It's a cool idea, but from an artistic perspective I don't want to rely too much on the technology itself as a writing device. They're people who make their own choices and have to go through specific training for each of their roles, with cybernetic augments being mostly for the aesthetics

The Greenlight Legion looks sleek and cool but isn't actually very well organized or clever. Doesn't have to be when most of their enemies are unarmed civilians

Neat! I wonder about the officers though. Maybe instead of the last officer remaining possibly having the most authority, it’s guaranteed that they will be? After all, what if the last officer doesn’t have the most authority? What happens to the troops without a commander?

It sounds like they treat soldiers as fairly disposable and embrace technology. Maybe officer computers/implants are networked together and, when an officer dies, they automatically reassign and distribute that officer’s troops to other officers based on things like proximity/relative rank?

I now wonder what withdrawal from this drug would be like.

What would drinking and eating be like?

I can see governments allowing addicts to get controlled and monitored doses once they drink some water and eat some food.

Those nearly dying could be given food and water intravenously.

This drug might be useful for some suffering from obesity, as long as they get some protein, micronutrients, and water.

This drug doesn't sound much worse than some opiates, cocaine, alcohol, or even tobacco.

What is the effect on animals? Could it be given to vermin?

As for sleep, that might be less immediately fatal, and sedatives can be used in an attempt to induce sleep.

I can see forcing oneself to eat or drink; my experiences with stimulant-based ADHD meds tells me it's doable but not at all pleasant. But good luck forcing someone to sleep when they don't feel tired.

So as long as the addict makes wt:thonself drink, eat, and sleep, thon won't die?

As I presently have it, the country isn't resource-rich, but has enough to get along, plus they have a reputation of self-reliance. They can feed themselves, though the price of some foods could be high in the case of a blockade—oranges might become expensive, but people can get their vitamin C from other plants grown there. With water conservation, rainwater collection, and maybe some desalination, they have enough drinking water. They have some coal or similar.

I suppose there's 2 types of tourism:

tourism for those who want something a little out of the beaten path: maybe students, or students-of-sorts, of culture, language, religion, and society.

It doesn't have miles of wide sandy beaches where one can swim in, not having to wear a wet suit, it doesn't have famous landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall, the Washington Mall or White House or the Grand Canyon, Taj Mahal, or the Pyramids. If you're an American, there are probably better places for Spring Break or retire to. If you're European, there might be better places in the Mediterranean, or maybe further south or east.

It also has an area, perhaps 10 sq km in size, that is (in a way) better than Nevada: gambling, legalized prostitution, and recreational marijuana use, and maybe a few other things. Tourists in the country who do these outside of the district face arrest, charges, and deportation. Perhaps at any given time, there might be 10 000 to 25 000 foreign visitors in this district.

I am thinking of something like Hong Kong, a somewhat model society existing within the setting of a much larger geopolitical detente. Or maybe imagine a Hawaii that fended off Dole and built their own wealthy remote city state, too far away and powerful to easily push around.

It’s more about what the consequences could be in international relations should the geopolitical status quo change, but currently this little country can do many things that anger other countries that are powerless to stop it. Because the consequences would be worse, like igniting a world war.

Also not all countries have the same types of production.

So if for example it's a desert country, it may need to import water or at least what's needed to make drinkable water. Or a mountainous country which may need to import vegetables. Or a cold mountainous country which may need to import meat too.

And so, based on their needs, their bilateral relationships may change.

Diminutive territories from what I can observe, specially the stable ones, usually have strong tourism.

What type of tourism it offers however, depends on its geography, history, culture and/or what its economy provides.

Also I presume that the country's stable enough because of the strong economy. And in such case, I'd also presume it exists far (or at least sufficiently so) from chockepoints of geopolitical conflicts, meaning it isn't forced to take sides simply by proximity.

Small tangent, but regarding the neutrality, if a country generally successfully tries not to be anyone's enemy, it can fly under the radar even if it's continent-sized too.

Commenting as I remember. Thus breaking into several comments btw.

But something else, a coast, or even a big river where bigger ships can pass by, would allow for strong maritime commerce. Not necessarily involved with crime, though the money laundering part would make an eyebrow rise.

Also getting in with bags of money, or whatever that is too obvious, would pick the attention of other countries. Things like legally accepted gambling, depositing in banks that don't ask the origin of the money ("fiscal paradises") and other activities with some degree of legitimacy more easily pass under the radar if used for money laundering, thus not picking the attention of countries willing to investigate.

Also countries with the intent of spreading corruption would likely have a strong economic presence in such a country.

Comparing to real world geopolitics, I'd imagine such a country would try to stay out of the spotlight, and as you already mentioned, to try to not be anyone's enemy.

But if some country, specially a more relevant one, would want to pass a magnifying glass on money routes for international crime schemes, usually at most a small amount of pressure would be needed to start getting info.

That's such an incredibly cursed invention... 😝

Can you imagine if the companies got their hands on something like that??

Trickle down economics in a nutshell

@NickEast_IndieWriter @reading @bookstodon @books @fantasy @worldbuilding @humor@fedigroups.social @humor@lemmy.world @aiop So Lord of the Rings IS just about fascism.

Thousands? More like 10s of thousands.

Well, I'm not sure where you're from - and considering that this is an English idiom then it's just as likely that other languages are more accurate.

I will admit that the dive into history was fun, I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't motivated by that at least. This entire conversation actually elucidated the point I was making quite well, in that human memory is a fickle thing and history can become muddied as a result. History is written by the victor and other phrases come to mind.

I do wish you and your story well, but I would ask that you consider something for me. Etymology and the progression of language may not seem immediately valuable to you or the story you're writing, but now you have greater insight into the workings of human communication. The layperson didn't care that the fiddle wasn't invented, by the time the phrase was coined it perfectly captured the idea behind the rumor that spread during Nero's time and what was carried through history. If I'm not mistaken he wasn't even rumored to have been playing any instrument, he was rumored to have been singing.

All the best, I hope you continue writing and reading.

No, not interpretation, the way to say it. Where I'm from, the idiom explicitly mentions playing the lyre. I checked.

And no, I don't read things that don't interest me or have no impact on my life. This argument is purely for the fun of it. I mean, at this point it is. Thank you by the way for engaging with me. This was a surprisingly nice exchange. My mind still isn't changed. I prefer to believe things that I am told in real life by people, rather than things I read on the internet. Whenever it suits me, of course. I am a hypocrite after all. You know what they say. "Billions of flies can't be wrong, there's gotta be something to this shit." In any case, thank you for your time, and I wish you all the best.

So you're just wrong, still - being willfully ignorant because you're a pedant doesn't change anything.

Imagine being so pompous as to think your interpretation of an old saying is objectively correct. I would tell you to read up on language prescriptivism but you've already proven you don't read. Doesn't bode well for your story.

In my country/culture the idiom goes "Nero didn't play (or did, people use both versions) the lyre while Rome burned". I don't know what else to tell you. The term being invented or not doesn't matter since the instrument wasn't invented. Your example with Cesar is different. If knives weren't invented by that time (or other stabbing implements) would you still say he was stabbed to death? Language doesn't matter in face of physical reality.

To me, it is the objectively correct version of the idiom, as it involves a historically accurate instrument.

Instead of famine you have all of middle earth looking like a midwestern USA town due to the vast increase in snacks and meals.

*Dank Lord Gandalf.