called TR-3, to handle the various demands of the Block 4 upgrades. TR-3 has and continues to suffer numerous delays in its development.

The increasing age of the F-35 program's current fleet of test jets and other limitations in existing test infrastructure, especially with regard to software labs on the ground, have compounded these issues. The first flight of an F-35 test jet with a version of the TR-3 backbone took place in January 2023 and efforts are underway to create a dedicated TR-3 test force with a total of six Joint Strike Fighters.

A US Air Force F-35A test jet. USAF

As of December, the expectation is that the development of TR-3 will be finished sometime between April and June of this year, according to Defense News. If that schedule holds, this work be done between a year and 18 months later than expected.

The delays have also translated into significant added costs for the F-35 program. At a House Armed Services Committee hearing in December, Representative Donald Norcross, a Democrat from New Jersey, said that problems with TR-3 had led to a $1 billion cost overrun. The full estimated cost of the F-35 program though the end of its expected lifecycle in the 2070s is currently pegged around around $1.7 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

USAF

At the House Armed Services Committee hearing last month, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt, the current head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), seemed less than optimistic about the likelihood of there being no further TR-3 delays.

"Relative to the stability issues that were that we're seeing, we are working through them. ... I wish I had all of the solutions in place that prove to me that when I do something in the lab, it's going to show up that way in the air," Schmidt told the assembled legislators. "We have a number of fixes addressing the stability challenges. We will get to a stable, capable, maintainable airplane here."

However, "the data tells me it will be in the middle of spring, but I would have had a more positive answer six months ago ... so I don't have a super solid 'I can guarantee you this date,'" he added.

After the completion of the development of the TR-3 package, these improvements will still need to be integrated into existing jets. The F-35 program is separately pursuing upgrades to the Pratt & Whitney F135 engines that power all variants of the Joint Strike Fighter, as well as power and thermal management systems, which will also be critical for enabling Block 4 capabilities. The issues surrounding the F135 engine have become a very hot topic of debate.

In the meantime, the U.S. military has made clear that it will not accept any new F-35s until the TR-3 issues are ironed out. This is ostensibly because the necessary checkout flights cannot be conducted on the jets until the hardware and its core software work reliably.

So, for at least another few months, the 1,000th F-35, and many others, are set to stay parked away waiting for work on the core TR-3 upgrades to be finished.

Contact the author: [email protected]

#Youtube

[peonycats]

(might become a block of text as i write sorry) do you have any thoughts on how bengal's personification(s)...work ? i am bengali but it's always confused me how to go about it. was there only one bengal before the partition ? would west bengal and bangladesh have a personification only after it ? i feel weird making bengal (if there was one before what we have currently, which... there's gotta be right ??) "into" west bengal or bangladesh cuz then i feel as though there's a very weird and at least somewhat offensive connotation on which one's "more/truly bengali" to put it lightly, ya know ?? but i can't see either of them really being born in the contemporary era cuz bengal's history is so ancient and vast ?? it confuses me sm i know i should probably just ask other bengalis but the ones ik irl don't really have strong views on this and i don't know any bangladeshis i can realistically ask this to 😭😭😭 im sorry if this has become an incoherent block of text

HEAVY DISCLAIMER THAT I AM NOT BENGALI OR SOUTH ASIAN!!

Tbh, don't worry about sending in a big block of text, I think this is an scenario/question worth considering. Basically, there are a number of ways you can go about personifying Bengal/Bengali nations, and each of them have their own issue, each of which have their own pros and cons, if my understanding is correct-

There was one original Bengal personification that was Hindu, but around the time that Islam reached Bengal and Bengalis began to convert, another Bengal personification arose to specifically represent Muslim Bengalis.

There was one original Bengal personification that began as Hindu and eventually converted to Islam, going on to become the personification of Bangladesh. No other separate personification arose to represent West Bengal/Bengali Hindus because this original personification still represents them.

