In the Star Wars universe, what, if any, are some advantages that TIE Fighters might have over X-Wings in dogfights and/or grander military scale?

Thanks for the A2A. I agree with what the others have said, especially Rahbar Al Haq and Mike Prinke.

In a dogfight, there is very little comparison. TIE fighters are more maneuverable – I agree with the others that your sources are wrong about that.

I’m gonna stop there, because in a universe where almost all space combat is conducted with guns, that is the critical factor: TIE fighters are more maneuverable. It might be different if X-wings were much, much faster than TIE fighters, but they aren’t – sources disagree on this, but at the very least the two fighters are nearly matched in speed, and some suggest that the TIE is slightly faster. Regardless, it’s clear that X-wings are not significantly faster than TIEs, and in that context, maneuverability wins.

Oh, sure, the X-wing has better armor, it has shields, and it has more cannon. All of that is absolutely true. But take a look at any X-wing vs. TIE fighter match-up on screen, and tell me that TIEs are under-gunned. Exhibit A:

Heck, can you tell me how many extra seconds of life that armor and those shields give an X-wing under fire from a TIE fighter? Does all that extra survivability translate to even one extra second of reaction time? It does not. The armor and shields might keep you alive from a glancing burst, and that’s not nothing. But when an X-wing gets caught, it’s dead. And they get caught often. How many times have you heard a Rebel pilot crying out in panic, “I can’t shake him!” or “Need a little help here?”

It’s worth emphasizing that this is true both at the “duel” level and in larger furballs. Unlike their Mitsubishi A6M Zero – Wikipedia real-world counterparts, TIEs have radios, which means the Rebel pilots don’t have any greater inherent ability to coordinate. A well-coordinated team flying inferior machines can beat a bunch of individuals, however talented, in superior machines. At the very least, superior coordination is its own weapon in a dogfight. But Imperial pilots aren’t any more or less able to coordinate than Rebel pilots. If anything, they’re more likely to have superior coordination, because they’re much more likely to have a mothership nearby that can serve the AWACS role.

What Rebel fighters do tend to have is superior pilots. However, as we see throughout Star Wars media, Rebel fighters get shot down pretty darn frequently. If the pilots we see on-screen happen to be veterans, that’s only because you don’t get to see the pilots who are already dead. By contrast, how many chances to die does a TIE pilot really have? As we see in media such as Rebels and Rogue One, and even A New Hope, the Rebel Alliance was never particularly big, and the Imperial war machine underwent a massive peacetime expansion.

So in your average TIE vs. X-wing matchup, the odds are that the X-wing pilot has survived more combat encounters than his TIE pilot counterpart. That’s not necessarily because he has the superior machine or even better odds of surviving any given encounter, though; it’s just that Rebel pilots have a much higher overall operational tempo than Imperial pilots. Any given Rebel pilot is going to be pushed much harder than any given Imperial pilot.

But the machines? TIE fighters are better than X-wings at dogfighting at all scales of conflict, no question.

Now, it is true that there are things X-wings can do that TIE fighters can’t. TIE fighters aren’t intended to blow up big targets, and they don’t have either the sensor package or the hyperdrive to permit long-range independent operations. You can’t send a TIE fighter to scout something outside of the current star system. You can’t send TIE fighters to blow up a large enemy ship, at least not easily. X-wings can do those things.

Why doesn’t the Empire care about that sort of capability? Well, first off, remember that they had just fought a very intense war in which hyperspace-capable fighters played a significant doctrinal role. Whether it was “generals” whose war engine of choice was the hyperspace-capable interceptor

or a navy whose main striking capability was built around carriers

in preference to battleships

the Imperial Navy had institutional experience with fighter-centric warfare. And they probably noticed that, despite the hundreds and hundreds of fighters their Venator squadrons could deploy, fleet actions still ended up with the capital ships having to slug it out, in engagements both small

and large

Meanwhile, the Confederate Navy’s main striking power was built not around carriers like the Venators so beloved of the Republic Navy (and perhaps, particularly, by the Jedi) but rather around turbolaser-centric designs such as the Munificent

and the Recusant

while even their big Providence “carriers” were more heavily weighted in favor of turbolasers than starfighters

Following the war, the Imperial Navy seems to have decided that the Separatists had the right idea when it came to ship design. In terms of combat philosophy, the iconic Imperial class is more like an up-scaled Munificent than an iteration on the Venator. An Imperial star destroyer has very few starfighters, but it has lots of turbolasers, and they’re all gigantic.

