#AGAIN: REFERENCES ARE /THE/ MOST UNRELIABLE INDICATOR OF JOB PERFORMANCE

[lokh]

can we pray that my former supervisors please respond to me quickly.

[sevensided]

Fathers in Stranger Things

This recent conversation about family acceptance in ST has made me think a lot about fathers in the show. I believe that a central theme in the story is acceptance. Acceptance of the supernatural, acceptance of differences, acceptance of one another. This dovetails into other key themes - forgiveness, friendship, and love - but in the context of parents and, specifically, Mike and Will, I think acceptance is an interesting way to think about how fathers or father figures play in their eventual relationship.

Every father on the show is an absent figure. This is for two reasons: to illustrate how much more hands-off raising children was in the 80s; and to highlight the role mothers play in the development of our characters. This also links into broader, structural themes, such as heterosexuality, patriarchy, and gender roles. On a simple level, the fathers are absent because it is the mothers who do the child rearing. This absence, however, also reveals the lack of paternal support in the lives of our core characters, and as a result, the supplementation of father figures. This dovetails into a theme that carries throughout the show - that of found families - but when it comes to Mike and Will’s development, together and separately, this relates importantly to how they will come to see themselves as young, probably gay, men.

Fathers

To start, I’ll briefly overview the main fathers of the series. We can largely group them as absent but harmless, or absent and harmful.

Ted Wheeler is an apathetic feature in Mike’s life. He is typically involved in scenes that underscore the domestic discord of the Wheeler household, and his role is primarily to show how unhappy Karen is in their marriage, and how his children do not connect with him. While there are some indications that he cares for his children, these are not carried through onscreen and, for the most part, Ted does not participate in raising Nancy or Mike. 

Lucas’ father, Mr Sinclair, is presented once in association with his wife, Mrs Sinclair. Their breakfast table scene is used to show the dynamic of the Sinclair household, and for Lucas to ask his parents abstract advice on how to win Max back after their argument. Mr Sinclair makes some period-typical comments that are intended to be funny, but they also indicate that Lucas was brought up in a fairly stereotypical atmosphere (to paraphrase: “What do you do if mom’s mad at you?” / “Yes, what do you do?” / “Your mother is never wrong”). You could go all galaxy brain and say this is a nod to Joyce Byers - who spends a lot of the show trying to prove she’s right - but as this is the sole scene that features Lucas’ parents, it is our only insight into their familial dynamic, and therefore our only frame of reference as to how Lucas is raised.

Dustin’s father is not mentioned in canon and it appears he was raised in a single-parent household. With no evidence to the contrary, we can go ahead and assume that Dustin’s only meaningful parental relationship is to his mother, with whom he has a strong bond.

Lonnie Byers is an undesirable and unreliable father who left Joyce and his sons before canon. When he does reappear in S01, he is proved yet again to be a grifter looking to take advantage of Will’s disappearance and assumed death. It it subtly indicated that Lonnie was abusive to Jonathan (“You’ve gotten stronger”) and, it’s possible, to Joyce or Will too. He is certainly proved to be homophobic (“Lonnie used to call him a qu**r, said he was a f*g” / “Is he?”). Lonnie may be entirely physically absent, yet his impact on Will resonates through the story, and in a figurative sense, he is very much present.

Steve’s father is, similarly to Ted, indicated to be a work-focused man who is rarely around the Harrington household. In S01 he goes on a work trip and is accompanied by his wife (“My mom doesn’t trust him” / “Probably a good thing”) which indicates he may have been unfaithful to Mrs Harrington in the past. He is a very literal absence in Steve’s life yet appears off-screen as a forceful presence (“My dad is a grade-A asshole”) that shapes Steve’s life, culminating in S03 with Steve’s job at the mall.

The biological father of Billy and Max’s step-father, Mr Hargrove, is an abusive, sexist, and dangerous man, whose impact on Billy is so severe that it renders him vulnerable to possession by the Mind Flayer and eventually results in Billy’s death. When El goes into Billy’s memories in the S03 finale, we see how Mr Hargrove used sports to bully and antagonize his son into performative masculinity, and how he often resorted to physical violence against Billy and his late mother. Our other insight into Mr Hargrove’s paternal presence is through Max, whose behaviour indicates that while she is, possibly, partly protected by her mother, she is not protected from Billy, who takes his anger with his father out on her. Max is cagey about the full impact of Mr Hargrove, but is it subtle and sufficient enough to show that he is among the most dangerous male characters in the series so far, and his onscreen absence, like Lonnie, resonates figuratively in the lives of our characters.

