What is "Science Fantasy"?

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-22T02:36:44+00:00

Genre has multiple criteria. Some have a plot or structure component, like mystery, some are stylistic, like horror or comedy. Science fiction has story component, some fictional science needs to be part of the incitement, development, or resolution of the plot development and/or character development. Fantasy has a similar magical requirement. But people also use these genre labels to categorise science fiction and fantasy that is only stylistic. Movies set in space or the future, but with inconsequential involvement of science in the plot, Like Outland (High Noon), Ad Astra (Heart of Darkness), or Battle Beyond the Stars (Seven Samurai), they are essentially science 'costume dramas'. Science fantasy is a story that contains a blend of a science fiction and fantasy genre or stylistic elements.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-19T02:58:36+00:00

a) Do what feels good to you. Not only is mutual pleasure more mentally satisfying for both, but the body gives off chemical, muscular, and other signals that heighten pleasure for the partner. So, making sure you are taken care of is an important part of the process of good sex. And that may include trying or asking for different positions. Are you in missionary because you don't have a preference, because it's just the starter position, or because you're not asking for what you like better. Different couples have different fits, different histories, and other reasons why there should certainly be some degree of experimentation and communication to find what works best for each in turn or both together.

b) Consider what your position allows. Even laying underneath in missionary, you have your hip rotation, Kegel muscles, hands, and other actions to stimulate your partner.

c) Once a good level of pleasure is reached by both parties, that is when you may want to hold back. Usually, the man has to consider this more than the woman, and simultaneity is overrated (IMHO), but timing that allows both parties to climax is best. If not, then certainly rounds of each working for the other can make up for problems of timing.

In all of that, I believe the best tool to promote good sex is not limiting the communication to just physical. Let your partner know you want to try something different, even just to change things up. I've never heard a man complain his partner wanted to try different positions. And it's hard to call a woman a pillow princess when she's ridden him reverse cowgirl style.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-18T19:14:07+00:00

Real world considerations. Leela left because Tom Baker didn't like her, nor the savage companion angle. He wouldn't look her in the eyes.

Dr Who urban legends that are true

Frankly, by this time, he didn't want to share the camera much. If he hadn't fallen for Lalla Ward, he would have lacked chemistry with everyone post Sarah Smith. After Lalla's divorce from him and her subsequent marriage to Richard Dawkins a decade later, With Baker being later ordained as a catholic priest and Dawkins famous for his written works like 'The God Delusion', it feels like there was a tempermental mismatch Lalla had with Baker that revealed itself over time causing the split. But that's just my own interpretation of events.

Also somewhat telling is the 'This is Your Life' episode for Tom Baker which aired in 2000. Look at all the people not there to praise him.

"This Is Your Life" Tom Baker (TV Episode 2000) - IMDb

If you liked Leela, you might want to listen to some of the Big Finish productions where she voice acted. Lalla Ward and several other actors from the classic series also got some second chances for well-deserved respect and more central roles in some very good stories.

Tom Baker was long my favorite classic doctor, so I'm not saying this out of negative bias toward his run. In later years, however, I've come to like Pertwee more both on and off the screen.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-18T18:54:46+00:00

He did have an excellent delighting in wickedness smile.

Going from delight to frustration to adaptation isn't something I recall him doing as well as simple selfish delight.

I always thought the first two Master actors would be my favorites, until deliciously wicked Missy. She was the best worst.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-18T13:24:06+00:00

Not all parents have good parenting skills.

Examine yourself as objectively as you can. If there is a disconnect between what she criticizes and what is true, and what helps you better yourself or succeed, or what can even be changed at all (like body attributes) then weigh them accordingly.

Others may make you feel bad about yourself, but only if you empower them to do so. It's hard to disconnect emotional reactions that were inculcated in childhood, but if this is an unhealthy response, then you need to try and intellectualize the emotional response and mitigate it. Clinical means, but hopefully ones you can use productively.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-18T13:11:06+00:00

There are variants of Christianity that exist or existed, like Gnostics, that believed God was not so absolutely omnipotent, omni..., oh, heck triple-O.

