krokietnik

[krokietnik]

Pictured: Umberto Eco pondering about economics of hotel amenities since at least 1980s when he could find a bottle of shoe polish in the bathroom, but no tooth brush or paste. Also- his suitcases used to have wheels on narrow edge causing all problems with balance. And he had an adventure involving salmon and hotel minifridge. When my school started to put boxes with pads in toilets there were voices about therrible things it will cause. None of them belonged to people that I would describe as reasonable in any capacity.

Isnt it weird that hotel rooms provide toilet paper, tissues, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, soap, and ive even seen some provide make removal wipes, but I’ve never seen a single one provide pads or tampons?

[krokietnik]

And that's what the calling cards were for. Because if you relly didn't find somebody at home, you would leave a card to make thic count.

watching bridgerton and obviously there were a lot of things wrong with the way socializing has worked in the past, but honestly the idea of a "calling hour" is so appealing. office hours for friendship. you can show up unannounced at my home between 1 and 3pm. you must leave by 3pm. I may give you a pastry. lets bring that back

[krokietnik]

Sobieski and Poniatowski. Two Polish kings painted by XIX century artist Jan Matejko. Sobieski was a warrior, elected king after another succesful campaign. Lion of Lehistan. Movies made of him. Yet he looks tired. His helmet put away, hands gasps the ceremonial maces, but he look tired and dare I say- suffocated? Cuffs looks like shackles. Poniatowski was a minor nooble who caught the eye of Catherine the Great. She secured his election with batallions of troops. She tought she will be her lap dog, allowing her to rule by proxy. Poland was planed to be an extension of Russia. Well, yes, except no. New king with a bunch of his friends took whatever they could in their own hand. Reformed education. Waited till right moment to give Poland constitution. Newspapers. Proper Theater. Make Polish a language of education. Even when all three neightbouring countries decided to conquer and divide his land. Sobieski died seeing that his biggest victories turning to dust. Poniatowski lost everything- but on this portrait he stands proud. No matter what, he won't put away this paper. Ready to leave the frame and face whatever awaits him beyond the frame.

[krokietnik]

Also- the rules were more flexible than one might think, often changed and adopted to suit the situation.

When the dynasty run out of the male heirs Polish nobles decided there's no rule that would prevent female descendant to become king and form a ruling couple with arragned naightbour prince. They pulled it twice. First time- Hedvig died in childbirth leaving her husband in precarious position. But no one important wanted him to leave so they quickly found him a princess who was a descendant of previous fynasty through female line. Second time- the hopes for new heir were just a courtesy, since Anne was a bit over 50. But after her husband died- her nephew just came of age, allowing her to succefully campaign for him in next election.

Throne seems like dynastical but de facto is elected and there's always a slim chance someone will rally just enough support to start a crisis? Make election vivente rege (during king's lifetime) and elect little lad to save yourself a stress.

Dynasty died for good in male line? Look around who is the closest in female line and negotiate- maybe they want another kingdom? And if not- maybe they can spare a son?

We often think of a monarchy as passing down power from father to son or parent to oldest child but that’s highly based around the official English system.

Historically that’s not necessarily how it always worked. That’s why you get so many wars of succession going on especially when the previous king forgot to appoint an heir in time.

The eldest son wasn’t always guaranteed a spot. It could be the king’s brother, or one of his other sons, or his nephew.

Some countries have also historically had a very strict no girls allowed policy. England has mostly prioritized men but keeping it within the previous monarch’s children is of a higher priority than no girls allowed. In some countries the no girls allowed policy is more important so that’s how you might end up with a monarch with many children who appoints his nephew or cousin or something as his heir. Either because all of his kids are girls or because his sons are too young or because his sons are idiots and he doesn’t like them.

Then there’s stuff like the Roman system where you could adopt an adult for inheritance purposes. So you could take an adult man and say for legal reasons this is my son now and he is in the running to inherit my position.

And all this confusion is why the English put into place a playbook on how to do a line of succession. They really simplified it. Oldest son that is an Anglican and has never been Catholic, go to daughters if no sons available, go to next oldest brother or brother’s kids if no children. Keep going up the family tree to look for more heirs if no siblings. Gender requirements were eventually removed. They’ve got everyone mapped out. No confusion about who’s in line for what and when.

