An Infernal Line of Reasoning.

A note before I launch into this: what I'm talking about is a super-controversial issue. I expect that many, if not most, people will read this and disagree with most or all of what I'm saying. But I'd appreciate it if you could not just shout hate, and rather give a reason for what you think or feel. That would be great.


So the other week, I finished listening to the audiobook of Inferno, by Dan Brown. (Yes, it references Dante's Inferno quite a bit.) It's the one that relatively recently got turned into a movie. Don't watch the movie. People have various attitudes towards Dan Brown books, but I'm a bit of a history buff, so I love the detail. I also loved how in this book, there were more turnarounds than you could poke a stick at. Classic drama. (One of the reasons that the movie fell through was that they really only included two of them, whereas the book had easily half a dozen or more.) Also, by the end, you were able to empathise with the supposed 'villain/s'. Which I rather appreciate. There's a bit too much hate that goes around.

Here is where I'm going to be doing a massive spoiler for the book, so if you don't want that, stop reading and go watch something else. Or read the book and come back. Not the movie, they changed the ending for it. Yes, they actually changed the ending. That's how bad it was.

Okay. If you're still reading, I'm assuming that you're okay with massive spoilers for the book.

Throughout the book, there are big hints at disease and epidemics. References to the Black Death. Biohazard symbols. The World Health Organisation. Plague masks. The whole idea is that Langdon and his partner are racing to stop someone from releasing a plague that will go global, and wipe out some percentage of the population - the idea being that the humans left surviving will then be able to thrive, because there will be less competition for resources. The analogy is used of the Black Death preceding the Renaissance. So the whole time during the book, you're given these grisly images of disease, death, horrible pain and global panic.

But right at the end, this virus (because it is a virus) is actually revealed to be something very different. It's a sterility virus. Mass Effect players, think genophage, but not quite as bad. Essentially, 1 in 3 people, for the rest of time (unless a cure is devised) are rendered completely infertile. Works on both males and females, and it's suggested that because of the brilliance of the person that engineered the virus - and the fact that they committed suicide - it is going to be extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to come up with a cure in any near future. As an aside, they don't manage to stop the virus from getting out, basically because they got their dates wrong - so it's gone global.

A couple of people in the book have a very immediate and visceral reaction to this virus. They hate the idea of it, think it's horrible, and do anything that they can to stop it. But others - they see it as a clean answer to many of the problems that we face in the world. Overcrowding. Pollution. Resource depletion. Food scarcity. Poor health in some areas. The simple fact is - if you have a lot less people living on the planet, suddenly, many of these problems become much more manageable.

Strangely enough, I finished that book thinking - well, actually, that would be a great idea. Overcrowding has been in the back of my mind ever since I read a comic of Mandrake the Magician, where he met someone who had time-travelled back from a future where they had serious overcrowding; to the point where they had people who's job it was to cull the population. Now, I don't know if we'd ever quite get to that stage. But certainly, in many places, you have a lot more kids being born than people are able to take care of; because of lack of contraception, or lack of education, or lack of wealth or health, or any number of other reasons. And there are so many kids that are orphans, or waiting for foster carers, or that are just left, because people can't care for them. And I don't think that's really okay.

Now, don't hear me saying that we shouldn't have kids. Or that everyone should just stop having sex! Like that would work. I'd be the last person to say that. I've been aching to have kids for a long time. But, although I know I'd enjoy having my own child - I also think I'd really love adopting children, and being able to provide them with parents. I think that would be super-special too. And yes, it would be hard. And sad. I know there are a lot of people that would find it particularly difficult - guys that see themselves as having their masculinity robbed from them, or girls being broken over not being a mum to their own kids. Though perhaps some would be glad to not go through all those pains of giving birth....but I'm straying well into the territory of things I know nothing about.

I don't really know. I think it's an interesting topic to think on. Because our population is skyrocketing, any old graph can tell you that. Growing at an exponential rate. And as it grows, so do so many other issues. And most things on this Earth are finite. Some are a bigger finite - but almost all will run out, one day. And if we don't look to solving that issue soon, it's going to come back and bite us on the bum before we know it. That's my thoughts, anyway. You can feel free to disagree.