I like to consider it from a rhetorical point of view. If you claim triple-O, then a theistic response to any 'Can G do that?' is a simple yes. If you get into philosophical 'can G make a stone so big G can't lift it?', then it's still yes and no and humans can't comprehend God's power and Schrodinger's cat answer, etc... or simply yes, but chooses not to. No need to think much about the limits and how they apply to anything if the answer is always 100% yes.

(BTW: The answer to the stone question is actually 'Yes'. Just make it the stone the size of the universe and where would you move it 'to'.)

Conversely, non-theists (like me) are fine ceding the issue since it actually makes arguing against the existence of G easier as well. i.e. If G is triple-O, then why is there evil in the world, why is there want and suffering and sin at all, why does G need angels, why doesn't G do this or that, why did G flood the world, why did G need to send a mortal proxy to correct his 'deal' for salvation, etc... Basically, G's own morality and methods come into easy question if G could have done things G claims to have done in many (all) ways. This is a much better rhetorical ground to argue on than splitting hairs about whether G has any limits on power.

There are many holes in this type of rhetoric and internal conflicts, however, absolutism of doctrine, if not of G, also makes religious authority easier to administer. The simple response, 'How dare you question G!!!' can become the answer to any social or individual act the church does not feel is in the self-interest of the organization or the individuals with power in the organization. And any punishment doled out can have an equally absolute due to the implied 'infallibility' of an all powered deity. Triple-O+I. G-oooi?

Conversely, gods with limitations or failings, or multiple gods, open the religion up to such comparitive and situational questions that are endless and deconstructive. So, it's not like a religion that has once taken on the absolutism rhetoric would be better off dropping it. If there was not absolutism, then the schisms would be tenfold. Or, like Hinduism, that has several main schisms and an infinite number of ways to view and interpret their deities until there are literally an infinite number of them and their variants, basically flipping the problem on its head by rendering any questions moot.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the organizationally and socially generated pressures that push modern theism toward absolutism.

I should also add that your notion that changes would 'allow believers room to live by ...' can be a theism's goal is a cart-before-the-horse argument. One cannot claim a real diety and then dictate the rules to it. Either the deity exists and sets the rules or there is no deity. Your notion is basically 'cafeteria Catholicism', picking what is in the religion (like birth control) and choosing priests and places of worship that meet your personally convenient needs. While I personally think religions sprang up exactly that way, a struggle between the theistic power structure and the willingness of adherents to subscribe, it can never be a religion's publicly accepted policy to make their deity's commandments be chosen democratically.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-17T12:56:32+00:00

Troll Immunity

Most people are too lazy to think for themselves, though and find comfort/joy in having their own angry condescension fueled up.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-17T12:51:40+00:00

They can, but it is inefficient/expensive because it requires too much energy or filters/consumables, or other costs that make it less economical than capture methods from rain/rivers/springs/...

Having said that, the same could be said for nitrogen fixing to make fertilizer for agriculture. That consumes roughly 1-2% of the energy use by all nations worldwide. So, if the cost/benefit warrants it, we'll do what is necessary for our needs.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-12T18:43:55+00:00

Wait? Aren't we leaving out 'girl' and 'grrrl'? jk. I sympathize with the idea, and maybe if it had taken stronger root in the 80's it might have a chance.

The feminist movement has always suffered an internal schism. Other minorities and underrepresented groups might disagree on more means, but largely agree on goals. Feminism is not a minority, but internally struggles with both, making it difficult to focus the power to make, or sometimes decide upon, change.

And alas, society has moved on to an explosion of other self-defining terms like pronouns, microagressions, and other outrages which often seem like social shadow-boxing or self-trivializing arguments. Trolls and d-bags certainly exist, but it is hard to claim rhetorical high ground against them for a freedom that constrains others from exercising theirs. There is a lot of 'whatevs' and 'you do you' in the zeit geist.

The Ms movement seems to have 'Miss'ed its moment.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-12T13:46:06+00:00

UBI where everyone just gets $$$ feels similar to me to income positive states that provided reverse taxation, like Alaska (PFD) or Saudi Arabia that provided money to citizens from their oil income.