The final father figure to discuss is Dr Brenner. Brenner is cold and remote in that he is the PI of a government-funded underground project modeled on MK Ultra, and thus treats Eleven like the scientific subject she is. Brenner’s acts of care are only figured as manipulation tactics (such as talking quietly yet firmly to El, carrying her from the solitary confinement cell when she kills the guard, allowing her a toy lion) and cannot in good conscience be considered parental kindness. Brenner’s power over El is so potent that Kali draws on their shared memory of Brenner in S02 to capitalise on El’s powers. El perceives Brenner as a father (“Papa”). Like Lonnie and Mr Hargrove, Brenner’s absence lingers and retains a hold over El.

As we can see, you have absent but harmful figures like Dr Brenner, Lonnie, and Mr Hargrove, and absent but harmless figures like Ted, Dustin’s father, Mr Sinclair, and even, to an extent, Mr Harrington. This rough categorisation helps us see that the show’s fathers are painted into a conspicuous binary that reflects the expectations placed on our characters as they learn to become men. Are they jocks or nerds? Straight or gay? In the world of Reaganite Hawkins, society is bookended by the normal and acceptable, or the abnormal and unacceptable. In this context, fathers - and to a larger extent, masculinity - either exist passively or aggressively, and both impact our characters either overtly (Billy and Will) or subliminally (Mike and Lucas).

Father figures

The characters above stand in stark contrast to the father figures presented in the series. These include Hopper, Bob, Mr Clarke, and Steve. Quite by chance, they each represent different elements of masculinity and different figures of power in the lives of our main cast. 

Mr Clarke, for example, is representative of institutional power (a teacher) and has a strong influence over the Party in encouraging their curiosity and natural interest in science and the world around them. He is not typically masculine - he is a nerd - but he gently guides the Party through school and is shown to care for them.

Bob is representative of a found father figure in that he steps into the Byers’ life in no permanent sense (“This is not a normal family” / “But it could be”), but his respect of Joyce’s boundaries nevertheless sees him exercise a positive influence over Will (Jonathan, by Bob’s own admission, is harder to crack - understandable, given Jonathan’s past with Lonnie and, possibly, other men Joyce has occasionally had in her life). Bob’s absence - his death - is palpable, and leaves a lasting impression on Joyce, who is arguably in mourning for a good part of S03. In a similar vein, you can also make the argument that Jonathan is a father figure to Will (but that deserves its own post).

Steve represents more of a big brother role to the rest of the Party, but it is possible to see Steve as a father figure to Dustin, particularly over the course of S02. Steve drives Dustin to the dance, gives him advice on girls (a stereotypical “dad talk”), protects him, and supports him. In S03 their relationship has shifted into more of a friendship, but that does not take away from their initial dynamic that had a paternal undertone to it.

These are all examples of father figures. But the most important example of this is Hopper, and it is because he subverts this mold. Aside from the obvious link to El, in that he raises her from S02 and even becomes her “father” (Jane Hopper), it is not Hopper’s absence as a father that is important, but the absence of his daughter. Hopper is therefore an inverted male character. The absence (death) of his daughter stands in binary to the Party’s biological fathers, who are otherwise the absent ones. In contrast, Hopper is very present. Hopper is a father in the literal sense, but he is a father figure to Mike and Will: Mike, through his relationship with El and in the absence of Ted (Hopper gives Mike the “dad talk” in S03); and Will through Hopper’s relationship with Joyce. Hopper’s absent daughter is substituted most clearly by El. But in an abstract way, he also fits that role with Mike and Will too. In sum, Hopper’s absence as a biological father is redeemed when he becomes a father figure to other characters. He is therefore neither harmful or harmless, and can be seen as an outlier - but that is deliberate. It is deliberate because he and Joyce are the only parents/parental figures who know and understand the supernatural in Hawkins. I suspect that by the end of the series, Karen may be drawn into the fold too.