There was one original Bengal personification that began as Hindu and eventually converted to Islam, going on to become the personification of Bangladesh. Meanwhile, another Bengal personification later arose to represent West Bengal/Bengali Hindus around the time of British imperialism and/or the Partition.

APPROACH 1

Pros + Reflects the current cultural division between Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis

Cons - Lowkey justifies the Partition of the subcontinent by implying there were already personifications split on religious lines predating British colonialism

APPROACH 2

Pros + Reaffirms the artificiality of the Partition by there only being one Bengal personification representing all Bengalis regardless of religion

Cons - Does not accurately reflect the irl cultural divide between Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis and the difference in how they view themselves

APPROACH 3

Pros + Reaffirms the artificiality of the Partition by there only being one original Bengal personification representing all Bengalis regardless of religion

Cons - By making the personification of West Bengal so comparatively young, this both inaccurately reflects the age of the Hindu Bengali community vs the Muslim Bengali community, as well as have subtle implications about which community is more "authentic and legitimate" based on this difference in age

Now, choosing one of these approaches will definitely depend a lot on what exactly you're personifying and the historical-geopolitical context at hand, as well as what messages you're not afraid to convey. For example, I personify Afghanistan as representing both Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan from talking to actual Pashtuns and how they view the border between them, as well as communicating the artificiality of the border. I think it's useful to recognize that the entire process of personifying a nation is basically mapping things like, a nation's ethnogenesis, rise to power, golden age, and eventual decline and destruction to human life events, is always imperfect and sometimes, the allegory falls apart; the Partition is probably one of the best examples of this.

As for how I would go about personifying Bengal? I would probably for a variation of Approach 1, where instead of there being multiple Bengali personifications split on the basis of religion, there would be multiple Bengali personifications split on the basis of regional and cultural differences. (Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am an outsider to this, but there are sub-groups and regional differences in language and culture even within Bengal, right?) Because of there being multiple Bengali personifications, some of them would be Muslim, some of them would be Hindu, and by the time of Partition, the personifications representing the lands of modern day Bangladesh and/or Muslim Bengali communities would move to join/represent the nation of Bangladesh while those representing Hindu Bengali communities would join India. This approach still has its issues, and may still validate/justify the Partition in the eyes of some people, but I go for it because it fulfill my most important conditions-

Doesn't make any of the Bengal personifications outrageously young

The Bengal personifications are personified based on regional and cultural divides that predate colonialism and imperialism

Them having to consciously choose sides post-independence and having to separate from one another accurately reflects the artificiality of the Partition and how it split up communities.

That's just my take, ofc, as a non Bengali and as someone who hasn't done as much research into the region as I'd like to, feel free to disagree and choose whatever approach feels most accurate according to you and your research!!

#ask #// long post #hws bangladesh

[empirearchives]

Napoleon as the black angel and Tsar Alexander the white angel

This is in an excerpt about Madame de Krüdener, a religious mystic during the Napoleonic era, from the memoir of Leon Dembowski, Moje Wspomnienia, Volume 1. (Source)

A bit about her career:

“Her literary activity was followed by various writings and pamphlets about humanity, in which she plunged into mysticism and presented herself as a prophetess. From 1806 to 1814, despite poor health and exhausted strength, she began to walk through Russia, northern Germany, the Netherlands and France, gathering listeners around her, handing out money and pamphlets.”

Her teachings:

“The principles of her teaching, both repeated in writings and disseminated by living words, consisted in implementing the principles of the early Christian Church and abandoning battles and wars. Moreover, the abolition of the death penalty, the return of freedom to subjugated nationalities and the strict exercise of Christian mercy completed this philanthropic system.”

