The industrial revolution and adoption of computers also introduced a ton of new jobs. We haven't seen any evidence of this happening with AI. AI will eventually come for all of us, it needs to either be curtailed, which is unrealistic and stifling, or we will need to radically shift our economy, which is even more unrealistic. The only other option is collapse. AI has been eating jobs behind the scenes for years without anyone noticing, and there has been no comparable expansion of new jobs like previous revolutions. This was all true ages before the current controversy.
Ranger is perfectly fine mechanically in 5e, it just feels bad to play. It's the opposite of the Monk, that feels fun but performs poorly. The power of the Ranger mostly comes from the chasis being a really strong concept though, a ranged attacker with some spellcasting is just, a really good starting point. Decent utility spell options, OK damage options, fine ranged martial, it gels well. It isn't as good as a Fighter at damage, or a Druid at magic, but it can do enough of both. There's so much power budget used up there, the rest of the features got kind of gutted to make it work.
To be clear, in a cooperative experience like this, I would say the way it feels to play is much more important than the mechanical power. Monk and Ranger are both designed poorly, but the Ranger is probably the worst design. But many people take that to mean the weakest, and that's not true at all. Ranger often outdamages Rogues, it's solidly middlish, of the pack, maybe a little bit on the lower side, compared to the rest of the classes.
There are civilizations that were around for ages before we made fire in Star Trek, and lots of primitiveraces too. Hell, in Voyager they found a race of Terran dinosaurs that escaped Earth before the asteroid hit. They're one of the stronger races in their region of space, but are far from top dog in the Quandrant, implying several societies are possibly millions of years old. Not every race will follow a similar tech advancement, but a couple probably do, anyway.
I came here to "correct" you to that, yes. But then it's not really IPA anymore, and the other character doesn't make sense now. May as well stick to the more universal system.
Yeah, but even if the chance per outing decreases a large increase in outings can still bring the average up. I was an avid skier growing up aND hit the slopes every year, the only surgery I've had was from a skiing accident in my early 20s when I was forced to wipe out or collide with another skier and snapped my ACL.
The thing is, a time traveling device would be like the one on Futurama. It just makes time flow at different rates. What people generally think of is a time teleport. And due to the nature of spacetime, a time teleport is indistinguishable from a space teleport. So any teleport should require precise spacetime coordinates, and n9t jist either space or time coordinates.
It doesn't even need to be that complex. Sure-fire confirmation that there is a pivotal move can help a top level player slow down, analyze, and make a better play than they would normally. All you really need is a single signal to tell them they have access to a brilliant move, and that alone can turn around a game.
Here's the problem, you have to bend space the opposite direction it does from mass to make it work. For that, you need antigeavity. And the only way to make antigravity, is with negative energy. Which is a real thing that actually exists. Basically, the universe runs on averages. So long as a system averages to a number that works, discrete parts of it can have values that don't make sense, so long as the rest of the system makes enough sense for the average of it to be sensible. So in a system that hovers around 0K, for example, it's possible to have tiny fluctuations that occasionally dip to negative temperatures. The math gets weird, but generally it doesn't matter, because those regions are too tiny and random to make any use of it.
But, theoretically, it is possible to harness negative energy. It's been a while since I looked into it, but IIRC, the best theory is to basically concentrate an enormous, mind boggling, ludicrous amount of energy, and then at the very edges of that system you should be able to bleed off tiny bits of negative energy fairly reliably. But we're talking civilizations that move stars tech here. I think the idea was for a giant ring, that would encompass our solar system, kuiper belt and all, and get it to spin. The amount if energy required to spin something that large is mind boggling, and that's your high energy system, then along the surface you can bleed off negative energy. But even that would be an insanely tiny trickle of negative energy. Unless some new method of bending spacetime is discovered, Alcubierre is just unfeasible. However, this could be more practical for wormholes. But even still, likely looking at a microscopic event horizon for the giant ring, it would be for communication only. But at least you can still technically scale up large scale systems like this to theoretically make something large enough for a person to enter.
The thing about blaster bolts in the OT is that they usually are on screen for roughly the same number of frames, no matter the shot. So in close in fights, they can be pretty slow, for long shots, especially the chase of the Tantive IV, they are incredibly fast.
Size comparisons aren't particularly useful when the tech gap is so large. A single relatively small Culture ship would annihilate the Empire and have a grand old time doing it. Going by supplemental technical books from both franchises, Star Wars is insanely, hilariously, beyond the Federation in the ability to project energy. The printed values for Star Wars are frankly absurd and make very little sense, but if we took them at face value the Falcon would be a nigh unstoppable menace. Like throwing some AA guns on a tugboat and harassing some previously uncontacted tribes in the Pacific.
Using estimates from what we see on screen lessens the gap considerably, but still puts Star Wars in general on a higher rung of the Kardeshev scale. I don't know if it still exists, but stardestroyer.net used to have some great calculations of blaster energy levels based entirely from OT footage, with full breakdowns of their math and estimations. As for the "lasers," that's just old nomenclature from long since outdated weapons, blaster tech drives the vast majority of Star Wars weaponry. In new canon, they're plasma weapons. In old canon, there were several flavors, including plasma, but most were particle weapons that used some very exotic fictional particles that didn't interact much with normal matter except thermally, like how dark matter doesn't react much except gravitationally.
And really. It just makes sense. Star Wars technologically plateaued ages ago. The invention of FTL tech is prehistory. Star Trek is only a couple centuries ahead of us.
I mean, it shouldn't be an issue then. The point is they won't allow armed people in, no matter why they're armed. They don't care if you're a cop or military off duty with no weapons. This is just the union trying to spin it as anti-military/cop. I bet you anything the questions went something like
Nobody armed?
Nope.
Not even military?
Yup.
If you want to wear a little tinfoil, one might suspect they asked it like that just for the excuse to paint them as such.
If you're talking about that recent legal case, look again. The artist made the claim that the AI was the sole author, but that he should own the IP. I think the vast majority of people would claim that, in it's current state, the AI is a digital tool an author uses to make art. The recent ruling just reconfirm that A machines aren't people, and B you can't just own another author's work.
Biggest reason is probably that it will be a lot easier to administer. Injection when you can't used a medical profession is kind of a pain for everyone involved.
Have you used Stable Diffusion. I defy you to make a perfect clone of any image. Take a whole week to try and refine it if you want. It is basically impossible by definition, unless you only trained it on that one image.
There are many different kinds of slavery, chattel slavery is one of many. Indentured servitude was a much less extreme and dehumanizing form of slavery, serfdom was something in between. Slavery is an incredibly broad term that basically means someone is unable to choose their labor, as it belongs to someone else. That doesn't necessarily mean the person does, like in chattel slavery, just that their work does.
Kiss the sky.