Mothers

I mentioned at the start that the absence of fathers highlights the role that mothers play in the series. This is best understood - and perhaps only understood - with direct reference to Karen Wheeler and Joyce Byers. Karen and Joyce have huge roles to play in how Mike and Will will come to understand themselves. They do this in spite of the male absence in Mike and Will’s lives, because a central theme of the ST story is love, especially maternal love.

Karen Wheeler is introduced as a typical housewife whose role it is to care for her children - Nancy, Mike, and Holly - and take care of the Wheelers’ home. She is in an unhappy marriage with Ted, and is unhappy enough to consider having an affair with Billy in S03. It is her sense of duty that prevents her from carrying this out. Karen is repeatedly shown to reach out to her children and frequently offers emotional support (most potently in S01-2, S03 being the sole exception [“It’s hard to keep track. You know what it’s like - summer!”]). Despite their rebuffs Karen does not give up trying to support her children. She is occasionally successful (Mike comes to her for comfort once per season, and she and Nancy are shown to have a tumultuous but altogether strong relationship, culminating in the S03 kitchen speech scene) yet, arguably, Mike and Nancy’s willfulness and growing up is a point of frustration and another source of unhappiness. While it will blow over - they are both teenagers - in the context of the show their rejection of her emotional support further reinforces her isolation. It is important to note that while Mike does crumble and come to her for comfort, this happens only in times of duress (Will’s disappearance, Will moving away). In other words, Mike does not rely on his mother for emotional support but she is still his mother, and when he does come to her it is during Mike’s emotional high points. These are always linked to Will. This directly ties Mike’s emotional development as it relates to Will to the maternal support given by his mother.

Joyce Byers is, as we all know, the resident PFLAG rep. Her relationship with Will is a central element of the story, and it is strengthened not despite Lonnie’s absence but in spite of it. It is moot to think of how Joyce and Will would have developed if Lonnie had stayed in canon, because Joyce is repeatedly shown to be driven by the love for her children. What is essential to understand about Joyce is that she is an atypical parent. She is a single working class mother whose brushes with normality (e.g. Bob) are taken away by the supernatural. As mentioned before, this further highlights the thematic divide between normality/abnormality and visible/invisible that are staples to the plot. In other words, Joyce has not found her “normal”, because Will has not yet found his normal. Until that happens, her happiness is at stake, partly because it is tied to the happiness of her children, but because Will’s overarching influence over the supernatural elements in the story is inextricably tied to his sense of belonging. Joyce, unlike Karen, has already won her child’s trust and support. Will’s story, therefore, is linked more closely to the absence of his father, whereas for Mike, it is not the absence of his father that is to be overcome, but his aversion to connecting with Karen.

Mike and Will

Taken together, I believe that when it comes to Mike and Will and their respective sexuality, it is not the fathers that will figure in their coming out, but their mothers. The show plays on the absence of fathers and places them in opposition to the presence of mothers. It is maternal love that guides Mike and Will, and it is maternal love that will protect them. This concept is only subverted by El and Hopper’s relationship, for it is El’s mother and Hopper’s daughter who is absent, therefore implying that they are contradictions, or inversions, of the show’s presentation of the familial.

Mike’s relationship with Ted is not a model. Aside from Ted’s general apathy towards his children - he demonstrably leaves the discipline and care of their children to Karen, as evidenced by every family scene in which Karen makes the decisions and Ted remains silent - he appears to have given up in connecting with Mike as his son. I mentioned before how Mr Hargrove used sports to coerce Billy into performative masculinity; the same can be said of Will, who disliked it when Lonnie took him to baseball games, and even destroys Castle Byers with a baseball bat. In contrast, Mike’s baseball bat (picked up in S01 by Nancy, who pretends to be practicing for the softball team) is in the garage, indicating it is not used, if it ever was. Arguably, Mike’s insistent and forceful personality might have bowled the passive Ted over, but Ted’s disconnect to his son is also evidenced in S01 when Ted jokes, “Our son, with a girl?” I have discussed here how this line was a blatant reference to Mike’s “nerd” status. As S03 has proved, the Duffers rely on 80s tropes to sublimate existing themes in their story. With nerds typically understood in 80s cultural discourse as sexually and romantically inexperienced social loners, Ted’s comment betrays three things: how he perceives his son; the failed expectations for his son; and how the audience is meant to understand Mike as a character. Ted does not feature in Mike’s upbringing, and I think this is deliberate for two reasons: to underscore how traditional Mike’s upbringing is; and to foreshadow that it will not be Ted’s opinion of Mike that matters in the end. It will be Karen’s.