Historically though this has almost never been the norm. There’s been so many wars and rebellions in history because people didn’t like who the last guy appointed as his heir.

[krokietnik]

I was about 10 when someone abadoned a dog on our doorsteps.

I found a little one and of course exclaimed that we must adopt her. My parents quietly were not fans, but they hid his their feelings and took a gamble. Well I wasn't a dog person. After several weeks of dutifully taking care I started to resent it as it wasn't what it was drummed to be by books and movies. And I felt terrible because I was supposed to love it? Children dream of dogs and only bad people abandon their animals? Allmy friends had dogs and loved them. We rehomed her and I was ashamed that I felt relief. At least my parents took the blame and told my friends parents that it was their decision because of them working two jobs each, costs etc. allowing me to save face.

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[krokietnik]

For me glass jars. Especially with twist lids. Even old timely Wecks or Mason jars are pushing it. Food storage container must be foolproof and east to replace. Mass production of glass that was able to withold pressure, heat and cold dates back to XIX century. You could probably use it to preserve and store something expensive and in small quantities- but for anything requiring fermentation you will be better with wood and glazed ceramic would be cheaper and aviliable in more sizes for anything else (like meat under lard or wax covered fruits or vegetables)

(Reposted because someone pointed out that anyone who's unfamiliar with the history of canning would probably interpret "canned food" as meaning food in modern aluminum cans and automatically vote for that one; this option has been rephrased for clarity.)

[krokietnik]

It isn't written that he was cored, he did not die by next year.

While rickets was rampant around slum children we can't exclude bone tuberculosis (can go into remission), polio or even children paralysis.

The thing is that child weak from the start would get worse from bad living conditions (cold, damp dewlling, shabby clothes, polluted city) and diet (smallish goose is a rare feast for family) with lack of excesise, sunlight and staying indoors weakened him further. Seasonal colds and childhood diseases are always most fatal to already weakend. What could Scrooge do as wealthy "second father"? Afart from improving living codnditions he could take him to doctor who- apart from prescribing meat and dairy rich diet would advise to send him to countryside or health resort or try early kinestatrics like horse riding (or riding a spring hair to mimis the movements), massages and passive movements.

Years ago I remember reading an article with historians trying to figure out what the heck kind of disease would put Tiny Tim in a leg brace and eventually kill him but could magically be killed with a giant bag of money.

Rickets. The answer was rickets. This kid was dying of vitamin d deficiency he literally just needed some cod liver oil shoved down his gullet and a trip to the beach it makes me so mad

[krokietnik]

Mace Windu would have a word.

the most tragic thing that has ever happened in Obi-Wan's life is actually his fandom characterization

[krokietnik]

May I add- stop spening time on hate or AITA subs. Tar pit of the Internet

You've heard of the notion that you need to stop casually making suicide jokes or self hatred jokes because it's making your mental health worse.

Now get ready for you need to stop making "omg I HATE people I just want to be alone with (companion animal)" jokes because they're making you forget how to be decent to people.

[krokietnik]

i think the key difference between george lucas’s star wars and disney’s star wars is that lucas is a man with an ideology. someone with a point of view, and all that entails. which comes with ideas of revolution, anti-imperialism, challenging the status quo, cultural appropriation and racist stereotypes. complex and contradictory ideas because that’s how artists are: complex and complicated people. disney is not. disney is a corporation. a corporation can’t have ideology, because ideology defeats the purpose of profit. and when the only thing you do is to turn on the movie manufacturing machine before you sit down and plan what ideas are you trying to convey to the audience, then your results are going to be washed out corporate garbage. and because when you’re a giant corporation who only cares about selling to the widest audience possible, you can’t take sides. you can’t decide on an idea. because you want to sell your product to people who are on the entire political spectrum. which results in movies without ideology, without purpose, without soul.

[krokietnik]

Ares is not the protector of women in greek mythology.

He is never presented as such in any source, there is no evidence such a role was ever assigned to him in any account, and as far as I'm aware this popular yet unattested assertion is born from the echo-chambers of tumblr. In fact quite the opposite could be argued. CW for sexual assault.

