It's always a tricky balance.

The enemy must be weak for morale purposes but strong for the purpose of securing additional military aid. That aid must be seen as vital and of the highest quality but also as unimportant and not of any cost to those giving it.

Well, beneficial to some and detrimental to others. We tend to see wetlands as ecologically important though.

Thankfully so! It would be a strange world where concussions led to better brain function in later life.

I take your point though of course, confirmation of presumed effects is very important work.

It doesn't hurt that there are a lot of people and the population skews very young.

Huh. Not that Robocop was exactly suitable for pre-teens or anything but I still wouldn't have thought it would be in the most-restricted category. Then again, I haven't seen it in ages.

I'm not sure Guillermo del Torro has ever done what I'd call exactly a kid's movie.

Used to be pretty common in Canada too.

Tom Selleck saunters by, chuckling to himself.

Our propaganda sites don't talk about it much.

As a counterpoint though, relatively few people today make a career out of it while archers might well have devoted their entire lives from a young age to the skill back in antiquity.

Obviously the modern equipment is orders of magnitude better but if both were using the same stuff, I'm not so certain the results would be the same.

Sure but that company would be worth a few hundred million if they were lucky. That's not enough so they leveraged the hell out of the idea that they might be worth a few dozen billion if everything went perfectly.

Then Elon showed up and hey, it turns out that things can go perfectly!

We generally use 'largest' to mean 'biggest' or most grandiose or something of that sort and building a 150m high pyramid is orders of magnitude harder than building a 25m high one an extra 75m long on each side. Hell, when it comes to pyramids the narrower the base to the height, the more challenging it is.

Well, in a three body system at least. One could design a four body (or more) system such that the gravitational centre, the orbiting tidally-locked body and a gravitationally bound body orbiting the tidally-locked body were all static, given the influence of another body very specifically placed to keep the 'orbiting' one in the shadow perpetually.

Without crunching the math though, it would be a terribly weird system and likely with the orbiting body being very far from it's parent and essentially hovering between orbiting the solar mass and its planet. That and requiring a massive object in a leading orbit at a significant distance from the planet in question.

The whole thing would be jittery as hell but plausible in a spherical cow sort of way. (In retrospection, it might well require a series of increasingly massive bodies in increasingly interesting orbits. I still maintain it is plausible in a purely theoretical way but in no way feasible to occur through nature or design.)

It's often true of more generalist predators as well, even though they are dealing with a broader spectrum of prey species. Population booms and crashes are quite normal over any reasonable timeline.

It doesn't have to be freely. A court order is usually backed by you sitting in jail until you cooperate.

Now, the question I would have though is if they sold the gold bar for $50k, would you then still owe fifty more?

Oddly, no. I'm fairly obsessive about many things but actor's names and past roles is absolutely not one of them.

No whataboutism here but the UN hasn't done fuck all in the past when countries have done exactly that and often to many, many people.