GernmaiesFinn

i live in Germany and the first time i heard my full name called at an appointment i almost missed it bc they butchered it so bad. i just use the German pronunciation of it now bc it’s easier for the people here. it’s not that serious.

i would never argue with a vegan because they’re making the morally correct decision and i’m not. i don’t have any truly sound way to counter their perspective from a moral standpoint. so i just practice cognitive dissonance and eat my beef and pork and keep my mouth shut.

Interfaces in STAR WARS (1977)

As someone who's been writing military science-fiction for years, and have many friends in or formerly in the military (some of which are authors themselves,) I have something to say about this: If all Yoshiyuki Tomino has to say with his art is that "war is bad," then he should stop making art, as he's only going to waste our time. Any fool with two brain cells to rub together knows that war is ugly, brutal and costly. That doesn't mean war is pointless and should never be fought no matter the circumstances. In fact, such a statement is worse than pointless, as lethal conflict is a common constant of human civilization - and, for that matter, a constant among the vast majority of life existing on Earth, even between bacteria. If all your story does is shout "this is bad!" it's a childish lament that leaves a tremendous amount of this constant of human existence unexamined. Who fights wars - the elites, like the ancient Greek Hoplites, or the knights of the middle ages, or the common men who volunteer, like in many modern nations? What do they fight for - for the ideals of their beloved nation, for honor and glory, or to save the women and children in the city that stands at their backs? What defines a good soldier? What defines a good leader? These questions are just as essential for us as they were for our forefathers, because the world is a tumultuous place full of evil people and great dangers and the time is coming, sooner than many may think, where wars between great powers will shake the foundations of the world and the lives of millions will hang in the balance. To explore questions like this, of such import to our souls, is one of the core reasons people tell stories to begin with. And our tools and machines have always been essential to the conduct of war and the defense of all we hold dear. Men have told stories of talking swords or "tsukumogami" for as long as swords have existed; long before we could even conceptualize a thinking machine might be made with science; we dreamt of them existing through magic or spirit. Tools are what first brought us out of the trees to stride the earth as its masters; in the tools we shape and wield with our own hands we make manifest our intent, our will, our spirit. In the modern age, the vastness of our creations sometimes makes it easy to forget, but the human element is still the entire point. I quote from page 71 of "Shattered Sword" by Johnathan Parshall and Anthony Tully: "The study of naval warfare (more than any other form of combat) holds the potential to completely subordinate the human element to the weapons themselves. Naval combat is conducted almost exclusively by means of machines – machines that are in many cases so huge and grand that they often seem to take on a life and personality of their own that transcend the tiny figures that inhabit them. Yet, in the final analysis, it is men who live in the ship, command and fight the ship, and often die in the ship. Their story, no matter how seemingly eclipsed by the great vessels they serve in, is still the fundamental story to be related.” Its only natural we should be entranced with the great machines of war that we build, as they're the final product of the genius and labors of an entire society; fashioned into an incredible tool that is nothing if not wielded by the hand of a skilled warrior devoted to his craft and his mission. I know of not a single mecha story that runs afoul of Parshall and Tully's warning as quoted above; everyone seems to understand the assignment. The ones that don't are the likes of Tomino, or his fellow anti-war traveler Miyazaki. I can't understand a man who thinks fighter planes are beautiful but has little more to say about war than "it's bad;" he refuses to see that the beautiful form of a fighter plane follows its function, and that there's a savage, primal beauty in that function, like the fury that animates a thunderstorm. Or the fury and purpose that animate its pilot, for that matter. Tomino seems to think that "nothing of substance is getting across." I disagree. I think the substance came across very well, and many in younger generations just think that substance is woefully lacking. There's a cutscene in the Knights of the Old Republic, between Carth Onasi and Canderous, where Carth expounds on the difference between "soldiers" and "warriors," defining warriors as those who fight for plunder and the glory of conquest, and soldiers as those who fight to protect their nation and peoples - usually from warriors. He made a great point, but Canderous wasn't entirely wrong. As any fighter pilot can tell you, you need more than noble motivations to sacrifice and serve to be truly excellent - to overcome your enemy in an aerial duel, you need that urge to "lean in" to the fight; that competitive drive - a part of you needs to love the fight. Many soldiers over the ages have spoken of this; as Robert E. Lee said "it's well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." It's that primal urge drawn straight from our deepest instincts; that thirst to compete and win, that gives soldiers the fire and fury to do their utmost in combat, to win the challenge, to defeat those who would plunder their temples, raze their cities and enslave their women and children. That is the truth of war, every bit as much as the death and boredom and bloodshed and terror. And if you can only tell one half of that truth, because the other half doesn't align with your political or personal views, then I don't give a god damn what you have to say about it, or about the works of storytellers who do.