Difficult Virtues

I turn 25 later this year.
Which makes younger me rather sad.
Because younger me thought that by now,
I would be married,
and have kids.
That I'd be a dad.
And I'll admit,
that every time I get to play with younger kids,
it's both a great joy and sadness.

A great joy,
because I'm doing
what I wanted to be doing.
A great sadness,
because it's only for a moment.
These aren't my kids.

And sure.
I don't have to deal with the crazy hours.
The various bodily fluids.
The noise.
The tempers and complaining.

I'd take it all in a heartbeat.
Just to be a dad.
But it's not the sort of thing that you can short-cut.
Well.
You can.
But I'd rather not.
*sighs*

Patience.
It's a virtue.
That is difficult.
Sorry younger me.
There's rather a ways to go yet.

Some Recent Notes.

Thought it was time for another post. I have a specific one I want to do, looking at a book I read recently, but I think that will be for later.

I still haven't talked about SWF, so I'll do a section on that here. Then there's a few other things happening that I thought I'd chat about.
The Sydney Writer's Festival was quite a bit of fun this year. I got to do a lot of the school days and children's events, which I hadn't before, so loved that :) Went around a bit, as well - was at the wharf (Walsh Bay), of course, but then also at Campbelltown, and out at Penrith, and had an early day helping at the office, which was cool. Had one day that I was helping an older lady, and got to sit in on her events - which was awesome, because they were both sold out before (so I wasn't really sitting, but you know) - and they were just really interesting. One was a panel on the attitude towards immigration in Australia; they talked a bit about how we're quite unique in that we're an island continent, so we can completely control who comes and goes by sea. Also had a bit of the flavour of the old 'White Australia' idea. Essentially, they - and pretty much everyone else in the room - felt that the government had a pretty terrible attitude towards immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers. Agreed. The second one was more historical - someone talking about their book on the Byzantine Empire, and particularly Constantinople; which I found quite interesting, because I'd just been reading Inferno (incidentally, the book I want to do a post on), that included a section on that. So that was cool. I rather enjoy history.

So. Recent bits and pieces.

I've become the worship leader for the PM service over at Cobbitty Anglican, which is significantly awesome. It's the sort of thing I've wanted to do for ages, so really enjoying that. It's also quite a smaller team, and a congregation size that's quite familiar for me, so a good place to start. Looking forward to seeing how that grows :)

I've been working on an idea for a board game, that I'm calling Septimus. I wrote about some of the backstory here, and you can see me talking a bit more about the design of it here. I'm getting pretty close to having the first draft done; over the last little while I've been getting it ready for printing, so that I can start playtesting. That's going to be fun :D But I've really enjoyed designing the different bits for the game, and figuring out how it's all going to work together.

I've also just gotten the final bits of video from my album launch back in September of last year, so I'm going to be working to get that released and out to people as soon as I can. Then I can think about getting the next album recorded....really looking forward to that one :) I might be biased. It is an album about love, after all.

I've been invited to be the speaker for another Cru Camp, happening in the first week of the holidays. It's a study skills camp for year 11s, and they've got a special keynote speaker coming in on the first day - Deng Adut. You might not know the name - but you'd probably remember his face from the new WSU ads. So if you know someone who's in year 11, definitely encourage them to go along! We're also looking for some teachers who can help tutor different subjects and such. You can see more details about the camp here.

While I don't have a job at the moment (apart from the one at the church, that is - but that's just a few hours a week), things are starting to look up. There are more possibilities opening up, more opportunities, more doors that are starting to open rather than be closed. And exciting ones! The hard part is always deciding which ones to take....

But yeah :) Though things have been tricky this year, I think we're heading towards a turnaround. And I can't wait :)

An Argument For A Loving God.

I realise that I haven't gotten a post up for SWF yet. Hopefully that will be soon. But had this thought, so figured I'd write it out.

