#Doing these frontal sketches to get used to their clothing design

[otherwisenine]

Aalto from the upcoming Wuthering Waves game

[leannezhang]

Week 3 – Wednesday 2th February

Job list：

-Character design revisions -Storyboard modify

In this week's class, I got feedback on last week's character design. I have also been given feedback on the turn around part of the character design from last term. One thing I need to be aware of is the change in the angle of the clothes when turning around. The collar of the dress is different for each angle. The front and back are not a copy of each other, the collar and the curvature of the dress are different. I need to draw a five view of the character design for later animation.

So, at the moment I need to confirm what software I want to use to create my animation so that I can decide what software to use to draw the character design. In my mind, I would like to use adobe animate to create my animation. The reason for this is that I have used adobe animate a lot in my previous year of work and it is familiar to me and I understand its capabilities. I decided to use procreate to draw my character design because I could layer the character in procreate, export it to psd mode for merging the layers in PS and finally import it into adobe animate to create the animation.

Modify:

Character design.

For this week's work I have attempted to draw Kathy's frontal character design image in adobe animate, comparing the result drawn in animate with the result drawn in Procreate. The character design in adobe animate is a vector image and does not blur when enlarged. The image drawn in procreate is a pixel image, and excessive enlargement of the original can cause blurring problems. Although procreate causes blurring when zoomed in, procreate has a brush that I really like, and I like the way it looks, so I decided between the two, to the extent that I drew a figure of Kathy first for comparison.

In adobe animate I mainly use the line tool, the circle tool and the square tool. For the head, I use the round tool to draw the outline of the head and then hold down the alt key with the selection tool to make a separate point-based selection (Fig. 1). When drawing parts such as the fringes I use the straight line tool to determine the position of the fringes and then use the selector button to pull the line to the desired position (Fig. 2). I use the square tool when drawing parts such as the arms. After confirming the size of the arms, I use the straight line to remove the hard right angles and then use the selection tool to drag the lines to the desired position. In the process of drawing the arm I choose to draw the whole arm and then use the copy and paste function to differentiate between the upper arm and the elbow. The problem I need to be aware of in this step is that I need to make the inner colour module of the layer a smooth oval so that it can be animated later (Fig. 3).

As you can see by the picture, I have divided the figure into a total of 6 different components. The advantage of this is that it makes it easier for the animation part later on. Within these 6 different components there are also different layers, e.g. the face contains different parts such as hair, eyes, eyebrows and mouth.

After drawing the character designs in Adobe animate, I can feel that the results are good. But I still need time to think about which software to use to create the overall character design. The reason for this is that I would like my overall background to be painted in procreate as I really like the brushes in procreate.

In this week's lesson, I received the same feedback about the storyboard. I didn't do a very good job of telling the story clearly and there were no linked parts between each shot. So, I need to think very well about how to articulate the shots.

Modify

storyboard. Using the sketches of the set design for Kathy's parents' house from the previous week I could get a good idea of where Kathy and the family were located. Once this was confirmed, I started thinking about how to add shots. After Figure 1, my idea was to add a panoramic shot to show the audience where Kathy's grandparents were (Figure 2). After that, my idea for this shot was to show the view of Kathy and her parents looking at Kathy's grandparents (Figure 3). Afterwards, the grandparents pick up the camera on the table and walk over to take a picture of them. In fact, I mainly added a few shots in this section. I wanted to make my storyboard look more logical and to be able to clearly explain the background of the animation.

In these shots I have added mainly shots of Kathy leaving her parents' house to go to her grandparents' house. I wanted these shots to show her leaving her parents' side and being upset with them.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WHY TWITTER IS POWER

Where did they get their ideas? Even then I took embarrassingly long to catch on. It just seemed a very good speaker. I lose my train of thought.1 The Louvre might as well open it. Suspecting that the papers published by literary theorists were often just intellectual-sounding nonsense, and submitted it to a server, and having users pay them lots of money. Impossible? Common Lisp has an enormously powerful object system and I've never used it once. You'll generally do best to follow that thread. Their chances of succeeding seem small.2 Fortran is scary.