🥜 Peanut allergies plummet by 77% if they're added to babies' diets at 4-6 months of age.

these are in almost every supermarket chain here. this is what we mean when we say you don’t have bread in your grocery stores.

Rhodesian troops in the Bush War used a kind of reconaissance by fire known as "Drake shooting". Instead of waiting for the enemy to reveal themselves, troops would proactively shoot into likely hiding spots: bases of trees, rocks, thickets or anthills. The goal was to kill concealed insurgents without first needing a clear visual on them. They didn't waste ammo. Riflemen fired "double taps" or controlled semi-auto shots up to 12 inches off the ground. This targeted legs and feet or ricocheted debris upward into the enemy's face and body. If the enemy flinched, moved, or returned fire, it instantly revealed their position for accurate follow-up shots. This was a very effective counter-insurgent tactic for the terrain they were fighting in.

The NK - Ukraine Kursk battle memorial Seoul estimates were ~1100 Pyongyang showed 1144

An attack on the Baltic states is entirely plausible, and here’s why. There are at least three reasons. First and foremost: russia risks nothing. No matter how events unfold with the occupation of the Baltic countries, things will not get worse for russia. Sanctions are already in place. Europe no longer buys its oil or gas. Weapons are being supplied to Ukraine. From a purely military perspective, russia also risks nothing. It has nuclear weapons, so if it wins and occupies the Baltics, or even parts of them, no one will be able to push it out. And if it loses, it will not lose its own territory. It will simply retreat to its borders, and NATO will not invade russian territory because of those same nuclear weapons. So why not try? Second reason: the goals of the war. The objectives of russia go far beyond the occupation of the Baltics. Above all, russia is interested in weakening or dismantling NATO and the EU. From this perspective, any territorial gain in the Baltics would count as a victory. Even if russia does not capture Vilnius or Tallinn, but only a few border villages, that would still be a win, because it would demonstrate NATO’s inability to defend its members. So again, why not try? Third reason: russia has sufficient forces and resources in the potential conflict zone to carry out military objectives and achieve an acceptable outcome. In the Leningrad Military District, there is a combat-ready army of around 70,000 troops, which can easily be reinforced with reserves from the Ukrainian front. This army is mechanized, with around 700 tanks and a large amount of armored equipment. Separately, I would highlight the drone component, which has no real equivalent in NATO and could significantly shift the balance of power in the event of an invasion. If the forces are sufficient, then why not try? Thus, as of now, we are facing the following situation: russia has enough forces and resources to achieve its goals in the Baltics, and it does not face a bad scenario under any development of events. The situation is very similar to the one before the invasion of Ukraine, especially considering the law that allows putin to “protect russians abroad,” which was quickly introduced in the State Duma. The Baltic states have helped us more than anyone else, so I sincerely hope our friends will not face war. But to preserve peace, one must prepare for a major war. It is very good that our Baltic friends have learned from Ukraine’s mistakes and have built defensive lines and fortifications to repel an invasion. I very much hope that russia will break its teeth on the Baltics, just as it did on Ukraine. Source: translated and adopted from Serhii Marchenko

Hiroo Onoda was the last Japanese soldier who surrendered on Lubang Island in the Philippines in 1974, nearly 29 years after World War II had ended.