Paul Drye

deleted by creator

I would like one violence, please.

It’s often under its Italian name, passata. I’m Canadian too and it’s usually sold in glass bottles on the same shelves as spaghetti sauce. It’s from Unico for the one I currently have in my fridge, but there’s a few brands.

Whoever the writer thinks should be faster, so as to serve the needs of the story being told.

The EU already has a land border in the Americas. French Guiana is part of the union and it touches Brazil and Suriname. So the gate is already open to work it from the south up instead of the north down.

I read somewhere – great source, I know – that the existing rule is that the country has to be in Europe, though, not that it has a border. Otherwise Malta, Ireland, and Cyprus would not qualify, and the UK too back when they were in.

Oddly enough, the Canadian/Danish border is a questionable one for this purpose anyway – Hans Island (where the border is) is part of Greenland and Greenland is not in the EU. It left in 1985 and is now one of the “Overseas countries and territories” that have special rights in relation to the EU but are not actually in it.

😍 Awww, whooo’s the cutest little menacing new predator? Is it you? Is it you? It is! 😍

They have Kenya listed as an Asian country.

No, they do – it’s just not a codified constitution like almost all other countries have.

Uncodified constitution

Proponents of the idea believe that a constitution that has evolved bit by bit over a long period of time and across a bunch of different charters and unwritten agreements/customs is stronger that one that’s done all in one shot. You’ll see the unflattering metaphor that “a tree is stronger than a weed”, which seems a bit unfair but it’s reasonable point – if not one that’s beyond argument or anything.

Commonwealth countries are politically conservative, small “c” and not big “C”, as the general attitude is “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, even if it’s objectively kind of stupid”. There was a good reason for every one of the decisions that led to today, don’t &^%$ with it, just in case.

The key word in “constitutional monarchy” is “constitutional”, not “monarchy”. The monarch must follow the parliament’s requests, and not doing so is unconstitutional. Parliament is sovereign, at least in all of the countries that derive their monarchy from the UK’s.

Outside of the UK there wouldn’t be a fight anyway: in all the Commonwealth countries (except the ones that have since gone fully republican), the monarch has a representative called “the governor general” who is selected by the Parliament and recommended to the monarch at which point see above. The monarch has to take the advice of who is to be their governor-general. Issues basically never get to the monarch for them to mess anything up. The loyal-to-his-country deputy gets first crack at everything the monarch does in theory and has no reason to go against Parliament. If somehow the g-g or the king did speak out, it’d be a legal mess but everyone would ignore them. Practically we’d either get ourselves a new monarch or just say to hell with it and become a republic.

To answer your specific question then, yes, it’s pro forma. The monarch’s role is to be the embodiment of all legislative, judicial, and executive power, in a fairly close analog to what the American Constitution is. But the Constitution can’t exercise any of those powers and the monarch can’t either. It’s just a historical oddity that they can walk and talk, unlike a piece of paper.

Though the split happened because the Soviets thought they should be master of all Communist countries and the Chinese had different ideas on the topic.

Yes, the Diplomatic Revolution for one.

Yes, but it doesn’t matter enough. The square-cube law means that the mass being supported goes up faster than the area of the layer doing the supporting does. So each additional brick on the bottom still ends up carrying more weight as the pyramid gets taller.

Depends on the compressive strength of the material. Sooner or later the weight of the pyramid above the base exceeds the base’s ability to support it. Considering that a mountain is basically a stone pyramid, Everest has to be in the neighbourhood of how tall you could go – call it 10-12 kilometers high. Other materials would do better.

I had a quick re-read I think you might be right! I’m wondering if I picked it up from the movie instead.

Oh, I’ve read all of his stuff! It’s a red letter day for me when a new story is published. None since 2019, though.

My odd choice of his would be Seventy-Two Letters. I find him most interesting when he follows through in the consequences of an old disproven scientific theory or theological explanation of the universe, and he manages to fit two of them in here.

He’s written some “Notes” on the story when it was printed in his first short story collection and said that it has the same theme but that he wasn’t inspired by it directly. The roots were Paul Linke’s play “Time Flies When You’re Alive” and the principle of least time in optics – if you treat light as a ray, it has to know its future destination in order to know the path with the shortest time it will take to get there (though not if it’s a wave). Then there’s a bunch of diagrams and discussions about the principle’s implications for free will that will stretch your brain. It’s pretty fun.

It’s based on a short story called “Story of Your Life” by Ted Chiang. He’s published only eighteen stories in his career (starting in 1990), nothing longer than a novella and mostly short stories. Despite that they’ve won him four Hugos, four Nebulas, and six Locus Awards. He’s worth reading, is what I’m trying to say.

It’s the only one in English unless you allow things like “The absolute value of -20”.

She might like Little Kitty, Big City. You’re a cat, it’s an open world, you explore, make friends, and wear hats.