#can you tell I love science fiction?

[redrocketpanda]

Thanks for answering my ask before. If you don't mind me asking (again), can I ask, what are your top 10 (or top 7) favorite media (can be books/ manga/ anime/movies/tv series)? Why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before......

Hello again - thanks so much for all of these questions!

Hmmmm, I have so many favourite things across so many different forms of media that choosing a top 7/10 is super hard. I've gone with my gut of the first things I thought of that I love, but the list could easily be wayyyyyy longer. I'm sorry - I tried to keep this as short as I could... In no particular order:

My Hero Academia (anime + manga) MHA is the first anime that I think I ever really properly enjoyed. I watched it in 2021/2022, immediately fell in love with it, and proceeded to devour both the anime and almost all of the manga. I obviously adore all of the characters, but I also love the way that MHA portrays superpowers - both in terms of how they function (w/ there being unique limitations to them) as well as how it depicts/explores superhero society. I don't normally go in for superhero type media anymore, but the combination of all of the above (plus literally the sickest soundtrack from Yuki Hayashi) easily makes it one of my fave ever things

The Wayfarers series by Becky Chambers (books) I could write an entire dissertation on why this is one of my favourite series of all time, and why Becky Chambers is one of my favourite authors. But the shorter answer is: literally everything about them. Chambers' writing is beautiful, her narratives are full of love, hope and community, and her characters are incredibly diverse and well written. My fave book from the series is Record of a Spaceborn Few.

Dragon Age series (video games) I first came across Dragon Age at a fan convention back in 2016/2017 during a panel on queer media (I think). In addition to the panel discussing the general queer relationships/characters in the series, they specifically highlighted Dorian and Krem in DA: Inquisition. The following day I went out, purchased all the games, and then played them through from the first game. IThe games are super fun to play, the writing is *chefs kiss*, and I love the themes that the games explore. I love them so much I've even written an article and done a podcast episode about them!

Jurassic Park franchise (films, books, games) Jurassic Park is one of the franchises that I was raised on (along with Star Wars) and I have been obsessed with it ever since. I've seen all the films (up to Jurassic World), read the books, own books about JP, played a bunch of the games, and even have a poster map of Isla Nublar on my wall. Dinosaurs are one of the big reasons I love them, but also I think the films have always been very interesting to me for how they give us a lens in which to think about animal rights + conservation in a science fictional setting (something else I have also done a paper on!)

Final Fantasy XV (video game) I'll keep this one short and sweet: best boys on a roadtrip that will both make your heart full of joy but will ultimately leave you a sobbing mess on the floor (Honestly I didn't play FFXV until the end of 2022 and I am still !!!!!!! over it)

Haikyuu!! (anime) sksalkkljsa. I don't even know what to say about this. HQ is just the fucking best.

I Was a Teenage Exocolonist (video game) I don't talk about it so much anymore, but Exocolonist is still one of my favourite games and it makes my heart feel so much whenever I think about it. I love the entire aesthetic of it. I love how impactful your choices feel and how many different routes you can go down. I love how inclusive the game is, not just in terms of gender, race and sexuality but also with polyamoury + family/community dynamics. The worldbuilding is beautiful, the soundtrack is *cries*. Just...it's such a wonderful game.

Manic (film) There are a lot of films I could choose for this list, but if I can only choose one (bc space) then I think Manic is a good pick. It's the 2001 indie film with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Don Cheadle, etc, and is set in an adolescent psychiatric ward. This film means a lot to me personally, I'll just leave it at that.

Xandri Corelel series (books) I spoke a bit about why I love the series so much in response to your favourite characters question but to summarise: cool as fuck science fiction series where cool as fuck autistic bisexual polyam protagonist, Xandri, is the head of the xeno-liaisons team. It's got stellar worldbuilding, excellent characters, and explores lots of interesting issues. Also, my favourite book is Tone of Voice (2nd in the series) partly bc its got space whales in it.

Mass Effect (video games) I think by now its pretty clear I love science fiction, so Mass Effect was always gonna be a big hit with me. I actually played Dragon Age first, and then a friend told me I had to play ME. The entire series is just sooooo good for very similar reasons to a lot of my other favourites: well-written, beloved characters, cool ass narrative/s, choice-based, fun FPS moments, cool worldbuilding, sick soundtrack!

[spirk-trek]

S1E11: The Corbomite Maneuver ⋆.˚ ✧ · ˚⊹

[kinoshi]

Ужастики смотрят

Яньцин не понимает, куда он жмал

Долго думала, выкладывать или нет, ибо жестко ошиблась при рисовании этой работы, из за чего все пошло под откос. Но ладно, пусть будет.

Полтора часа рисовала скетч на еще одну работу и в итоге удалила его, ибо вообще не вышло. Надо потренироваться, научите рисовать...

[sciderman]

thank you for the ducks, me and my home country also really love Donald Duck and other ducks and Don Rosa is a celebrity to us

i'm so bummed that the ducks aren't very big here in the uk! the rest of europe has it right. the ducks deserve to be beloved. whenever i travel to other european countries i gather all the duck i can find. i have so many books in different languages just because i physically can't resist a book filled with ducks.

the first scrooge book i ever scored on an english bookshelf was don rosa's life and times of scrooge mcduck and it's one of my favourite books i own. i just fell in love with scrooge. i love him so much, he feels like family to me. i love his family, and i love how funny and weirdly honest the familial relationships are. i just... augh. i want to hug every duck book i own. they literally are like serotonin on a page, for me. life can't be so bad, if i have ducks.

i think the thing that makes me love the ducks so much vs a lot of other media is that donald and scrooge especially are just. so. they're defined by their flaws. scrooge is stingy. donald is quick-to-temper. those are their defining characteristics but they're still the guys we love and we root for even though their defining characteristic should make them unlikeable. but we LOVE them. and they're at each other's throats but we loooove them we looove them we love them. they're jerks to each other but we LOOOOVE them...

i think i remember reading something about the success of donald duck overseas vs the success of mickey mouse being that - mickey is the poster child and kind of has to be sweet and sanitised, but donald can get messy and that's why we love him. and i love him.

love a little cutey ducky with anger issues from birth

sighs.. family...

[devilsskettle]

nellie the biologist and keiko oh i’m there with u…. now i have to read sourdough

sourdough is a very good book but i will warn you that lois is a much more likable and mentally stable character than nellie, the biologist, and keiko! still i cannot recommend the book enough, let me know what you think when you read it!

[sewerfight]

Kind of a Reddit AITA post but sometimes it is a little funny to fuck with people in ways that deliberately conform to a stereotype of what they must think of you. the other day I was talking to my friend and I randomly said that I wanted a pet chimpanzee. I'd dress it in person clothes (dungarees and hats) and I'd teach it to love science fiction. And this girl nearby was like "you know how dangerous those things are, right? Also how unethical it is to keep an ape as your pet for your own amusement" and I was already seeing where the conversation was going so I was pretending ignorance like "yea but it wouldn't just be for my amusement. It would have practical points too." And she ignored that statement entirely to say "Well chimpanzees can rip faces off" and I was like. What's the most frustrating thing I can say now. Finally settled on "Mine wouldn't do that though." and you could tell she wanted to hurt me very very badly. Like a chimpanzee would if I had one as a pet

[weaselle]

i want to talk about real life villains

Not someone who mugs you, or kills someone while driving drunk, those are just criminals. I mean VILLAINS.

