Hello, fellow writers! Got any question that you can't find answer from Google or Wikipedia, but you don't think it needs a separate thread for? You came to the right place!
Don't be shy, and just ask away. The nice folks here, writers and non-writers, experts and non-experts, will do their best to help you.
The folder below contains links for special interest threads, mostly at OTC, but also from Yack Fest and Troper Coven.
- Aircrafts and Aviation
- Computer
- Economics
- General Religion, Mythology, and Theology
- General Science Thread
- Chemistry
- Earth Science, including Meteorology
- Medicine
- Physics
- Space
- Just don't talk about space warfare over there; use Sci-fi Warfare thread below instead.
- Chemistry
- History
- Martial arts
- Military
- Police and Law Enforcements
- Politics
- The opening post of the linked thread includes links to political threads on specific countries as well.
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Sci-fi Warfare
Also take a look at Useful Notes on various topics. They can be pretty useful.
Now, bring on the questions, baby!
edited 11th Apr '18 6:31:51 PM by dRoy
Yeah, the character in question uses the sharpening steel as a bludgeoning weapon.
Also, as a side note, he carries both sharpening rod and butcher knife with him and do some sharpening whenever he is threatening someone or before starting a fight, as a part of psychological attack.
If the character in question can make some modifications to it, namely, widen the sharpening stick's "guard" they can use it as a parrying dagger
. They just to make sure they parry the blows at the right angle so the stick blunts the opponent's weapon and not sharpens it further.
Why wouldn't it be published? I've read plenty of mainstream literature with open polyamories. Maybe you should omit explicit group sex scenes, but that's about it.
Edited by Fighteer on Oct 25th 2019 at 1:40:42 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This might be talking about how functional, open, and explicitly discussed polyamory is STILL referred to by most monogamists as "cheating" or "free sex," instead of a relationship.
I'd basically say to have them all clearly and repeatedly state that 1) the relationship involves the four of them and nobody else, 2) everyone knows and agrees to the boundaries, and 3) maybe have this addressed in-story and have them point out that it's NOT cheating because of the first two points.
Robert A. Heinlein made polyamorous and polygamous relationships a big part of his stories. Notable examples include Friday, Stranger in a Strange Land, and Time Enough for Love. The premise is that all of the people involved in such relationships mutually consent and are sufficiently attracted to each other. Just as in any relationship, they compromise and otherwise do what it takes to make things work, and friction can develop if individuals within the group squabble.
Edited by Fighteer on Oct 25th 2019 at 8:21:35 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In the process of naming an Artificial Intelligence of a land battleship, I've begun pondering a rather interesting subject: In the case of an AI that can be rather easily (relatively speaking) transplanted from one "body" to another, it strikes me as kind of inappropriate to name the AI after the body that it inhabits.
Consider, for example, EDI from Mass Effect; her core system inhabits the starship Normandy, but doesn't share a name with it, and in fact she can even remote-control a gynoid body to interact with the Normandy crew in a more humanlike fashion rather than as a disembodied voice.
Contrast that with the Minds from The Culture series; Minds (which are capable of being transferred between bodies, BTW) are treated as synonymous with the body that they inhabit, and by all appearances they're always addressed by the name of their body (whether it's a ship, an orbital hub, or anything else a Mind can reside in), with no indication that I know of that Minds have their own names. And then there's also Warhammer 40,000, in which pretty much every known example so far of a "machine spirit" that is referred to by a name is a case of a vehicle-inhabiting machine spirit being named after said vehicle, such as the famous Rynn's Might
or the Bastion Inviolate
; bear in mind that there's nothing in the lore so far that explicitly states that machine spirits are permanently fixed to their vessels (though I assume that it's complicated and effort-intensive enough an endeavor that saving one from imminent destruction of their vessel is simply never an option).
So that brings me to ask the question: What merit does synonymizing an AI with the vehicle that it inhabits have over giving it its own name, other than perhaps emphasizing the way its controllers deny the AI a personal identity?
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 26th 2019 at 12:24:56 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.for the sake of the conversation, i need to correct something in regards to your 40k point, machine spirits are absolutely not ai because the last time humans dicked around with true ai they almost got wiped out by the men of iron- they're scary enough that the single one bumming around the blackstone fortress box set these days is huge news to the 40k gaming community.
ai are actually forbidden tech within the imperium, and machine spirit really refers to a twofold thing- firstly, the actual programming to just do the thing its meant to do, and the particular quirks of the machine in question. imagine, if you will, how you might call your car a "cantankerous old bastard" without the car actually being a cantankerous old bastard.
