Warfare is constantly changing, adapting to new technology and strategies. Without actively being engaged in combat, armies will use old tactics for a new age, cease to exist as a consequence.

If there was a conflict between two nations, one with a weak, ill equipped fighting force, vs one that should be absolutely dominit. Who do you think would win? Would easily crush the opposing force. The larger one right? Well, that’s true in theory, but “no plans survive first contact with the enemy.” You see, the larger force, whilst on paper stronger, if they haven’t been constantly fighting, then it’s just deadweight.

  The generals would be peacetime generals, ones out of touch with the realities of modern conflict, who strategies with outdated tactics. World war 1 repeated that history, where bright colour uniforms and cavalry were shredded by machine guns and artillery fire. The army themselves no clue how to fight properly, again, trained with outdated tactics and strategies and easily get annihilated by the enemy. Their equipment is outdated and thoroughly not prepared for new creative warfare, involving UAVs, suicide drone bombs and improved explosive devices.

  All the logistics and ammunition is not adequate for the current situation. It’s easy to supply your troops with train lines, then the enemy blows up the tracks. What now? In World War II, they went through millions of ammunition each month, wildly above original estimates of tens of thousands.

  Let’s not forget that equipment produced in a lab is flashy, clean and theorically unstoppoable. A multi-million dollar tank gets brought down with a hundred thousand dollar rocket. Everything produced in peacetime, with requirements made based on armchair generals and speculation all turn worthless. Nothing more than expensive and self-harming scrap metal.

Have you ever played Civilisation V, a game where you’d progress your nation from the stone age into the modern era. Military is quite annoying, because it’s rather expensive and means you can’t produce economic or scientific output. Forgoing military isn’t an option either, for a weak opponent presents an ample opportunity to get what you want. Look at Canada’s maps, isn’t it weird they don’t own Alaska, that there’s this random chunk of America carved deep in their territory? That’s because America demanded it, and Canada acquiesced at the barrel of a gun. No matter how much you want peace, without power to defend yourself, your nation will get fucked over by others constantly.

  China wants to own the entire sea area around them, ones that several other nations border. Well, what’re you gonna do about it without power to stop them? Beg them? Pleed they don’t priortise their own gains?

  An army that doesn’t constantly fight, adapt and evolve is worthless. But, isn’t this tragic, that each nation has to be in perpetual conflict, perpetual warfare, in order to adequately protect themselves? Alternatives like mock battles might reduce the degradation of skill, except it cannot account for what the enemy would truly do on the battlefield. The only way to find out is to fight. So bless your nation’s incessant warfare, for it’s the only reason you’re kept safe right now.

Big cities strip away any connection with others. Only those you deem apart of your ingroup aren shown any humanity, the rest are NPCs in the game of life

Going to the supermarkets, the same generic lines are always uttered. Hello, good morning, how are you. And the typical response back, Hi, good thanks. In a big city, everyone is like an NPC, most times, the shopkeepers have the repeated quest line. Where you could chart out your entire day going from NPC dialogue to another. Anything that falls out of them is unexpected and not the norm. Like when someone, who was not the staff, said hello to me whilst getting a coffee.

  Such a mindset is necessary in a big city. It’s not possible to have whole hearted interactions with everyone. Hundreds of people pass by you just walking down a main street. The population density naturally speeds up everyone’s walking speed, and also their impatience. Everyone wants something from someone else, and anything that doesn’t fall into those categories is a waste of time. If being productive with work is your goal, then that’s great, otherwise it becomes a lonely lonely world. Everyone around you is nothing more than an NPC, a forgettable existence that means nothing. It’s no different from being totally alone.

  Within the 4 walls of an apartment, nothing else outside matters. Even though there’s several people living nearby, on the same level, and even more on each level, it’s like they don’t exist. A Japanese documentary talked about living alone in Japan, where a father lived within his apartment and his daughter visited occasionally. Except, this time, when she visited, she found her father dead. He died of old age. But, not a single neighbour knew, despite living only a few meters away, despite them passing by his apartment every day. Within those 4 walls, everyone lives their own universe and anything around them might as well not exist.

