#Building Trends

[constructionservicesofindpls]

Sustainable construction is shaping the future of building practices, and staying more important about these trends is more important than ever. When working with construction contractors in Indianapolis, IN, look for those who prioritize eco-friendly materials and practices. Green building not only reduces environmental impact but also enhances energy efficiency, leading to long-term savings on utility bills. These contractors are often well-versed in the latest sustainable technologies, making them valuable partners in your construction projects.

[tales-from-the-aether-ttrpg]

Something thats always bugged me about dnd and pathfinder’s gods is that… they are basically monotheism in polytheism wrapping AND there is no actual religion present. The lore is so obsessed with these beings as people with their extensive histories and active presence in the setting that they completely forgot to actually create religions surrounding them.

What does casual worship look like for any of these gods? Could you tell me? What does prayer actually look like? Is there specific times of the day in which you must pray for certain gods? Is there certain attire you must wear to show your faith? Are there certain foods you cannot eat? Are there certain foods that are elevated above the rest for your faith? What kind of offerings are expected everyday? Do they expect offerings everyday or on a certain day of the week? Do they expect physical offerings at all? Do they ask for sacrifices of material goods, animals, people? Why? Why do you worship this deity? How does that actually affect ur daily life? How is worship different for a cleric, paladin, priest, or casual believer? What kinds of swears, curses, exclamations, etc are associated with this religion? Are there certain activities that are banned within your religion? How strictly does the religion police its worshiper’s actions? What kind of philosophies do they preach or disavow?

These and many more are the elements that form real world religions and are absent in most fantasy “religions” including popular ttrpgs. I cant even call these faiths religions because they really arent. One god in these settings should have 20 different religions built around them that all disagree on how the god’s domain, history, and personality should be interpreted. Maybe 2 or 4 of them would be main stream but there should be more than just one monolithic faith surrounding a god. And stop calling it polytheism. Please for the love of everything. Polytheism is a type of religion that worships multiple gods at once. Faith in dnd and pathfinder is largely monotheistic because the players choose one god they like and ignore all the rest.

I am not trying to put the responsibility of creating all these religions on gms - im pointing out that the creators of these ttrpgs did all of us a huge disservice. Religion is such an expansive and fascinating and diverse concept in the real world that it infuriates me to see it reduced to choosing a god you like and thats it. And im agnostic irl!

I was talking to my cowriter about this for the lore in my ttrpg and it got me really rilled up XD Religion can be beautiful or terrible or a mixture of both. It can save people from the world’s darkness or bring out their own inner darkness. It deserves more than a cliff-notes table of deities to choose from and half baked lore about the gods without examining the actual faith they inspire in others :/

[cicicolorao]

I like the didney game. Haven’t played it in months

[powersandplanetaries]

I know that news stories about Indigenous people leading ecological stewardship movements are very charismatic and heartwarming, and if your heritage or culture inspires you to work towards better care for the environment that is incredible and extremely admirable, but we're clear on the fact that Indigenous rights and Land Back movements shouldn't depend on First Nations people being mystical Noble Savage, Closer To Nature poster children, yes?

Indigenous self-determination applies to the person who becomes a teacher because she wants to help fill a need in underserved northern reservations. It applies to the person who studies engineering because the job market is good and he likes cool cars. It applies to the woman who works a government job because it's a stable job with a decent salary on which to raise her kids, and the woman who works a government job because she wants to represent and be a voice for her people. It applies to the person who is a lawyer trying to correct the over-incarceration of First Nations people, and her son who wants to be a professional baseball player because he loves sports. It applies to the grad student who wants to bring traditional knowledge into field work, and the goth hairdresser who spends every weekend going to punk shows and anime conventions in the city. It applies to the person who considers themself Two Spirit, and the person who uses non-binary instead because they dont feel that umbrella term fits them. None of these examples are hypotheticals- these are all people I personally know, either friends or family friends or even members of my family. All of these people are equally Indigenous, whether or not they fit your image of what a marginalized people's priorities "should" be. They are not gone, and they are not "stuck in the past". Happy National Indigenous People Day. Do better.

[markscherz]

A friend of mine sent me a yt video of a guy who was relocating frog eggs (prolly a vernal pool) and showed 1000s of baby frogs coming out of the water in his backyard. she asked me how I felt about it as a ecologist. I felt like it was irresponsible to do, especially to post videos on it, but probably not "ecological terrorism" like people in the comments were saying, because I see baby frogs in nature come out of water in hoards sometimes too. Kind of a mixed bag.