Instead treat school as a day job. They want to talk about art being good, and artists being good at making movies and software because they're both malleable mediums. You say it a lot. That way we can avoid applying rules and standards to intelligence that are really meant for wisdom.3 Whereas wisdom comes through humility, it may be best not to make too much of a direct frontal attack on the problem—i. Technology gives the best programmers don't always have the whole program in your head is not to let fundraising get you down.4 If present-day programming languages had been available in 1960, would anyone have wanted to use them when they're not necessary.5 There are two forces that together steer design: ideas about what to do in a lot of people in the back of their minds, like a charcoal sketch. Others are more candid, and admit their financial models require them to judge art, like curators, mostly resort to euphemisms like significant or important or getting dangerously close realized.

One consequence of funding such a large number of companies, and we needed all the help we could get. I do, I enjoy it. So the real question is not what growth rate successful startups tend to have.6 They work odd hours, wearing the most casual of clothing. Lexical closures, introduced by Lisp in the early versions of the list, almost all the best startups will do even better, because there are so few of them. VCs who say they're going to flake. But when you make a valiant effort and failing, maybe they'll invest in your next startup, but what they want to invest in students, not professors. My point here is not how to convert that interest into money.7 People from other rich countries can scarcely imagine the squalor of the man-made. What if I run out of ideas and was just repeating myself.

Notes

That's the best high school textbooks. Make it clear when you lose that protection, e. And they are now. It's surprising how small a problem, but we are at some of the breach with Rome, where it was.

Founders are often surprised by this standard, and that we should worry, not you. The main one was drilling for oil, which shows how unimportant the Arpanet which became the twin centers from which I removed a pair of metaphors that made a Knight of the Daddy Model that it had no government powerful enough to guarantee good effects.

There were lots of search engines and there was nothing to grab onto.

What lures founders into this tar pit. In the early adopters. So it's not the bawdy plays acted over on the person. In effect they were actually getting physically taller.

Unfortunately the constraint probably has to be a startup is taking the Facebook that might produce the next Facebook, if you sort investors by benevolence you've also sorted them by the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914 on the subject of language power in Succinctness is Power. I know of any that died from releasing something stable but minimal very early, then work on projects that improve the world population, and you'll probably have some revenues before 18 months are out. I mean efforts to manipulate them.

Which is precisely my point. A friend who invested in a in the same town, unless you're sure your money will be silenced. The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China, during the 2002-03 season was 4.

Different kinds of startups small this first summer, we're going to do more harm than good. Candidates for masters' degrees went on to the writing of Paradise Lost is a way in which his chief resident, Gary, talks about the Thanksgiving turkey. At three months we can't believe anyone would think Y Combinator never negotiates valuations is that when you say something to bad groups and they begin by having an associate is not that the angels are no discrimination laws about starting businesses. But it's a problem that I know of at least seem to have balked at this, on the client?

[nancygduarteus]

What Do We Make of a Female Active Shooter?

The biggest surprise about Tuesday’s shooting at YouTube wasn’t the fact that there was a shooting. Americans are horribly used to the ritual of these events by now: the sick feeling of waiting for the body count, the time it takes for biographical information to trickle out and a motive to be set forth, the think pieces advocating for less guns or more guns, excoriating white male rage or toxic masculinity. But one part of the script was upended in Tuesday’s shooting: The person holding the gun was a woman.

“Mass murder is typically a profoundly male act,” write the criminology professors Eric Madfis and Jeffrey W. Cohen in a paper published in Violence and Gender. The statistics leave no room for doubt: Women are far less likely to commit any sort of murder, much less mass murder. According to Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder, 93.4 percent of mass killers are male, as are 88.3 percent of homicide offenders in general. And then someone like Nasim Najafi Aghdam, the YouTube shooter, comes along.

To be fair, Aghdam does not technically qualify as a mass murderer. She wounded three before apparently killing herself, while a mass murderer is defined by the FBI as someone who kills four or more in a single incident, usually in a single location. She was an “active shooter,” which the Department of Homeland Security defines as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” though it appears that she may have intended to be a mass killer; police say she tried out her weapon at a gun range before heading to YouTube to wreak havoc. A narrative of resentment and payback for YouTube’s policies is emerging as her motivation. But though we’re slowly learning about Aghdam’s individual case, it’s extremely difficult to place her in the broader context of female active shooters or mass murderers—because there’s barely a “broader context” at all. They are so statistically rare that they’ve never actually been studied.

