To the fairy tales themselves- they were once the “original” or the one that people had an image in their mind. “Goldilocks” of the “Three bears” story was originally an old woman- but most of the world now knows her as a young girl, usually blonde as the name suggests.
When we look at history it’s easy to hand wave and say: “that was a long time ago- this is how it is now” or “this is how it has been..” “this is what people know..” yes. We know what we know- until there is something new to know. So Disney often drastically altered classic tales with established characters and plot points, or even historical events or related folk tellings, and then a generation or a few grew up with that, and now, unsurprisingly they are doing it again.

To be honest- I do admit there are valid reasons, or at least “innocent” reasons for being upset a character has changed. With that said, the Disney version, the fairy tale version, the direct to video version- it doesn’t much matter in my eyes. Disney changes characters. Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, we’ve seen different versions of characters in appearance, personality, even retcon of stories. While many Disney characters, especially earlier princesses, didn’t get much “personality,” we’ve seen those characters portrayed in vastly different ways in all sorts of Disney media- and I would argue that changing a characters personality is much more a drastic departing from the “original” than swapping color pallets or outfits.

.. clearly communicating complex and nuanced thought in written English- certainly online but really even in most professional circles. So with that part wrapped up- to the discussion! Lol.

@ignorance- thank you. To start I can only speak with any authority to American English which sometimes contradicts other English. Well written. I enjoyed it. To get it out of the way, your English is excellent. I wouldn’t know you were working to improve it had you not said. I can only find the most MINOR and potentially subjective feedback- and most of what I find are things that are not only common in English- especially causal English- but that are more “natural.” Little things- “Disney” not being capitalized (proper noun), you begin a sentence with “but,” which is perfectly understandable and natural, but technically not proper. A few things look to be or may be standard “auto type” typos- “insist” is used instead of “exist” but you use exist in the next clause so I think that is a typo. “Whether” as is “whether or not” is spelled “weather” as in “the weather outside is rainy..” but it’s very minor things. I’d put you in the top percentiles of communication for eloquence and…

We love you mr_pideonwizard. And the pigeons do too I am sure.

A tax write off. There are millions of ways to take something that seems like a negative and turn it into something that works well or opportunity. So that’s a useful skill to work on.
The dark humor comes in when we realize that if we are the sort of person that Complains about a “Sandra” without suggesting or finding ways to find the best results of having a “Sandra” around- we are sort of guilty of being a “Sandra” a bit ourselves no?

So to that end- if you’re employees are all amazing and don’t need you to do their jobs, if almost any half competent warm body could fill your desk, if you can’t or don’t provide council and coaching to your team as far as bettering their performance and skills or growing towards their personal and career goals- you aren’t really leading anyone. So one of the skills that makes for a suitable leader or manager is the ability to identify peoples abilities and traits and help to place them where those traits and skills are of the best value. It is generally universally true that a skill which separates the successful and often happy from the less so tends to be the ability to take a “negative” and turn it into a win. In daily life that can be turning a ripped dress into an amazing skirt or jacket. That can be taking a broken or discarded bulky item and making an awesome custom furniture or art piece. It can be simple things even like taking a loss on an investment and turning it into

And in the sense of their ability to fit in to society or a group or be useful to society or a group, being able to find a persons “value” is a skill. It’s easy to take a Mary Sue type and be able to get value from them. A leader or manager only had value in that role if they give something to the team. If all they do is sign forms and do administrative tasks they’re an administrator or a secretary not a leader or a manager. It’s not that they aren’t helping the team by doing those things so the team can work- it’s that those things don’t command the salary and respect that many “leadership roles” provide. The average VP makes quite a bit more and is valued quite a bit higher than the average clerical worker- so those in such a position need to earn that by providing something that those workers don’t or else they should just be treated as a clerical role.

Having nit pickers in pre planning stages can give you some idea as to what concerns people may have further along down the project chain. If you have 5 people at a medium level project meeting and one is a nit picker who raises all these issues big and small- you have some idea what you might encounter as you move to larger groups of lower level teams or to sponsors and stake holders etc.
that also gives you the ability to already have come up with solid responses so you are less likely to be caught flat footed and can better achieve buy in.
So often times it is my opinion that when we have trouble with a person or a type of person it may just be that person isn’t being utilized to best leverage their strengths. Few people have no redeeming qualities-

I like to have not pickers along for things like pre planning meetings at lower levels like team or department levels. They often do slow things down a bit but they also often raise the red flag on dangers. Having a nit picker there who points out problems is a great way to see problems before they happen, and sometimes their seemingly irrelevant concerns are linked to a larger issue that someone else will realize upon reflecting on what they said. It’s also the case that the nit picker can be a sounding board of sorts. They may raise concerns that other team members have but won’t voice. So you can often ease fears or reservations of entire large groups and make people feel much better about the project and raise morale if you have a nit picker to bring up concerns that you can then assuage to a group. And much the same as my nit picker test groups fed data to be used on larger release…

there is room for improvement and help to better the overall processes etc.
but a nit picker can be great for all sorts of detail oriented work. From the very narrowly focused like testing or quality work on specific product etc. to broader focused like compliance work. An old joke about the ISO standards of quality was that an ISO number at the minimum certifies that your processes may be terrible, but you do them consistently terribly. Lol.
Where there are governments and regulating bodies or financial regulators involved though- the core focus of compliance isn’t on the results or the profits or any of that- their primary role is to ensure that everything done, everything produced, is within the often strict rules for compliance.

