I earned my first money in-world by writing poetry. At first I hand-wrote it and sold it on the street to other players (probably because they had compassion on a poor first-level wizard who didn't know anything about the game). Later on I had a book of my poems printed and sold in the local bookshops, and went on to write for one of the player-run newspapers. Good fun :-)

But the privacy gains of not installing a load of third-party apps from a dozen different data-selling businesses (or using an operating system built by the mother of all data-selling businesses) are very substantial.

Just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. Obviously, the reverse is also true, but there is so much tech naiveté going around that this needs saying repeatedly. We'd have saved our society a lot of trouble if we'd first thought about draw-backs of new technology, before hooking everything in our lives up to it.

1. Signal/Whatsapp/Threema: biggest reason by far - while I message much less than many others, these platforms are just the way a lot of (group) communication works nowadays. It is possible to go without, but it causes so much hassle when organising things or trying to stay up to date with what's happening in a group, and would disrupt my international friendships.

2. Maps & public transport apps: are just super useful to have available, especially if you regularly travel in places you don't know (well).

3. Camera: This one I'm still a bit undecided on, but I think I would miss not having it at hand.

However, I do try to actively give my phone as little space in my life as possible. I have no social networks on it (I don't have any left by now, anyway), and no other apps that involve scrolling. And I continue to think about how I can avoid distractions from it.

First, Tolkien isn't writing another Grimms' fairy tale. His world has sufficient depth to it that we can make valid comparisons to real-world societies. Aragorn and Theoden are not generic fairy tale kings of some unspecified country. We know a lot about the geography, culture, history, and political organisation of their realms. We can see how they raise their armies, how they interact with their vassals, how they see themselves. They are not just "vaguely feudal in feel", they are actual (albeit fictional) examples of feudal rulers in action.

Second, these are not just incidental details that make the story more fun to read, they are highly relevant for the development of the plot. Questions of succession, legitimacy, and loyalty drive the attitudes and actions of Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Denethor, Theoden, Eowyn, Eomer, and Imrahil. The values to which these characters hold themselves are, in many ways, typically feudal.

Third, we know that Tolkien spent his life studying these societies, and he himself often talks about where he got his inspiration from. Unfortunately I haven't read his letters myself yet, but I know from other sources that he is often quite explicit about where he drew his ideas from (see e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influences_on_J._R._R._Tolkien).

Julia is not as elegant as Lisp and doesn't offer as many powerful language constructs. But it is a very cleanly designed and well thought-out language that is fun to work in. I especially love its metaprogramming abilities (heavily drawn from Lisp), which include "real" macros.

In the end, the reason I use Julia over Lisp is the community and the ecosystem. As an ecological modeller, Julia is something my colleagues have at least heard of and that I can convince a few to use (instead of R and Netlogo). I fear that I could never convince anybody to use or contribute to a software written CL. Also, the Julia standard library is just very well put together and there are more packages available for the things that I need to do, compared to CL.

I still love CL as a language and sometimes toy with the idea of going back to it, but for the moment, practicality beats purity.

> Aragorn is not a ‘feudal king’, he is a king of legend.

I was not using "feudal" to denote a time period in our world's history, but rather a system of governance based on liege-vassal relationships. I agree with you that Gondor feels more classical than medieval, but as a king, Aragorn is quite clearly the liege-lord of vassals (Imrahil, Faramir, the Thain) who hold their lands by his bequest. So while Aragorn is definitely legendary in the sense that he is an idealised fictional figure, in-universe he is very much a feudal king.

> The journey in the Lord of the Rings is almost as much a journey back through deeper and deeper legend as it is through space - the hobbits travel from a Napoleonic era Shire, through Renaissance Rivendell, back to a medieval Rohan then classical Gondor, and then into the strictly mythological Mordor.

Yes, absolutely. Tolkien creates the countries of Middle Earth out of many different historical inspirations, with a heavy dose of mythology mixed in. I find it good fun to see where he got his ideas from - for example the parallels between Beowulf and Rohan (compare the great halls of Heorot and Meduseld).

But of course Tolkien never simply mixed and matched. His creativity drew on things he knew, but he didn't just recombine them, he amalgamated them into something really new. So I agree, seeing Middle Earth as "medieval Europe with a different geography" is just plain wrong, on many different levels. But still we can analyse the ingredients that Tolkien used to create his world, and use that to gain a richer understanding of it.