And I don’t think it’s hard to see why. Even the Rebellion seems to prefer to deploy actual warships in support of its fighters whenever it can, and we almost never see swarms of Rebel fighters taking down Imperial warships all by themselves. This is true in Rogue One, and it’s true in Rebels, and it’s true throughout the original trilogy.

This is something that I think Star Wars fans tend to overlook. So much of Star Wars is “World War II in SPAAAAAAAACE” that we tend not to notice the places where it isn’t that. In World War II, carriers beat battleships decisively. Everybody knows the stories of great sorties of carrier-based aircraft sinking enemy ships many times their size, while their own side’s cruisers and battleships sat helpless over the horizon or their enemies’ cruisers and battleships fell to airborne torpedoes and bombs.

But Star Wars isn’t actually like that. Remember what happened at the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One? Yes, the Rebels managed to disable one Star Destroyer with an ion torpedo run. But that ion torpedo run was supported by Raddus’ entire fleet, which was actually slugging it out, and they still couldn’t actually destroy their disabled prey except by sacrificing a ship to ram it, and even the actual ramming didn’t destroy the Star Destroyer; they had to push it into a space station.

Star Destroyers, compared to Rebel starfighters, are incredibly tough. The Battle of Midway this ain’t.

You see the same thing in Rebels, in a slightly different way. Here, a prototype B-wing destroys an Arquitens light cruiser, which is the sort of image people like me (who grew up on X-Wing and TIE Fighter) are used to.

But notice the way it’s presented. The Rebels go in with all the bigger ships they can muster (not many, in this particular instance), even though they’re throwing corvettes against light cruisers. They don’t expect to be able to take on those Imperial light cruisers without the support of real starships. The Arquitens that the B-wing destroys is an old model, dating back to the middle of the Clone Wars. It’s not exactly a modern design. And Agent Kallus’ reaction isn’t, “Oh, well, that’s what happens when you let a bomber get a clean run on a warship.” No. He says, “That’s impossible.”

All this to say, the advantages of an X-wing’s versatility are sometimes … overstated. Yes, it’s literally more versatile than a TIE fighter. But what does that versatility actually get you? Can you throw a dozen X-wings at an Imperial space station and watch them trash it?

No. They just don’t have the firepower for that.

Once you acknowledge that you’re going to need to bring heavier firepower along anyway to engage all but the most vulnerable targets, then the TIE fighter’s specialization makes a lot more sense. Imagine if you were one of those X-wing pilots at the Battle of Scarif. You’re attacking a fairly hardened target this time, not bombing some helpless research facility.

To be fair, TIE fighters couldn’t have done this, not on their own. Versatility isn’t entirely useless.

But that’s okay! Because you have proton torpedoes. You have versatility.

And what happens when you unleash those proton torpedoes on that big fat space station? Absolutely nothing. If anything is taking down this target, it’s going to be those big, hyperspace-capable starships behind you.

At which point you realize you are sacrificing dogfighting capability for a hyperdrive and torpedo launchers that have earned you exactly zip. And by the way, there are dedicated enemy dogfighters up here hunting for your blood.

I imagine a lot of Rebel pilots felt that way throughout the war. Even if you wanted a hit-and-run raid, as a Rebel commander, you wanted to conduct it with starships as well as starfighters, which significantly reduces the military value of those hyperdrives and torpedoes. We’ve already seen how much value the shields have. The fact of the matter is that the Rebels used the last war’s starfighter doctrine because they had to. It wasn’t the more effective strategy. It was what they could afford.

What's the complete story of the Shiva Tandava Stotram?

The story goes like this Muni Naarad advised Raavan to bring Shiva to his Place .Raavan being haughty decided to uproot whole Himalaya and as he started to lift it Shiva pressed his foot thumb which sent Raavan to patala, crushed by weight of Shivas thumb he cried in immense pain did one RAAV (crying in agony ) his Raav was so powerful that it trembled three worlds, and later it is here when Shiva gave him name RAAVAN, this name was dearest to Raavan because Shiva gave him this name but even after applying his full strength Raavan could not get away from its weight. He waited for 14 days chanting Shiva mantras asking for forgiveness than on the evening of Pradosha day he chanted this Taandav stotra to appease Shiva at pradosha kaal he chanted it in perfect rhythm and with immense devotion ,seeing such devotion and hearing this powerful stotra Shiva smiled and Mother Goddess having pity on Raavan asked Shiva to free him and hence Shiva freed Raavan and gave him several boons being appeased by this stotra .