Will’s relationship with Lonnie is, as presented onscreen in canon, non-existent. It only plays out off-screen and we have not yet seen Will and Lonnie interact in person. Regardless of where you stand with the theory that Lonnie’s abuse manifested in Will to become the Mind Flayer (I personally agree with it), Lonnie’s eventual presence in the show will be a critical moment and, likely, the climax of the entire series. As addressed above, Lonnie is indicated to be homophobic, if not abusive, to Will in the past. I won’t touch on the abuse as that is largely hearsay at the point of writing this post, however the homophobic language is canon and therefore has a bearing on how we are expected to interpret Will and his relationship to 1) other boys/men, and 2) his sexuality. Both Mike and Will have no meaningful relationship with their fathers. Yet, while Mike’s father is absent and harmless, Lonnie is absent and very much harmful. Thus, the lasting influence of his absence is made more potent by the power of Will’s memories/imagination. Having been subjected to direct homophobic bullying, Will’s sexual identity is tied very much to his relationships with older men, with Jonathan, Bob, and to an extent, Mr Clarke, as positive representations of masculinity, and Lonnie on the other end of the spectrum. To Will, Lonnie may be physically absent but he is figuratively present. As such, it will not be Lonnie’s reaction to Will’s sexuality that is important. It will be Will’s overcoming of Lonnie’s hold over him that will be the defining moment in his character arc. 

Parental absence is key to Mike and Will’s development together and individually. Both Mike and Will have to overcome their absent fathers in different ways. The key to this will be breaking free of the societal expectations placed on them, drawing strength in maternal love, and, crucially, finding love and acceptance with each other. The defining point is that despite surface-level indications to the contrary, it is not the fathers who are important: it is the mothers.

[software-testing-tips]

The 9-step success formula for small QA teams to switch from manual to automated testing in 2020

Do you or your staff now test manually and attempting to split test automation? In this guide, we summarise how can small QA teams make the transition from manual to code less testing to full-fledged automated testing. The transition won't occur overnight but can be successfully achieved much easier than anticipated.

Say no to mundane repetitive manual testing

Your willingness to say no to dull and dull repetitive manual testing is the first real step towards automatic testing! Any staff will eventually get bogged down by doing the same thing over and over again affecting staff motivation. Some groups will overcome this challenge by automating little bits and bits of repetitive work. For instance, a script to import test data into a database, a utility to create random test information, etc..

Can you or your staff currently examine manually and attempting to break into test automation? In this article, we outline how do little QA teams make the transition from manual to code less analysis to complete-fledged automated testing. The transition won't happen overnight but can be successfully achieved much easier than expected.

As a team, you need to acknowledge that manual testing is haunted by repetitiveness and is error-prone. Some teams will overcome this challenge by automating small bits and pieces of work. For instance, a script to import test data into a database, a utility to generate random test information, etc..

Know impediments to change to automated testing

As soon as you admit as a team that you need to move to automated testing, then the next step is to understand what's stopping your team from making this move. In most cases, it is the fear of complexities involved with automation ie., learning programming. "Can we find out a new programming language and execute an effective test automation project?" Are the kind of questions that come into mind. To allay such fears, teams must begin small and select the proper tools that suit their testing requirements. By way of example, think before choosing a tool that doesn't work well with iFrames if your program is using iFrames heavily, or begin to develop a test automation framework if your group doesn't have some automation experience, etc..

Start simple and little but make it powerful

A good start is half the job done. It's essential to pick the straightforward and little test cases when your staff is new to automated testing. Pick the test instances that you test very often but are easy to test. Simple and small test cases are easy to automate, debug, maintain, and reuse. Don't go mad with automation and start with most time taking or intricate ones or you may make your start harder and lower your chances of succeeding. As an instance, start with a simple login test instance, creating an individual, etc..