In which she finds her ideas to be at odds with greater geopolitical events and social currents of her time:

“These sublime and beautiful thoughts, which probably once prevailed in beliefs, had few supporters in the era of Mme de Krüdener’s activity. All Europe seemed to be one camp, and Napoleon, on the one hand, and English intrigues, on the other, were completely destroying it. Everyone was thinking about the marshal’s baton, principalities, subsidies that Napoleon lavished, and while some were longing for constant conquests, others were thinking about how to break Napoleon’s yoke. Therefore, her apostolate, which could only reach places where the French eagles had not reached, did not really reach her convictions. Seeing that the path of persuasion would not reach her goal, she began to prophesy and predict the fall of the black angel (Napoleon), who would be struck down by the white angel (Alexander).”

What’s interesting is that the duel between Britain and France is diagnosed as the source of Madame de Krüdener’s problems, so she turns to a third party (Russia) to be the savior.

Her influence over Tsar Alexander I:

“As a result, Alexander wanted to know her, and it must be admitted that this partly corresponded to his inclination towards mysterious things, because many similar examples can be cited in the life of this monarch. […] Throughout all these years, Mme de Krüdener constantly worked on Emperor Alexander, having established influence mainly over his mind, pushing him towards mysticism, religiosity and abandonment of liberal principles.”

The author makes note that Madame de Krüdener and Tsar Alexander died around the same time.

Bold letters by me.

Pages 180-182

#Madame de Krüdener #Krüdener #Barbara von Krüdener #Leon Dembowski #Dembowski #Moje Wspomnienia #napoleonic era #napoleonic #Napoleon #napoleon bonaparte #religious history #first french empire #French empire #Russia #russian history #french history #19th century #france #history #imperial Russia #tsar Alexander I #tsar Alexander

[catocomet]

sumeru

ok yall. lets get into this. im sorry if this isnt coherent, i’m angry and needed to ramble academically

i really don’t care what white people have to say about sumeru. i mean this, genuinely and truly, i do not care about your opinion on the matter. this is not something you should insert yourself in. i would, however, appreciate if you sat down and listened to south asian and swana people such as myself talk about this. fellow bipoc, feel free to join the discussion. 

to understand the racist caricature that is sumeru, lets talk about orientalism and the exoticization of west and south asians throughout the ages. the “middle east” itself is an orientalist creation, being named for its proximity to europe instead of its actual region of west asia, and continues to be referred to as the “middle east” to this day. the french and english also had a huge role in the geopolitical breakup of both south asian countries (the biggest example being india) and almost the entirety of west asia. a side effect of this was the commodification of asian women into sex objects, and asian men into several different unsavory categories (too feminine, too scary, or just downright dirty and undesirable) or oversexualize them too. 

 you can see this happening in western media constantly, and may have even noticed the repetitive portrayal of SWANA nations and people. women are always beautiful, but not free, because many white westerners refuse to believe that women can have rights within islam (read about islamic feminism here!). there’s always a camel or something, they’re in the desert, and there’s a snake charmer somewhere. it’s repetitive, boring, and lumps every swana country together despite regional, cultural, and phenotypical differences between people. 

so, what does all this have to do with sumeru? maybe it’s the fact that three out of five of the upcoming female characters are in bellydancing costume. or that they erased all culture and meaning from the names of certain characters, al haitham being the father of modern optics and tighnari an important botantist, author, poet, and physician.  or that literally every character, save for dehya, is white as snow. 

that, specifically, can be chalked up to genshin’s rampant colorism / racism and the constant whitewashing of darker skinned characters. in the most recent event, xinyan just had a slight tan, and kaeya gets lighter in every piece of art that’s drawn for him. 

if you’ve ever met an asian person, you know that we come in all sorts of shades, sizes, heights, etc., and this is just not representative of south and west asia at all. the north african elements have also been entirely scrubbed, leaving a glorified jungle mondstadt. 

the issue also lies in the amount and the size of the regions they chose to base sumeru off of. west asia contains 17 countries, south asia contains 8, and north africa contains 7. though there’s been a lot of cultural trade and some things are similar, there just isn’t enough homogeny to get a good feel of what sumeru is or will be. 

tldr; sumeru’s bad. its not just the orientalism (from a chinese company nonetheless?), the colorism, and the racism, but also the blatant disregard for SWANA and south asian people throughout the entire creation process. i’m sick of people chalking it up to ignorance. they could have looked anything up at any time, but they simply chose not to. hoyoverse is not innocent. sumeru is terrible, and i’m afraid that natlan will be worse.