  Is this good or bad? Big cities, where everything happens, with social events, business and high pay. The only price you need to pay is your soul. Either adapt, enjoy the life filled with NPCs and strangers, where the only “real” people are workmates, existing friends, or people you meet when trying to be social. If you worked remotely, lived alone and was introverted, then a city has everyone, yet not a single soul for you. Connections only happen if you put in the effort to make them, there is no spontaneous meetups, or regularly seeing a person, big cities are too large for that. Or be totally alone, where the only person to converse with is yourself. Where the only words uttered each day is hello, how are you, to a shop keeper NPC.

Welcome to a big city my friend. Welcome to apartment life.

With money, a city is luxury and attractions. Without money, a city is a walled garden.

There’s a fair amount to do in the city. Many food places. You could go on meetup and socialise with those new to the city. You could enjoy the markets. Fine foods. Gelato or fish and chips by the harbour. Scenic seaplane tours or a cruise to nearby islands. So so much to do, yet so little time to experience them all. That is, if you had money. $20 meals. $10 drinks. $10 gelato. $200 for seaplanes or $150 for cruise tours.

  What’s a city without money? When your budget allows for a single meal out each week, with no entree or drink. You walk around and see all the sights, the things to do, only to come upon the sad realisiation that they’re walled off to you. Look at that awesome cruise, or that magnificent museum. Both of which you can only stare upon at a distance. Wishing. Hoping to go. So desperate, you want to befriend a rich old couple for a boat cruise..

  Thus, a city is simply the embodiment of sadness. Everywhere your eyes reach is somewhere you can never touch. The city, the central hub that has access to nearly everything. Cuisines of the world. Tourist attractions for days. Music and Arts. Everything someone could want. But not for you, the poor beggar.

  Then what is the city to a poor man, one without funds? The only source of enjoyment would be a few places without admission fee, usually funded by the government. Beyond that would be nature and hikes. These usually aren’t common in larger cities, for by necessity they sprawl outwards and consume all in their sights. Not even mountains are safe. I write this as I live upon a mountain, 145 meters above ground level, where everywhere my eyes can see is a mountains filled with houses on the edges of the summit.

This ongoing capitalist society has divided society, between those who have funds, and can afford luxuries and enjoyments that money brings. And those who have nothing, where not even nature is safe anymore. Welcome to our world.

Ghosting, the act of seeing a message, application or any form of communication and then never responding. An example would be job applications where the businesses never responds with an accept or reject confirmation. Or finding a sharehouse, where the lister sees your inquiry and then never responds back. They’re countless other examples of ghosting and the thing they have all in common is how frustrating it is for you. You put in time and effort, the least they could do is respond with generic yes or no. Is that so much to ask for? Now for companies, they might be some legal basis, such as preventing evidence on discrimination. But for sharehouse listers? Surely they’d know how frustrating ghosting is, so why inflict those wounds onto others as well?

  Ghosting is not a modern phenomenon, it would’ve been more prevalent with expensive and unreliable communications. If it costs $10 to send a response, would you? There’s a few reasons on the increase of ghosting. First is a power imbalance and winner takes all. If a company has 100 job applications and 1 open position, it doesn’t matter if they don’t respond, they only need 1. Or in the case of sharehouse listing, they’d have multiple interested parties and only need to respond to the 1 who’ll take the house. Second is scale. The sheer volume chews up an extreme amount of time, not sending a rejection email adds up to hours of free time each year.

  Despite ghosting not being a modern phenomenon, it’s rise is partially because there’s virtually no consequences to ghosting anymore. If you didn’t respond with unreliable communications, you could’ve literally died by the time the mail reached you. The inventor of morse code electronic communications made that after sending a letter to his mother, which took weeks, and by then she was already deceased. Before that, in small villages, you could physically see others that didn’t respond to you and they’d be hell to pay without a good reason. Perhaps it’s not a rise, but rather we’re also extremely aware when we’re ghosted, thanks to read receipts.