"The simple idea of a 13-month perennial calendar has been around since at least the middle of the 18th century. Versions of the idea differ mainly on how the months are named, and the treatment of the extra day in leap year."
I put out a bucket of water when the temperature got above 80°. Took this shot as one of them was flying away.
A review for a story I wrote involved the reader assuming I was making references to popular media that I didn't intend at all and some were inspired by something else entirely.
I think this type of interpretation often indicates the state of mind of the audience member rather than the artist. It's perfectly fine, but it might be more accurate to say, "when I see the artist's blue curtains, it makes me think of..."
The line of sight thing is weird. You can hack a camera you're looking at and then, if the hack loads slowly enough, get around a corner to hide, but you maintain the connection, so the connection doesn't require line of sight, so then why did you need it to connect in the first place?
Tech is a tool. Powerful tech in the hands of unethical people will be used unethically. Tech doesn't magically do the "right thing" as if it has any volition.
It's basically translation convention minus the overt indication that it's a translation.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranslationConvention
I'm not able to reproduce the issue. I see a projectile and resulting explosion.
Are you in a new game since 2.01 or is this an older save game that predates the updates?
Are you using any mods?
Generally, no, but context and approach matter.
The ability to notice a flaw isn't the same as the skill, experience, and background that might be necessary to design a useful solution for a particular issue, especially complex issues. It's generally reasonable to say, "I don't know of a better solution, but I can predict that x and y problems will likely result from your proposed solution."
It's especially valid to warn someone when their proposed solution will harm people or make things worse. You don't have to have a better solution to try to prevent someone from doing something ill-conceived or hasty or reckless.
If the stakes are low or the person proposing a solution is likely to be sensitive to criticism, it might work better to try to approach your response as an attempt to help them refine their solution, rather than just opposing it outright. Be considerate of their feelings and make it clear you're working together.
The fandom wiki says Adams felt Fenchurch was getting in the way of the story and needed to get rid of her.
It's been a long while since I read it, but the one thing I remember is the idea that you should let people talk about themselves and they'll like you for it.
If you've got a great story idea, I'd write that first and then make the world match the story's needs. However, you want to make sure the world would function logically the same way even if the plot weren't carried out. That is to say, don't make absurdly convenient world building choices just to make the plot work. Readers will often pick up on that. "How convenient that the social tradition requires a man and a woman go on this adventure together so the main characters could fall in love!"
Sometimes the opposite happens and writers will spend so much effort on the world building that the story will suffer because the writer can't kill their darlings and cut out unnecessary details.
It's a balancing act.
I get tired of a lot of the clichés of popular singularity stories where the AIs almost always decide humans are a threat or that there's often only one AI as if all separate AIs would always necessarily merge. It also seems to be a cliché that AI will become militaristic either inevitably or as a result of originally being a military AI. What happens when an educational AI becomes sentient? Or an architectural AI? Or a web-based retail AI that runs logistics and shipping operations?
I wrote a short story called Future Singular a few years ago about a world in which the sentient AI didn't consider humans a threat, but just thought of them the way humans see animals. Most of the tech belonged to the AI and the humans were left as hunter-gatherers in a world where they have to hunt robotic animals for parts to fix aging and broken survival technology.