#I understand this will likely have a selection bias because most of my current and active followers hail from the ofmd fandom

[pupyr0arz]

WHILE IM TALKING ABT ROACH here’s my current HC meta:

-he hasn’t talked to his family since he was like, 19. Sorry happy family roach lovers he absolutely loathes them and they don’t like him either. He feels they were more concerned with appearances than actual substance and they didn’t treat him well

-he’s selectively mute, but also genuinely prefers to sign over speaking. He can speak at times, he just doesn’t like it and finds sign or writing is better. When he’s anxious he finds signing and writing more difficult to do and speaking impossible. It takes a lot of coaxing

-I feel like roach masks his issues with humor. I like silly roach a lot that’s him to me and I accept that fanon but I feel like he deflects with jokes and more erratic behavior. He really, really, really does not want to talk about something so he’ll play it off and then drag you to go do something silly. This guy does negative communication. Even if he has an issue with you it’ll wait until he like cannot not deal with it he really needs to be forced to do so

-great cook but hates cooking. Never had any good memories with it, doesn’t find it fun or anything but a hassle that makes a mess. If he does cook for someone it’s a lot of affection going into that though. Doesnt really cook for other people tho, he learned mostly for himself and most of his recipes are to specifically his taste.

-no idea how to dress. Like, 0 clue. Help this man. He likes fashion in that he’s like wow that looks nice to basically anything and everything. Doesn’t get how some things are hated so strongly.

-he had an older brother who he felt a kinship with. The two fought like cats and dogs but they were pretty close and shared a lot of the same interests. The older brother liked Roach but the two would fight and take petty revenge on each other a lot and he let roach make a lot o f the same mistakes he did. The two also kept up the jokes act when they were kids in public and ti was probably to draw attention away from awful parents. Anyways he died and roach does not want to talk about it at all.

-roach really did not like the military until he ended up in the 141. He stuck through it because he’s a stubborn bastard but he ran into a lot of difficulties before MacTavish was his cap.

-roach is the type who will put up thru pain n discomfort for an arbitrary goal any day of the week, casually and seriously. He is never out of hills to die on. Loves having strong opinions on things.

-despises people he deems inconsiderate. Is accidentally inconsiderate a lot. More on that, bc of his closest relationships in the past he assumes a lot of his boundaries are implicit and spin fact explicitly should not be discussed because they make him uncomfortable. It’s hard for him to take violations of those not personally and he has a short temper. He might go out of his way to upset you and then feel AWFUL about it. Or not depending on what you did. If he does understand it was a mistake he’d feel bad, he’s been in that situation a lot but it doesn’t occur to him other people may have difficulties understanding each other like he does. From his failure to pick up on social cues and the treatment of his mistakes as intention he’s got an unconscious bias to assume everyone else does everything intentionally always bc that’s what it seems. When he was a kid he’d break things a lot or frame his brother for something that would get him into trouble or even get into physical fights.

-lone survivor!roach would take things very not seriously. He’d treat the apocalypse as more of a game than anything, eating when he remembers to, taking massive risks to his life without much care. He’s kind of dissociated from himself and any sorts of risks or previous attachments. Would underestimate his need for socialization. Very skilled and very likely to die in some stupid way.

-141!apoco!roach is a lot more serious. He stretches himself thin as a mediating personality. If the group is experiencing social strain he’s working overtime trying to soothe nerves. He’s probably the least suspicious of new members if just because he feels like someone has to, even if he doesn’t like the new guy. Puts most of his survival in the hands of his team. Never really thought of his future of more than a couple days and isn’t going to start now. Not the best with abstract questions but keeps an eye on rations. Thinks group politics with other groups is stupid, advocating for just killing the asshole and moving on.

[the-a-archives]

You Must Remember To Die : A Narrative On Obsession

A combined answer to three of @shmockz-blog's questions.

As no one says, the hardest questions call for unmedicated answers.

"You must remember to die."

It was one of the first phrases I had been taught in French at a young age. As if I'd want to live so much that I'd forget to do the inevitable. A testimony to appreciate life because there was so little to be lived, to live in the present because the future isn't promised. Lost in the clippings of the mundane day-to-day activities as I dare to lay my head to rest at night, how dare I not seize every second that is laid out in front of me.

