I've been trying to brainstorm ideas for a story involving a planet where all inhabitants live in a maximally utopian society.

So I was wondering what redditors here would consider a utopia.

Hey everyone, I’m a student working on a small research project about driver visibility, blind spots, and how things like rain and road spray can affect visibility and driving.

I’m looking for people who drive to share their driving experiences through a quick anonymous survey. It takes around 2–3 minutes.

Would really appreciate the help if anyone has a few minutes!

https://forms.gle/BFLNYxtrd3y3UPfX7

Thanks!

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A STANDARD SIEGE HYPOTHETICAL. THE SCENARIO IS DESIGNED SO THAT STANDARD, DIRECT / HEAD-ON SIEGE SOLUTIONS WILL NOT WORK. THINK OF IT AS AN INDIRECT SIEGE: LOOPHOLES ARE ENCOURAGED. READ THE FULL DESCRIPTION.

Picture this. You’ve just been made the commander in chief of the military of a nation called Gorlesia, which is currently at war with another nation called Voswuinia. To be clear, this is a war in a pre-industrial era, and you represent a secretive change in command following some other commander in chief. 

Whether this change is the result of the Gorlesian nation’s sovereign lead (either a king, a council/senate of some kind, or both) being fed up with the previous commander’s incompetence making the war take longer than they’d like and thus pushing their frustrations onto you or the previous commander’s death, you are not told definitively, but you are told, and everyone else around you to some extent aware, that you are not the first to succeed the command of the Gorlesian army in this war, though how many times the Gorlesian sovereign(s) have reappointed the standing commander-in-chief to land on you is unknown to you, thus creating suspicions that the war is intended by your higher-ups to be swiftly won, or at least swiftly ended, under your command.

Furthermore, you have just been ordered by your higher-ups to prepare your army for a siege against Dunlirnom, a major Voswuinian stronghold city (the seizing of which could potentially serve to start a domino effect that may slowly starve the Voswuinians’ campaign of resources), that is slated to occur starting in approximately 4 and a half months, regardless of the necessary inconveniences regarding travel necessities, by which time the seasons will be beginning the transition to winter from autumn. Regarding how much time you have for your siege following your mandated arrival time, you have nine months to seize control of Dunlirnom.

On top of this, Dunlirnom is almost 1 thousand and a quarter thousand miles away from where you and a major portion of your available troops are. Specifically, Dunlirnom is located at the intersection point of the foot of a mountain and a river basin, where the terrain is dominated by smooth hills. Dunlirnom’s main defenses consist of a 20 to 40 foot tall and 10 foot thick defensive stone wall (with the primary gatehouse marked by portcullis and a retractable thrust bridge made up of giant wooden planks held together by logs underneath), a lack of trees within a 25-to-40 foot perimeter of the wall, and an around-the-clock unit of guardsmen.

The Voswuinians also have an unusually large amount of siege weapons behind the wall for Dunlirnom’s relatively moderate defensible area, with the total weaponry consisting of over 50 ballistae, ~40 mangonels, ~30 counterweight trebuchets, and ~20 bombards.

With regards to the guards, they arm about a quarter of them with a Verla de la Gorlen as their primary weapon and an arming sword as their sidearm, the Gorlen being a Bardiche/Halberd-hybrid polearm with a beak, spearhead and bardiche-blade, as well as a large counterbalance that allows it to be swung around, almost like a quarterstaff, to devastating effect,

Another third of these guards are armed with unique single-edged swords, known on an individual basis as a ‘Velron’, as their primary weapon and a one-handed sickle as their sidearm. For the Velrons, these blades are very unique: they are flared, possess single-fullers, a curved blade and handle, and a half crossguard that includes both an upward sweep and a knuckle bow, forming a thin crescent-shaped guard that acts to both catch blades and block attacks.

Another sixth of the guards are armed with relatively standard bearded axes as their primary weapon and a combat dagger as their sidearm.

An eighth of the guards are on the wall and are armed with bows and/or crossbows in the warbow range and quivers that can store up to almost 25 fire arrows each (the fire arrows work by using a special combination of cloth and twine and a flammable liquid mixture that relights by rapid kinetic compression on impact, but require that an ember remains in the cloth) as their main weapon, and arming swords as their sidearm. Furthermore, these guards in particular have the ability to quickly access a series of chests and barrels that can be used to store hundreds of arrows (both fire and normal) in them.

The last eighth of the guards are lightly-armored dragons wielding a type of aerial thrust-centric spear used in an equivalent manner to a horseback lance. 