#sumeru leaks #sumeru #genshin impact #anti hoyoverse #hoyoverse #tighnari genshin #al haitham genshin #tighnari #al haitham #orientalism #colorism #racism

[mariacallous]

Across the globe, a diverse group of nations that view world politics differently from the United States are rising and flexing their diplomatic muscle in ways that are complicating American statecraft. From Africa to Latin America, to the Middle East and Asia, these emerging powers refuse to fit into traditional U.S. thinking about the world order. The successful pursuit of American interests in the mid-21st century calls for a strategy that attracts them toward the United States and its ideals but without expecting them to line up in lockstep with Washington.

“We refuse to be a pawn in a new cold war,” Indonesian President Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, said in November 2022. His views are shared in some form or another by leaders of Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. All 10 of these nations are either in the G-20 or have economies large enough to warrant membership. A majority of them have populations larger than Germany’s. Collectively, they make up around a third of the world’s population and a fifth of its economic production, while also constituting a major share of the so-called global south’s population and economic production.

In the next two decades, emerging powers like these will climb the ranks of the world’s largest economies and populations, reshaping the structure of world politics in the process. Their diplomacy is increasingly ambitious. And they are taking positions that run counter to those of the United States with growing boldness. Washington and its allies should accept not only that these powers are emerging, but also that as they grow stronger, they will not align with Washington’s preferences on many international issues, especially when it comes to Russia and China.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, most of these powers declined to join the U.S.-led coalition to support Ukraine, refusing to take concrete action with sanctions on Russia or weapons for Kyiv. Some emerging powers, such as India and Turkey, even expanded economic ties with Russia.

Meanwhile, several of them pursued active diplomacy to end the war, challenging the U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes.” Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, for example, pitched a plan to assemble a peace club to end the war and urged Washington to “stop encouraging war and start talking about peace.” Separately, Jokowi visited Kyiv and then Moscow, urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to start a dialogue. South Africa led a delegation of African leaders to end the war, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has maintained a working relationship with Putin and sought to keep diplomatic channels open.

Most of these emerging powers also have warm ties with Beijing. They are reluctant to do anything that would endanger their economic relations with China. On a visit to Beijing in 2023, for example, Lula pledged to work with China to “balance world geopolitics”—a phrase that implied upending American global primacy. Even India, which sees China as an adversary and has grown much closer to the United States in recent years, is very unlikely to back the United States militarily in the event of a war over Taiwan.

Washington thus needs to avoid the urge to frame this world historical moment as a neo-Cold War ideological struggle. When the United States appeals to the emerging powers to sacrifice their interests for the liberal world order, they suspect that it is simply trying to woo them for its hard-power struggles with Russia and China. Their officials are quick to cite the 2003 Iraq War as evidence that Washington is not so committed as it claims to the liberal international order. They point to the many cases where the United States has compromised on its high principles and backed autocrats. President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s campaign in Gaza has only given them another reason to doubt the veracity of American claims to exceptional moral authority.

Most of these emerging powers have limited political headroom anyway for ideological struggles of the kind that so often animate U.S. foreign policy. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar drove this point home when he pointed out that Europe’s ability to wean itself from Russian energy was a luxury that India did not have. “I have a population at $2,000 [per capita annual income],” he said. “I also need energy, and I am not in a position to pay high prices for oil.”