Not like trump or musk, who are... cartoonishly evil. And not sexy villains, not grandiose villains, not even satisfyingly two dimensional villains it is easy to hate unconditionally. The real villains.

I had a client who was a retired executive for one of the big oil companies, i think it was Shell or Chevron. Had a home just outside of San Francisco that was wall to wall floor to ceiling full of expensive art. Literally. I once accidentally knocked a painting off the wall because it was hanging at knee height at the corner of the stairs, and it had a little brass plaque on it, and i looked up the name of the artist and it was Monet's apprentice and son-in-law, who was apparently also a famous painter. He had an original Andy Warhol, which should have been a prize piece for anyone to showcase -- it was hanging in the bathroom. I swear to god this guy was using a Chihuly (famous glass sculptor) as a fruit bowl. And he was like, "idk my wife was the one who liked art"

I was intrigued by this guy, because in the circles i run this dude is The Enemy. right? Wealthy oil executive? But as my client, he was... like a sweet grandpa. A poor widower, a nice old man, anyone who knew him would have called him a sweetheart. He had a slightly bewildered air, a sort of gentle bumbling nature.

And the fact that he was both of these things, a Sweet Little Old Man and The Enemy, at the same time, seemed important and fascinating to me.

He reminded me of some antagonist from fiction, but i couldn't put my finger on who. And when i did it all made sense.

John Hammond.

probably one of the most realistic bad guys ever written.

If you've only ever seen the movie, this will need some explaining.

Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park in 1990, and i read it shortly thereafter. In the movie, the dinosaurs are the antagonists, which imo erases 50% of the point of the story.

book spoilers below.

In the book, John Hammond is the villain but it takes the reader like half the book to figure that out. Just like my client, John is a sweet old man who wants lovely things for people. He's a very sympathetic character. But as the book progresses, you start to see something about him.

He has an idea, and he's sure it's a good one. When someone else dies in pursuit of his dream, he doesn't think anything of it. When other people turn out to care about that, he brings in experts to evaluate the safety of his idea, and when they quickly tell him his idea is dangerous and needs to be put on hold, he ignores his own experts that he himself hired, because they are telling him that he is wrong, and he is sure he is right.

In his mind, he's a visionary, and nobody understands his vision. He is surrounded by naysayers. Several things have proven too difficult to do the best and safest way, so he has cut corners and taken shortcuts so he can keep moving forward with his plans, but he's sure it's fine. He refuses to hear any word of caution, because he believes he is being cautious enough, and he knows best, even though he has no background in any of the sciences or professions involved. He sends his own grandchildren out into a life-threatening situation because he is willfully ignorant of the danger he is creating.

THIS is like the real villains of the world. He doesn't want anyone to die. Far from it, he only wants good things for people! He's a sweet old man who loves his grandchildren. But he has money and power and refuses to hear that what he is doing is dangerous for everyone, even his own family.

I think he's possibly one of the most important villains ever written in popular fiction.

In the book, he is killed by a pack of the smallest, cutest, "least dangerous" dinosaurs, because a big part of why we read fiction is to see the villains face thematic justice. But like a cigarette CEO dying of lung cancer, his death does not stop his creation from spreading out into the world to continue to endanger everyone else.

I think it is really important to see and understand this kind of villainy in fiction, so you can recognize it in real life.

Sweetheart of a grandfather. Wanted the best for everyone. Right up until what was best for everyone inconvenienced the pursuit of his own interests.

And my client was like that too. His wife had died, and his dog was now the love of his life, and she was this little old dog with silky hair in a hair cut that left long wispy bits on her lower legs. Certain plant materials were easily entangled in this hair and impossible to get out without pulling her hair which clearly hurt her. When i suggested he ask his groomer to trim her lower leg hair short to avoid this, he refused, saying he really liked her usual hair cut.

I emphasized that she was in pain after every walk due to the plant debris getting caught in her leg hair, and a simple trim could put an end to her daily painful removal of it, and he just frowned like i'd recommended he take a bath in pig shit and said "But she'll be ugly" and refused to talk about it anymore.

Sweet old man though. Everyone loved him.

[jamdoughnutmagician]

Of course we know that Eddie is the big fantasy nerd, with his love of D&D, he was probably an avid reader of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and almost definitely made Wayne sit through numerous re-watches of The Wizard of Oz as a kid.

But when he gets together with Steve he realises that Steve 'the hair' Harrington isn't quite the meat-head jock that he remembers him to be in high school.

Eddie was flicking through the channels looking for something for them to watch when Steve comes in holding a bowl of popcorn in his hands as he scoots up close to Eddie.

"Hey, go back a minute, I think I saw something good." Steve says, tapping Eddie on the arm.

Eddie flicks back the channel and it lands on a re-run episode of the original series of Star Trek.

"Man, I used to be obsessed with this show as a kid." Steve says, throwing back a handful of popcorn. "Never missed an episode."

"Wait, you wanna watch Star Trek?" Eddie asked, raising his eyebrows at Steve's admission. His boyfriend was a secret geek.

"Yeah it's a good show. I think I even dressed up as Captain Kirk for Halloween one year. " scratch that Steve Harrington was a full on nerd.

"Sure, we can watch this." Eddie smirks, settling back against Steve.

"Hey, Eddie, did you ever watch that show about the alien in the time-travelling police box?"

It appears that the nerd-levels ran deep with Steve.

Eddie shakes his head at his boyfriend.

"Always watched that one too, actually, I still do." Steve smiles. "My grandma knitted me the long multicoloured scarf for Christmas when I was younger."

"Stevie, why didn't you tell me you were such a science fiction nerd?"

"You never asked."

Eddie might have been the fantasy lover between the two of them, but when it came down to it, Steve was most definitely the sci-fi geek.

[affixjoy]

I finished my first ever watch of Star Trek: The Original Series last night and wow, what a journey.

I’ve loved all the Trek I’ve watched before, but for years I avoided TOS. I had watched a handful of episodes and not really been into it, and I didn’t want to deal with any sexism or racism or other remnants of the 60s. I bought into the Kirk Drift and thought he was an asshole, and I didn’t want to watch 79 episodes of an asshole.

But after finishing Lower Decks my husband and I decided to dive in and watch all of it. I expected to adore Spock and groan at the special effects. I expected to roll my eyes a lot.

Friends, I was so wrong. I am delighted by this series. There was plenty of things to roll my eyes at and cringe at and yeah there’s stuff that has aged poorly or maybe was bad from the start. But overall, what a joy to watch. It was so fun to see the origin of so many things in science fiction and Star Trek. The costumes and sets were fun to look at. The fighting scenes are sometimes goofy but fun to watch. So much of this show is FUN and you can tell they had a blast making it.