This baffling claim seems to originate from a sort of shallow examination of the way Ares "behaves in myth", and the following arguments are the most frequently presented:

1. Ares protects his daughter Alkippe from assault, and is therefore morally opposed to rape. (Apollodorus 3.180, Pausanias 1.21.4, Suidas "Areios pagos", attributed to Hellanikos)

Curiously this argument is never applied to, for example: Apollo for defending his mother Leto from Tytios, Herakles for defending Hera from Porphyrion (or his wife Deianeira from Nessos), or Zeus for defending his sister Demeter from Iasion (in the versions where he attacks her), among other examples. The multiple accounts of rape of the previously mentioned figures did not conflict with these stories in greek thought: they're defending family members or women otherwise close to them. This sort of behaviour is not uncommon, even in contemporary times, e.g. a warrior has no ethical problem killing men, but would not want his own family or loved ones to be killed. The same goes here for sexual assault.

2. There are no surviving accounts of Ares sexually assaulting anybody.

The idea that the ancient greeks pictured that, among all the gods, Ares was the only one who shied away from committing rape borders on ridiculous. In this case absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The majority of surviving records of Ares' unions are presented in a genealogical manner, and do not go into details about the nature of said unions. This is by no means uncommon for most mythographers, where most sexual encounters are presented as such, and details of specifics are to be found elsewhere. However, common motifs that are found in other accounts of rape also appear in stories concerning Ares' relationships, e.g. tropes like shape-shifting/the use of disguises, the victim being a huntress, secrecy, and the disposal of the concieved child, are to be found in the stories of Phylonome and Astyoche respectively:

Φυλονόμη Νυκτίμου καὶ Ἀρκαδίας θυγάτηρ ἐκυνήγει σὺν τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι: Ἄρης δ᾽ ἐν σχήματι ποιμένος ἔγκυον ἐποίησεν. ἡ δὲ τεκοῦσα διδύμους παῖδας καὶ φοβουμένη τὸν πατέρα ἔρριψεν εἰς τὸν Ἐρύμανθο

"Phylonome, the daughter of Nyktimos and Arkadia, was wont to hunt with Artemis; but Ares, in the guise of a shepherd, got her with child. She gave birth to twin children and, fearing her father, cast them into the [River] Erymanthos." (Pseudo-Plutarch, Greek and Roman Parallel Stories, 36)

οἳ δ᾽ Ἀσπληδόνα ναῖον ἰδ᾽ Ὀρχομενὸν Μινύειον, τῶν ἦρχ᾽ Ἀσκάλαφος καὶ Ἰάλμενος υἷες Ἄρηος οὓς τέκεν Ἀστυόχη δόμῳ Ἄκτ��ρος Ἀζεΐδαο, παρθένος αἰδοίη ὑπερώϊον εἰσαναβᾶσα Ἄρηϊ κρατερῷ: ὃ δέ οἱ παρελέξατο λάθρῃ: τοῖς δὲ τριήκοντα γλαφυραὶ νέες ἐστιχόωντο.

"And they that dwelt in Aspledon and Orchomenus of the Minyae were led by Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, sons of Ares, whom, in the palace of Actor, son of Azeus, Astyoche, the honoured maiden, conceived of mighty Ares, when she had entered into her upper chamber; for he lay with her in secret" (Homer, Iliad 2. 512 ff)

In neither of these cases is a verb explicitly denoting rape used, though it is heavily implied by the context. The focus of the action is on the conception of sons, the nature of the interaction is secondary.

Other examples are found among the daughters of the river Asopos, who where (and here there's no confusion) ravished and kidnapped by different gods to different parts of the greek world, where they found local lines through children borne to their abductors and serve as local eponyms. Surviving fragments from Corinna of Tanagra tell:

"Asopos went to his haunts . . from you halls . . into woe . . Of these [nine] daughters Zeus, giver of good things, took his [Asopos'] child Aigina . . from her father's [house] . . while Korkyra and Salamis and lovely Euboia were stolen by father Poseidon, and Leto's son is in possession of Sinope and Thespia . . [and Tanagra was seized by Hermes] . . But to Asopos no one was able to make the matter clear, until . . [the seer Akraiphen reveals to him] 'And of your daughters father Zeus, king of all, has three; and Poseidon, ruler of the sea, married three; and Phoibos [Apollon] is master of the beds of two of them, and of one Hermes, good son of Maia. For so did the pair Eros and the Kypris persuade them, that they should go in secret to your house and take your nine daughters." - heavily fragmented papyrus. Corinna, Fragment 654