And you know well enough, Maybe they can design it themselves. Something for a quarter million people who are of mixed judgment…. Maybe don’t give them exactly what they want unless you want to end up with Homer’s car from that one Simpsons episode or worse.
So often times what are seen as “negative traits” are just signs a person isn’t where they perhaps are best suited to be. At a very high level table where these broad strategies and goals are being thought up you might not want a nit picker- they tend to bog the discussion down. At the top level you aren’t concerned so much about details- if you have good people you trust you’re going to come up with ideas and then they’re going to figure out how to do it in the details or tell you if it cannot be done feasibly. You may not want a nit picker at the labor level where you need people who are action oriented and follow established process or are problem solvers who find where

I thank the not pickers. While it didn’t always make sense to cater to their every little bit pick- often times it did, and ultimately that feedback allowed us to prep the relevant parties for what to expect with wider product release so they could be ready with training materials or scripts to help diffuse the push back or so they could otherwise have data etc. to make for a better overall project end result.
I didn’t need them to offer solutions and that wasn’t their job- in fact, when it comes to things like that, simply giving people what they think they want can be the worst thing to do. There’s a balancing point between listening to what they say they want and understanding what they are doing and providing what bridges that gap. This isn’t philosophical- this is just my experience of seeing countless horrible failures because someone just did what the end user said they wanted. It depends on the user and size of the user base of course- a tool for one person who is sharp-

So lots of people make “happy lists.” Lists full of people or locations where they tend to get excited and have positive outlooks on new things. Where there are generally intelligent people who often have lots of skills and knowledge either on the product end or on the business and development end so that their feedback is polished and professional and easily parsed. People who are just pleasant to deal with.
I had some of those- but my lists were FULL of people or locations I’d worked with that were miserable. Those who hated change, those who hated my company, those who weren’t the brightest or most skilled and those who had very little subject matter knowledge on the product or business and development sides but were skilled in their own work.
I liked people who raised issues- no matter how small or pointless. Complainers and whiners and not pickers.

So “no vote no complaint” is about like saying you can’t sit on the jury for a bank robbery case unless you’ve been an accomplice to a bank robbery if we take that view.
So while I wouldn’t use your choice of words on the issue, I would say that everyone is entitled to their own views and decisions on voting, and that the system doesn’t always work the way it was designed or isn’t fee from abuse and exploitation. Those who feel the system has failed them have options, voting is only one of many options in a democracy to enact the will of the people. There are many ways to try to make change and not doing something can be a valid way too- passive resistance and things like labor strikes are examples of where we can make our will known doing something by doing “nothing.” So there are certainly other ways to be involved.

With elements like electoral colleges and gerrymandering and other measures that are used to essentially ensure or all but ensure the votes of some don’t count or the votes of others count for more, it can be argued that voting or not in some cases doesn’t actually change any results. It can be argued that if large numbers of people refused to vote due to objections to these types of inequities in the system or a “rigged system,” that the illegitimacy of candidates elected through such means could be made clear, and that the push for everyone to vote may in fact serve the interests of those seeking to legitimize the power structure more than those whom the institutions are supposed to serve.

There is certainly a valid argument against refusal to participate in actions which support and enable a system full of flaws and abuses, and I disagree strongly with the popular sentiment that people who don’t vote can’t complain about things or have political views.
I mean, we’ve seen plenty of people under 18 who have made an impact with their actions or advocacy and they’re too young to legally vote- so that very idea of “no vote no right to complain” is not only false, it insults all the bright minds and driven people who for reasons like their age cannot vote but still can think and do.
At the end of the day voting is a right, very specifically not made compulsory because one has the freedom to choose to vote or not for whatever reasons one might decide for or against.

Your default “vote” is to accept the collective voter will be that in the form of issues voters directly vote on or where elected officials of the people vote as their appointed proxies. If that doesn’t suit you or you feel the system or faith of the voter has been violated- you have all manner of options concerning things like recalls and impeachment, lobbying, advocacy and activism, running for office, use of the judicial system, changing your support in future elections, protests, demonstrations, and more.
Those who cannot accept these things and still feel violated may choose to resort to means beyond the systems in place such as law breaking or revolution.
One must ultimately follow their moral compass, though civics and self interest are not always the same thing; a tantrum is not patriotism or noble deed for mankind.

As to “you” individually didn’t vote for something- yeah. Kinda tough s&it on that. That’s how pretty much any large democracy works unless everyone agrees on everything.
Where you DO get a vote, yours is one of many. You cast yours, your neighbor casts theirs, the votes are counted, and there is a system in place where based on the votes a decision is made. You may not always agree with that decision but if everything is fair and square as it can be, the people have spoken and what you want isn’t what the public at large wanted. Of course- they didn’t send national guard soldiers to the US south because the people of those states overwhelmingly voted in support to desegregate- the decision was made by higher elected officials that a human was a human. We don’t need votes on facts- they’re facts- so there were and still are alot of unhappy voters who didn’t get a say in that because sometimes you just don’t get a say nor perhaps should you.

lol. Imagine how many it would have been if I hadn’t have skipped over that part?

I didn’t even check the identification of the craft as I was focused on the question of wether an F111 could be in service at those times, but I do believe you may be on to something. The F111 can station weapons outboard like that, but it would seem uncommon for the airframe to carry a loud out in that configuration.
The stabilizers also do not appear to have the correct footprint and orientation for an F111. I’m not an F111 or variant expert or anything- but it does seem like it is either not an F111 or there is something funky with the picture. In fairness it is hard to make out details etc- but your point is the most damning. The F111 would have curved intakes tucked under the wings and the leading edge of the primary wing would extend forward towards the canopy high on the fuselage in a somewhat uncommon design for most western fighters. It’s very distinct and that isn’t what I’m seeing. Thank you for the catch.