And yeah, I loved Spock. But Kirk, Kirk surprised me. He’s such a deeper and more interesting character than I realized before watching. He’s not really an asshole at all. He’s smart and sweet and a good leader. He loves and ship and his crew. As Spock would say, he’s fascinating.

I knew vaguely about K/S and the history of fanfiction but watching it it’s like…yeah. Of course. Of course these two are together. Of course they launched fandom as we know it. Of course people saw the way they looked at each other and knew they should be married.

If you haven’t watched it yet take this as your sign that you should give it a try. You probably don’t have to watch every episode. There are some real stinkers in there. But give it a try, go in with an open heart, and you might be as delighted by it as I am now.

[floral-hex]

had been thinking about seeing the new Ant-Man when it came out, ya know, on one of the discount days bc movie tickets are pricey these days. I mean, it looked right up my alley; alternate dimensions, timeline fuckery, cool visuals, Jonathan Majors ripped as hell. Buuuuut I saw some spoilers, some shitty cellphone footage, read some reviews, ended up caving and reading the plot online… so anyway, I decided to spend that money on a jug of soy sauce and bag of jalapeños, and I think that’s a fair alternative.

[physalian]

What No One Tells You About Writing Fantasy

Every author has their preferred genres. I love fantasy and sci-fi, but began with historical fiction. I hated all the research that historical fiction demands and thought, if I build my own world, no research required.

Boy, was I wrong.

So to anyone dipping their toe into fantasy/sci-fi, here’s seven things I wish I knew about the genres before I committed to writing for them.

1. You still have to research. Everything.

If you want any of your fantasy battle sequences, or your space ships, or your droids and robots, or your fictional government and fictional politics to read at all believable.

In sci-fi, you research astronomy, robotics, politics, political science, history, engineering, anthropology. In fantasy, you have to research historical battle tactics, geography, real-world mythology, folklore, and fairytales, and much of it overlaps with science fiction.

I say you *have to* assuming you want your work to be original and unique and stand out from the crowd. Fanfic writers put in the research for a 30k word smut fic, you can and will have to research for your original work.

2. Naming everything gets exhausting

I hate coming up with new names, especially when I write worlds and places divorced from Earthly customs and can’t rely on Earthly naming conventions. You have to name all your characters, all your towns, villages, cities, realms, kingdoms, planets, galaxies, star systems.

You have to name your rebel faction, your imperial government, significant battles. Your spaceships, your fantasy companies and organizations, your magic system, made-up MacGuffins, androids, computer programs. The list goes on and on and on.

And you have to do it all without it sounding and reading ridiculous and unpronounceable, or racist. Your fantasy realms have to have believable naming patterns. It. Gets. Exhausting.

3. It will never read like you’re watching a movie

Do you know how fast movies can cut between scenes? Movies can balance five plotlines at once all converging with rapid edits, without losing their audience. Sometimes single lines of dialogue, or single wordless shots are all a scene gets before it cuts. If you try to replicate that by head-hopping around, you will make a mess.

It’s perfectly fine to write like you’re watching a movie, but you can’t rely on visual tricks to get your point across when all you have is text on a page – like slow mo, lens flares, epically lit cinematic shots, or the aforementioned rapid edits.

It doesn’t have to, nor should it, look like a movie. Books existed long before film, so don’t let yourself get caught up in how ~cinematic~ it may or may not look.

4. Your space opera will be compared to Star Wars and Star Trek

And your fairy epic will be compared to Tinkerbell, your vampires to Twilight, your zombies to The Walking Dead, Shaun of the Dead, World War Z. Your wizards and witches and any whisper of a fantasy school for fantasy children will be compared to Harry Potter. Your high fantasy adventure will be compared to Lord of the Rings.

You can’t avoid it, but you can avoid doing it to yourself. When people ask about your book, let them say “oh, you mean like Star Wars” to which you then can say, kind of, except XYZ happens in my book. These IPs will never fade from the public consciousness, not while you exist to read this post, at least, but Harry Potter isn’t the only urban fantasy out there. Lord of the Rings isn’t the only high fantasy. Star Wars isn’t the only space opera.

Yours will be on the shelves right next to them, soon enough, and who knows? You might dethrone them.

5. Your world-building is an iceberg, and your book is the tip

I don’t pay for any of those programs that help you organize your book and mythos. I write exclusively on Apple Notes, MS Word, and Google Suite (and all are free to me). I have folders on Apple Notes with more words inside them than the books they’re written for.

If you try to cram an entire college textbook’s worth of content into your novel, you will have left zero room for actual story. The same goes for all the research you did, all the hours slaving away for just a few details and strings of dialogue.

There’s a balance, no matter how dense your story is. If you really want to include all those extra details, slap some appendices at the end. Commission some maps.

6. The gatekeeping for fantasy and sci-fi is still very real

Pen names and pseudonyms exist for a reason. A female author writing fantasy that isn’t just a backdrop for romance? You have a harder battle ahead of you than your male counterparts, at least in the US. And even then, your female protagonist will be scrutinized and torn apart.

She’ll either be too girly or not girly enough, too sexy, or not sexy enough. She’ll be called a Mary Sue, a radical feminist mouthpiece, some woke propaganda. Every action she takes will be criticized as unrealistic and if she has fans who are girls, they will be mocked, too.

If you have queer characters, characters of color, they won’t be good enough, they won’t please everyone, and someone will still call you a bigot. A lot of someones will still call you a bigot.

Do your due diligence and hire your army of sensitivity readers and listen to them, but you cannot please everyone, so might as well write to please yourself. You’re the one who will have to read it a thousand times until it’s published.

7. Your “original” idea has been done before, and that’s okay

Stories have been told since before language evolved. The sum of the parts of your novel may be original, but even then, it’s colored by the media you’ve consumed. And that’s okay!

How many Cinderella stories are there? How many high fantasies? How many books about werewolves and witches and vampires? Gods and goddesses and celestial beings? Fairies and dragons and trolls? Aliens, robots, alien robots? Romeo and Juliette? Superheroes and mutants?

Zombies may be the avenue through which you tell your story, but it’s not *just* about zombies, is it? It’s about the characters who battle them, the endurance of the human spirit, or the end of an era, the death of a nation. So don’t get discouraged, everyone before you and everyone after will have written someone on the backs of what came before and it still feels new.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Shifting $677m from the banks to the people, every year, forever

I'll be in TUCSON, AZ from November 8-10: I'm the GUEST OF HONOR at the TUSCON SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

"Switching costs" are one of the great underappreciated evils in our world: the more it costs you to change from one product or service to another, the worse the vendor, provider, or service you're using today can treat you without risking your business.