One of the big arguments that is given against the Christian idea of a loving God is the prevalence of suffering and pain in the world. If God was so loving - wouldn't he do something? Seems to be the basic idea, or something akin to it.

It's something that was tackled by John Dickson, in If I Were God, I'd End All The Pain. Definitely recommend you having a look at his argument at some point, because it's quite simple, yet I think quite strong. But I want to have a look at a different angle.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that people are loving? On this earth - do you think that there are people that show love? Or even just one person - even just one person, that you would describe as loving? I think that most of us would say yes, we believe that either people in general, or some people at least, are loving, to some degree. A few more than others, perhaps. Mothers, or doctors, or firefighters, maybe.

Okay, then. Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that there is a God that has created everything. We take that as a given. And we take, as a given, that he has created us. We also take as given that he existed before anything else. (It's okay if you don't think that these are the case. Just using it for this point here for now.)

Now, a question. Can you create something - when you have never experienced it yourself? If you told a person to paint a tiger, if they had never seen or heard of one - how would they? If you told someone to make a sphere, but they didn't know what one was; could they do it? And similarly, if God did not know love, if he was not a loving God - how could he create loving people?

This, for me, doesn't make sense. How could an unloving God create people that are loving? How could an uncompassionate God create people who are compassionate? How could an apathetic God create people with empathy? I don't think it's possible. If we are all of these things - then God must demonstrate these at an even higher level than us. So, in a sense - the fact that we are asking why a loving God doesn't end all the pain, shows that God is loving. Because we are asking that question out of our own desire to help, out of our compassion and empathy and love.

It's quite possible that this isn't a watertight argument. I've just thought of the example of A.I. - if we can create A.I. that exceeds our own level of thinking, couldn't God do the same with human emotions? And perhaps it's possible. But I think there's a big difference between creating something that exceeds you at something you possess, that is better than you at something; than creating something that has something that you do not, that you are unaware of and have no knowledge of.

Please, feel free to discuss this - but nicely! :)

Every Day I'm Buskerin'

Okay, that's a terrible title. Oh well. Deal with it.

I'm a bit behind on my posts. Hopefully I'll have one up about the Sydney Writer's Festival before long, and another one about something else. But thought I'd do this one now.

On Saturday, I went and played on a keyboard in Camperdown Memorial Park in Newtown. Well. I brought the keyboard with me, and played on it. But you know. It was my first time busking with a keyboard, for various reasons. Power is a bit tricky. And you can't really take it on the train. But that wasn't the important thing, though it was pretty cool. Neither was it important that it was the first time I'd played a gig in about nine months or so, or that I hadn't played some of those songs in ages. Or at all in public. Though that was cool too.

No, the important thing was that it was for Busk For A Cure. To those of you who aren't aware, Busk For A Cure is an annual charity music festival that happens over at Newtown around this time each year. It's still in the early stages - last year was the first time it had some decent organisation happening, and so this year we had some good foundations to build on. I had heard of BFAC before, but hadn't gotten involved - but this year, they needed a few extra people on board, so I put my hand up :) Since then, I've been running the blog over here, and also working on a couple of press releases and such, as well as other bits and pieces. And it's been pretty awesome.

So that all came to a head this Saturday just past, when we got together in Newtown and made some noise! Well, music, hopefully. People seemed to like it (for the most part), which was good :) There were a few hiccups, as inevitably occurs with these sort of events. When you have fifty artists across five stages across the whole day, something is bound to go awry. But it all got sorted one way or another, and it seemed to go really well. We're still waiting on the final tally - that's happening tomorrow - but I'm feeling really positive :)

All the money raised goes towards both Cancer Council NSW and Crohn's & Colitis Australia, we don't keep anything for costs and the like. We have sponsors to cover all of that, as well as a great team of volunteers. It got started and is being run by Helmut because of his mother, who suffered from cancer. And it's pretty darn awesome. I'm super-stoked to have been involved with it this year, and am already looking forward to next year :)

If you are interested in getting behind this cause, you can still donate to support BFAC here.