This is very powerful rhythmic stotra though it is not easy to read or pronounce but with some sincere efforts one can do it if he has devotion. This stotra is very important on pradosha muhurta it gives immense spiritual and mundane benefits to those who chant it in on Pradosha with devotion. What fruits it brings is described in last stanzas of this stotra also .

This is one of the most famous stotras of Shiva being adopted in several films and Tv programs just chanting it brings bliss spiritual energies its words have immense positive effects. This is one of the most important Stotras of shiva and very dear to him and his devotees.

And see this female male thing in shiva worship does not exists, any body including shudra ,mlecha, or Queen King or Princess or Priestess or normal girl or women or any men or eunuch, ALL CAN, AND MUST WORSHIP SHIVA, THIS IS SHASTRA AGYA VEDAS DECLARATION, thats why you will find every single God or Rishi or any Great character of our Shastras has worshipped Shiva and established Shiva temple in there names. The only and very important qualification to worship Shiva is The DEVOTION, BHAKTI Towards him, than following Shastrokta method as mentioned every women or man of any awastha (state) jati (cast),social status or work status ,all are allowed to worship Shiva, yet of course as per the ways charted in Shastras. So have no doubts all devotees of Shiva and all others also must worship Shiva as per there adhikar (permission) in Shastra. Famous Vratas like, Saawan Somwar or Sola Somwar are meant for women mostly where they are meant to worship Shiva Shakti all day long, So female and males of any kind or species even Yaksha, Devas Nagas etc too can worship Shiva sing his Stotras with devotion and Shudha Bhawa.

See Shiva has already declared to world the equal status of men and women in Sanatana in ShaktiShiva ArdhaNareeshwar Avtaar. So those who advise otherwise to Shivas Worship or attach imaginary conditions of any kind or gender or cast bias are Anti Shiva, means they are anti positive hence if you want positive kalyan auspicious than worship Shiva for sure leave such lowly negative people they do not want you to worship Shiva because worshiping shiva you will become more intelligent and spiritually advanced than them. But consider the grand truth of Vedas ,Rishis shastras and Gods themselves that Shiva must be worshipped by all who want positive,beauty true everlasting joy away from maya must worship Shiva.

Look across the ocean of shastras it is full of Shiva all gods and goddesses rishis devas yakshas nagas tantriks ,shaktas ,gandharrwas Siddhas devas and even Asuras boot pishachas pretas pashus beings of all kinds have unanimously surely worshipped shiva and made great temples to declare there staunch devotion for shiva, few of them famously are Rameshwaram built by Ram to declare his being bhakta of shiva, again in Krishna Avtar when Shiva came to play with him at raasa where only women may enter, actually even if a man enters raas he becomes stree a women but Shiva being Param purush remained Shiva so Krishna spotted him in disguise and worshipped him as God and Ishta of him and all Gopis as GOPESHWAR MAHADEV still in Vrindavan. So have no doubt Shiva is worshipped by all entities who want there good, there is no question of male and female at all.

Though females can worship Shiva, and chant his Stotras or Mantras or do Sadhnas etc, but as per vedas such shall not be done when they have there RituKaalam menses, yet mansik mantra jaap aradhan can be done but not touching Vigrah and one more thing women shall not include pranav in Shiva mantra, and on another point, one school of thought says that women shall chant Shivay first than Namah, other school says it does not matter use both anulom and vilom but both school assert that women shall skip Pranava. Now as talking about females let me tell you few more official shastrokta things which shall clear few other doubts if this question arises at the first place anyways,

Women can wear Rudrakhsa of any kind any mukha have no doubts about it,any number of Rosaries or Beads they can put on but after duly charging worshipping it, and follow the easy rules which are meant for both sexes.