Businesses set out to keep switching costs as high as possible. Literally. Mark Zuckerberg's capos send him memos chortling about how Facebook's new photos feature will punish anyone who leaves for a rival service with the loss of all their family photos – meaning Zuck can torment those users for profit and they'll still stick around so long as the abuse is less bad than the loss of all their cherished memories:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

It's often hard to quantify switching costs. We can tell when they're high, say, if your landlord ties your internet service to your lease (splitting the profits with a shitty ISP that overcharges and underdelivers), the switching cost of getting a new internet provider is the cost of moving house. We can tell when they're low, too: you can switch from one podcatcher program to another just by exporting your list of subscriptions from the old one and importing it into the new one:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/16/keep-it-really-simple-stupid/#read-receipts-are-you-kidding-me-seriously-fuck-that-noise

But sometimes, economists can get a rough idea of the dollar value of high switching costs. For example, a group of economists working for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau calculated that the hassle of changing banks is costing Americans at least $677m per year (see page 526):

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_personal-financial-data-rights-final-rule_2024-10.pdf

The CFPB economists used a very conservative methodology, so the number is likely higher, but let's stick with that figure for now. The switching costs of changing banks – determining which bank has the best deal for you, then transfering over your account histories, cards, payees, and automated bill payments – are costing everyday Americans more than half a billion dollars, every year.

Now, the CFPB wasn't gathering this data just to make you mad. They wanted to do something about all this money – to find a way to lower switching costs, and, in so doing, transfer all that money from bank shareholders and executives to the American public.

And that's just what they did. A newly finalized Personal Financial Data Rights rule will allow you to authorize third parties – other banks, comparison shopping sites, brokers, anyone who offers you a better deal, or help you find one – to request your account data from your bank. Your bank will be required to provide that data.

I loved this rule when they first proposed it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

And I like the final rule even better. They've really nailed this one, even down to the fine-grained details where interop wonks like me get very deep into the weeds. For example, a thorny problem with interop rules like this one is "who gets to decide how the interoperability works?" Where will the data-formats come from? How will we know they're fit for purpose?

This is a super-hard problem. If we put the monopolies whose power we're trying to undermine in charge of this, they can easily cheat by delivering data in uselessly obfuscated formats. For example, when I used California's privacy law to force Mailchimp to provide list of all the mailing lists I've been signed up for without my permission, they sent me thousands of folders containing more than 5,900 spreadsheets listing their internal serial numbers for the lists I'm on, with no way to find out what these lists are called or how to get off of them:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/22/degoogled/#kafka-as-a-service

So if we're not going to let the companies decide on data formats, who should be in charge of this? One possibility is to require the use of a standard, but again, which standard? We can ask a standards body to make a new standard, which they're often very good at, but not when the stakes are high like this. Standards bodies are very weak institutions that large companies are very good at capturing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

Here's how the CFPB solved this: they listed out the characteristics of a good standards body, listed out the data types that the standard would have to encompass, and then told banks that so long as they used a standard from a good standards body that covered all the data-types, they'd be in the clear.

Once the rule is in effect, you'll be able to go to a comparison shopping site and authorize it to go to your bank for your transaction history, and then tell you which bank – out of all the banks in America – will pay you the most for your deposits and charge you the least for your debts. Then, after you open a new account, you can authorize the new bank to go back to your old bank and get all your data: payees, scheduled payments, payment history, all of it. Switching banks will be as easy as switching mobile phone carriers – just a few clicks and a few minutes' work to get your old number working on a phone with a new provider.

This will save Americans at least $677 million, every year. Which is to say, it will cost the banks at least $670 million every year.

Naturally, America's largest banks are suing to block the rule:

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/cfpbs-open-banking-rule-faces-suit-from-bank-policy-institute

Of course, the banks claim that they're only suing to protect you, and the $677m annual transfer from their investors to the public has nothing to do with it. The banks claim to be worried about bank-fraud, which is a real thing that we should be worried about. They say that an interoperability rule could make it easier for scammers to get at your data and even transfer your account to a sleazy fly-by-night operation without your consent. This is also true!

It is obviously true that a bad interop rule would be bad. But it doesn't follow that every interop rule is bad, or that it's impossible to make a good one. The CFPB has made a very good one.

For starters, you can't just authorize anyone to get your data. Eligible third parties have to meet stringent criteria and vetting. These third parties are only allowed to ask for the narrowest slice of your data needed to perform the task you've set for them. They aren't allowed to use that data for anything else, and as soon as they've finished, they must delete your data. You can also revoke their access to your data at any time, for any reason, with one click – none of this "call a customer service rep and wait on hold" nonsense.

What's more, if your bank has any doubts about a request for your data, they are empowered to (temporarily) refuse to provide it, until they confirm with you that everything is on the up-and-up.

I wrote about the lawsuit this week for @eff@mastodon.social's Deeplinks blog:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/10/no-matter-what-bank-says-its-your-money-your-data-and-your-choice

In that article, I point out the tedious, obvious ruses of securitywashing and privacywashing, where a company insists that its most abusive, exploitative, invasive conduct can't be challenged because that would expose their customers to security and privacy risks. This is such bullshit.

It's bullshit when printer companies say they can't let you use third party ink – for your own good:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-ceo-blocking-third-party-ink-from-printers-fights-viruses/

It's bullshit when car companies say they can't let you use third party mechanics – for your own good:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/03/rip-david-graeber/#rolling-surveillance-platforms

It's bullshit when Apple says they can't let you use third party app stores – for your own good:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-judiciary-regarding-app-store-security

It's bullshit when Facebook says you can't independently monitor the paid disinformation in your feed – for your own good:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/05/comprehensive-sex-ed/#quis-custodiet-ipsos-zuck

And it's bullshit when the banks say you can't change to a bank that charges you less, and pays you more – for your own good.

CFPB boss Rohit Chopra is part of a cohort of Biden enforcers who've hit upon a devastatingly effective tactic for fighting corporate power: they read the law and found out what they're allowed to do, and then did it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/23/getting-stuff-done/#praxis

The CFPB was created in 2010 with the passage of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which specifically empowers the CFPB to make this kind of data-sharing rule. Back when the CFPA was in Congress, the banks howled about this rule, whining that they were being forced to share their data with their competitors.

But your account data isn't your bank's data. It's your data. And the CFPB is gonna let you have it, and they're gonna save you and your fellow Americans at least $677m/year – forever.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/01/bankshot/#personal-financial-data-rights

[back-on-my-bullsh-again]

The whole of Star Trek canon makes way more sense of you give it the Xena: Warrior Princess treatment. Within XWP, it is canon that the whole story is being given to us through bits and pieces of Gabrielle's scrolls. So any weirdness can be explained away as this bit was missing, so we filled it in. Or how was Xena at the Trojan War, but also around during Julius Caesar's reign? Gabrielle was trying her hand at fiction (without the cursed scroll this time) and wanted to write a "what if we were in Troy" story.

How does this compare to Star Trek? I hear some of you asking. Well, Star Trek episodes frequently begin with a log entry. The Captain or Chief Engineer or Science Officer or whoever is telling the story. We are watching the events play out as they recount them. And since every crew member is supposed to keep logs, if we piece those logs together, we presumably have a coherent story. But listen to any group of people recount a story and you'll hear the inconsistencies, the bias, the limited perspective. Now couple that with the fact that these stories are being turned into a show at some future date when bits and pieces of the story may be lost and you have a recipe for weirdness.

