Within the UK, the UK's relatively special position within the EU was viewed as a guarantee that renegotiation in the UK's interest was going to be successful. Outside the UK - in Germany, at least - the same position was seen as a challenge to the foundations of the EU that must be squashed by just about any means; the higher the cost to the UK, the less ambiguous the message to the other member states.
I wish I had any answers or better yet, a way out to offer, but all I've got is ramblings from the perspective of someone who has lived on the edge between the EU and UK during (parts of) a crucial period. So I'll leave it at this.
]]>Tragic part #1 is that this is still being blamed on "racists". It's got nothing to do with that, I think, except that they often overlap with a group along another divider line: those who benefit from globalism, and those who don't.
Tragic part #2 is China. The economic boom there is showing that it was a bubble all along with entire newly built cities sitting empty, Chinese wealth migrating out of the country, and much of the bubble being financed by American money. I can completely see the new government dealing badly with that situation (and, to be fair, it's a bad one to start with never mind how you handle it). And then shit will really hit the fan.
Because if the Chinese economy collapses, the world economy will take a huge blow, and then we have more people feeling disenfranchised by the last decades of globalism.
Rinse & repeat.
]]>It hurts a little...
]]>Then there's the TNG episode with Scotty, which demonstrates that being able to store that information is possible (if hard).
At the same time, the replicators were considered to create adequate food and spare parts, but never as good as the original, despite being based on the same sort of technology.
The only explanation is that replicators use lower resolution; there's no explanation on how or why it is more efficient to only use sufficiently high resolution in transporters.
It would have changed the nature of the show too much, I guess. But it doesn't make much sense!
]]>In a strange way, magic is described as a knack for bringing a little extra order or entropy into the world than you'd do with natural laws of physics.
In this world view, engineering (of any kind) is a process of ordering the world. On the other side of the coin is anything that increases entropy, such as heat/fire, etc. It's a classic order vs. chaos duality, but from a fairly unusual perspective.
Cue an exploration of creation vs. destruction, and power balances you achieve with each activity, etc, etc.
Things other people said:
"The hack is gone. The fantasy magician is a trained technician, not a hacker.
And that's what I miss in most stories."
Completely agree.
"An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic."
That, too.
Both of these is why I mention Recluce; the most talented magicians are essentially those who hack the order/chaos duality. No spoilers, though.
]]>ShadowRun: had the same thought. It really falls squarely into multiple categories, if you want categories at all.
The only definition of SF vs. Fantasy that ever made sense to me was the speculative fiction angle: is your story predominantly a "what if?" thing, or is it predominantly taking you along for an exciting ride?
I have no issues with either, but at least it's something I can start using to classify stories. Other categories really don't make as much sense.
]]>