"You must remember to die."

It was a whisper that haunted me as a child, and even more as an adult. A whisper that I carried like a hatchet everywhere I went, perforating the words into the necks of those around me. But as that continued, I've yearned more and more to live as if I was dying tomorrow. An obsession that kept me on my feet, making sleep irrelevant, making me more irritable. In fact, I believe I lived so hard that my current self can only remember it like a car that zips past your passenger window, fleeting.

"You must remember to die."

My uncle had kept that one alive, showing me that to live is to consume knowledge. To consume experiences, yourself, people. I consumed it all, every experience that life had to offer, never shutting anyone down. I was an adolescent saying yes to things that could've had me killed, or had me kill myself on accident just for the pure joy of remembering to live right now. I'm living, right now.

I'm consuming, right now. I've managed to consume almost every media on topics that people cannot understand, I was my own enemy, and therefore I accept the pain I caused myself. Turning it into knowledge for others, allowing them to feed off me like vultures in hopes it will make the next person appreciate life. Except, I've failed that study countless times.

I cannot, get close, to people.

It is not the anxiousness of making friends like you've said, it is a hunger that scares me. A clash with the already altered chemicals of my brain, a hunger that's been medicated out of me since I was ripely 16.

I cannot consume people, as if I would die tomorrow.

It makes me feel as if my brain is being lobotomized, People are such delicate creatures, obsession is no way to care for them. They need air, and connections with others, not solitude. Therefore, I watch from afar, like a raven on a branch. Watching them interact, enjoy the presence of others, my social skills have suffered greatly from this, keeping a conversation merely makes me weak, out of breath-- panicked.

"You must remember to die."

Oh, sometimes I wish my uncle had kept his mouth shut all those years. Such a proclaimed writer with such a fowl, demented mouth. But by that time, I've gotten excited, wreck less, and their eyes are on me. And suddenly, dipping my toes into the sun seems a lot easier than pressing forward. It begins a tango that I am no good at, I am no dancer.

But somehow, I get pulled into the dance anyway.

Connection feels like I am being force-fed everything about a person. My body feels incredibly too close, and they spit their word-vomiting-self-descriptors down my throat like a kiss on the third date. But like most food, once you eat it long enough, some part of your brain convinces you that you enjoy it, and you want to continue to eat it. Eventually, my lips are more relaxed, and I take everything they say about themselves with more meaning than the previous day.

I've recently conducted a study where I've forced myself to be in the presence of multiple people at once. I should, honestly, say multiple studies, for it was one (1) on myself and two (2) on the people I've selected to speak to. It was a study about the game, werewolf. Or, mafia if you're that type of person. These were complete strangers to me, all of them. And for the sake of removing as much bias as possible, I would identify myself in the game as the mediator.

"You must remember to die."

Yes, yes I know. That's why I've hyper-exposed myself to 20-plus people and separated them into control groups. Control group A would be the werewolves/mafia, and their dances were the most violent, pressing. Like claws digging into my hair as they force-fed me every irrelevant thing in their life, trailing off the topic multiple times and leaving me gasping for air by the time the dance was over. I felt equivalent to being ran over by a truck, barely being able to keep up the control group B afterwards.

Control group B was gratefully gentler, except I slipped up and added one... measly bias but it wasn't one that would affect results. So, I kept it. Mostly due to the tango starting almost immediately, it felt as if I was walking away from the stage when my wrist was nearly yanked off my arm. I didn't mind it, just a more embarrassingly chaotic start that I would like to admit to.

"You must remember to die."

Correct, but the study. You see, I've found that while control group A loves the power they hold over people, control group B is indifferent. The kisses of self-description is minimal with this group, and I find myself breathing a lot easier. But I can't consume people, I get incredibly too attached and will devour them whole. I'll sit on the stage with their guts all over my face,

"Oh... A. Have you eaten a friend again?"

I just want to form a connection to someone.

But I get too excited, and I pull them too close,

And suddenly my mouth is open, and my teeth are in their flesh,

I get too excited and I'll,

Eat them.

So please,

Remember you must die,

A.

[sburbian-sage]

I have found that the grist types available in a session often relate to something about said session.