 Pick the Proper instruments and frameworks

Making the process easier for your team to embrace is the trick to success. It will be simpler when you select a combination of resources and frameworks. Yes, you heard it right! It needs to be a combination of tools. You may no longer rely on one single tool to get success on your test automation. Selenium execution will likely be the foundation since it's the most popular and suitable tool to use with different programming languages. Begin with code less testing tools built on top of Selenium. Code less testing applications could cover the majority of your easy to medium complex manual evaluations.

 Learn and exercise programming

Pick up the programming language that your team is most familiar with. Code less testing might have the ability to cover most of your manual testing but for complex steps or evaluations, you would need to write scripts. Learning is not enough, you should place your learning to the clinic to comprehend and write good code. But do not go deep where you can't stand. Recall as a team, your objective is to ensure the quality of the software by automating repetitive manual tests.

Be very clear on what to automate

Your team must prioritise which evaluations to automate. Just because you've got this new-found understanding of automatic testing, doesn't mean it should be applied to all -- in fact, it's impossible to automate all evaluations, and lots of items are better off being performed manually. Attempting to automate complex and not as frequently used tests is a formula for failure and isn't worth your group's effort. Here is where your manual and exploratory testing skills ought to be put to use whenever a new feature is published. Run risk analysis to determine pieces of your program that need to be automated. In addition, you'll have to pay attention to details such as if your application is web-based, you are going to want to create a list of the browsers and devices that are likely to be essential to your particular test suite.

Zero tolerance to unreliable automated testing

Just like, as guide testers, you refuse to be content with failing tests, you should not tolerate automated tests that pass times and fail constantly. Unreliable evaluations will lose your team's confidence and is a stepping stone for collapse. As an example, if there's a failure in the first steps of a lengthy test situation, you can not be certain if there's no insect beyond this step. Such uncertainties will probably be bad for team morale and make the whole automation campaign less fruitful.

 Don't neglect team cooperation

Successful results for any endeavour are guaranteed by a collaborative team. All your group's automated testing have to be in a single repository accessible anytime & anywhere. A change log indicating that made change to which test situation for traceability and accountability should always exist. The tool you select must allow for collaboration and also make it easier to categorise, tag, filter, and sort the 100's of evaluations that you would have created over time.

Find the principles right

Remember the testing fundamentals. When it is manual or automated testing, testing theories and principles always employ. Refer these posts to Comprehend the fundamentals of test automation

Automated testing might seem daunting once you begin, but it really takes is a constant effort to ensure it is a success. Constant learning and practice using your resources will help. Take comfort in knowing that even the pros don't know all of it. However good an automation engineer you turn into, there is always more to learn.

[dungeonmasterpoisonbite]

Dwarfs and Reproduction

So there was this cool post about dwarfs reproducing by creating babies out of precious stones that I really liked, and I wanted to explore that further. (post found HERE) This is my take on dwarf reproduction!

Dwarfs are, at a glance, a pretty typical humanoid species in the same grouping of races as elves, gnomes, halflings, and humans. They do not share enough similarities to goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, and other goblinoids to be a member of that group, though they do share more anatomical similarities to them than any of the other humanoid races. They exhibit less sexual dimorphism than the other humanoid races save elves. While the other races tend to have members of the female sex grow less facial and body hair than males of the same geographic origin, dwarf males and females only real difference is their sexual anatomy, the presence of breast tissue in females, and slight variations in beard growth rates.

When looking more closely at dwarf anatomy and society, however, it becomes very clear that they are an anomaly in all the bipedal sapient races of the world. While they have all the anatomy necessary to reproduce sexually, all dwarfs are born complete sterile. No one knows how or why they have the equipment to reproduce sexually but not the ability, and dwarf scholars are not providing that particular bit of information to the scientific community.

What is known is that for all of recorded history (according to dwarf scholars), dwarfs have reproduced by crafting a baby out of precious metals, gems, jewelry, stones, and other various materials depending on the clan and their location. The blackreef clan is one famous sea-dwelling dwarf clan, and they use shells, pearls, and whale ivory in their children. This baby is called a dar'knan, which translates into 'receptacle of our breath' in the dwarf tongue.

The dar'knan is an expensive venture for any single dwarf, and thus multiple dwarfs will often pool their resources to create one. Marriage among dwarfs is meant to signify this pooling of resources and assets. The nuclear dwarf houshold will involve two parents, one a warrior and the other some sort of craftsmen. They purchase the materials for the crafstmen to work into the shape of their child, often spending months on this project alone. Dwarf culture allows for this crafting time, and the entire clan will pitch in food, water, ale, and other necessities so that the family can focus on creating their child.