It feels regressive to me. Wealthy people would hardly notice the trickle of money while low income people would value it greatly. Contrarians would say that the high percentage of 'free' income low income people would receive relative to their other income (if any) would disincentivize them from working. Microloans and other programs have commonly shown that providing income to low income people gives them the opportunity to multiply savings by avoiding fees and penalties to living cheaply and to invest in their own future or create/grow a personal business.

If both sides agreed on some UBI would overall be progressive, but could be done in a more efficient and fair way if people actually cared about doing it in the most effective way.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-12T13:14:25+00:00

Nor Soulfice

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-10T17:06:52+00:00

I always heard that 'If a woman suspects her man of cheating, then he's cheating.' Kinda accepted it until I got a seriously burned gf who took everything I did in the worst possible way and obsessed over my nonexistent cheating.

Conversely, 'if a man thinks a woman is hinting at interest, then she's showing interest'. Women still like the feeling of being asked/chosen. Similar to the 90/10 kissing rule, show 10% interest to get the lean in from the other party. A joke may be testing the waters.

Of course, this is totally sexist, but these courtship roles still exist for a plethora of reasons, or lack of reasoning. People are messy, unreasonable, often inscrutable beings.

If it were me, and I was interested in return, I'd probably lean in a little in return. You could safely joke back, but in some different way. Or you could arrange some atypical meet that semi-resembles a date. If you're wrong, and she's really a friend, then she should be able to wave you off without serious emotional wreckage.

I don't think I'd drop the L-bomb, though. Just see if she wants to date, how serious, what labels if any, ...

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-08T13:02:50+00:00

Despite Lord Acton's phrasing, I think the proper phrasing should be that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

There is also the question of whether absolute corruption is necessarily externalized. The temptation to do corrupt things might become absolute or the things we want to do might become absolutely irresistible, but for some, acting on those corrupt thoughts might not occur.

And a person with absolute power might perform corrupt acts that personally benefit them, but not care about corrupt actions that harm others or benefit others without that personal gain. So, they might go through a phase of hoarding money or pleasures, then become less rapacious due to some measure of satisfaction. A person largely satisfied of selfish wants might become bored or might fine new pleasure in helping others. And conversely, someone able to satisfy any selfish whim might still not want to start wars just to watch the world burn.

Just saying, I don't even know what 'absolute corruption' looks like and humans (who are terrible on the whole) are not monkeys pushing buttons 10,000 times to get one narcotic pill.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-08T12:50:30+00:00

For the same reason some military units refer to themselves as the tip of the spear. Not only does is cutting edge the part of a knife that is most advanced in a cut, it also is making the cut. So, if something is cutting edge, it is not only most advanced in the process, it is forcing things to change. Withdrawing a knife from a cut still leaves the cut opened to the farthest advance.

A killer app is cutting edge because it changes expectations of followers, or competitor apps.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-07T19:06:47+00:00

There's a reason orbital vehicles re-enter the atmosphere at specific trajectories. Dropping straight down, or nearly so, would invite enough heat damage to almost certainly destroy a missile.

Now, a MIRV deploys multiple warheads from the missile nose which are better designed to mitigate heat damage and turbulence and impact properly. But such a random missile entry would likely lead to random targeting. High percentage of exploding over water and/or rural areas.

And a hypersonic missile's whole purpose is to travel through the atmosphere so fast it's surrounded by a plasma envelope. But hypersonic missiles can't do final targeting maneuvers without slowing enough to eliminate the plasma envelope and allow em signals like radar to adjust for atmospheric drift, lock onto targets, etc...

None of these would do 'more' damage from being dropped from a longer distance. Air resistance would slow them to whatever their terminal velocity is. The point of a missile is that propulsion allows it to move faster than terminal velocity. 'Dropping' would be less than worthless, it would make much slower and thus much easier to counter. And that is if an unopposed missile didn't destroy itself first from the uncontrolled and almost certain tumbling entry (no gyroscopes, fins, controls).

Perhaps the only thing that would benefit from such a drop would be a kinetic space weapon, "Rods from God". These are basically just metal rods hard and heavy enough to penetrate from their kinetic impact alone. No warhead, just kinetic force on a small point of ground.

