Other Random question of the day

When you don't know something, do a google search! (because I had no idea who Jimmy Neutron was)
 
Random question of the day:

Are YouTube channels that analyse fictional characters or fictional lore (The Vile Eye, TheProfessional, DarkViperAU et cetera) accurate in their research or are they woefully uninformed?
 
I don’t know any of the specific ones you mentioned, but it really depends. For the most part I wouldn’t say they are “woefully uninformed”, but there’s certainly plenty of cases where the research is surface level (how many X explained videos are just recaps with no additional information) or at least in presentation evidently skewed or mis-applied (your average powerscaler).

I certainly appreciate what a lot of Fate explanation channels do though, that is such a dense IP and info can be so hard to even get access to, let alone track or compile it.
 
Random question of the day:

Are YouTube channels that analyse fictional characters or fictional lore (The Vile Eye, TheProfessional, DarkViperAU et cetera) accurate in their research or are they woefully uninformed?

Death battle is fun to watch, but some of their “research” is just absurdly wrong
 
Random question of the day:

Would Mike Tyson's Punch-Out be a lot harder if Little Mac's opponents got him disqualified for not being in the same weight class as them?
 
No answers yesterday. What a shame.

Random question of the day:

Why doesn't Candace Flynn just use her phone to record Phineas and Ferb's inventions?
Candace actually has taken a picture of the boys before, but her phone was destroyed. She has also recorded them before, but something similar happened iirc.

So just heavy plot armor and luck.
 
They'd take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer of the week - but all of the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in case of purely internal affairs, but otherwise by a two-thirds majority.
 
Admitting that in this parallel universe peasants would know - let alone be bothered to know - what a constitution is, or anything resembling that, I'd say the main results would be mass starvation, short-lived rebellions and greatly slowed progress in Europe in most if not all fronts. As bad as the situation of a medieval peasant may have been, protection and land are things that aren't easy to acquire by those lacking name, authority, wealth or military assets of any kind. Indeed, the legitimacy in working certain plots of land, combined with the protection from the existence of army under whatever member of nobility owned the land were a big part of why peasants would work under such conditions.

What the scenario here proposes, however, is that a group of poor people with no form of military or even any form of self-defense against bandits/robbers, let alone spurned authorities, would seek to develop their own internal form of governing themselves and distributing assets, many of whom likely violating contractual obligations in the process. People in positions of authority can get touchy when you question it, and I doubt I really need to spell out that there'd be armies on that doorstep. So the peasant can submit... or fight. And likely die.

If there was any mass attempt at adopting these methods, I suspect royalty or nobility might try to cut deals that would give the illusion of giving them the system they wanted while really planting their own friends in positions of power, if nothing else than to prevent all the peasants from dying out and everyone starving even more... But too many I think would die before to prevent a great deal of famine, further prolonged by the lack of generational family knowledge being passed down for new peasants.

The combination of war, famine, and the resulting death toll is a destructive blow to any society that would shift focus from innovation to restoration. Adding to that, wider applications of things like constitutions would now have to deal with the stigma of having caused war and famine.

Ironically though, as a form of governance, I do think a less intentionally absurd version of what Lorsh Lorsh quoted could function in a very small village and in some ways be better for it than relying on more centralized authority. Local authority is more readily able to address individual local issues, and it'd be sort of like having a village chief, if the village chief was chosen by popularity and every decision that to pass trough a definitely too slow bureaucratic process.
 
No answers yesterday. What a shame.

Random question of the day:

If you think about it, would you say that being vegetarian is the human equivalent of being a herbivore?
 
What would the Mario franchise have been like if Peach and Daisy were the heroic plumbers and Mario and Luigi were royalty?

Probably would have been an entirely different style of game. While a female protagonist isn't necessarily indicative of a game being made for girls even back in I think it was the 1980s that the first Mario released, that distinction is more prevalent in games for younger audiences, especially facturing in the time period and that Nintendo is a japanese company. As such, making Peach the protagonist would likely have implied a demographic change, which in turn likely implies a change in the style of game. Mario would quite possibly not have had the key to its success, it's nature as a simple fun platformer.


If you think about it, would you say that being vegetarian is the human equivalent of being a herbivore?

In a very literal sense I suppose.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top