What the dar'knan is made from is not actually in anyway indicative of how the child will turn out. Better materials does not guarantee a stronger or more intelligent child, nor does the use of gemstones and precious metals guarantee a more attractive child. In desperate times, dwarfs have been known to simply chisel a rough approximation of a baby out of stone, and use that for the dar'knan. However, the expenditure of resources is meant to be an indicator of your wealth and your success at acquiring it, and thus is symbolic of you channeling that success into your child.

Despite their not being any real difference in what your dar'knan is made of, many dwarfs will use what they were made from to ascribe personality traits to one another or themselves, or as an insult. One common insult among dwarfs is "Gran dar'knan" which roughly means "baby made of mud" and is used to imply that you are a shiftless, dishonorable, or unreliable person.

When the dar'knan is finished, the parents will perform a ritual that lasts ten days and ten nights (the dwarf week is ten days long). This ritual requires the parents to remain in uninterrupted prayer to their deities, and is something that any dwarf, regardless of magical proclivity, can perform and is taught. During this time, the dwarfs can only drink one glass of water each day to keep themselves from dying of dehydration. They cannot sleep or eat. This symbolizes the giving of their own life and health to the child.

Scientifically, we do not know why this prayer transforms the dar'knan into a flesh-and-blood dwarf newborn. Most theologians claim it to simply be a divine spell, granted by the dwarf gods to any who pray in such a manner, and that is probably the only accurate answer. As such, the dwarf race is the only one that appears to reproduce entirely through divine intervention.

It is not necessary for two individuals to be involved in this ritual or the creation of the dar'knan. One can do it just fine, but it can be very difficult and expensive. Sometimes a small family unit of three or four will raise a child, or raise two simultaneously and create the closest analogue of siblings that dwarfs can get. When five or more dwarfs take part, there is a chance of the dar'knan splitting into two, giving the parents twins.

Everyone who takes part in the ritual and crafting is considered a parent to the child. They are expected to care for the child until they come of age. They are responsible for passing on the ritual to the child, as well as teaching them as much as they can. They are referred to as "grud'ranna" or primary parents.

Anyone who assisted in the ritual but not the crafting is given a title that is similar to the concept of a god parent: they are often involved in the raising of the child, watch the child when the parents are unable to do so (a difficult project, times of war, etc) and will take over as parents if the parents die. This title can be given to anyone that is close to the dwarf parents if no one assisted in the ritual. Adventuring friends are often given this honor after a dwarf settles down and begins a family. Additionally, in the eyes of dwarf society, a dwarf cannot sire a child with a non-dwarf, and thus if a dwarf marries a non-dwarf the non-dwarf parent will always be considered a god parent by dwarf society. While a non-dwarf may recite the words and fast, there does not appear to be any indication that doing so contributes to the ritual in a meaningful way. They are referred to as "grud'yanna" or secondary parents.

Anyone who assisted with the crafting but not the ritual has a role and relationship that is similar to that of an aunt or uncle. They also assist in caring for the child when necessary, but are not obligated to do so in times of distress. For example, if the parents of a child are warriors as are the god parents and must go to war, then an aunt or uncle may care for the child. But if they do not wish to do so, then one of the others will have to choose to stay home to care for the child. Secondary parents do not have the luxury of choice: they must care for the child if they are not warriors. These individuals are called Tertiary parents. They are referred to as "grud'maka" or tertiary parents. Some parents will invest in very skilled crafstmen or, if they're particularly wealthy or have significant influence, will get the Clan Craftsmen themself to assist in the crafting. This is often very expensive, but a common trade is that the child will be expected to serve as the Clan Craftsmen's apprentice when they are old enough to begin such a tenure.

Anyone who helped care for the parents while they were working on the dar'knan are considered distant family members, akin to how humans feel about cousins and other similarly extended family. They have no obligations to care for the child or are involved in parenting the child, though they are often in the clan and pitch into help when necessary.