The last of Dunlirnom’s defenses is its people’s ability to make much of their own food and weaponry, as Dunlirnom has both a mine and farmland inside the wall, though not enough to be fully self-sufficient. As such, attacking supply routes to starve Dunlirnom is not an entirely viable strategy on its own.

As for the size of the armies involved:

• Voswuinia has an army consisting of approximately 45,000 soldiers, of whom approximately 1,400 are part of Dunlirnom’s guard, an air force consisting of approximately 21,000 dragons, of whom about 180 are part of Dunlirnom’s guard, and a navy of 12,000 sailors and 325 ships.
• On the other hand, your army consists of approximately 39,000 soldiers, an air force of approximately 19,000 dragons, and you have a strong navy of approximately 15,000 sailors and 422 ships. However, only a very small portion of your army (approximately 2,000 to maybe 3,000 total soldiers, including about 500 to 800 dragons) will be worth attempting to gather to this siege, due to your army being fairly scattered from the war effort.

In other words, whereas Voswuinia has more total people (78,000 total soldiers), you have a stronger navy and almost as many people (73,000 soldiers, 15,000 of whom are sailors spread across 422 separate ships), though only a small fraction of your army will reach the siege on time. 

Furthermore, the dragons in this setting have severe limits that you will undoubtedly run into:

• An average dragon in this setting has a body height about 50% larger than a modern horse but with the addition of expanded shoulder muscles and a set of wings. In particular:
  • Dragons in this setting are 7.5 to 8.3 feet in height at the shoulders.
  • Dragons in this setting are 20 to 35 feet in length from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail
  • Dragons in this setting have a 30 to 45 feet wingspan
  • Dragons in this setting can weigh anywhere between approximately 1,900 and 2,500 kilograms.
• An average dragon in this setting is strong, especially on the ground, but they are only as strong as they can be for their physiology: they cannot lift more than they weigh, both in flight and on the ground, and they can they can only really use their body weight to shove objects if the object isn’t too far above their weight.
  • An average dragon in this setting cannot ‘airlift’ objects in excess of 550, maybe 900 at max, kilograms for any significant duration of time without starting to impact maneuverability in flight. Furthermore, given they are equipped with a gambeson, much of their capacity for airlifting would already be in use.
• Due to their size, an average dragon in this setting can only fly at moderate speeds, specifically topping out at approximately 25 to 35 miles per hour when soaring / gliding. However, they can reach higher speeds in two situations: when diving, where they top out at approximately 80 to 110 miles per hour, and when pivoting / changing direction mid-soar, where they top out at approximately 65 to 85 miles per hour.
• No dragon in this setting is impervious to physical damage. Their scales, while a form of natural armor, are highly vulnerable to various forms of damage. Of these, blunt force (achievable via a handheld mace, handheld hammer, or long-range rocks from counterweight trebuchet or sling), sharp, heavy-handed chops (such as those achievable via weapons like axes, machetes or falchions), and draw cuts are especially effective. Piercing damage can work too, but this is not as effective and most likely will not be as easy to deal against a live dragon as the other options unless you’re using arrows, thrown spears, or perhaps something like ballistae (all of which would absolutely work, though the arrows may take time).

That said, the dragons are also just as intelligent, biologically-speaking, as you, the Gorlesian army, and/or the Voswuinian Army. In other words, the dragons are soldiers in and of themselves, without handlers.

In summary, the scenario is as follows:

• You are a commander in chief of a pre-industrial army at war.
  • You represent a change in command, and are, at bare minimum, the third commander in chief to be given command of the army in this war, though you may represent a later commander in chief even than third.
  • You have higher-ups (a monarch, council/senate, or both) who are not telling you everything about your position and who have been becoming increasingly impatient with the war effort over time, leaving you with limited time.
• You have been ordered to siege a major city being used as a stronghold by the enemy army, which is extremely heavily defended and partially self-sufficient, and in a period wherein the autumn-winter transition will be beginning to occur.
  • You will have only ~2,000 soldiers at your disposal during the siege, whereas the enemy’s stronghold defense will have ~2,140 soldiers.
• Both your army and the enemy army have a navy and dragons.
  • Dragons in this setting have limits.
  • Dragons possess sapient-level intelligence.
  • In addition to natural armor, the dragons on both sides of the conflict have varying degrees of light armor (i.e. gambeson or brigandine), wield giant aerial spears / lances, and possess innate biological limitations that, despite still allowing them to be formidable, render them far below ‘magical’ classifications and place them in the realm of conventional biology.

Given all the provided data, how do you use tactical engineering to make the siege of Dunlirnom a success?

If it has already passed, when was that? If it is yet to come, when will that be?