Given frictions between Washington and so many emerging powers of late, it can be tempting to disregard them and focus solely on countering Beijing and Moscow. But this would be a mistake. The emerging powers don’t pose a threat of the kind that U.S. adversaries can, but they also can’t just be ignored. China and Russia are certainly not going to ignore them—in fact, they are actively courting their leaders for political ties and market access with the hope of building a network of political and economic partners to obviate the need for ties to the West.

The emerging powers are also very open to China’s backing for alternative international institutions, such as the BRICS New Development Bank, that offer the prospect of infusions of capital without the bothersome conditions that accompany Western loans. They are critical of many aspects of the U.S.-led international order, which they see as dominated by former colonial powers and unfairly structured to serve the interests of the world’s wealthiest nations.

The good news for Washington is that the emerging powers don’t want to be vassals of China any more than they want to be vassals of America. They are not swing states ready to pick sides in a neo-Cold War. In fact, they actively seek a more fluid and multipolar world, one in which they believe they will have more leverage and freedom of maneuver. Many, moreover, maintain closer economic ties with the United States than China, especially when it comes to investment and defense cooperation.

Washington can make progress with these powers if it puts aside grand ideological framings about the liberal world order and focuses on developing a positive value proposition that offers meaningful benefit to their economic and political development, sovereignty, and aspirations for an enhanced voice in international affairs.

Although trade agreements have become politically unpopular for Republicans and Democrats alike, market access remains a powerful tool the United States has to this end. Other mutually beneficial economic arrangements are imaginable, focused on specific sectors and packages. So is cooperation on infrastructure investments, technology manufacturing, energy transition initiatives, deforestation, public health, and other areas.

Even when making progress on common interests, the emerging powers will also maintain substantial relationships with U.S. adversaries. Washington should not fall into the trap of judging the quality of its relations with the emerging powers by the strength of their ties to China or Russia.

Ultimately, the best way to engage with these nations is to help them strengthen their sovereignty so that they can resist the influence of U.S. adversaries and gain a real stake in sustaining a peaceful world order. This will take time and a change of approach but is likely to pay long-term benefits to America’s prosperity and continued global leadership.

[artbyblastweave]

So one thing that irks me about discussions of the NCR is the idea that "they're flawed because they're trying to be America again. And Being Too Much America is what caused the War" without differentiating between the vast buildup of Nuclear Weapons and Geopolitical tensions, versus, like, being a republic and having a large-scale central state.

What's your thoughts?

I think the NCR circa New Vegas is textually intended to be repeating the USA's downward spiral. They're in the process of recreating the core dynamics of pre-war America- overconsumption of resources driving imperialist expansion, capture of the government by moneyed interests, and a prolonged conflict with a peer power that's suffering under similar expand-or-die pressures- but they're constrained from a one-to-one recreation mainly by the fact that they're working with a post-apocalyptic resource base, with the scraps left over from the last people who went down this path. Peanuts compared to the Sino-American war, but likely as close to that situation as the post-war-world is logistically capable of producing.

You see bits of this from the NCR perspective all throughout the game. There Stands the Grass is propelled by projections of incipient famine in the NCR due to rapid population growth, and you see the beginnings of this in Flags of Our Foul-Ups- O'Hanaran was sent to the Army by his family to lessen their food burden. Chief Hanlon's very first line is about how the NCR is overtaxing most sources of freshwater within the core territory, and he recounts how tiny groups of settlers backed by NCR logistics were able to take and hold a well in Baja against scores of locals; IIRC there's a cut event at Camp Golf itself where you'd see NCR rangers doing the same thing to Mojave locals encroaching on their water supply. The White Wash demonstrates that the NCR's sharecropping setup in outer Vegas operates at the expense of the locals, who can only get the water they need to support their own crops via subterfuge. If you assume that Heck Gunderson's underhanded Brahmin-farming empire in Beyond the Beef is supposed to parallel the real-world problems with the sustainability of beef farming, you start to get a sense of where all of that water is going and what structural problems (Heck Gunderson) might be in the way of allocating those resources more sustainably. There are likely more examples of this storm on the horizon that I'm forgetting.