"For your [Tanagra's] sake Hermes boxed against Ares." Corinna, Fragment 666

It seems that, similarly to the myths of Beroe or Marpessa, the abducted maiden is fought over by two competing "suitors", and though we can infer that the outcome of the story is that Hermes gets to keep Tanagra, apparently by beating Ares at boxing, we don't actually know what happened or how it happened. In any case, Ares does mate with another daughter of Asopos, Harpina, who bears him Oinomaos according to some versions (Paus. 5.22.6) (Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnica, A125.3) (Diodorus Siculus, Library 4. 73. 1). There is little reason to suppose this encounter wasn't pictured as an abduction like the rest of her sisters.

The blatant statement that each of his affairs was envisioned as consensual is simply not true.

3. He was worshipped under the epithet Gynaicothoinas "feasted by women"

This was a local cult that existed in Tegea, the following reason is given:

There is also an image of Ares in the marketplace of Tegea. Carved in relief on a slab it is called Gynaecothoenas. At the time of the Laconian war, when Charillus king of Lacedaemon made the first invasion, the women armed themselves and lay in ambush under the hill they call today Phylactris. When the armies met and the men on either side were performing many remarkable exploits, the women, they say, came on the scene and put the Lacedaemonians to flight. Marpessa, surnamed Choera, surpassed, they say, the other women in daring, while Charillus himself was one of the Spartan prisoners. The story goes on to say that he was set free without ransom, swore to the Tegeans that the Lacedaemonians would never again attack Tegea, and then broke his oath; that the women offered to Ares a sacrifice of victory on their own account without the men, and gave to the men no share in the meat of the victim. For this reason Ares got his surname. (Paus. 8.48.4-5)

As emphasised by Georgoudi in To Act, Not Submit: Women’s Attitudes in Situations of War in Ancient Greece (part of the highly recommendable collection of essays Women and War in Antiquity), "it is not necessary to see the operation of an invitation in the bestowal of the epithet Γυναικοθοίνας on Ares". The epithet is ambiguous, and can be translated both as "Host of the banquet of women" or "[He who is] invited to the banquet of women". In any case no act of divine intervention occurs, and the main reason for the women's act of devotion lies principally in recognising their decisive role in the routing of the Lakedaimonians. They invite Ares to the banquet, the men are excluded.

Also this a local epithet that isn't found anywhere else in Greece. As such it would be worth reminding that not every Ares is Gynaicothoinas, in the same way not every Zeus is Aithiopian, not every Demeter Erinys, or not every Artemis of Ephesos.

4. He is the patron god of the Amazons

He was considered progenitor of the Amazons because of their proverbial warlike nature and love of battle, the same reason he was associated with another barbarian tribe, the Thracians. In this capacity he was also appointed as a suitable father/ancestor for other violent and savage characters who generally function as antagonists (e.g. Kyknos, Diomedes of Thrace, Tereos of Thrace, Oinomaos, Agrios and Oreios, Phlegyas, Lykos etc.). Also he was by no means the only god connected with the Amazons (they were especially linked to Artemis, see Religious Cults Associated With the Amazons by Florence Mary Bennett, if only for the bibliography).

Similarly Poseidon was considered patron and ancestor of the Phaiakians mainly because of their mastery over the art of seafaring, and was curiously also credited in genealogies as father to monsters and other disreputable figures.

On another note I have found no sources that claim he taught his amazon daughters how to fight, as I've seen often mentioned (though I admit I'd love to be proven wrong on that point).

Finally, the last reason Ares is never portrayed as a protector of women is because of his divine assignation itself:

The uncountable references to his love of bloodshed and man-slaying don't just stop short of the battlefield, but continue on to the conclusion and intended purpose of most waged wars in antiquity: the sacking of the city. The title Sacker of Cities as an epithet of Ares (though it is by no means exclusive to him) is encountered numerous times and in different variations (eg. τειχεσιπλήτης or πτολίπορθος), and the meaning behind the epithet is plain. Though it is hard to summarise without being reductionist, the sacking of a city entails the plundering of all its goods, the slaughtering of its men, and the sistematic raping and enslavement of the surviving women (for the most famous depictions see The Iliad, The Trojan Women or The Women of Trachis, to name a small few of the literary references). There is little need to emphasise that war as concieved of in ancient greece, especifically the aspects of war Ares is most often associated with, directly entail sexual violence against women as one of the main concerns. The multiple references to Ares being an unloved or disliked deity are because of this, because war is horrifying (not because his daddy is a big old meany who hates him for no reason, Zeus makes very clear the motive for his contempt in the Iliad (5. 889-891): "Do not sit beside me and whine, you double-faced liar. To me you are most hateful of all gods who hold Olympos. Forever quarreling is dear to your heart, wars and battles.")