[source:i'm sitting next to two games workshop employees]
to move along to your question, i would think of it as a matter of personal choice on the ai's part. they can choose to be themself or function as a part of the ship in question- if i remember correctly, bolo tanks are plenty happy to be ai and tank all in one.
the merits and demerits come from how people view their land battleships- do humans think of them simply as unfeeling tools, or is serving on one seen as an honorable, venerated tradition with a lot of gravitas?
you can imagine, if your ai is named synonymously, that's not a bad thing. it might be seen that you, the ai, "own" the ship in the sense that they're your guns, your mighty treads and impenetrable hull, and nothing can stand in your way!
at the same time, if it's synonymous, it can be used to strip away that identity, like you mentioned.
it comes down to how the builders view their creations
[forum cryptid: it/it's]Assigning a personality to a network helps the user see it as an integrated whole. You're no longer telling the tank's voice command to slew its turret to bearing 270 and engage all unidentified targets spotted on the IR scope, you're telling Alexa (or whoever) to do it for you.
What's the merit in this? Well, in military communications, you need responsiveness and brevity. When the user thinks that they're talking to a person rather than a computer, they'd instinctively interact with it like a person would. In the heat of combat, that could mean precious seconds saved from using normal human-speak to give orders, rather than having to mentally translate it into dry robo-speak first. And it's more psychologically reassuring to feel like your weapon is a sentient "partner" that you can rely on - that's why in real life you have military personnel assigning personalities to relatively "dumb" systems like EOD robots and the voice feedback system on plane cockpits.
But a network has many, many breakable parts. If you follow aviation news, you'd know how a minor breakdown in a "smart" AI led to a number of fatal crashes. By not assigning a personality to the network, you force the user to see it for what it is: a fancy flowchart that gives an output in response to an input. That would force them to stay on the edge and ensure that they're giving it clear, specific inputs. It could also mean that when the system inevitably fails, the user will get straight to identifying the point of failure, rather than wasting their emotional energy arguing with it (hands up if you've done this with Clippy).
It all depends on how reliable your AI is, of course. But it helps to remember that everything breaks - and when it does, you'd do well to see things with a clear head. As Clausewitz said: "Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
(The Culture has the best spaceship names, so of course they'd name the Minds after them.)
One day, we will read his name in the news and cheer.ai are actually forbidden tech within the imperium, and machine spirit really refers to a twofold thing- firstly, the actual programming to just do the thing its meant to do, and the particular quirks of the machine in question. imagine, if you will, how you might call your car a "cantankerous old bastard" without the car actually being a cantankerous old bastard.
[source:i'm sitting next to two games workshop employees]
And that's putting aside the fact that "artificial intelligence" is a broad term that isn't limited to purely mechanical AI like the Men of Iron are strongly implied to have been, in contrast to the machine spirits being basically described by someone who ought to know what he's talking about
as what we call a "biocomputer" (that is to say, they incorporate neural tissue into their cogitator circuitry).
Just because someone "works in GW" doesn't automatically grant them as much "authority" on the lore of WH 40 K as, say, Aaron Dembski-Bowden. And even he sometimes says things that I find myself reluctant to take seriously.
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 26th 2019 at 7:51:38 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.the issue comes from it being a catchall term for either a physical manifestation (the literal brain in a box in a land raider) or a limited program to simply "this is a cogitator engine with an attitude" up to and including the very rare examples you're talking about
you're not wrong, it's simply a bad idea to call all machine spirits "ai" and muddles the specific question you're trying to answer
additionally, i've been playing the game for a decade and these guys have been playing the game longer than i've been alive, so i'm not pulling this out my ass.
EDIT: for clarification, the point i'm trying to make is that ai are in the minority around the 40k universe, are extremely rare, and should not be conflated with machine spirits because they aren't the same thing- i'm trying to assist by explaining the conflation of machine spirit = ai isn't accurate and is muddling the questions you're trying to answer. it also doesn't help that geedubs is a little...all over the place in canon with a bunch of slightly different interpretations of nuance that sometimes all run into each other (like you possibly just pointed out with ADB)
Edited by ImmortalFaust on Oct 26th 2019 at 10:54:14 AM
[forum cryptid: it/it's]@Fighteer
While my story's not actively aimed at toddlers, it's mostly G-rated and i don't want it deemed inappropriate and the rating pumped sky-high because of the polyamoric characters. Also, my country's pretty conservative about that type of things.