They can and shall apply Tripundra of Bhasma or Bhasma mixed with chandan after offering it to Shiva and after making three parallel lines shall put a dot of sindoor in middle of forehead after offering it to Mahadevi, Ganpati, Kartik, or draw a Red Vertical Tilak across three lines making shape of agni or to say oval agni, covering three lines vertically. The contrast of Divine bright Red in front of of bright divine white is pure aesthetic. Anyways few people do not know about it but face this situation, so Bhasma or Bhasma with Chandan can be applied as Tripundra by women and put a Red Sindoor Dot or Vertical Tilak reaching upto first Tripundra Rekha white line, To enhance there Saubhagya, Saundarya, Prasannata and many other innumerable mundane and spiritual benefits and immense punyas one shall by wearing Bhasma Tripundra with Sindoor properly, equally by men and women states Shastra.

They can chant his mantras read and sing his sanskrit stotras there is no hindrance but as said, bhakti is the main qualification, your devotion will decide your deservance but be sure Shiva who is Shakti and Shiva as one and as different both must be worshipped by all women, girl or even napunsak or purusha and those who have devotion can worship Shiva.

What are some conditions where it would be reasonable to drop out of high school?

A good scenario would be that you are dropping out of high school because you have passed your State Proficiency Exam like this one to pursue your career choice at a community college.

There is usually an age limit to be eligible to take the exam, but it depends on what state you reside in.  In California, you have to be 16 years old or have the Fall Semester of your Sophomore Year completed- whichever occurs first.

Will D-Mart open a franchise?

It looks difficult that D-mart will open a conventional franchise model. They are only looking at properties inexcess of 10,000 sft which could be suitable for them to buy or rent to build their own company owned company operated stores. Like the McDonalds Unit model, they will only need franchises for their properties and nothing beyond that. You could apply for their franchise if you have a suitable property at http://www.dmartindia.com/partne…

What does it mean to design your life?

When we grow up we repeatedly observe a certain pattern of behavior and we assume that life has to look a certain way.

We are born, live with our parents until we’re grown-ups, go to kindergarten, then elementary school, then middle school, then high school, (then college). Meanwhile we decide what we want to do when we grow up and invest in this particular education. Then we look for a job, settle down and have our own family with kids, wives, husbands, dogs, houses, cars, careers, vacations, weekdays, weekends, office hours, holidays, etc. Meanwhile we save up for retirement, come to terms that we will retire at the age of 65 or whatever the age is in our country (by the way, we stay in this country). We have similar or even the same rituals as our parents once had. Eventually we retire (because someone once said that that’s what we do), tell others how much we don’t understand those new generations, and then we die.

That’s pretty much how it should look like. If it doesn’t look like that in our case, we will be laughed at/ ridiculed/ pitied. People who follow this plan will tell how much we screwed up our lives and how they excelled.

That’s how society works. Don’t expect that to change. It won’t. Why? Because human beings love to mimic others and fit in.

So often we hear from our parents and other adults that we have to do this or that. And few people have the audacity to question those “truths" about life.

People who give us advice assume that what they’ve learned about life is something young people must take at face value. Because that’s just the way life is.

Rare are the individuals who dare to question the existing rules and, if necessary, break those rules and establish new ones. Breaking out of the pack is not the norm, it’s a feat.

When those who established new rules share their story with likeminded people they are being applauded for their courage, open-mindedness, and creativity.

When Stefan Sagmeister shared his idea for how he'd like his life designed, the public was awestruck.

What was this idea?

He decided that he’d take five years which people would typically allocate to retirement and intersperse them between his working years so that his new plan, instead of being “normal” and looking more or less like this

looked like this:

When you consider how much people believe in the reality with which they’re presented (the first image) and how the audience reacted when Stefan Sagmeister shared this idea you might be wondering "Is Stefan Sagmeister a God?"

No. He is not a God. He simply decided to question the existing rule and come up with a new rule that better suited him.

Is Stefan Sagmeister the only person on this planet who can do it? No. Everybody can do it.

But not everybody will do it.

Most people will rather come up with poor excuses (why this guy’s plan is not feasible/ or why it sucks/ or why it is not for everybody) than decide that they will also rewrite the reality. They’re too scared. They prefer to swim in the familiar pond than enter the uncharted waters.

And as more and more people actualize this most common life plan (because few have the guts to be outliers) it becomes ever more powerful.

For the majority of people this plan cannot be altered. So they stay in the jobs they hate and count the years until retirement. Why?