Ares was only the protector of women inasmuch as he could be averted or repelled:

"There is no clash of brazen shields but our fight is with the war god, a war god ringed with the cries of men, a savage god who burns us; grant that he turn in racing course backward out of our country’s bounds, to the great palace of Amphitrite or where the waves of the thracian sea deny the stranger safe anchorage. Whatsoever escapes the night at last the light of day revisits; so smite him, Father Zeus, beneath your thunderbolt, for you are the lord of the lightning, the lightning that carries fire. (Oedipus Tyrannos, 190-202)

~~~~~

All that being said, this is a post about Ares as attested and percieved in ancient sources, made especifically in response to condecending and self-victimising statements about how "uhmmm, actually, in greek mythology Ares was a super-feminist himbo who was worshipped as the protector of women and was hated by his family for no reason, you idiot". It is factually incorrect. HOWEVER, far be it from me to tell anyone how they have to interact with this deity. Be it your retellings, your headcannons or your own personal religious attachments and beliefs towards Ares, those are your own provinces and prerogatives, and not what was being discussed here at all (I personally love retellings where Ares and Aphrodite goof around, or art where he plays with his daughters, or headcannons that showcase his more noble sides, etc.)

~~~~~

I've seen that other people on tumblr have made similar posts, the ones I've seen were by @deathlessathanasia and @en-theos . I have no idea how to link their posts, but they're really good so go check them out on their pages!

[krokietnik]

IT should rhyme not repeat.

Also, overexplaining everything. I don't want to point fingers but some characters and references lost a lot when they they are show point blanc by authors desperately wanting to adress every criticism they had seen on the Internet.

It's hard not to recognize that overreliance on cameos is weakening current day Star Wars shows. Of course it's a nuanced discussion about how the franchise has long been self-referential and leaning into the motif if, "it's like poetry, it rhymes" but modern Star Wars doesn't understand how to make it part of the theme instead of just there for nostalgia bait and it's leading to weaker sto--HOLY SHIT IS THAT A DARTH VADER GUEST APPEARANCE!? MY TRASH MAN IS BACK!!!! UNFOLLOW ME NOW THIS IS ALL I'M GOING TO TWEET ABOUT FOR THE NEXT WEEK!!!!

[krokietnik]

Why should she say it? Why "my biological mother is there" should change his mind? He was prepared to blow out his family.

I don't know why giving an inteligent and strong willed woman a brain damage could "fix" anything. Just let her die with dignity

There's a lot that could have been done to make revenge of the sith better but one change I would have made is this. Instead of Padme dying from the sads, I would have had obi-wan go into the operating room and do a jedi mind trick/meld to try and get her to forget about Anakin. It works, but it breaks her mind. It was the only way to save her life.

So when Luke and Leia are split up, Padme would have gone with the Organas, faked her death/had a closed casket funeral, and spent the rest of her days in an alderaanian hospital on the Organa's dime. This reconciles Leia's line about her real mother being sad.

That way, when a new hope comes around, there's an added layer of tragedy when the death star blows the place up with Anakin there in the control room.

[krokietnik]

When you have a small leak you can work it out with partner or a friend. When you have a flood you call the plumber.

y’all need therapy. not girlfriends

[krokietnik]

Don't use any form of birth control. Blame wife for getting pregnant and getting ugly. Preach simple life and criticise everyone for materialism, especially that stupid woman who tries to manage on pennies- but throw a tantrum when you don't get your dinner exactly as you want. Blackmounth her to the point your contemporaries tell you you are telling on yourself and should shut up.

Cheating optional.

And then historians proceed to smear your wife because she caused her nothing but pain.

Seriously, that fits so many writers around the globe.

And speaking of Sophia Tolstoy, her diaries are just so depressing. 