For me, thinking of it this way explains so many things. Why were there so many encounters with historical and mythological figures on Kirks Enterprise? Well, Janeway said it herself: there's debate about whether or not Kirk was exaggerating his logs. Why does it seem like there's weird one-sided sexual tension between two characters? Because character A is keeping their logs in a way that doesn't hide their unrequited love and longing for the very oblivious character B. Why is this or that character seemingly missing from an event that they'd have a vested interest in? Their log was lost or corrupted or they were so excited to be a part of the mission that they completely forgot to write it down.

I don't know if I'm making any sense. But it makes sense for me and is much more fun to think of Star Trek this way than it is to be overly critical of canon inconsistencies within a franchise that has been around for as long as it has and gone through as many permutations as it has.

[specialagentartemis]

ykw i am having so much fan watching you be a hater, that i’ve decided to ask for more. PLEASE give us a rant about a book you hated.

Haha aw I'm honored. And uh I hope you don't have any particular attachment to Becky Chambers. Sorry in advance.

But A Psalm for the Wild-Built won a Hugo and I do not get the love. Book 1 was nice enough, yeah. Book 2 had me tearing my hair out.

Sibling Dex is a restless Tea Monk who serves the God of Small comforts on the science-fantasy planet of Panga. I genuinely love the idea of a tea monk - part therapist, part confessor, travels around to the different towns, mixes tea blends for people, lets them talk about their worries and fears and stresses, and gives them, if not advice, then sympathy and a listening ear and some calming tea. This is meaningful work but they're unhappy. After doing this for a while they're still unsatisfied with their life, so they go into the woods searching for self-actualization, and meet a robot named Mosscap, a wild robot that lives in the woods. See, hundreds of years ago, all the robots "woke up" and became sentient one day, then they staged a quiet rebellion against humanity's greed and industrialization by walking into the woods and never coming back. Now, the continent is split in half: humans stay on the Human Side, and robots stay on the Robot Side. The Robot Side is kept wild and humans are discouraged from going in there because humans can't be trusted not to ruin Nature. The rpbots are welcome to come to the Human Side, they just never have. Dex is the first person in a While to venture into the woods of the Robot Side, and the first human since the great walkout to see a robot. Mosscap gives Dex a lot of philosophical pep talks about not pushing themself so hard, about allowing themself to just rest and appreciate the world without feeling like they need to be Providing A Service to justify their existence. It's a nice theme. Underbaked, imo, but nice. Relateable.

Book 2 was a goddamn mess.

Book 1 mostly takes place in the wilderness of the woods, so it's okay if the nice utopian human community Dex comes from was sketchily-built. It Just Works, and everyone Is Just Nice, this is a science-fantasy parable. There were some issues I had with it - like the strict ideological and physical divide between Nature and Humans, and the fact that Dex's religion seems to be the Only Religion In The World, and it's vaguely secular-humanist with the gods being not "really" gods but names given to primordial forces and philosophical concepts, and the religion not really making any demands of its adherents in any way except to become their best selves and devote themselves to what they like... it's potentially interesting, but overall kinda lazy. It felt like Becky Chambers was aware of the idea that having an enlightened-atheist sci-fi utopia is Problematic, so she made there be a central religion, but she also didn't want it to have any of the ~icky~ things religions have, like belief in anything supernatural, or dietary restrictions, or creeds, or codes of behavior, or expectations to make any kind of sacrifice in any way. All the gods "ask" is that humans observe and appreciate the world. But whatever.

In book 2, Dex and Mosscap return to Dex's society, and the book seems to want to explain how the world works, and oh my GOD is Chambers not prepared to do this.

"Observe and appreciate" is all anyone is asked to do. Book 2, A Prayer for the Crown-Shy, is an ode to ultimate virtue of Doing Nothing. There's this attitude I see in a LOT of utopian fiction, where the author is bluntly just not a good enough author to imagine a utopian society where people act like people, so in the world of Panga, utopian society is achieved through 1) homogeneity 2) no one giving a crap about anything.

As far as I can tell, there is the one religion. Most people are Fine with this. Most people are Fine with anything. There are no characters with distinct personalities. There's no money, except there is, except it's not real money and no one will deny you anything if your balance is in the red, even though your balance is available to be seen by anyone - this does not cause any kind of shame or pride or competition in any way, and Dex doesn't understand why it might. There are no hierarchies or governing bodies, people just volunteer to step up when things need doing (this is portrayed as great and not deeply concerning). There are different communities, but in them, everyone is uniformly nice, friendly, and helpful at all times. There are some parts of nature, like the seashore, where people are not allowed to go because they'll ruin the environment, and this is accepted as correct and necessary. Most people live in hippie, pro-recycling, high-tech, end-of-history green communities; there's one group they visit, however, that doesn't trust technology, and lives in a vaguely sci-fi-Amish way. You might think, Dex travelling around with a robot, this might cause conflict! It does not. The people from this community calmly explain their anti-technology position, Dex calmly explains their pro-technology position, and they politely respect each other. "Not bothered either way" is a phrase that turns up in various permutations a lot and is held up as the good, mature, responsible way to be.

There's a scene where they catch a fish for dinner, and instead of killing it, the scifi-Amish guy says "We let the air do that for us, and they let the fish slowly suffocate to death in the air while they all look on solemnly and sadly. This is portrayed as a deep, beautiful moment of them witnessing and honoring the final moments of a living being's life. And not. y'know. them torturing a living being to death so they can keep their own hands clean.

This is what I mean about the valorization of passivity: observing is all you are ever obligated to do. Letting a fish die in the air is better than killing it quickly and humanely, because doing things gets your hands dirty, while letting things simply happen is the Correct way to do it.

At the end, Mosscap and Dex blow off all their promises and appointments and just hang out at the beach chilling out instead, because do what you want forever, you don't have to do shit. This is the happy affirming ending. Mosscap you fucking said you'd meet with the city leaders as the robot ambassador to the humans, did you tell them you were blowing off this commitment because you didn't feel like doing that anymore??? Did you even let them know??????

It is SUCH a baffling book. The theme wants to be "you are more than your job, you deserve to just Be" and ends up feeling like "you don't have to do anything ever, and no one can make you do anything you don't want to do if you don't feel like it, and you don't owe anyone anything and searching for a purpose in your life is just making you stressed out so chill at the beach instead."

The thing that drives me crazy is like. Mosscap cheerfully tells Dex about robots that spend twenty years in a cave watching stalactites form because they think it's beautiful, and those robots are just as much a valued part of society as anyone else. Appreciating beauty and wonder is good enough, you don't need to be productive. And I'm just. fuckin. like. Humans are not robots! Robots don't need to eat or sleep! Humans need food, and clothes, and shelter, and medical care, and if we don't have SOMEONE working to provide that, we Die! Nice as it would be, we CAN'T just all do nothing forever until we feel like it! We can't do that!

