• 0 Posts
  • 171 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 18th, 2023

help-circle

  • Think of foreign policy as a ladder, and you are the person in charge of your country (or at least their foreign relations). Each rung is a new action you can take to influence the behavior of other countries.

    The first step is formal communications. That’s easy, you’re probably on that step with just about every other nation. The next few rings are all other friendly diplomatic steps, things like opening embassies, making trade agreements, non-aggression pacts, etc.

    Now let’s say a neighboring country is doing something you don’t like. Your nation’s grievance with them will fall into one of a few broad categories: they are a threat to your security, they are a threat to your interests, or they are a threat to your honor (meaning your international reputation). Whatever the reason, your job is to change their behavior and none of the previous steps on the ladder have worked, so now you climb higher.

    The next rungs are less friendly, but are still diplomatic. These are things like denouncements, cessation of trade, tariffs, and sanctions. At the very top of this set of rungs, you close your embassy and demand they close theirs. You break off most communication. Finally, you tell the whole world why they have wronged you.

    Now you’ve done everything you can diplomatically, but their behavior is still a threat to your security, interest, or honor. How do you change their behavior? There are more rungs on the ladder.

    Going all the way back to Sun Tzu, generals have known that their job was to take over when the diplomats failed. This doesn’t mean that total war is immediate or inevitable. The military could conduct raids, surgical strikes, or enforce an embargo. Warfare is simply the top rungs of the ladder of foreign policy. Some nations climb it more quickly or willingly than others, but war exists on the same spectrum as diplomacy.


  • That’s a separate issue that we (meaning humanity, not just America) is still dealing with.

    During the second world war chemists figured out how to make cheap fertilizers and pesticides from petroleum. These two innovations shot farm productivity through the roof. Food became more abundant than ever before and therefore became incredibly cheap. Virtually overnight the biggest challenge to people’s diets was having too much, not too little.

    For the first generation or two living in this historic abundance, they had no way of seeing the coming health threats. Coming off of literally the entire history of life on this planet having too little to eat instead of too much, they weren’t with a “more is more” approach. Cost of ingredients was no longer a barrier to adding more sugar, more salt, and more fat. At least in the US, there was a brief “convenience” fad in cuisine in the 11950s, but gears quickly shifted to increasing portion size and improving taste by the brute force addition of more salt and sugar.


  • Alright, bear with me here.

    Back in the middle ages Europeans didn’t have access to sugarcane. Because of that, they never even thought to try to breed sugary beets and process those into sugar. The same was true for tree sap or any other possible source of sugar, because why the hell would it even occur to them if they’d never seen sugar?

    If a person in the middle ages wanted to make something sweet, their choices were to add honey or to add fruit. Honey was expensive, and the vast majority of the population of Europe were peasants. Honey wasn’t something they’d have around all the time. While fruit was way easier to come by, it was only available seasonally. So how do you make a sweet cake in the middle of winter? Dried fruit!

    So here’s the big kicker about putting raisins in shit: it’s been unnecessary for four goddamned centuries. There might be an occasional dish here or there that’s been made the same way since before sugar was available, but there’s no fucking excuse for it in like 95% of dishes. We live in an age where I - a regular dude who isn’t particularly wealthy - can go to the grocery store a mile away and find a dozen kinds of produce that were shipped from the other side of the planet where they’re in season. There hasn’t been an excuse to ruin perfectly innocent cookies with raisins for hundreds of years.



  • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.comtomemes@lemmy.worldSelective rage
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Mace Windu getting killed was the turning point and point of no return for the three film character arc of Anakin Skywalker. That’s a long way from “needlessly”. Sure the character didn’t have to be killed, but the impact of him being betrayed and killed was enormous. The plot of the third film (and the entire prequel trilogy) culminated with his death scene.






  • Yeah, and there would have been a bunch of punchlines throughout.

    Storytelling of any kind is about setups and payoffs. The comic has two actual, decent setups and zero payoffs. In fact all of the praise for the comic comes from people (including you) who explicitly said what made them laugh was what they "imagined*.

    It’s the creator’s job to actually provide a good payoff at the end. Yes, threads can be left hanging. Yes, things can be left to the imagination. But in this case specifically both of those strategies are abused to the point that the only way this comic is even passable is if readers are extremely charitable and provide their own ending.




  • The core of humor is doing something unexpected. “Willy Wonka makes turnips” is unexpected. The same is true with “Charlie doesn’t like what Willy Wonka makes”.

    The problem is that both of those things are telegraphed really early, thus defusing any surprise they could have delivered. By the last frame we expect Charlie to have a bad time at Willy Wonka’s factory, and he does.

    This comic is making animal noises into a microphone and Chuck Berry wants to slap the shit out of it.