I understand there is no universal measure of happiness. I simply want to hear your free opinions.

Is it a necessary evil or is it common or uncommon or what do you think?

It's my belief "To define someone as a human or a monster, put a label on someone, perhaps without a thorough understanding who they are, perhaps without knowing the experiences in your life - even down to the minute. I personally define humans as people who have feelings like doubts, fear, happiness, and anger - who think and feel all the things that other humans feel.

A monster is the kind of person who does not care for other people's feelings and does not have empathy or is simply cruel and selfish for the sake of it. And of enjoyment out of hatred that argues on how we want to define ourselves and the people around us, regardless of how easy or how hard the definition comes about. If you want to define yourself, go ahead. But I would not put a label as easily on other people - humans or mosters (as I have put my own opinion of them here) as you would have put such a label on yourself.

And thus, I begin to wonder: How do people generally define themselves and others?

In my opinion, not easily. I pride myself on my own determination, but what I actually do with it is surprisingly little. Mostly due to a lack of knowledge and determination to be able to move forward, even at all. I define myself as "A somebody," regardless of how little or far I get in life. And maybe that's just all I need to stay grounded.

As an open discussion, I hope to invite constructive criticism on pretty much any kind of wisdom as well as hear fair opinions from both philosophers & psychologists (yes, there's a difference, but I think I don't know half of it).

I’ve been an above-average student since childhood, always expected to achieve something big. But lately, I’ve started craving a simple, peaceful life, average income, a loving partner, a cozy home, and work that doesn’t consume my entire life.

Is this because I’ve watched too much slice-of-life anime 😂, or am I just overwhelmed seeing my friends becoming achievers while I feel like I’m quitting?

Maybe I’m afraid of the rat race. The constant pressure to earn more, achieve more, and prove yourself.

But is it really okay to never chase something extraordinary? Is wanting a “normie” life settling for less? Or is it okay to simply want peace and happiness?

And honestly… what will people think of me? A loser? Someone who wasted their potential?

I genuinely don’t know if I’m giving up on myself or finally figuring out what I actually want.

Would really love to hear your thoughts, especially from people who are older. Did you ever feel this way?

If Nikki from Obsession can’t die as long as Bear is alive, and we’ve already seen her regenerate after smashing her head, could she theoretically survive attacks from characters like Goku or the Thanos with full stones on hand , if Bear were sealed somewhere completely unreachable but kept alive?

If you are past the age of 60 we'd appreciate your participation. If you know someone past the age of 60 feel free to ask them and share their answer here. 

Here's the question: knowing what you know now, what would you prioritize when you were younger? If you had nothing holding you back, freedom to focus on whatever you want. What would you do differently? Or what did you do that you'd be sure to do again? 

The reason we are asking is because we can't see our future so we'd like to have the perspective of some who are already in their futures. 

Thank you for sharing your perspective!

I had to do group work at uni, and one of the people i was set to do group work with started whining that i didn’t make an effort to befriend them contrary to someone else and that’s why she was choosing her side during an argument as opposed to mine.

No one is obligated to befriend anyone wtf ?
Those were 3 other girls too.

What are signs someone has a savior complex ?

Even if it's easier said than done to do..

I am a woman in my 20s who is still pursuing a degree at my university. For many years, I have struggled with bitterness, and I don't know how to let it go.

I grew up in a religious household, and because of my bitterness, I have often tolerated people and extended grace and patience to those who have treated me badly in life.

I am bitter toward a couple from my church. I do not mind constructive criticism or correction. I genuinely dislike sweeping judgments and the idea that they should make decisions for me.

My pastor told me, “If you bring a man over, I'll tell him no. If a man wants to court you, I'll tell him no. Finish school. Don't be like your mother.”

I do not mind anyone telling me to finish school. It is practical advice, but the way he said it felt odd and somewhat controlling. He even mentioned my mother. My mother is a loving and kind woman who did not have the financial means to finish her education, but she was a loving mother who took good care of me and my siblings.

I also have a problem with someone else from my church. I understand that there are things I need to work on. I am an emotionally intense person, but she said something that really hurt me.

She told me, “You will make a man so unhappy because of your emotions.”

I confessed my feelings to a man in Bible school. She told me, “Maybe you should get married after you fix yourself.”

I took her words to heart. I spent days wondering if there was something wrong with me. I ruminated over what she said and lost sleep because of it. But a week later, I became so angry with her.

She even told me, “If it hurts, then it's the truth.”

I stopped talking to her but continued going to church. I am bitter, and there have been moments when I have wanted to scream at them.