I feel I should mention that when I say "care for the child" I do not mean "teach them the skills of the world, right from wrong, etc etc" I simply mean providing food, shelter, and caring for their health. The entire clan will be involved with caring for the child emotionally and mentally. A primary parents job is to work hard so that the child always has a warm bed, good food, and access to clerical or medical services when sick or injured. They are also the primary caretakers emotionally, but again the entire clan is expected to help with raising the child.

The sex of the child is based entirely on the majority of individuals involved in the ritual. Two male dwarfs will sire a male, two female dwarfs will sire a female, and one male and one female appears to pool the parents of the two parents to determine sex. For example, a male with three male parents and a female with two female parents that sire a child, will always sire a male child (three to two). If there is still a tie, it will extend back a further generation. This is, however, a rare occurrence as most dwarfs tend to enjoy the company of their own sex over the opposite sex. If their is a none-even number of parents, then the sex is easier to predict.

Gender identity is not indicative of sex, however. Dwarfs fully understand and embrace the idea of defining yourself, and have mastered magics to adjust the sex of someone who desires it. Transgender dwarfs are common, and often show up in same-sex parental groups. Polyamory is also very common, though dwarfs do usually pick a single partner to cohabit with. Sexual activity is common among dwarfs since it bears none of the dangers of accidentally siring a child, but asexual and sex-repulsed dwarfs are also common. Non-romantic dwarfs are rare, and dwarfs who do not wish to sire children are also rare, but the last few generations of dwarfs have stamped out the mistreatment of these groups in their society.

[go-redgirl]

Another Job Boom Proves Trump’s Critics Wrong Again Townhall.com ^ | January 15, 2019 | Anthony Scaramucci 

President Trump’s economy continues to exceed expectations, exposing the absurdity of “expert” projections of an impending economic slowdown.

The overwhelmingly positive effects of President Trump’s economic policies were on full display in the most recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which revealed a healthy surge in job creation for December.

According to the report, nonfarm payrolls jumped by 312,000 in the final month of 2018, with 301,000 of those new jobs coming from the private sector. In total, the U.S. has added more than 2.6 million new jobs over the past 12 months.

Meanwhile, wages surged by 0.4 percent last month, pushing total wage growth to 3.2 percent for the year.

As is quickly becoming the norm, the economic data for December greatly exceeded the pessimistic expectations of so-called “experts,” who painted a much grimmer view of the U.S. economy.

“Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting payroll growth of just 176,000,” CNBC wrote, adding that the wage indicator “also was well above expectations of 3 percent on the year and 0.3 percent from November.”

Elsewhere, multiple economists and forecasters have speculated that the U.S. economy is on the brink of a “crisis,” even predicting that President Trump’s trade policy could trigger an economic “collapse” or a recession.

As it turns out, this was just another example of the press trying to deceive Americans about the President’s accomplishments.

Such gloomy assessments typically include references to recent dips in the stock market, but even that notoriously unreliable economic indicator has lost its usefulness to the anti-Trump media. In early trading immediately after the release of the BLS report, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by more than 600 points and was up by more than 800 points later in the day.

Sadly, Democrats and the mainstream media have also made a habit of downplaying any good news about the U.S. economy — and the latest developments will likely be no exception.

Don’t be surprised if liberals seize on the minuscule bump in the unemployment rate that coincided with December’s robust economic performance to argue that the economy is in worse shape than it appears. The main reason for that anomaly is an uptick in the labor force participation rate — which itself is an indisputably positive indicator that the U.S. economy remains vibrant and healthy — but you won’t hear that from the likes of Salon or Slate.

For two years, President Trump has consistently defied his critics, proving them wrong time and again with a pro-growth economic agenda that has made America more prosperous than ever before.

The experts said it would be virtually impossible to reach 3 percent GDP growth, yet the U.S. economy has now exceeded 3 percent growth for two consecutive quarters and is on the verge of hitting that milestone for the first full year since 2005.

Similarly, after the experts warned that President Trump’s trade policy would end up harming the U.S. economy and starting a “trade war” with China, Beijing announced that it would slash its tariffs on U.S. automakers.

This dismal track record is a product of the liberal media’s unhealthy obsession with attacking Donald Trump, which blinds them to even the most obvious realities. Thankfully, the Trump economy just keeps booming no matter how much that disappoints the President’s detractors.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial KEYWORDS: jobs jobs jobs; scaramucci; trump bump; trump economy