But I wanted to ask you, since you're a herpetologist and waaay more experienced than me: how do you feel about the yt channel "frog army YouTube"?

Many frogs and toads are classical R-strategists. Some toads can lay 20+ THOUSAND eggs in a single clutch. The whole point of that strategy is that not all of the offspring survive. In fact, it would be really rather bad if all of the offspring were to survive, because (1) they wouldn't be feeding the predators and decomposers that live off of their noble sacrifice, and (2) they will require massively more resources than they otherwise would. It can have all kinds of detrimental down-stream effects.

This is the reason we often see swarms of tadpoles darkening some small pools (especially ones where there are no fish!), and later hoards of froglets (that's the technical term) emerging from pools at once. It's an evolutionary strategy, that only few individuals survive to achieve reproductive age.

Point 1: it is *fine* if not all the tadpoles survive to adulthood. That's how the system is supposed to work. You are not doing the system favours if you are changing tadpole survivorship to 100%.

Now, humans really are fucking things up in a lot of environments. Environmental pollutants, like heavy metals, can cause major issues for wildlife, and especially frogs, which (1) are not as vagile as e.g. birds and medium- to large-sized mammals and thus cannot escape the problem zone effectively, and (2) are EXTRA sensitive to the environment because of their permeable skin.

Point 2: we do have some responsibility to do something if we notice that there is a major problem emerging, which could dramatically alter the population dynamics for one or more generations of frogs.

However, *moving* clutches of eggs that are found in polluted pools is not the right move, especially for your average person. There are many reasons that it is not the right move, but chief among them are

(1) A lot of frogs that lay eggs in vernal pools have tadpoles that cannot survive being in larger ponds, and certainly cannot survive in streams or other bodies of flowing water.

(2) A lot of frogs that lay their eggs in vernal pools are already adapted to less than ideal conditions, and have excellent strategies to overcome those conditions, such as incredibly quick metamorphosis (sometimes just a few days!)

(3) By moving clutches of eggs, you could easily be moving the pathogens or pollutants that are causing the problem in the first place.

(4) If there is Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis fungus around, you are spreading chytrid, and that is VERY bad. Chytridiomycosis has already driven several frog species to extinction, and caused massive population collapse in several others.

(5) If you do not know the species, attempts to rescue them might be aiding the advance of an invasive species.

(6) It's often illegal to intervene! Many species are protected by law, and you are not allowed to remove them from the wild. Consult your local laws.

Point 3: the responsibility to do something does not include removing the frogs and raising a frog army.

So what should we do if we find a clutch of eggs in an oily pool? Or in a nearly dried out puddle?

First assess the nature of the problem. Is the pool just about to dry out? Then leave it alone. The tadpoles will probably be fine (and if they're not, they'll provide rich nutrients to predators and decomposers). But are there signs of pollution? Then assess: is the pollution covering a larger area? Or is it localised? If you find dead frogs or other amphibians is a major warning sign, and it needs to be brought to the relevant authorities. Contact your local environmental agency/department, and notify them of the precise location of the problem, and its extent. Document everything with photos and videos.

Point 4: there are organisations and agencies specifically tasked with intervening in cases of environmental damage. It is *your* job to bring it to their attention, but unless instructed by them, you need not take any further action. It is their job to know what to do, and to take appropriate action.

TL;DR: 'Raising a frog army' is for the likes, not the frogs, and is not environmentally responsible or ethically defensible. Build a home for the frogs, and they will come.

[waffles505]

OMITB S4 Killer Theory

....SPOILERS....

...

Ben GLENroy isn't dead. 

This is my theory for OMITB Season 4. Although I do ultimately think that there are 2 killers/people involved, I believe I have a good part of it solved. Again, just a theory, this could end up being totally wrong...but let me know what YOU think. 

...