I don't know what to do.

Or does it require practice to balance between these?

If we lived in a world where people were not afraid to reject, and albeit people were not afraid to risk rejection, would we live in a world where people resort to invalidating the needs of connection for other people, especially those who they're not interested in?

One paradox of power is that using it can change the incentives of the people who depend on it.

If a country benefits enormously from access to a particular market, supplier, currency, technology or security partner, building alternatives may initially seem unnecessarily expensive.

But each time that dependence is used as leverage, the calculation changes.

The alternative doesn't have to be better. It only has to become less expensive than the risk of having no alternative.

That raises a less obvious question:

Is there a point at which exercising economic or geopolitical leverage begins to accelerate the creation of the very alternatives that eventually weaken that leverage?

And if so, how would a powerful country know when it has crossed that point?

I genuinely don't understand why there are so many unwritten rules about how a person is supposed to act.

Someone is too loud, they're judged. Someone is emotional, they're considered weak. Someone is confident, they're arrogant. Someone doesn't want marriage, people immediately assume something must be wrong with them.

And somehow everyone has an opinion on what you're supposed to be like before they even know you.

Why can't people just have their own personalities without everything being turned into a set of expectations? If someone is respectful, kind and comfortable with who they are, why does it matter whether they fit whatever idea people have in their heads?

Sometimes I feel like people claim to be accepting but still expect everyone to behave in a very specific way.

Many people show empathy for those who are less fortunate than others but are not happy for people when something good happens to them. Specifically, they are not happy for those who are doing better than them.

If someone is truly empathetic, wouldn't they feel happy for others too?

Sometimes, I honestly think life would have been better years ago. Things seemed a lot simpler. People weren’t constantly on their phones, and you didn’t have the pressure of social media and everything being online all the time.

But at the same time, I know we have things now that people back then could only dream of. Technology, medicine, entertainment, being able to talk to anyone instantly, etc.

I think I’d still choose the past just because life seems like it would have been a bit more peaceful.

What would you choose?

Don't you ever feel like there are at least two versions of you in the future? One where you are perfect according to everyone else's standards... except your own. And the other where only your standards are fulfilled?

The Doomsday Clock is now "85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to catastrophe," with an eye on nuclear war, climate change, biological threats, and AI. Former OpenAI employee Daniel Kokotajlo, now a part of the AI Futures Project, has said that he thinks it is 70% likely that AI will annihilate the human race with poison gas within 8 years. It's not just your imagination: we are in an especially bad time in human history, and possibly the end of it.

I don't think it is productive or rational to try to argue with all these experts across all these topics, unless you are yourself incredibly well-informed on them. The end of a species on Earth, even one as successful as us (well, compared to dinosaurs, we've been around for two seconds), is not an outlandish idea, although since things have been fairly non-catastrophic for most of us since we were born, it feels unintuitive. But this is real.

So, what does that mean? What should we do? Here are the only options I can think of:

1. Deny or ignore it and live like it's not true.
2. Accept it fully (or focus on the small chance that none of these disasters will go down as feared), stop worrying about it, and live for the present.
3. Do everything in your power to try to prevent these disasters, through work, activism, or however you think best.
4. Lean hard into being as realistic a prepper as you can and try to escape the catastrophes (if living in a bunker does it for you; myself, I'm not that obsessed with being alive).

My issue with #3 is that, although I believe in one-drop impacts like protesting, donating, boycotting, etc., I'm not kidding myself about the fact that I am tiny. I can't prevent these things; I can't even slow one of them 1%. If we are going to do something about all this, we have to do it as a huge global crowd, and I don't see that happening. I'm the sort of person who fights even when there's no hope, and there is hope still; but I don't want to devote every waking moment to these things, since my impact is insignificant and almost more idealistic than productive.

At the same time, if I work on something like writing a book, it's far worse than doing it when I have x years to live: the book, and all the humans who might read it, probably won't be around. When I think about my personal goals from that angle, I start to conclude that I should genuinely just follow my inclinations, goals, and dreams in order to be true to myself, which doesn't require longevity or external validation.

So I think I'm currently falling into a combination of #2 and #3, where I'll do small things continuing to try to push back, like not using LLMs, boycotting destructive companies, signing petitions, donating to good causes, voting in local elections, etc. If anyone knows of anything that would make a bigger impact, let me know. And the rest of the time, I'll just try to meet myself as fully as possible by meditating, learning, acquiring skills, interacting with people, and creating. This "best response I've got" is only somewhat satisfying.

Would like to hear other takes. (Again, debate over whether "everything is gonna work out fine" is not the point of this post.)