The Shire is idyllic, but no paradise. Its inhabitants are lovable, but petty and smallminded, they squabble and feud and betray each other. Good and evil exist, but aside from Gandalf and Sauron, all "good" characters have faults and mixed motivations and all "evil" characters are at least potentially redeemable. The stories of Middle Earth are shaped by Tolkien's (conservative, Christian) worldview, but he definitely did not write a utopia.

Theoden has been restored to his right mind and character. The whole thrust of the his character plot (in the books) is that he ends his reign as noble as any of his forbears; freed from the influence of the lies of Saruman, he becomes an exemplary king. And one kingly virtue that Tolkien presents again and again is that of magnanimity to defeated foes: Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum (which Gandalf explicitly praises), the Rohirrim don't kill the Dunlendings, Gandalf doesn't kill Saruman.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."

> being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king

I disagree with Martin here. Of course, not every good person also makes a good king, and not every good (i.e. politically effective) king was a good (i.e. morally upright) person. But the thing to realise is that the political power of feudal kings was much more limited than we often assume, and was based to a large part on the continued loyalty and goodwill of their vassals. In other words, a king's power rests on the relationships he has; it is both personal and relational.

This means, of course, that a king who is perceived by his vassals as being a bad person is unlikely to keep their support and allegiance for long. He might be able to cow individual vassals by force, but the more his relationships degrade, the more precarious his position will be. (For example, King John's scandalous behaviour and personal conflicts with his barons were one of the main causes for the Baron's Revolt and the Magna Carta.)

With that in mind, it is little surprise that medieval handbooks for rulers heavily emphasise a good character, loyal relationships, and morally upstanding behaviour as key to being a successful aristocrat. Tolkien understands this, and so his depiction of kings and aristocrats focusses strongly on the relational ties between them: the fealty and oaths they have sworn, the ancient friendships and marriages that connect them, the personal admiration and sympathy they have for each other. Put differently, medieval aristocrats would readily recognise Aragorn, Theoden, Eomer and Imrahil as model princes.

(For a more detailed discussion of medieval aristocratic values, see here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-.... For a discussion of personal kingship - based on Crusader Kings III - see here: https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-c...)

(1) Much of Tolkien's world-building is implicit rather than explicit. He doesn't talk about Aragorn's tax policy because he doesn't need to; Aragorn is recognisably a feudal king and there is a standard way taxes are done a feudal system (i.e. the vassals take care of gathering them). Tolkien has a deep understanding of how such societies function, but much of this comes out indirectly in the story, through the way the characters behave and what they can and cannot do.

(2) Pre-modern societies are so deeply different from modern ones (economically, culturally, and socially) that I think many readers stumble across things they find unexpected and dismiss it as "unrealistic fantasy", without understanding that in such a context, this is exactly how one would expect the world to work. For example, the deep devotion and self-sacrificial service Sam shows to Frodo is often discussed in terms of friendship (and it is a great friendship), but one cannot fully understand it unless one also understands it as a (very positive) master-servant relationship.

If you want a better understanding of the deeper realism of LotR, I cannot recommend Bret Devereaux' blog highly enough. He is an ancient military historian and has written extensive (but entertaining!) analyses of both LotR and GoT. See here for two samples: https://acoup.blog/2020/05/22/collections-the-battle-of-helm..., https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-wa...

The problem is that biology is a subject where you need a lot of fundamental knowledge before you can start to understand how things actually work - simply because the systems involved are so complex and have so many interacting parts. You need to learn an awful lot of facts before you can start putting the puzzle pieces together to see the big picture. But once you do, the view is amazing!

As an aside, I lament that the author equates "biology" with "molecular biology". He completely ignores the wonders of ecology - the beauty of biodiversity, the marvel of trophic cascades, the intricacies of ecosystem functioning. In fact, I think the challenges he sees for molecular biology are heightened for ecology: what you learn of it in high school is often even drier, you need even more background knowledge to be able to see the big picture, and research is even more challenging because experiments can seldom be done in a lab. Yet, once you've dug your way into it, you get to see systems at work that span the globe, that are as complex as anything that happens in a cell, just more vibrant and tangible and alive.

In German: Josef Reichholf, "Mein Leben für die Natur".