In S4E4, our favorite trio (Charles, Mabel & Oliver) go to "Concussions", a bar for stunmen founded in the 70s. We learned that Sazz was there and posted a selfie the day she was murdered. When they start asking questions about Sazz, stuntpeople who were all friends with Sazz, start to get agitated. Especially with Charles (this makes sense as he was Sazz's "face"). As things start to escalate, out of nowhere, a man rolls into the conversation. The trio is shocked to see Ben Glenroy (the victim of S3). Irish Paul Rudd says that he is actually Ben's stunt double...Glen Stubbins. Glen explains how he's mad at the trio for taking "Ben" from him and claims that "15 years he worked for Ben". Throughout this conversation, Glen keeps seeing "rats" everywhere, trying to kill them. No one else sees the rats he's talking about. As the stuntpeople start to get more upset, Glen escorts the trio out of the building. Once they are outside, Glen apologizes for having to play up the "fighting" and wants to talk to Charles. Specifically, he asks Charles if he will be his new "Face". Charles politely declines and Glen begs him for work on a project. Mabel offers Glen a position on the film being made about their podcast and Glen is relieved. He then goes on to show off some "stunts" he can do and the trio is impressed and scared at the same time. When asked about the back room in the bar, Glen tells them about Dr. Maggie who is a chiropractor that helps all the stuntpeople with their pain management. Charles, alarmed, asked if Sazz was in pain. Glen responds "She was in pain, thanks to you". After deciding to take Charles to meet Dr. Maggie, Glen warns Charles to "Mind the rats". Glen stays and listens in on Dr. Maggie's conversation both Charles. We learn that Sazz was in pain and planning to retire to a new career. She was "hurt from a one-sided relationship", Charles believes it's himself that hurt her. We later see Charles return to Concussions, where he decided to "Tap in" for Sazz, so that she could have a proper stuntman's funeral. 

After being hit with a fake bottle, Charles is shocked (rightly so). Glen leans in and tells him, "Lie still, dead man". When it's Glen's turn to say his "goodbyes" to Sazz, he accidently(?) uses a real bottle to hit Charles, knocking him out. 

As chaos ensues and stuntpeople fight one another, Glen says to himself, "this is what Sazz would have wanted."

Soo...what is my theory? 

Ben Glenroy didn't die. His "stuntman" did. Here' what I think happened: 

Ben was the one that temporarily died from the rat poison. In S3, we're led to believe that Ben died from the poison, miraculously survived it, only to be murdered again after being pushed down an elevator shaft. #Rip

Here’s the thing…Ben showed up rather quickly from the hospital to the after-party. With something as serious as ingesting RAT POISON, there’s no way he would be able to walk around and show up, just fine, to the party that occurred so soon after. I believe that while Ben was recovering in the hospital, Ben’s (real) stunt double went in his place (or shall I say, “tapped in”) to the party and unfortunately ended up being killed. Now, whether Ben knew about his stunt double doing this at the time, I don’t know. Recovering from Rat Poison would likely take days, possibly even weeks to recover from (especially considering the amount he was given).  I think the loss of his Stunt Double, especially if they had a relationship similar to what Sazz and Charles had, would hurt him greatly. Ben would probably feel guilt, like we see Charles experiencing in the current time. But if someone wanted Ben dead, hearing the news that he was still alive could put himself in danger. So what does he do? He decides to put on another great performance…that being ”Glen Stubbins”. 

We know that “Glen” is seeing rats everywhere. Ben was poisoned with RAT posion and I wouldn’t be surprised if he had to deal with some side effects after such a serious health scare, such as hallucinations. Ben also likely has PTSD and could be seeing these “rats” as a result. 

Also…Ben Glenroy? Glen Stubbins?

They both have the word GLEN in their names. That’s too much of a coincidence. There’s NO WAY that Ben just happened to find a stunt double who looks identical to him with partially the same name as him. We know that Ben isn’t the smartest bulb in the pack, so perhaps he should have picked SOMETHING other than “Glen”. 

Now, why would Ben do all of this? 

MOTIVE: We know that Ben HATED Charles. While Charles was working on Brazzos, a young Ben Glenroy was cast as a series regular. However, after the first table read, Charles told the director that Ben was a phony and had him fired. Ben blames Charles for his failing acting career. Ben could very easily, in some twisted way, ultimately blame Charles for his Stuntman dying. 

This could mean that Ben had the motive to kill Charles AND/OR Sazz. 

*Although I believe Charles was the true intended target, Sazz being the target is still a possibility. 

Let’s say Sazz WAS the target, Ben knows Sazz. How? Ben briefly worked on Brazzos, which Sazz was Charles’s stuntman for. Maybe Ben wanted Charles to understand the pain he’s in? He wants Charles to know what it feels like to lose that special person. 