When Do You Feel Most Lonely?

This one is a fairly short one, but I thought I'd ask a question of people for once. When do you feel most lonely? Because the thing is, for me, I feel most alone in a crowd. That might seem a bit ridiculous, but hear me out.

When you're by yourself, you can't connect to anyone. You're by yourself. You expect to be alone, and you are. And you get a bit lonely here and there, but it's not usually too bad.

But when you're in a crowd, when you're amongst other people - well, there's so many people to connect to! Surely, one of them will connect with you, right? Surely, someone will....no....oh, okay then....

That's why I feel most alone in a crowd, or in a room of people, or at a lot of events. Most of the time, I'm sitting or standing by myself, and everyone else is talking to someone. And I wonder what it is they've got that I haven't. How do they do it?

It's relatively simple, of course. They connect. They talk. They interact. I do that as well, but it usually feels a lot more - pointed, than it should be. It feels like it should be spontaneous and natural. But with me, it's more like a list in my head. "Okay, I need to talk to this person about this, and this person about that, and it would be nice to talk to that person," but inevitably, each of them is already talking. It would be rude to interrupt. But I don't want to just sit in one spot. I'm terrible at keeping still - well, I'm okay at it, but I like to move around. So I do, until someone is free. Then I hope I can dive in before someone else does....

That's not what conversation always is for me, of course. It depends very much on the context. The above is fairly typical for me after church, for instance. Not so much at my new church as yet, because I don't know anyone much well enough to talk to them! Guess that's the point of talking to them.....oh, yes, for those who haven't heard as yet, I'm at a new church now. Not because I didn't like the old one. I rather do. Just a bit of a new direction for a season - not sure how long a season. We'll see as we go. But at present, I'm leading the music for the evening service over at Cobbitty Anglican. Lovely old church. Very old, actually. Heritage listed. Beautiful building. Good people, too. Always nice.

Anyway. Yes. Conversation, interaction. All that sort of thing. Feeling lonely in a crowd. So. Not sure if that's just a me thing, or an Aspie thing, or actually somewhat broader. So thought I'd ask around! When do you feel most alone/lonely? Would love to get your thoughts :)

A History Of Septimus.

For a little while now, I've been working on a board game called Septimus. Most of it is done - the rules, the ideas, how it all works together. What takes time is all of the cards - I've got two sets of decks I need to make, one for Items, the other for Encounters. There are 70 Item cards, in two decks (of 42 and 28), and then 140 Encounter Cards, in four decks (of 14, 28, 42, and 56). I'm wanting each to be unique. I have a fair few ideas about what they'll look like, have them categorised, I've got a few examples of each....it just takes time.

But one thing I only wrote relatively recently, but had had in my head since near the start, was the history; the story of the game, the context. So I thought I'd share that here. History buffs will quickly realise I'm using a touch of Latin. The names, if you're interested, are mostly real. I think I only invented one. I'm not sure if I'd say the people actually spoke Latin; perhaps it is in tribute to their ancestors who did. More to figure out! But for now, read on, and discover the world....of Septimus....

In the land of Patriam, at the height of the Middle Ages, there arose seven charismatic and influential leaders. First, Seneca, a philosopher, a very wise and elderly man. Second, Ennius, who worked wonders with mechanisation. Third, Petronia, a fierce warrior. Fourth, Terentius, an expert navigator and sea captain. Fifth, Ignatia, who delved into the new field of explosives. Sixth, Maximilianus, an in-depth and disciplined researcher. And seventh, Untalia, who hid in the shadows, and worked in secret places. 

Each of these developed a faction around them, of people like themselves, who had their ideals and skills. And each went to war against the other factions. 

The fighting was long, and bloody. Each faction wanted leadership over Patriam for themselves; none was willing to concede. Even those that seemed to get along well, and had originally supported one another, turned against each other. The war went on for generations, with no sign of ending. 

Finally, Seneca stepped forward, calling for a council, with a member from all seven factions present. They believed that they had an idea for peace. Slowly, each other faction agreed, and the first Council of Seven was held. 