As a result of all this, there's a level on which I think introducing the Tunnelers in Lonesome Road as a dangling White-Walker style Looming Apocalyptic Reset Option hanging over the west coast was gratuitous, not because it's Avallone grinding his axe with the idea of society rebuilding, but because it's simply redundant with the political situation already depicted in the base game- If you want the NCR to have collapsed by a future installment, just establish that they weren't able to put the brakes on in time and devolved into a completely dysfunctional oligarchy that collapsed under its own weight!

(Now, as a final note, one thing preventing me from fully committing to this take is that we honestly don't have a fantastic sense of what day-to-day life looks like for the average citizen in the NCR heartland, which I feel is kind of important. Because if the textual situation is supposed to be that the resource crisis is due to misallocation due to interests capturing the government, I like that a lot better than if the situation is genuinely intended to be that there are Just Too Many Goddarn People, because that's like. Lazy and Malthusian and leads to the usual ugly conclusions pretty quickly. More and more it's looking like the upcoming Fallout TV show is leaning into the recent decline of the NCR as a plot point, so, uh, fingers crossed they stick the landing when it comes to fleshing that out?)

#fallout #fallout new vegas #NCR #new california republic #ask #asks #thoughts #meta #sorry for the delay in responding- getting back into a fallout mood due to the show #fnv

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

I am creating a world where there have been interracial marriages since like they met and it's been thousands of years since. It's a very interconnected world now with basically no racial purity (is there a better way to say that? because that seems rooted in racist vocabulary and my world is the opposite). The only people who do not mingle are those akin to the uncontacted tribes in real life. Mainly, I'm trying to figure out how to figure out what people look like - there's only so few people out that are very mixed race, there's too many that are mixed but only specific mixes like White/Black, White/Asian, White/Hispanic. No..now, this isn't taking place on Earth but they are still human and I'm only able to come at it with how real actual people look like. No, bascially all of my world will be people who look White/Black/indigenous American/indigenous Pacific Islander/indigenous Asian/East Asian/South Asian/Hispanic/etc... Everything gets mingled, churned up in the gene pool and spit out. I'm not sure how to go from there. There are so so few actual examples that are very mixed. Also, I'm not at all an expert at looking at faces so yeah.. a lot of times I'm not even sure what I'm looking at in a racial trait. Hell, there are real life instances of let's say, looking at a Chinese and Japanese side by side, someone can tell them apart and where the differences. I still have no idea what they're looking at. Hell even someone actually Chinese couldn't tell what the differences were. Of course, I don't need to get very specific in details at all, but I have to have some sort of description that isn't well a lazy description that says nothing.

Feral: So, this ask gives me the idea that you were raised in a pretty racist culture (I can relate) and are trying really hard to leave that behind. And I want to encourage you to push into real education. Intention is not enough when it comes to shedding what we were taught, often subliminally, and consciously relearning - and that doesn’t feel good the way the color-blind approach many nascent liberals tend towards does.

It seems like you’re still caught in certain patterns of thinking, especially in the idea that eliminating racial distinction and sublimating and homogenizing is anti-racist when it’s actually kinda colonialism in a fancy new hat. And the “races” in your ask - a mixture of racial identities, ethnic identities, and very broad geopolitical groups - already have a huge genetic diversity within them and in several cases do in fact already overlap with each other.

There’s also a misunderstanding of how physical traits are genetically passed. They aren’t amalgamated like mixing blue paint and red paint and creating purple paint. Skin color, hair color, hair texture, and face and facial feature shapes and sizes don’t just meet in the middle between what the two parents have - and keep in mind that this kind of thinking is usually only applied when thinking about the children of a racially-mixed couple and not of say a white parent of Italian descent and a white parent of Scandinavian descent. 