IF Charles was the intended target, we already have several reasons for why Ben would kill him. Charles “ruined” his life. What makes a better murderer than someone who’s already supposed to be dead? NO ONE would think/suspect Ben Glenroy, a dead man, could have done it…

I don’t think Ben decided to pretend to be his stunt double until he realized that Charles wasn’t the one that died, Sazz did. Ben gets away with murder, it never gets solved, he ruins Charle’s life in the process, and imagine the Hollywood comeback he would have if he revealed that he had actually been alive this whole time.  What a performance!

As for the other murderer/person involved, I don’t know WHO it is yet, but think Ben must be connected to someone in Hollywood. This person would have to distract the gang with a “movie” about the podcast…but I don’t think the movie is even real. I think it’s all a distraction just to lead up to the big reveal...A movie/documentary about the return of Ben Glenroy and how he survived death. Now THAT would be a huge blockbuster hit. 

As for who dies next…I’m worried for Howard, Loretta, and Oliver. 

Let me know what you think! <3

Reddit Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/OnlyMurdersHulu/comments/1foy09g/s4_killer_theory/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[cuddlytogas]

an incomplete list of terrible but extremely popular Our Flag Means Death takes that I would like to never see again please

(and I do mean popular, as in, lots of people seem to think they're canon, to the point where I feel slightly insane and like I was watching a different show to everyone else)

1. Ed's mum was loving and nice and supportive, if hampered by her bad situation

this comes up more in fic than analysis, to be fair, but good god, what show were some of you watching? this isn't to vilify her, because yeah, she's clearly a product of colonialism, white christian supremacy, and domestic abuse, but like. that doesn't make how she raised Ed good. clearly she was trying to keep him safe, but "we don't deserve nice things", and especially "it's not up to us, it's up to god", speaks to me of someone who squashes down any ambition on her son's part, has fully bought into the lies of christian colonialism, and tries to pass them down to her son.

as does happen in colonised communities, particularly among older generations. I know us white people like to think that every indigenous person is a perfect left-wing anti-imperial activist, but that's simply not the case, and Ed's mum is so clearly an example of an older conservative christian indigenous parent who had to believe the lies told by their coloniser in order to survive, but is now passing on that trauma to their children. and I just...

if I read one more fic where Ed's mum is a perfect loving supportive angel who always believed in her kid and always supported and protected him, I'm gonna scream. yes, it's sweet, and it's fun to sometimes veer from canon and give your blorbo nice things, but it's still veering from canon. and yet, I see very few people acknowledge that, or actually talk about the nuances of Ed's mother, and how she definitely tried to protect him, but was far from sweet, doting, and unconditionally supportive.

2. Ed's loving look when Stede is picking food from his beard in 1x07

like most of these things, I enjoyed it as a joke or exaggeration at first, until I realised that people were actually being serious. but every time I watch that scene, I see Ed looking absently-mindedly over Stede's shoulder, because a) that's what you do when someone leans in to pick something off you, and b) surely the point of the scene is that they're so comfortable and easy together that they don't notice the intimacy of what they're doing, but Lucius, an outside observer, thinks it's obvious. right?? I can't be the only one seeing it???

[sigh]

anyway. finally, the really really big one:

3. Ed is a soft uwu babygirl princess femme bottom sub who loves her cat collar and is teaching Stede how to dom him in the "say you're the captain" scene

I mean, there's not much to say except to link to duke's absolutely phenomenal twitter thread about "how the 'babygirlfication' and infantilization of ofmd ed teach is an extension of racist perceptions of indigenous men being inherently violent and thus needing to be emasculated to be considered sympathetic"

but especially That One Fucking Scene, good lord. talk about taking shit out of context. everyone looked at a slowed-down gif of one shot in the trailer and cried "babygirl!! he's such a simp, he just wants to be dommed!!", when actually that scene is about how a) Stede is cringefail and terrible at being a typical harsh, commanding pirate, and b) Ed is lovingly embarrassed by this. he encourages Stede to assert himself (and give Ed something to do during his probation/help him make amends with the crew), but like. normally. he's acting perfectly normal in that scene, and mostly annoyed by the outfit and embarrassed by how badly Stede fails. but just because he's sitting down while Stede is standing, and he happens to take a breath in that one shot (because, you know, people breathe sometimes), everyone's doubled down on their "submissive babygirl" bullshit, and I can't get the fuck away from it.

which - listen, it's fun for me, too! it's fun to explore exaggerated aspects of a character, it's fun to read/write/draw that angle in smut, I get it! but I keep seeing people keep claim it's literally canon, and I cannot stress enough that that is Straight Up False. for the love of god, please just watch the show without your (potentially kinda racist) bias glasses on, and remember to treat the characters with respect instead of projecting onto their every interaction a shallow dom/sub binary just because you find it hot.