And at the same time, the book bizarrely treats wanting a purpose in life as like... almost disordered. If you are seeking a purpose in life it's because you just haven't let go of your guilt and relaxed enough. It's bizarre. Valorization of passivity. Humans aren't meant to be in nature so we just Shouldn't. Doing nothing and having no strong opinions is the most self-affirmed you can possibly be. Letting a fish suffocate is more moral than quickly breaking its neck or spiking its brain. Someone else will do it. Who, if we're all supposed to be resting and only doing what we feel like? Don't worry about it.

"The heart of this book is comfort [...] There is nothing in it that can hurt you." YOU LIAR BECKY CHAMBERS THE FISH SCENE STILL DISTURBS AND UPSETS ME TO THIS DAY

[liesmyth]

@moscca you're right and you should say it! Here's a really great compilation of Taz quotes I've been keeping in mind

From an interview where she says that Lovecraft was one of her main inspirations, talks about her relationship with horror vs. sff as a genre author, and wanting to find relatable heroines in horror lit.

I didn’t write Gideon the Ninth for the characters—I wrote it entirely for the structure. I wanted to tell a very specific story, and I needed everything to serve that story.

I want people to realise there are no boundaries. I also want to release people from having to take their universe entirely seriously, if they don’t want to. Science fiction and fantasy reflects ourselves, our anxieties, our joys. I’m just writing to amuse myself, as per usual.

I am writing for my younger self and it would be disgusting of me to try to teach her anything.

(& other quotes from that same interview)

Although love and forgiveness aren’t necessarily the same thing either, Gideon’s frankly divine ability to forgive is a huge core of the novel. [...] Forgiveness is almost the electrical current being able to transmit through love.

The way I personally stay true to the story I started down on is to give myself permission to not teach anyone anything. [...] I know that a lot of people do take enormous pleasure and relief in lines or phrases or ideas from stories that ring true to their own lives, but it’s important for me that I tell a story and that I’m not writing Chicken Soup for the Necromantic Soul.

...the God of the Locked Tomb IS a man; he IS the Father and the Teacher; it’s an inherently masc role played by someone who has an uneasy relationship himself to playing a Biblical patriarch. John falls back on hierarchies and roles because they’re familiar even when he’s struggling not to. But the divine in the Locked Tomb is essentially feminine on multiple axes.

It seems to me that most books by anyone female-adjacent have an expectation that they will comfort the uncomfortable and discomfit the comfortable etc., whereas a guy can just tell an adventure story and be done with it. This ties in with an idea that I think nowadays that good art is moral and bad art is immoral: i.e. if a story is good it must somehow be beautiful on the moral scale. We go looking for why the art we love is moral even if the art we love is a donut.

[elbiotipo]

Worldbuilding in Flat Worlds

Oh, so you think I can't do worldbuilding on flat worlds?

So, you might or might not have run into my rather hyperbolic advice that the first rule of worldbuilding is placing your equator. I still stand for it, and one of these days I would like to expand on that… But many on the notes have asked, and this is fair since it's worldbuilding: what about if my world is flat? Or a cylinder, or a ring, or other such shapes? While I can't cover every shape here (though I would like to try, eventually) I can tell you one thing or two about Flat Earths, Flat Worlds, Disc Worlds, however you would like to call them, and how you can do worldbuilding on them. You will be surprised at how much myth, fantasy and science fiction can mesh here. I apologize in advance for the lack of hard numbers in such things like gravity and orbits, but I can expand if you'd like.

This is going to be a LONG post, so more, way more, under the cut:

First of all, of course many cultures have thought of the Earth as flat, it makes intiutive sense. But this idea wasn't only about a flat Earth as a disc in the middle of nothing. This belief was also accompanied by many other beliefs about the sky, and what's under the earth (while I don't want to generalize, you see this sky-earth-underground motif in most cultures) and how the gods or God shaped it; so, not only the shape of the Earth, but the entire universe, a cosmology. While I could go into much depth on various cosmologies around the world (though I suggest you do!), I will explain the two "flat earths" that are more familiar to us in the Western world; the Hebrew and the Greek cosmology.

They usually don't teach you the cool lore in Sunday school.

So, what we see in the Hebrew cosmology is a flat earth, yes, but with a firmament that, unlike some might think, does not separate the heavens (as in sky) from the Earth, but rather creates a "vault" with Earth inside from the primeval ocean, as the firmament IS the sky. As you can read in Genesis 1:6-8, in the second day of creation, God divides the waters "under" and "above" the firmament. This idea of a primeval, chaotic ocean from where the creator God(s) create the world is a feature of Mesopotamian mythology (as well as many other unrelated mythologies), and I would love to expand on it, but let's focus on what the "flat" Earth looked like to the ancient Hebrews. You have a flat earth with the foundations on an endless abyss of water, which goes all around the firmament, an inmovable (the Bible mentions this several times) sky where God placed the Sun and Moon and stars to illuminate the Earth, and floodgates where the water for rain, hail and snow (and also the Great Flood) came from. And also Sheol, and the abyss of water, which along with the "heavens" in or beyond the firmament, take into more spiritual characteristics. I could go on, but as you can already see, this is a very complex cosmology, far from a single flat disc floating on nothingness.

The world according to Homer (the other one)

Let's move on to the Greeks. Now, the ancient Greeks, like Homer, initially seemed to believe in a flat earth, with many parallels to the Mesopotamian (and Hebrew) conception of the world, with a firmament and a landmass surrounded by (or floating on, as per Thales who believed EVERYTHING WAS WATER) an ocean with Greece as the center (see below). However, this conception evolved over time. Anaximander imagined the Earth at the top of a cylindrical, inmovable pillar, but more interestingly, attempted to explain the movement of the Sun and the Moon, believing them to be, to quote Wikipedia, "circular open vents in tubular rings of fire enclosed in tubes of condensed air" surrounding Earth. This idea was later refined by Plato and Aristotle as 'celestial spheres' as paths for the planets (this included the Sun and the Moon) to wander. This concept was further explored by Plato, Aristotle, and many more, to extend to the rest of the planets (which also included the Sun and the Moon), as objects moving across "celestial spheres" inside an sphererical firmament. At this point, Greek philosophers were already thinking the Earth was some sort of sphere, even if only because a sphere was considered the 'ideal' shape, but also because they had started to notice that the Moon was also spherical, boats went under the horizon, and the shadow of Earth during eclipses was round, among many other things that current Flat Earthers don't care about. Eratosthenes was the first to calculate the sphere of the Earth with remarkable precision (you probably know this story if you've watched the old Cosmos with Carl Sagan), and from there, it was mostly accepted in the Hellenistic world that the Earth was in fact round. It was finally Ptolemy by his incredibly detailed astronomical work for the time who finally cemented this system of a round (NOT FLAT!) and unmoving Earth as the center of the universe and the celestial spheres.

The Ptolemaic Universe. Not flat! Notice that the sphere right above Earth is on fire. This is because Earth was believed to be composed of the most base classical elements (Earth and Water), surrounded by a sphere of Air, and then later the sphere of Fire where the Sun orbited. The rest of the spheres were often associated with "Aether" or "crystal", but that's for another time.