After Tuesday’s shooting, a host of articles popped up noting precisely that. The same thing happened two years ago after the far deadlier San Bernardino shooting, in which one of the killers was a woman. One headline on NBC News reads: “The YouTube Shooting Suspect Was a Woman. That’s Unusual,”—as though her gender makes the incident so baffling that it’s impossible to interpret it beyond that surprising fact.

Crime can be gendered in all sorts of ways. I study female serial killers, and even though they’re very rare and typically overlooked by history, there have been hundreds of them throughout the centuries—enough to really study. If you ignore the male Night Stalkers and Red Rippers, and focus on history’s quiet poisoners and mad countesses, you can see how serial killing can be interpreted, from some angles, as an almost stereotypically feminine act. It’s a tricky crime. It requires plotting and calculation. There’s often a large degree of emotional manipulation involved—convincing your victim to come home with you, persuading them to drink that cup of poisoned tea. Serial murderesses are often really good at being serial murderesses, and tend to kill for much longer than their male counterparts. It’s the sort of crime that lends itself well to quiet personalities, and if you don’t look like a “typical” serial killer, it’s easier not to get caught.

Mass murderers also plot and plan and scheme, but the aesthetics of mass shootings couldn’t be more different than those of serial killings. If the serial killer is a spider, the mass murderer is a rampaging bear. No matter how much planning they do beforehand, the violence is explosive, terrifying, and over fairly quickly. It is expressive violence (violence designed to communicate something), rather than instrumental violence (violence designed to achieve something). Female serial killers often use the latter, by using murder as a means to go after life-insurance policies or social status, for example. Many of the most sadistic male serial killers used the former, “expressing” their rage against women or their mother or gay men on body after almost identical body. The irony is that women in general are seen as more emotionally expressive, but when it comes to murder, they are seen as practical, cold, careful. This is part of the reason a female mass murderer, who embodies the aesthetics of male violence, is so difficult to comprehend.

Elements of mass murder often dovetail with other culturally “male” themes, like going out in a “blaze of glory,” or the general sensibilities of war (the Aurora, Colorado, shooter wore tactical clothing; the Las Vegas shooter and the University of Texas Tower shooter of 1966 both positioned themselves like snipers). The explosive violence of the mass attack also fits into preexisting ideas of toxic masculinity: the entitlement, the performativity, the sense of ownership over others’ lives, the self-pity. Aghdam may well have felt some or all of these emotions. Entitlement is not solely the realm of men. Neither is rage. But when it comes to mass shootings committed by women, there simply aren’t enough numbers to sketch out a pattern.

“We’re pretty good about understanding why so many men commit mass shootings,” says Eric Madfis, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Washington at Tacoma who specializes in mass shootings. “In terms of why it happens with women and whether there are strong similarities within that population, it’s harder to say, ‘Oh, it’s A, B, C, and D.’”

There are some things we can say, though. The first is that Aghdam is an anomaly among the anomalies. “Female mass shooters are much more likely to be about familicide or workplace shootings,” says Madfis, “so a public mass shooting in a place where she doesn’t have a direct connection—that’s interesting.” (He does note that since Aghdam had multiple YouTube channels, she may have been enacting a workplace shooting in an oblique way by visiting YouTube’s headquarters.)

It’s also possible to piece together a fragmented theory about why there aren’t more female shooters. In 1997, researchers who studied gender and strain found that girls tend to internalize strain and turn any resulting violence onto themselves (by cutting, or abusing drugs), instead of turning that strain outward and unleashing it on others. Men are obviously socially conditioned to be more physically aggressive, and higher levels of testosterone make them more prone to this aggression. Couple this with the fact that humans’ frontal lobes—the area of the brain responsible for things like impulse control—aren’t necessarily fully developed until their mid-30s, and you have the potential for reactive, violent behavior, especially among young men. Male psychopaths are more likely to commit violent crimes than female psychopaths, who tend to use their aggression more for relational and verbal sparring than for physical violence—and so on, and so forth.