 And there are traits that can seem to disappear from a family line only to pop up generations later. A more diverse gene pool will not produce a population of individuals indistinguishable from one another; there will be even more diversity of physical traits - specifically traits that we’re not accustomed to seeing together in our more racially segregated world.

Utuabzu: Something you should seriously consider is the background of your world. Is this the planet humans (or equivalent species, but let's just assume you're asking about humans) evolved on or is it a colony? Because if it's the former then it's pretty unlikely that you could homogenise the entire global population without some sort of catastrophic bottleneck event, something that reduces the global population to a small number in a single location that then recolonises the planet. Because the reality is that most people don't want to leave their communities of birth, not permanently anyway. People like to live in the place they consider home, and to live in a culture they understand, and absent a significant push or pull factor they will want to stay roughly within their home environment. This is part of why you don't generally see mass migration between countries with equivalent levels of economic development and political/social stability.

Given that, it's pretty hard to see how you could get enough migration around the world for long enough to homogenise the gene pool. There's probably always going to be general regional trends. There's also what Feral said about how genetics works. Appearance isn't just controlled by one or two genes. It's controlled by a huge array of genes that we still don't entirely understand, and many genes impact multiple seemingly unconnected things. A good example of this is that the gene for red hair also produces pale skin, because it prevents the production of eumelanin (the black pigment) while allowing the production of pheomelanin (the orangy-brown one). This is also why red haired people freckle - freckles are made with pheomelanin - and don't tan - tanning uses eumelanin.

Now, if you aren't writing about the home planet, you could have a fairly homogenous population due to something called the founder effect. Basically, because when a new population is established the genepool is limited, the traits of the founding individuals can have an outsized impact on the later genepool, with normally recessive genes spreading to enough individuals that the trait they code for becomes extremely common. So long as the population is predominantly composed of descendants of these founders, this effect is likely to remain active - so, so long as there isn't mass immigration that outnumbers the people born in the colony to at least one parent descended from the founders. This is easily enough accomplished by having the colony be really far away, and thus having an unreasonably long travel time for most people. If it takes many years to get there, few people would be willing to abandon their whole lives to migrate to a place they've never been.

A final thing to consider is that race is not and has never been a genetic or biological category. It's a social one. It can be correlated with certain physical traits, but it doesn't necessarily need to be, and in many parts of the world the salient 'racial' categories share most phenotypic traits. In others 'race' isn't particularly correlated with phenotype at all, and is instead primarily about culture or even religion. And not every society even has a concept of 'race'. You can simply not mention it, and instead have characters with a range of phenotypic features that nobody ever comments on, and it can be assumed that 'race' is not a relevant concept in that culture.

#google submitted #evolution #race #genetics

[diabolus1exmachina]

BMW Series 8 E31 Convertible (one-off) 

 The roots of the current BMW 8 Series Convertible can be traced back to the 1990s when BMW mulled over the option of offering an E31-based convertible and produced a one-off model as part of the project. Very little is known about this project as BMW tried to keep it behind closed doors as much as possible. What can be said for sure is that work on the E31 8 Series Convertible began in 1989 and continued towards the end of 1990.

The fate of the open-top 8 Series was concealed due to a mix of factors. The early 1990s saw Europe’s economies in quite an eventful geopolitical situations. Upon fear that the 8 Series Convertible would not be successful enough in terms of sales to justify its high development and production costs, the project never got the approval from the BMW top management for series production.

What is known for sure is that, if greenlighted, an E31 8 Series Convertible would have been a drop-dead gorgeous vehicle, with a mind-blowing silhouette and epic proportions. The Convertible managed to accentuate the sheer beauty and elegance of the 8 Series Coupe one step further.