As a note, as the Hebrews entered in contact with Hellenistic and later Roman civilization, they also adopted the concepts of the round earth and the "celestial spheres", which meshed really well with the concept of "the heavens" and the "circle of the Earth" mentioned in the Bible. With the rise of Christianity, this fusion of biblical and hellenistic cosmology endured for a long time. It's a myth that medieval Europe thought the Earth was flat, they all knew and teached the Earth was round… and fixed as the center of an universe made up of celestial spheres inside an spherical firmament of fixed stars. That concept endured much longer in Western thought, but that's for another time.

One interesting thing about flat earths in ancient cosomologies is that they often took the form of a circle, and that circle had a center. The center of the world. For the Greeks, it was the Omphalos stone in Delphi (this is where the expression 'navel of the world' comes from). For the Hebrews, it was the Temple at Jerusalem, and later medieval Christian maps (the T-O maps) set Jerusalem as the center of the world. This concept of a 'center of the world' in comparative mythology is called 'axis mundi', and as you can see, it takes particular importance in a world that is believed to REALLY have a center.

So, why the history lesson? It's fun, it might give you some ideas, but mostly it's to show you that the concept of a flat earth does not only imply a flat planet (indeed, the vision of Earth as just another planet took long to arise), but also a whole cosmovision of the world around it. To be fair, our current understanding of the universe, with round planets orbiting stars and galaxies and the Big Bang IS also a cosmovision. One based on scientific observation and understanding, but cosmovision nevertheless.

But perhaps what you wanted with a worldbuilding post is a world that is flat. Like a regular planet, just shaped as a disc. Let's discuss that. First of all, is such a thing possible to arise naturally? Most probably not. While I'm sure there might be at least one exception by some freak accident in the universe, maybe more, as a rule gravity tends to compress large objects into spherical shapes. A disc would eventually break up and become an asteroid field, or it would spin and bulge into a 'pancake shape' and eventually an oblate spheroid object, with a big equatorial bulge (yes, I'm going to use the word bulge a lot here). This shape might actually be common in many fast-spinning objects (that don't break apart) across the universe, and in fact you can find it in stars such as Achernar. Earth itself is a geoid, flattened at the poles and with an equatorial bulge (told you).

However, this does not mean that flat worlds are impossible. You could assume that the gods, or an ancient alien civilization (there's a lot of overlap here) made this disc of an indestructible material. How would such the dynamics of the world work then? Finally, here, is where our worldbuilding gets interesting…

Gravity:

Gravity on a disc would be very peculiar. To make a long story short, it would be stronger at the center and weaker at the edges, with the gravity pulling towards the center, which technically is the pole (I'm going to say South Pole because I'm from the Southern Hemisphere). So, if you threw a ball, it would be pulled towards the center/pole rather than the edges, and this pull would be in a perpendicular way, decreasing the farther you go from the center:

A very ugly drawing of an speculative flat world, with a core made of ~magical~ indistructible material, covered by earth, water and air. Note the direction of gravity and how water flows into a bulge on the center.

This would make for some curious effects; water and air would inevitably flood all the way to the center of the disc, where it would make a bulge, the sea level raising in a notable way there. One way to avoid this is to make the disc spin on its center, like a roulette, the centrifugal force of such a spin would make the gravity spread to the edges. Unfortunately, it's hard to calculate how fast would it be needed for it to 'even out' gravity in the whole disc. I can be sure it would be enough to tear normal worlds made of rock and metal apart, so this flat disc would have to be made of a strong, magical material (which really works well with the mythical 'God set the foundations of the Earth' motif)… or a complex structure of orbital rings inside (ultra-advanced tech artificial structures that transport matter in an opposite way to the spin, generating enough momentum so it doesn't pull apart), or some other kind of exotic matter. The spin would probably would not be noticeable to the inhabitants of the disc in their day to day lives, though, as the 'fixed' stars would move, I'm sure the inhabitants would incorporate in their calendars.

One important thing to remember about gravity is that it's not based in the size of an object, it's based on mass. You could have a (regular) planet smaller than Earth, but with the same gravity, so long as the mass was denser. Similarily you could have huge planets with Earth-like gravity as long as the inside is less dense (bubbleworlds, another thing I'm dying to talk about). So you could have, for example, a disc the size of Earth made of a magical or ultra-tech material (let's call it Newtonlith) where certain places inside the disc would be dense to create gravity fields inside the disc. In a normal setting, this would break it apart, but perhaps, if it's in a form of a spread out gradient, it wouldn't. This would have some very odd effects, which I leave to the reader to imagine.

(I'm of course, dismissing stupid concepts from modern flat earthers such as "Earth perpetually falling down" or "gravity doesn't exist", but I have to say, they do have some wacky worldbuilding)

The Edge and The Other Side:

So, if you get to the edge, gravity would feel strange, making it harder to you to keep going since it's pushing you perpendicularily to the center, until you actuall walk into The Edge, and gravity would feel level. It would be like walking on the oustide of a wheel. However, it's hard for me to imagine what this "edge" would look like. Assuming the disc spins, I would expect the edge to get thinner and thinner, smoothing out rather than being like a sharp "coin-like" edge… or, if it spins fast enough, in fact, more of a sharp cliff or, how could I define this? "Horizontal mountain chain". However, again, we're also assuming this whole thing is made of some magical or ultra-tech material, so the edge might as well be a flat expanse imposible to erode, like a coin edge, which might let you, quite literally, walk around the circle of the Earth. In fact, some enterprising civilizations might make a railroad or transport system all around the circle. Another thing about the Edge is that, because all the water would go to the centers of the disc, it would be very dry, and it also would have winds constantly circulating in the direction of the spin. No wall of ice, at least not as I imagine it; as we'll see later, the temperature on a flat Earth would be rather uniform unless there are other conditions affecting it.

One important thing is that, assuming this is a disc *floating* in space (no elephants or turtles…), is that the other side would be as habitable too. Remember, this case is actually one where the centers of the disc are two poles, and the edge is actually the equator! (HAHAHAHA, TOLD YOU THE EQUATOR WAS IMPORTANT, EVEN IN FLAT WORLDS) So yes, you could, in a way or another, cross over the edge (the equator!) to another whole new world, cross over to The Other Side. Assuming, of course, they get light and such, which is the next point…

Before that, though: regarding horizons; no, there wouldn't be a horizon in a flat world. You could see pretty much all the way until something like mountains block your sight. It's hard to find good estimates on exactly how far though, but humans can make out faint details up to 3km away in good conditions (coincidentially, that's around where the 'horizon' is in our Earth) and lights up to 48km away. Insert your joke about Legolas here.

Orbits, Day, Night and the Sky:

How would day and night work? There are Options.