Our Flag is a show very specifically about masculinity, and what it means to be a man; how assumptions about that can harm and restrict men; and how men can grow beyond them. it's a nuanced and sympathetic examination of this. the whole point is that Ed is allowed to like nice fabrics and be tired of violent piracy and still be a man. the point is that two men fall in love - equal, honest, sincere love - and are still men, still exactly who they are.

(on that note, insisting that Ed is canonically trans or femme because of these things often ends up just leaning into gendered stereotypes: men are harsh and active and dominant, and women are soft and passive and submissive, and if Ed's not the former, he must be the latter, right? it also tends to hetero-ify the central relationship, casting Stede as "the boy" and Ed as "the girl", needing one to be masc and one femme. not always, and again, I understand and have enjoyed transformative works that take those elements and run with them, and explore what the story could be like if Ed were trans/nb/etc - but it's still a transformative interpretation. it's not canon.)

relatedly: those fucking wedding toppers! it seemed blatantly obvious to me that half the point of those scenes was that Ed is distraught and blaming himself for Stede leaving because he wasn't the ideal partner. it's his entire arc for the first half of season 2! Ed hates himself and believes there's something wrong about him that makes him unlovable. so he keeps and then discards the wedding toppers, painting himself onto one of them, because he's projecting himself onto an image of ideal/successful romantic love that he thinks Stede wants, and in which he doesn't fit. he's trying to mould himself into someone else to make himself lovable, not realising that Stede already loves him for himself.

so it's important to the whole narrative that Ed's yearning for/projection onto the wedding toppers is false, and born from his insecurity. he gets drunk, and play-acts a stereotypical image of romantic happiness into which he doesn't fit, but real love looks nothing like that, because real love isn't found in stifling hegemonic cultural structures, but honest, emotional connections between people allowed to be their whole, vulnerable selves. Stede is not like the groom, and Ed is not like the bride, because they shouldn't have to be. Ed should not (and does not) have to warp himself into a demure bride in order to be worthy of love: he's already lovable and loved exactly as he is! that's the point!! of the scene!!!!!!

like, it's important that the groom figure isn't actually like Stede, either. yes, it's blond and has a nice, peach-coloured suit, but a) Stede was very specifically unhappy in the posh, heterosexual, married state the figures represent, and b) Stede by this point looks nothing like that figurine. it's directly contrasted with the image of him in the rowboat, scruffy and plain and earnestly in love, rather than fancy, cold ceramic.

[EDIT 29/12/24: I ended up writing a whole Twitter essay about the wedding cake toppers that I then gussied up for Tumblr; so if you want a clearer, more substantial, and better supported argument about those, check that out!]

but no, I have to wade through swathes of art and fic and meta about how badly Ed wants to be a sweet little demure kitty princess, how he wants a wedding night and a ring to prove he's Stede's property, and acting as if this is somehow canon, because people on the internet have zero reading comprehension and are scared of brown men.

the whole point of Our Flag is that you don't need to compress yourself into prescribed social roles, and in fact, doing so will only make you miserable; and that racist, patriarchal, colonial institutions should be resisted and dismantled at every opportunity.

so tell me again why the ultimate message is that Ed and Stede should get married under an arch in front of an altar and their lined-up friends, with flowers and rice falling around them, all dressed in white, one in a suit and one in a dress, with rings and a kiss and a honeymoon after, before they move into a detached house with a yard and a fence and re-adopt the kids that Stede abandoned? and this isn't about promises, fidelity, or even monogamy - I'm specifically talking about everyone in this fandom who seems to think that the ultimate goal is the most stereotypical 20th century cisheteropatriarchal christian wedding, but with the name "matelotage" slapped on top, as if that takes away all of the underlying baggage.

just - I know we're all meant to hate men and masculinity and yadda yadda yadda, but actually, to be earnest for a second, men deserve respect too, because all people and all genders do. and two men are allowed to be in a relationship and still both be men - complex men, with their own, layered relationships to their gender - without having to fall into neatly-arranged dom/sub masc/femme roles, or seal the deal with a hegemonically-approved ceremony.

so please, stop reducing an indigenous lead character to a caricature of a femme uwu princess bottom just because he has long hair, wore a robe once, and you're too scared of brown men to imagine him with proper agency. and then please, for the love of god, stop claiming that that interpretation is canon.