Edited by Nukeli on Oct 27th 2019 at 11:56:20 AM
~*bleh*~![]()
We call many things "artificial intelligence" that are nowhere close to what the DOAT's Men of Iron were, and some even don't truly fit our definition of the term (Video Game A.I., I'm looking at you). I think you're getting too caught up in how WH 40 K applies the term (which is strictly to what we call "strong/true AI").
Also, "playing the game" can be said of a lot of fans around the world. ADB doesn't play the game, he writes the lore; that's why I would put his word on the lore far above those sources of yours in terms of credibility, regardless of whether or not I agree with him (in the latter case, Loose Canon and Death of the Author are quite useful).
That being said, I forgot in my haste when I made my previous post just before I went to sleep last night to thank you two for your answers. They're quite thought-provoking, to say the least. I'm honestly thinking of a dual approach: The AI would adopt the land battleship's name for its own, but eventually might choose to adopt another name, either in addition to it or as something that only a chosen few are allowed to know and use it. And if the land battleship's name is in a format that is unusual for a name (e.g. "Flame of Wrath"), then the AI may alternatively adopt it as a epithet instead of a personal name (e.g. "I am Alexander, the Flame of Wrath").
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 27th 2019 at 5:52:32 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
But is this what actually happens to books published in your country that depict legitimate polyamorous relationships? It doesn't read to me like the same sort of "vulgar" that censors apply to same-sex relationships, what with how even in the US, media depicting same-sex relationships that go beyond just hugging tend to get slapped with an R/18+ rating even when the same behavior from a hetero couple would get just a PG13/12+ rating, but censors aren't usually all that logical, even at the best of times.
Either way, it seems to me the simplest way to make it clear that a polyamorous arrangement isn't cheating would be to simply have at least two characters in the relationship talk about having sex with at least one other person in the arrangement, like not even in an explicit way, and for none of the participants in the conversation to have a problem with this.
And remember that censors are gonna censor. They flag your work as 18+ even though all of the content taken together is 12+ at most? So what? The readers who are going to be okay with reading about a poly arrangement are going to know what's up, and they aren't going to give two shits about some uptight censors acting like you've just written hardcore porn.
Edited by CrystalGlacia on Oct 27th 2019 at 11:02:18 AM
"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."![]()
I don't really know what does my country excatly think about polyamory, but it isn't considered "normal". And then here is also that the characters in the relationship (obviously) are LGBTQ, talking about LGBTQ is somewhat of a taboo around there unless it's Pride month, and pop culture produced there has pretty much zero representation with anything anyway.
Also, if my work gets slapped with M or R rating or whatever it's called in America, people wouldn't watch it because it's mostly G-rated and not what people expect/want(?) to see when they buy something with the M rating (like sex and gore), and people who would be interested in the story wouldn't be legally allowed to buy it unless they were 18 and the seller didn't think it's bought for a minor. So, in addition to censorship, i'm also kind of worried about not making profit.
(Sorry if the sentences are a little incoherent, i'm a bit tired, but you propably get it)
Then maybe it's time to do some market research and determine the lay of the land when it comes to depictions of polyamory in your country's literature market- books are often more diverse in their subject matter and content than, say, TV or film. If you're hoping to publish traditionally, you're going to need to do at least some of that anyways. And when all else fails, there's self-publishing and word of mouth.
Again, I reiterate: anyone who is okay with reading about a poly relationship isn't going to be deterred by whatever some stupid censor says. If the rest of your work is good enough, your readers might spread it by word of mouth.
Also, I think if you try to sneak it past the radar in an attempt at avoiding an R/18+ rating and not state what it is, people will be more likely to think it's cheating. Don't pussyfoot around LGBT+ representation.
You are writing a book, right? Because if you're trying to make a script for, like, screen or stage, those are a lot harder to turn into a finished product than books, even without LGBT+ themes, what with crews and studios and all.
Get it written before you start thinking about profit. Writing novels is rarely lucrative- if making money is your goal, you're in the wrong game.
"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."

I can’t imagine why you’d want to use a sharpening stick like a bat. You’d be much better served using it to poke holes in someone.
They should have sent a poet.