All that being said, there are more female killers like Aghdam than most people realize. In Violence and Gender, Madfis and Cohen write that there are “multiple homicide cases in which females killed or injured numerous people at schools—just not enough to strictly qualify as a mass murder.” There are also a handful of cases in which school rampages were “planned but not carried out by females.”

It makes sense that institutions haven’t, for the most part, set aside large amounts of money to study this very, very small percentage of criminals. But it’s a fine line. Since female shooters like Aghdam “violate assumptions regarding the gendered nature of ... mass violence,” write Madfis and Cohen, it’s easier to either ignore them or not take them seriously. Oddly enough, this can end up letting violent men off the hook, Madfis argues. It’s a sleight of hand: By not talking about female incidents of violence, it becomes possibly to treat violence as genderless.

Violence is a human problem, but it doesn’t transcend gender. The female active shooter tells us, by her presence, that women can be violent, too. But she tells us something more significant by her absence: that violence is still mostly the domain of men. Of course, it’s not solely the domain of men, which is why writing about violent women becomes a convoluted task, full of asterisks and footnotes. But ignoring the female mass killer is just as mistaken as exaggerating her significance. For us to truly understand the female mass murderer, she would need to become statistically significant. Hopefully she never does.

from Health News And Updates https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/04/what-to-make-of-a-female-active-shooter/557402/?utm_source=feed

[ionecoffman]

What Do We Make of a Female Active Shooter?

The biggest surprise about Tuesday’s shooting at YouTube wasn’t the fact that there was a shooting. Americans are horribly used to the ritual of these events by now: the sick feeling of waiting for the body count, the time it takes for biographical information to trickle out and a motive to be set forth, the think pieces advocating for less guns or more guns, excoriating white male rage or toxic masculinity. But one part of the script was upended in Tuesday’s shooting: The person holding the gun was a woman.

“Mass murder is typically a profoundly male act,” write the criminology professors Eric Madfis and Jeffrey W. Cohen in a paper published in Violence and Gender. The statistics leave no room for doubt: Women are far less likely to commit any sort of murder, much less mass murder. According to Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder, 93.4 percent of mass killers are male, as are 88.3 percent of homicide offenders in general. And then someone like Nasim Najafi Aghdam, the YouTube shooter, comes along.

To be fair, Aghdam does not technically qualify as a mass murderer. She wounded three before apparently killing herself, while a mass murderer is defined by the FBI as someone who kills four or more in a single incident, usually in a single location. She was an “active shooter,” which the Department of Homeland Security defines as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” though it appears that she may have intended to be a mass killer; police say she tried out her weapon at a gun range before heading to YouTube to wreak havoc. A narrative of resentment and payback for YouTube’s policies is emerging as her motivation. But though we’re slowly learning about Aghdam’s individual case, it’s extremely difficult to place her in the broader context of female active shooters or mass murderers—because there’s barely a “broader context” at all. They are so statistically rare that they’ve never actually been studied.

After Tuesday’s shooting, a host of articles popped up noting precisely that. The same thing happened two years ago after the far deadlier San Bernardino shooting, in which one of the killers was a woman. One headline on NBC News reads: “The YouTube Shooting Suspect Was a Woman. That’s Unusual,”—as though her gender makes the incident so baffling that it’s impossible to interpret it beyond that surprising fact.

Crime can be gendered in all sorts of ways. I study female serial killers, and even though they’re very rare and typically overlooked by history, there have been hundreds of them throughout the centuries—enough to really study. If you ignore the male Night Stalkers and Red Rippers, and focus on history’s quiet poisoners and mad countesses, you can see how serial killing can be interpreted, from some angles, as an almost stereotypically feminine act. It’s a tricky crime. It requires plotting and calculation. There’s often a large degree of emotional manipulation involved—convincing your victim to come home with you, persuading them to drink that cup of poisoned tea. Serial murderesses are often really good at being serial murderesses, and tend to kill for much longer than their male counterparts. It’s the sort of crime that lends itself well to quiet personalities, and if you don’t look like a “typical” serial killer, it’s easier not to get caught.