Because they have bought into this myth that they have to decide what they want to be when they grow up (and so they think that they can’t change careers) and that people work for approximately 40 years, starting at the age of 25, and then they retire at the age of 65 (and they think there’s nothing you can do about it).

But the truth is different.

The truth is that we can change careers and we can do it at any point in our lives.Prior to becoming a famous tenor Andrea Bocelli graduated from university and practiced law. Prior to becoming a novelist, screenwriter and film producer J.K. Rowling worked as a researcher and bilingual secretary for Amnesty International, then at the Chamber of Commerce, then as a teacher.

The truth is we can choose not to go to college, or to drop out of college. The examples of extremely successful people are abundant (Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, Rachael Ray, Steven Spielberg, Ellen DeGeneres, Richard Branson, Coco Chanel, Michael Dell, to name just a few).

The truth is we can do things that are totally unrelated to the things that we studied for (Charles Darwin had studied to become an Anglican parson but was far more interested in geology and natural sciences than in the Bible. When he was offered to join the 1831 HMS Beagle voyage he jumped at the opportunity, and the rest is history). Those who do it are much more likely to find something they will love doing.

The truth is that we can decide that we will never retire (that’s right, retirement is not compulsory – Astrid Lindgren wrote children's books even in her 90s) or that we will do in our 20s, 30s or 40s all the things that people “normally” postpone until their 60s, 70s and 80s (impossible? Kevin Kelly, the founder of WIRED magazine had his first real job when he was 35 – prior to that he travelled the world and earned money working odd jobs).

Apart from the plan for our earliest years, when mostly we live with our parents and go through some kind of formal education, we don’t have to live according to some predefined (preexisting) plan. We have the right and the power to design our own lives. And we either make use of that or make up excuses. We choose and we get to live with the consequences of those choices.

Be you. Do you.

PS. Here’s Stefan Sagmeister’s TED Talk The power of time off in which he talks about his extraordinary idea.

This is a copy of my previous answer Lukasz Laniecki's answer to I just turned 25. What are the best pieces of life advice for me?

In finding out the turning effect of a force, shouldn't we know a pivot constant like finding out extension of springs?

Well you do…

Assuming you are referencing simple rotation motion a torque is defined as the cross product between the force vector and the displacement vector.

So you have to have the distance from the pivot or center of mass.

You may also need to consider moment of inertia (“The effective mass of the rotation”)

Such as in Newton's second law of rotation.

In the sinusoidal wave equation for a lossless medium what is the difference between the spatial wave length and any ordinary wavelength?

I think the word spatial is used just to emphasize that it is the measure of distance between two adjacent wave peaks. The equation for a plane wave is,

[math] E = \cos(kx – \omega t + \phi) [/math],

and the relevant quantities are,

the frequency, [math] f = \omega / 2 \pi [/math],

the period (in time), [math] T = 1 / f [/math],

and the wavelength (in space), [math] \lambda= 2 \pi / k [/math],

There’s also something called the spatial frequency, in inverse distance,

[math] \xi = 1 / \lambda [/math].

So with spatial frequency, you could say something like, this sea shell has 30 stripes per centimeter.

How to know when to break up

It is always there infront of you the signs , but being caught up in the web of emotions and expectations lead us to be blind to these indicators.

  1. Your Instinct/ intuition is telling you something not right, Trust it without any hesitation and if you can trust it blindly at least challenge it and question why you are getting this sense 8/10 times they are correct.
  2. It not His/Her behavior change but yours that is toxic, if you have started to change your behavior / actions in your relationship in response to the the stimuli of your partner behavior then it is the point of toxicity seeping in your relationship. Relationship are formed out of comfort of two people and as human we are not at all susceptible to change when we are in comfort, that is a prime reason we came into relationship i.e. Our Comfort with the partner.
  3. When you have to bank on past moments for realization of how much you love each other because you are not making any new one, a big big indicator when you or your partner start discussing how you used to be , how good you were back then which means either of you is stopping yourself to challenge that benchmark of happiness that once you had.
  4. Reasons to not do anything in relationship no matter how trivial they may be become a big concern for your Partner, when your partner reasons for not doing anything that is beneficial to your relationship it could be going on a small trip, a night out which was part of your relationship earlier become greater than the one reason i.e. YOU LOVE EACH OTHER !
  5. Space, If this word become a regular part of your discussions or our of no where this word become part of your partners vocabulary then run