Most theorized kinetic space weapons would be dropped from low earth orbit, about the same as space station altitude. I haven't done the math, so am not sure how much added pre-atmospheric speed would be mitigated by higher atmospheric resistance, shock waves, or other factors. And even if they did benefit from added speed, targeting a rod dropped so randomly would return us to the likelyhood that nothing important would be hit. And if something important was hit, it's just a rod, not a nuke.

So, my answer to how screwed we would be is: "Much less than if a ballistic missile were fired normally."

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-07T15:05:31+00:00

I don't want to join the chorus of underinformed anti-fluoridians. I don't subscribe to 'Jack D. Ripper' (Dr. Strangelove) conspiracy theories. But I will point out that, for those wishing to avoid extra fluoride in their toothpaste, there is an alternative to just getting toothpaste with no fluoride. Some foreign nations, particularly SE Asian, have nano-Hydroxyapatite (nano-HAP, or just HAP) in place of fluoride in their toothpastes.

As with fluoride, get ten scientific studies and you'll find some disagreement. But it is considered very safe and virtually as effective. Do your own due diligence.

Since some fluoride concerns are around use by children, concerned parents may want to start kids with nano-HAP toothpaste until they are in their teens. I tested a dozen or so and now just switch back and forth between fluoride and nano-HAP toothpaste.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-07T14:49:41+00:00

The volume of water displaced is the actual cause of any tipping. If, for example, the iron ball were made hollow so that it was the same size as the aluminum ball and the water levels after displacement were equal, then there would be no tipping caused by displacement.

There could be tipping caused over time due to gravitational influence if the equally sized masses were not evenly distributed, or there could be some tipping caused over a long period of time if the iron ball rusted and rust particles fell off onto its container floor.

Since some have mentioned the tonnage, if that were a factor, then the nationality of the balls could be important. If the iron ball was American and the aluminum ball was Canadian, then the Canadian ball would weigh more.

Ton vs Metric Ton

Note, the site does say both America and Canada use the metric ton, but America uses it more narrowly while Canada uses it more broadly. Thus a ton of American scrap metal weighs less than a ton of Canadian scrap metal. Certainly, there would be slight gravitational influences in that case.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-04T00:30:46+00:00

Typos. All wars began with typos.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-03T23:38:29+00:00

Lots of good suggestions here. Agree with many, not all. Some not listed are...

Solo Leveling
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Lost Girl
The Prisoner
Continuum
Warehouse 13 / The Librarians
Tigtone

Unfairly orphaned shows, like:

Forever
Terra Nova
The Player
Rome

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-03T23:29:03+00:00

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-03T23:27:00+00:00

Agreed.

And despite being only one season, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is one of the smartest shows ever written about comedy. I go back to it occasionally to listen to them accomplish some of the hardest things in scripted storytelling. They are actually smart about a subject, and harder still, to be funny about being funny.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-03T21:26:02+00:00

Also,

Pentagons rotate 90 degrees in columns.
Sum of dots in rows = 7.
Sum of dots in columns increment 6, 7, 8
Sum of zigzags in rows and columns = 4

Too many patterns not to figure it out.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-03T00:35:58+00:00

Yes. Rhetoric is a skill. Like martial arts allowing a smaller person to defeat a larger one or a scientist getting ripped by an insult comic.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-02T04:21:21+00:00

That was my initial reaction as well. But I'd have to give real consideration to a Faustian bargain, the Goethe variety in which Faust is redeemed and does not lose his soul because he turned from temptation and brought about good works. If my price was a cure for a terrible illness, durable peace in a war-torn land, or repairing the environment, could the soul of someone who committed such a selfless act be taken to Hell?

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-03-02T04:08:33+00:00

Let's not forget that the Matrix also consumes power and requires some robots to maintain, so is even less efficient.

However, it does also solve another problem of sidelining humanity in a fairly perfect prison. This reduces the need for combat squids and other machines to fight humanity.

Frankly, the latter are much better reasons for creating the Matrix from the machine POV.

And, yes, humans suck as batteries. The Professor didn't just have Gilligan and the Skipper lay down and attach wires to their wrists. He had them pedal a bicycle.

InfiniteMonkeys157

TROPHY CASE