Likely, the Convertible would have been offered with all the engine variants available for the 8 Series Coupe. The test bed for the project was the 850i version, powered by the 5.0-liter M70 V12 petrol engine, developing a peak output of 300 PS / 296 hp.Imagine what a great collectors car would have been the 850CSi Convertible, for example. Powered by the heavily reworked S70 12-cylinder aggregate, the range-topping open-top 8 Series would have benefitted from a substantially enhanced powertrain and would have been capable of reaching a maximum output of 280 kW / 381 PS (375 hp). I can only imagine how bloody sensational and exclusive an ALPINA B12 5.7 Convertible would have been. Packed with 416 PS (410 hp), a manual gearbox, add in a sunny day and some gentle wind in your hair and there you could have had the recipe for a ride in pure style. During the project, the BMW 850i Convertible prototype has been subjected to both in-door testing in the aerodynamic wind tunnel and outdoor, on-street proofing, in camouflaged outfit like every future model.

Probably, as the rigid roof was replaced by a retractable soft-top, the E31 8 Series Convertible needed additional torsional rigidity measures to be taken, which meant extra weight was added to the car in the body reinforcement process. In the end, it was concluded that, even though it could have been an attractive proposition in the segment and for the 8 Series lineup as well, the Convertible variant would have been a slow seller given the market context of those years.

#BMW Series 8 E31 #ALPINA #one-off #convertible

[samlamwambam]

Star Wars: Clone Wars

Star Wars: Clone Wars is a series depicting the events leading up to the Star Wars movies, beginning with A New Hope. Because the story is set in space, Clone Wars uses aliens and droids as both antagonists and protagonists to signify otherness in human identity through war and conflict. For example, in the episode “Tresspass,” the dispute between the Talz, Separatist droids, clone troopers, and the Pantora signify a divide among the different species in the galaxy.

One of the main topics of discussion is the clone technology used to form The Republic’s army. From the movies, the audience knows that this clone technology ultimately leads to the eradication of peace and rise of tyranny. The brainwashing that the clones experience at the end of the series emphasizes the post-humanist practices of the technology that lead to loss of free-thought. However, Star Wars: Clone Wars views the use of cloning as a humanist practice. Specifically, the series highlights how the clones fight alongside the Jedi to protect innocent people from the deviant Separatists. With pre-programed loyalty and an elevated skillset, the clones serve as defenders of justice for The Republic.

One of the ways this series uses technology to symbolize “alien” monstrosity is through its depiction of droids and beings with mechanical body parts. Aside from R2D2 and C3PO, all droids in this series are viewed as expendable. While many of the Separatist droids throughout the season express dread or excitement, to the Jedi, the droids are nothing more than monstrous killing machines. The mechanicalization of these characters isolate them from other living beings. Later on in this saga, the correlation of mechanical body parts to loss of humanity can be seen with Anakin Skywalker's transition to Darth Vader.

In the episode, the Pantora Chairman refuses to resolve the conflict peacefully by acknowledging the Talz, who have been occupying the planet for much longer, as an equal people. This reflects the geopolitical concern of colonization and civilizations that deviated from European social norms were viewed as “primitive.” According to the Chairman, because the Talz do not speak English, are not official members of The Republic, and are not technologically advanced enough to have access to space travel, “they are savages.”

Clone Wars draws from Jabolonski’s take on humanity in science fiction by using the humanity of the Jedi as a baseline for how alien species are judged. For instance, the Talz are initially labled as a hostile race because of their lack of access to technology, but are shown empathy by the Jedi when they reciprocate humanist values of tolerance and respect. Meanwhile, the clone troopers, while created artificially, fight alongside the Jedi as they reflect all the basic human connotations: emotions, empathy, and humor. Lastly, the separatist droids are far from human as they are 100% machine, making them the perfect enemy for the Jedi.

Discussion Questions:

To what extent do you think Star Wars: Clone Wars reflects how our world deals with political and military conflict? 

Should we use the common science fiction narrative of robots as the enemy to limit technological advancement and hold back the development of advanced robots? 

What impact do you think the expansion of our universe to different species of aliens would have on our world’s conception of race and culture barriers?

@theuncannyprofessoro

#oxyspeculativetv #Youtube