Again, assuming our magical/ultratech indestructible disc, it could spin on an axis so that each side faces the star it orbits, like a spinning coin. This would be a weird thing, especially if the planet already spins on its edge/equator, but not physically impossible. The orbit of Uranus is similar, with one pole facing the sun during summer and the other during winter, but that means an almost century long day in its case (a year in Uranus is 84 Earth years) and a similar long "day" in an Earth-like orbit. But if this world was created to spin much like Earth, there won't be that much difference between our day and night. You could even tilt it to simulate seasons.

An example of the movements of a flat world given the above; rotation on its axis (that is, the center of the disk, rotation in another axis "like a coin" to give night and day, and revolution around a star. I also went the extra mile and gave it a climate like I will discuss later: a parched edge without water, with increasingly rainy desert, savanna and rainforest as you get to the center, and at last the central sea with a perpetual storm.

But I digress. You probably aren't here for a boring normal planet that orbits a star, no, no. You want the full mythical world experience, you want a world where the Sun and the Moon spin around the circle of the Earth, and fuck Copernicus. Let's leave aside what those 'luminaries' actually ARE for now, they can be some sort of magical tech objects or literal gods. How would that work?

You could have two kinds of luminaries here. The clever folks at the Flat Earth Society imagine a sun and a moon hovering over the Earth, spinning in a circular orbit about what we call the equator (in our round Earth, of course) as some sort of giant spotlight 32 miles across and a few thousand kms away, jumping and falling out of view, as I understand it. Same with the Moon. For a more classical approach, you could also have a sun and a moon orbiting your disc, which would be interesting, as the other side of the disc would also be illuminated while the other one is dark (in many ancient myths, the sun went into the underworld at night)

The two ways you could have mini-suns: either hovering above your disk or orbiting it. I was too lazy to make a graphic, so thanks to the Flat Earth Society I guess.

Like I said in the beginning, I haven't done the calculations on how such orbits would work, other that they would be complex, and not natural or stable at all. But after all, suns 32km across that hover over a flat world aren't exactly natural. If there is a place to insert gods and magic shit, this is one, though a fusion or black-hole powered spotlight that completes a very complicated orbit following ancient programming is also an option depending on what kind of setting are you doing. You could watch some videos of people debunking actual flat earthers to get a few ideas on how they explain the whole sun thing (spoilers: they just don't believe in eclipses, which indeed would be impossible here, unless magic is involved).

Both options have VERY important implications on the climate. The first one, with a disc orbiting a star and spinning to get day and night, would mean that the disc would get the same amount of light all over it, thus having the same overall temperature, without any latitudes. The second one(s), depending on the orbits of the suns, means you could have "tropical" areas and cold areas depending on where the sun's "spotlight's" points, either as a regular orbit over an equator, or a more complicated one that might not correspond to what we would expect. Funnily enough, Terry Pratchet's Discworld's sun has such a complicated orbit it's never really explained, it even crosses the legs of the elephants upholding the Discworld sometimes.

Speaking of which, THE Discworld of course moves across space on the back of 4 elephants standing on the shell of Great A'tuin (awesome name for your Torterra in Pokémon btw), and its movement is apparently so significant that the astrologers have to regularly change their zodiacs. And indeed, a flat world would also move around its galaxy if it existed, and carrying its own fantasy sun, it wouldn't need to orbit any star to be habitable. Our own Sun is moving with our entire solar system on tow (or rather orbit) at a speed of, holy shit I had to look this up, 828,000 km/hr. However, even at this speed, the stars seem fixed to us, a whole spin around the center of galaxy (a galactic year) takes 225 million years. Still, the stars are moving like us, in fact, some constellations are in slightly different positions from ancient times, just not at the pace in Discworld.

As a final note, I believe a moon with enough gravitational pull would cause tides as it orbits the flat disc much like on Earth. Would be funny if an actual normal moon like ours orbited a flat world, with a small sun on inside its orbit (not too far from the Ptolemaic universe, actually)

Geology and Climate:

Like I said, we're assuming this flat world is made of either some sort of ultra-tech exotic matter, or was just straight created with magical material. So you would think geology would be pointless to discuss, right? Not so fast. There's some assumptions we can make. First of all, there would be no plate tectonics. Plate tectonics, of course, need an active mantle and core, which a flat world just cannot have at least on the size of Earth. So no earthquakes or volcanoes, unless there's magic involved (Terry's Discworld, which is based on Hindu mythology, played with this by having the elephants holding it up move ocassionally, causing earthquakes) So, a world with less natural disasters, wonderful, right? Sure, but in the long run (millions of years), it's tectonic activity that keeps the Earth alive, replenishing CO2, moving the continents around stimulating evolution and changes in climate and the water cycle. This can be replaced by some magical means, though that means that Something Magical is doing Stuff in your world, (you know, besides the whole flat world thing) and you better contemplate what does it mean for your setting/story. Similarily, one strange thing about geology in flat worlds is that, as mentioned, assuming gravity points to the center(s)/poles, there would be a pull towards there, so mountain peaks would be taller and pointing towards the edge of the disc, and as we will see below, also face greater erosion from there, as the winds and water would also move towards the center/pole.

What about climate? That one depends on how your light sources work. But in general, without poles or equator (well, they exist, but you know), the whole disk surface(s) would recieve equal light all year. Which means no seasons and not climate variation. Seasons are possible by tilting the disc, but overall, the climate in a disc world would be stable. Or would it? By the sheer morphology of a disc, not only water would flow into the center, but also air, and in the case of a spinning disc, it would spin into it. Air would flow into the center into powerful winds: how powerful? Difficult to say, but perhaps geography like mountains and hills could moderate them. If there was no spin, I imagine both water and air would accumulate in a large inner sea (as water would, in one way or the other, flow towards it, and water cannot be denied) and high pressure which could be an odd bulged sea with surprsingly calm weather. However, there's another option. Astronomers have studied tidally locked worlds, worlds where one side faces their star all the time. In this case, the convection currents flows from the light side flow to the dark side, creating strong winds and perhaps, assuming there is water, a perpetual storm in the light side. This has a parallel in our case, as the air in a flat world will all spin around the center, with no other way to go, and with it, it will be where all the heat and energy of the atmosphere (atmodisc?) accumulates. In this world, the center of the world (or at least, this side of it…), the axis mundi, would be the eye of a gigantic eternal typhoon.

OOOH DISCWORLD I'M HOWLING TO THE MOON

What would geography, life and culture be like in such a world, given all the things I've told you? Well, that's the most fun part. It's up to you to imagine it. I personally don't find flat worlds all that engaging (sorry, Terry), I feel more comfortable with my good old spherical worlds with tropical latitudes and all that, or other more futuristic stuff things like ringworlds or Dyson spheres (which I hope to cover in another post). But I hope I gave you enough information and ideas so that the ones you might create are both original and believable.

Thank you for reading this, I hope you enjoyed it and it inspired you to do some worldbuilding! If you would like to see more, I would be VERY grateful if you gave me a tip and some suggestions in my ko-fi below, especially as my country here in the other side of the disc is under the rule of a libertarian fascist idiot, so every little help does indeed help a lot! Follow me and stay tuned for some more wacky worldbuilding and rants about the Southern Hemisphere.