I offer you brownies and ask you to tell me what a substantial skill is and you insult me? Why? Reads like you might be bad company.

…

I thought ‘smoking weed’ to be an obvious pars pro toto for ‘consuming marihuana’ so if we want to return to the original topic: smoking weed for a long time gives you substantial knowledge about smoking weed. When to do it, what to mix, how to roll a blunt, operate a bong or vaporiser, just how to roll a spliff in your hand on a windy beach or how to decarboxylate your shot properly. Now are these ubiquitously useful skill? Not really. Are they very useful in terms of getting very high? Absolutely.

I find the original question to be kind of silly. Of course smoking weed can be a hobby. If whisky is a hobby, weed is, too.

Please try some of my brownies and tell me about substantial skill

This true but also irrelevant to the point that technological supremacy doesn’t equal a guaranteed win.

Every place mostly populated by people is bound have a lot of idiots.

You’re not wrong. This is one of the ‘other things’ I mentioned. A shortage of natural resources is another. Winter, too.

But it is not a myth that Germany had many high quality, but incompatible weapons systems from different manufacturers (handguns and rifles) and that e.g. the tiger was impressive but unreliable.

The best example might be the Wunderwaffen they shot London with. Useless in the grand scheme of things, yet technologically impressive.

My point is that technological supremacy isn’t automatically going to secure the victory.

Keep in mind that the Nazis back in the day had sophisticated weaponry and a lot of high quality stuff, but they were beaten by cheap, mass produced, easy to use weapons and armor. Among other things - but the point still stands.