[spicybumblebeesworld]

What is your name beautiful flowers?

[toyastales]

Building Blocks: Color Blocking

https://toyastales.blogspot.com/2024/07/building-blocks-color-blocking.html

[raspberryjellybrains]

they're all so stupidge godbless 💚

spoilers for characters/events that haven't happened yet in the anime below the cut! :3

i think momo should get to murder and sabotage every customer who enters moe moe kikohou and also visit harajuku with vamola!! get that girl her own clothes!! kinta's here too i guess.

[nkogneatho]

i don't know who needs to hear this but writers, please don't stop writing cliché tropes. idc if you think it might be cheesy or too corny. idc if it's common and it's already written. i need to read yours. i need to see how you weave those threads of common tropes into a fabric of story from your perspective, from your talent. i will eat that shit up everything.

[diamonds-at-y11]

And so the dream smp phase died to be resurrected on the third year as Minecraft parkour civilization 

[emyn-arnens]

That Which They Defend

@three-sentence-ficathon | AO3

Faramir points to the maps of old and traces with his finger the old, bloated borders of the kingdom, sustained by a tithe of too much blood, Gondorian and foe alike, and he reads from history books of the excesses of the kings of old, grown rich from conquest and yet spreading their kingdom thinner than the gauzy silks of the south, always seeking for more, grasping at it even as it slipped from their fingers, so like to the vanity that brought the end of the Sea-kings of old. “It begins with borders,” he says, his eyes grey and grave as he regards Boromir. The eyes of the Sea-kings, the eyes of the conquerors. Yes, he and Faramir ought to know.

Faramir points to the recent census—the numbers so much smaller than that of Gondor at its height, their people culled by the long years of war. “Shall we ask our people to spill yet more blood—and upon fields far from home?” he asks of Boromir.

He leads Boromir through the treasury, pointing to the emptied coffers, so recently poured out upon the war in Umbar, and he lists the names of the fiefs and towns in debt to the crown, still struggling to heave off the weight of the years of war. “Shall we ask our people to give yet more, to empty their purses for the acquiring of lands they shall never see?” he asks.

He takes Boromir through the wing of the citadel given to the hostages of Harad, the princes that while their days in the court of Minas Tirith, forgetting the faces of their fathers and mothers, their brothers and their sisters, whittling away the edges of themselves that speak of Harad until they become something more Gondorian. “Shall we fill our halls with the princes of foreign lands?” he asks.

“Wars ought only to be waged to defend,” Faramir says, and Boromir understands: There is nothing to be defended but the hope of regaining past glory.

And when Aragorn announces his plans for war in the East, Boromir stands at his brother’s side and counsels peace.

[gael-garcia]

detest the new practice of CGIing the older actor's face on the younger in flashback scenes or whatever

[gamchawizzy]

It is the anniversary of EDSA People Power Revolution!!

Today I will show you "La villa de Ferdinando Marcos sur la mer" by Daniel Lavoie ("The Villa of Ferdinand Marcos By The Sea")

Really old French song from 1986. The music video and costume choices are very interesting as well, from Daniel's use of a luxury car and breaking into a ramshackle/squatters' building, (the military under him used to persecute anyone tagged as reds, including students and activists. The poor were covered up) his "Marcos" character bowing to the only "human" in his audience (the Imelda woman) while everyone else are cardboard silhouettes, the trail of shoes leading to her (Imelda was known to have a shopping addiction with countless luxury shoes)

they're very short shots but I think for a foreigner he really was on point with them. It's a very good song and I hope you will give it a listen

[ghostnorm]

skizz has never seen an animal before and I don’t think he ever should these are beautiful

please watch skizz’s guess the build video it’s a masterpiece