“I am to gratify his pleasure and nurse his child, I am a piece of household furniture, I am a woman. I try to suppress all human feelings. When the machine is working properly it heats the milk, knits a blanket, makes little requests and bustles about trying not to think […].“

She wrote this when she was 19, one year into her marriage to Leo and as she was pregnant with the first of his 13 children.

A few years later, when she was 25 or so:

“I am so often alone with my thoughts that the need to write in my diary comes quite naturally … Now I am well again and not pregnant—it terrifies me how often I have been in that condition. He said that for him being young meant “I can achieve anything”. For me […] reason tells me that there is nothing I either want or can do beyond nursing, eating, drinking, sleeping, and loving and caring for my husband and babies, all of which I know is happiness of a kind, but why do I feel so woeful all the time, and weep as I did yesterday? I am writing this now with the pleasantly exciting sense that nobody will ever read it, so I can be quite frank with myself […].“

During her 12th pregnancy she wrote about taking scalding baths and jumping from high pieces of furniture to try and miscarry.  And at one point while reading her husband’s diary (which he told her to read) she found the sentence “There is no such thing as love, only the physical need for intercourse and the practical need for a life companion.” In her own diary she wrote “They ebb and flow like waves, these times when I realise how lonely I am and want only to cry…”

A few years before her husband’s death, she published a cycle of prose poems titled “Groans”, under the pseudonym “A Tired Woman”.

[krokietnik]

The scale is smaller, indeed.

Dathomir in Legends- various clans, single clan could- woth minimal effort- muster an army of skilled Witches that could go toe to toe with elite Imperial forces.

Dathomir in Canon- Two dozens of weak force users in mud huts. And Maul and Ventress who were apprently neightbours. Mandalorians- various clashing clans accepted everyone who could join. Mando in Canon- Aryan dream. etc. I wonder how much is because of the medium, but since the cartoons and TV series took thelead we are given less weirdness, fewer aliens and everythings shrinks. Or the producers just don't get it Andor looks like every cyberpunk show. There no aliens in background, no alien children in school in Mandalorian. Instead of civilisations having their own weird technology we have people wondering what the mirror is.

I think one of the biggest problems with Star Wars right now is that not much feels like it's making Star Wars bigger, but instead everything feels just a little bit smaller, a little bit more crowded in with every project. The sequels almost made a new world to play in, but with the shitshow of not planning their trilogy out ahead of time and the mish-mash of writing/directing styles, it's not what it could have been, the sequels are not in the position the prequels were after the same amount of time had passed. The Mandalorian almost felt like it could expand the world, but then the cameos (as excellent as they were and as many of them made sense) and the lack of allowing those characters to be in books or anything, as well as the sequels basically saying, "Hey, don't bother getting invested in the New Republic, it's going to be dead in a few years anyway." and not being talented enough writers to overcome that obstacle. Andor was an incredible series, but there are only so many ways to make an Empire-based story feel fresh again. Ahsoka and Obi-Wan Kenobi were both fun to watch and deserve their place, but they don't feel like they gave us a new world to play with. I love the High Republic, but I don't think it's a strong enough new thing to really inspire people, hence why I can barely find any fandom for it, despite that books often get fandoms for them. Many of these projects are really, really good and exciting, but I wouldn't say any of them have made Star Wars feel bigger to me, it just feels like more stuff added into the already existing framework instead of expanding the framework to make room for more stories.

[krokietnik]

Judging from European POV- that's not just chromebooks. I often have flashback to 90s but now the basic questions aren't asked by

confused middle age office people but by younglings who had grown with screens that gave them everything on silver plate. -Google search has gone to hell.

-Loss of fora and blogs means that Reddit is your only chance to find a solution or ask a question.

-Shrinking of Internet. What is on Internet besides media platforms? What was once a Wild West where one made his homestand is now corporate field

We need to lay more blame for "Kids don't know how computers work" at the feet of the people responsible: Google.

Google set out about a decade ago to push their (relatively unpopular) chromebooks by supplying them below-cost to schools for students, explicitly marketing them as being easy to restrict to certain activities, and in the offing, kids have now grown up in walled gardens, on glorified tablets that are designed to monetize and restrict every movement to maximize profit for one of the biggest companies in the world.

Tech literacy didn't mysteriously vanish, it was fucking murdered for profit.