Seneca proposed that, rather than one faction ruling over the land, all seven could live together. Each year, a leader would be chosen from each faction, and they would compete to see who would rule for that time. After some discussion, the others agreed. They were tired of bloodshed. 

Ennius then proposed that this competition could take place in a maze with various encounters, which they would build. Petronia supplied their best warriors to test the maze. Terentius scouted out the best location to build it. Ignatia brought their pyrotechnic expertise to many of the traps. Maximilianus researched and tested to deduce the best encounters to trial the skill of each faction, and to make it fair for each one. Untalia advised Ennius on many of the unexpected surprises to be found in the Maze. 

At the second Council, they formed a joint government and law between the seven factions. Each was given, and was responsible for, a seventh of the land; as such, each faction was referred to, then on, as a septimus. Together, they were called the Septem Septimus. 

The Maze became part of the culture for each septimus, each preparing in their own way. Each septimus knew bits of what to expect, but none knew all. The Maze changed every time, and you didn’t know what you would face until you entered. But each year, each septimus selected their Hero to enter the Maze, to potentially lead the land for the year to come. 

You have been chosen as a Hero. You represent your Septimus. You face the Maze. Will you emerge victorious?

An addendum to triangles.

Quite a while back, I did this post. In it, I made a bit of a boo-boo. And I didn't realise it at the time. I figured it out by finding this page here, looking at the same problem. I discovered quite quickly that I'd been missing out all of the downwards-facing triangles that weren't unit triangles. Which wasn't a problem for the first three triangles, because there aren't any. The fourth has only one. But then it goes up.

So, my previous formula of (x^3 - x)/6 doesn't work at all. So I tried to find a new one.

First, I tried doing it while maintaining the x^2 out the front. I discovered that the rest of the sum was the series (0, 1, 4, 11, 23, 42, 69....), which, when typed into the online encyclopaedia of integer sequences (quite handy), said that it was the sequence "A019298 - Number of balls in pyramid with base either a regular hexagon or a hexagon with alternate sides differing by 1 (balls in hexagonal pyramid of height n taken from hexagonal close-packing)." You can have a look here if you like. Unfortunately, it looks like they don't have formulas for the nth term in the series in any simple form, though I'm probably just reading it badly.

So I tried it a different way - separating out the upward-facing (which I knew was just a sum of triangular numbers, and was easy enough), from all the downward-facing. The latter yielded this series: 0, 1, 3, 7, 13, 22, 34..... which also came up, this time as "A002623 - G.f.: 1/((1-x)^4*(1+x))." I've just found out that G.f. stands for Generating function. Again, though, it didn't have any simple formulas.

There were formulas available for both. But all of them included extra expressions. They're all given in the format a(n)=, n being the nth number in that series, and a being that series. But then they'll have a(n-1)*a(n+2) in the formula or something, which isn't helpful! I need it just in terms of n. But, they didn't have that.

So, at present, I have no formula for this. Unfortunately. I knew you were all hanging on for me to pull out something nice, right, but I've got nothing for you. :/ If any of my maths friends can figure it out, let me know!

Notes on the Royal Game of Ur.

I recently came across this video that was uploaded quite recently for International Tabletop Day 2017, by, of all places, the British Museum. In it, Tom Scott (who hosts his own YouTube channel, chiefly about Things You Might Not Know) takes on Irving Finkel at a very, very old board game - possibly the oldest board game that we still have the rules for.

The rules were actually only discovered and deciphered relatively recently (in the last ten years or so), by Mr Irving Finkel himself. The game, however, was discovered close to a hundred years ago.

Now, there is some debate as to how the game is played; the text that was used to guess at the rules is only a partial Cuneiform tablet, so we are missing bits and pieces. But I'll give you the version that was played by Tom and Irving (though apparently there's also a more complex version).

The board can be seen below. The game is played by two people, with seven white and seven black pieces (each player choosing a colour). There are also four tetrahedral dice, each with two white points. You roll all four at once, and the number of white points that are up is your roll - so you can roll a number from zero to four.