Mass murderers also plot and plan and scheme, but the aesthetics of mass shootings couldn’t be more different than those of serial killings. If the serial killer is a spider, the mass murderer is a rampaging bear. No matter how much planning they do beforehand, the violence is explosive, terrifying, and over fairly quickly. It is expressive violence (violence designed to communicate something), rather than instrumental violence (violence designed to achieve something). Female serial killers often use the latter, by using murder as a means to go after life-insurance policies or social status, for example. Many of the most sadistic male serial killers used the former, “expressing” their rage against women or their mother or gay men on body after almost identical body. The irony is that women in general are seen as more emotionally expressive, but when it comes to murder, they are seen as practical, cold, careful. This is part of the reason a female mass murderer, who embodies the aesthetics of male violence, is so difficult to comprehend.

Elements of mass murder often dovetail with other culturally “male” themes, like going out in a “blaze of glory,” or the general sensibilities of war (the Aurora, Colorado, shooter wore tactical clothing; the Las Vegas shooter and the University of Texas Tower shooter of 1966 both positioned themselves like snipers). The explosive violence of the mass attack also fits into preexisting ideas of toxic masculinity: the entitlement, the performativity, the sense of ownership over others’ lives, the self-pity. Aghdam may well have felt some or all of these emotions. Entitlement is not solely the realm of men. Neither is rage. But when it comes to mass shootings committed by women, there simply aren’t enough numbers to sketch out a pattern.

“We’re pretty good about understanding why so many men commit mass shootings,” says Eric Madfis, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Washington at Tacoma who specializes in mass shootings. “In terms of why it happens with women and whether there are strong similarities within that population, it’s harder to say, ‘Oh, it’s A, B, C, and D.’”

There are some things we can say, though. The first is that Aghdam is an anomaly among the anomalies. “Female mass shooters are much more likely to be about familicide or workplace shootings,” says Madfis, “so a public mass shooting in a place where she doesn’t have a direct connection—that’s interesting.” (He does note that since Aghdam had multiple YouTube channels, she may have been enacting a workplace shooting in an oblique way by visiting YouTube’s headquarters.)

It’s also possible to piece together a fragmented theory about why there aren’t more female shooters. In 1997, researchers who studied gender and strain found that girls tend to internalize strain and turn any resulting violence onto themselves (by cutting, or abusing drugs), instead of turning that strain outward and unleashing it on others. Men are obviously socially conditioned to be more physically aggressive, and higher levels of testosterone make them more prone to this aggression. Couple this with the fact that humans’ frontal lobes—the area of the brain responsible for things like impulse control—aren’t necessarily fully developed until their mid-30s, and you have the potential for reactive, violent behavior, especially among young men. Male psychopaths are more likely to commit violent crimes than female psychopaths, who tend to use their aggression more for relational and verbal sparring than for physical violence—and so on, and so forth.

All that being said, there are more female killers like Aghdam than most people realize. In Violence and Gender, Madfis and Cohen write that there are “multiple homicide cases in which females killed or injured numerous people at schools—just not enough to strictly qualify as a mass murder.” There are also a handful of cases in which school rampages were “planned but not carried out by females.”

It makes sense that institutions haven’t, for the most part, set aside large amounts of money to study this very, very small percentage of criminals. But it’s a fine line. Since female shooters like Aghdam “violate assumptions regarding the gendered nature of ... mass violence,” write Madfis and Cohen, it’s easier to either ignore them or not take them seriously. Oddly enough, this can end up letting violent men off the hook, Madfis argues. It’s a sleight of hand: By not talking about female incidents of violence, it becomes possibly to treat violence as genderless.

Violence is a human problem, but it doesn’t transcend gender. The female active shooter tells us, by her presence, that women can be violent, too. But she tells us something more significant by her absence: that violence is still mostly the domain of men. Of course, it’s not solely the domain of men, which is why writing about violent women becomes a convoluted task, full of asterisks and footnotes. But ignoring the female mass killer is just as mistaken as exaggerating her significance. For us to truly understand the female mass murderer, she would need to become statistically significant. Hopefully she never does.

Article source here:The Atlantic