The object of the game is demonstrated quite well by the graphic below. You need to get all seven of your pieces from the start, to the finish, along this course. Each turn, you roll the four dice, and may move one piece that number of spaces. You cannot land on your own piece - this is not a legal move. You must move the number of spaces specified, not more or less. If you move on to an opponent's piece, that piece must go back off the board and start again. You also need an exact roll to leave the board.

If you move on to one of the spaces marked by a star, above, or the flower/rosettes on the original board, you get an extra roll - which may be used to move any piece, not just the piece you just moved. If your piece is on the star in the centre, it cannot be landed on by an opponent's piece, and is safe. If you roll a zero, you don't move any pieces. If you roll any other number, and have no legal moves (all your moves result in you moving on to your own piece, or isn't an exact roll to move a piece out), then you also don't move, and skip your turn.

I'm pretty sure that's all the rules. If you want to have a go at the game yourself, there's a spot you can play it online right here. I've become rather obsessed quite quickly, and seem to be doing quite well at it. I don't know if it's actually because I'm good at it, or if it's because the Computer is set on Easy. But it's quite an interesting game. Some of it is chance - after all, you're rolling dice - but there's also a lot of strategy involved. So much so, that I was quickly able to analyse the game, and come up with some strategies that I think will help you to win, most of the time. Probably not all of the time - and particularly not if they're following these as well! - but I think it will help you quite a bit. Anyway. Notes and analysis below.

Notes on Ur 

A roll will result in one of three ways. One is arbitrary, the other two are important.
The first result is not being able to move any pieces, either because you have rolled a zero, or you have rolled a number that gives you no legal moves. 

The second result is rolling a number that only allows you to a move a piece into an empty, unsafe space. 

The third result is rolling a number that allows you to do one or more of the following:
- move a piece on to the board
- move a piece off the board
- move a piece on to a safe space
- move a piece on to a rosette
- move a piece on to an opponent’s piece 

Of the above options, let us say, for instance, that all five are available to you. What should you do? In most cases, the answer will be to move a piece on to a rosette. This will give you an additional roll, giving you a chance to take another of these actions. The only instances where you may not do this is;
- if you have another piece in danger
- if moving the piece on to the rosette means that rolling a 2 (the most common roll) would give you no legal moves 

In those instances, it may be better to move your piece out of danger, or to take a different action. 

A piece is in danger if it is within one, two, three, or four spaces of an enemy piece. It is in most danger at two spaces away; medium danger at one or three; and some danger at four. Keep in mind that rosettes may enable pieces to travel more than four spaces at a time, particularly if multiple are landed upon in one turn (certainly feasible). 

After the options of moving a piece out of danger, or using a rosette, the next most desirable option is to move on to an opponent’s piece, unless doing so moves your piece out of the central and most desirable position. If this is the case, only do this if you are reasonably confident you can reclaim it quickly, or it is close to the end of the game and you need the edge; and only after some thought. 

The next most desirable option is to move pieces on to the board. Especially fortuitous, of course, is if you can move a piece on to the board and on to a rosette with a four, but this only happens rarely. But the more pieces you have on the board, the more options you have, and the more you can move towards the end of the game. 

Moving a piece from the central line to a safe space is certainly desirable, but not as much as the previous options, unless it is in direct danger. Moving a piece off the board, similarly, though desirable, can usually be done at another time; though it may be good to prioritise this if you have a couple of pieces lining up to get out. 

As much as you can, arrange your pieces so that you can maximise the potential from any roll, and avoid either the first or second result. Rolls of zero will always come; but every other roll, on every turn, have a plan for. One way to do this is to have the first three spaces of the board filled with pieces. This way, whether you roll a one, two, three, or four, a piece moves directly on to the first rosette. 

Always try to claim the central position as soon as possible, and do not give it up unless you must. If the opponent has claimed it, try tempting them with a piece of yours that has made it past the central position. They may chase after it, giving you the opportunity to take the central position once more. This works better the further along in the game you are. 

When deciding whether to move a piece into the central path; first, assess whether this will put it into immediate danger. If so, try to avoid this, particularly if the danger is high (space of two). If not, then simply try to move as far down as you can. 

And remember, this game can turn in a moment. No matter how well you strategise, it can often come down to a crucial roll. However, follow these guidelines, and you will often do well.

On War, and Big Booms.

Typically, I'm not one who keeps up with the news very much. About the only engagement that I have with the news is watching The Last Leg, which I very much recommend to people who enjoy comedy/Adam Hills/taking the news a little less seriously. But there are a few things that you can't miss no matter what, if you're on social media at all. Things like this.

I find it amusing that this is literally the first result when I Google "trump card" in images. Anyway.

Ever since this guy came into power, there's been a bit of a.....reaction, from the majority of people worldwide. If you're not familiar with it, it's somewhat like when you've just vomited, and there's a bit left in your mouth, and you involuntarily swallow - that combined taste-and-burn feeling. That.

But now, there's a bit of a different feeling coming around. This one more like when you're out for a walk, and you suddenly realise that walking towards is you is someone with a very large, rather energetic dog. And you attempt to give them as wide a berth as possible, and hope to God that the leash doesn't snap, because you darn well couldn't outrun it, and it has teeth about as big as nails. Big nails, that is, not the smaller kind. That sort of feeling is more of what we're getting now. Mainly cause of this guy.

Look at that smile! Isn't that a great smile? Much nicer than the other guy. Anyway.

To say that America and North Korea have never been on the best of terms is kinda like saying that the Grinch was never on the best of terms with Christmas. While somewhat true, it's rather lacking. Like, a lot. These days, though, things seem rather more....tense. Stretched. And people are starting to compare it to the Cold War between Russia and America, or saying it might be the lead-up to world war three. Which is....yeah, pretty crazy.

For those playing along at home, there are pretty much always wars happening these days. But, for the most part, these are minor skirmishes, civil wars, and guerrilla groups. There hasn't been anything like the world wars since....well, since 1945, funnily enough. We've had some big ones since then - the Vietnam War, the Korean War (hang on, that rings a bell....), but nothing on quite the same scale.

And, that's because of a few different factors, that Kurzgesagt explain quite nicely in this video. Essentially, though, it's a combination of globalisation, democratisation, fixed borders, and better international law.

And so, quite rightly, the idea of potential thermonuclear war is kinda ridiculously scary, if we think that's a definite possibility. Given that I don't know Mister Un particularly well, I can't really make a call on whether I think he's just grandstanding and showing off, or if he really doesn't care what he says because he thinks he has that much power, and he's happy to swing it around at whoever addles him a little (particularly if their name rhymes with McDonald Bump).

When we look back at the big wars, or back to the London blitz, or to rationing, or conscription, or Gallipoli - and we think about that potentially happening in our world, that scares us. Rather a lot. And rightly so. It's a lot to be scared about, particularly when it's something that we feel we can't do anything about - it's just something that happens to us. And for many of us, we don't know what we'd do, or how we'd act, in that situation. Would we run? Would we fight? Would we die? It's hard to tell until the shells fall, and the guns start firing. Personally, being on the set of a war was more than enough for me. If they ever manage to get conscription back in again, they won't be able to get me onto the battlefield. It's just....*shudders*....yeah, no.

But, at the moment, thankfully, it's a big If. Does North Korea have the weapons, and the military strength to make an attack? Quite possibly. Will they? That question is a lot harder to answer. Because it seems like such an attack would simply be a bit of a suicide attempt, unless they can manage to get some allies happening, because everyone would just play the nuke version of stacks-on. It's rather less fun.

In conclusion - I don't really know. But what I do know, is this: that worrying will not help. In fact, it will do the opposite. A rather nice little recent quote illustrates this point rather well.

Stop worrying about what might be, or could be, and start holding on to what is. Then, I think, we'll get through today fairly well. :)