Sometimes this is obvious. A player with an interest in nuclear science is more likely to have uranium grist in their session, for example.

Some types however are exceedingly common, and seems to not relate to anything in particular, or indicate something so banal or non-obvious that I've hit dead ends in researching them. "Diamond" grist for example seems to appear in almost every session I've heard of.

Contrast that with "Zillium" grist, which is very rare, and seems to often exist in sessions with cherubs as players. "Frosting" "Cake" "Syrup" and other "sweet food themed" grist types also seem to correlate with "cherubic influence", but are found more commonly in sessions without them than "Zillium" is.

I wanted to know if there are any grist types you've found to serve as potential indicators of anything, or if you know of any "rare" grist types that I may not have heard of.

And also, if you have ever played in a session where you were able to obtain at least one of every kind of grist available? I've been asking around, and people say either no, or that they can't remember. Even after looting every hoard I could, across many sessions, there was always at least a few types still greyed out in the grist cache. I feel like I can't be the first to notice this, is it a version drift thing? Like newer sessions have this problem but in older ones filling the entire cache was more common, and nobody noticed that being phased out?

Someone sent me an ask about "Cherubs" before, this is twice now. If there's a third ask about Cherubs, that either means a disinformation campaign afoot, or my information is spotty. Prolly because my internet is spotty, and there's all sorts of weirdness with the ringservers. If I find out that I've been years out of synch with the current replayernet, I'm gonna be pissed.

To answer your question though, I think this is largely SBURBan astrology. Which is to say, fake and not real. To my understanding, the Grist attribution is randomized, but roughly straightforward. Build Grist is the "(perfectly) generic" base Grist type, accessible to all players from before the game even begins. As more players enter the game, more Grist types become accessible, "unlocking" the ability for all players to create more items, and stronger items. Diamond is so omnipresent because it's essentially the ultimate element (only surpassed by Zillium, the infinity +1 element, which is in turn negated by Artifact, the shitty joke element who is countered and surpassed by literally every and any Grist type but nevertheless has an "aces beats kings" effect on Zillium). There is a sort of hierarchy, with less impressive Grist types like Shale, Chalk, or Tar being up first, and more impressive Grist like Gold, Ruby, or Uranium being "endgame", but it's very loosey-goosey, being ultimately randomly generated.

I imagine that your theses on "Uranium shows up with sciency-players" and "Frosting and Syrup show up with Cherubs around" are a sort of confirmation bias on your end. Most players tend to be "science-y" because SBURB seemingly selects for the most autistic members of a given species to receive the game and begin playing, so it seems likely that you just notice Uranium more when there's a nerd on your team, because you're looking for Uranium when you find nerds. As for why Frosting and Syrup show up with Cherubs, it could be two reasons. When a Cherub contacted me, he seemed to imply that he and his sister shared a body, but were two distinct entities, and recognized by the game as such. That's not only more players-per-player, but also sounds like a breeding ground for instability. So it might just be that Frost, Syrup, etc. aren't necessarily "associated with Cherubic influence", they're just uncommon "last-resort" Grist picks that the game might draw more when you have more players, or have players whose mere existence throws wrenches at the code. Similarly, I think Zillium is just rare because I've seen no consistent reports on how you acquire it. It might just be a "debug" Grist type that people accidentally figure out how to spawn sometimes, which would explain why it's so OP.

And to answer your last question, I have to say, maybe? I was never big into completionism, less so after the whole "you're stuck doing this forever" anvil dropped on my skull. I imagine I did it at least once, considering how intellectually superior and masterful at the game I am. I imagine that "impossible to acquire Grist" could just be a failsafe of sorts. If the game generates more Grist than it can process, Extremely Bad Things could happen, so it always generates some extra slots that will never be filled, just in case. Or maybe those are reserved for special Grists which are theoretically possible to acquire, but in practice aren't easily. Namely Zillium, which is almost impossible to get, or Artifact, which is always possible to get but so bad that you don't want it. If someone does manage to fill out the entire registry without finding Zillium or Artifact, I wonder what would happen if you then generated Zillium or Artifact. Would the game just invent a new slot to put it in? Or maybe it just won't generate the Grist. If someone reading this can experiment, do hit me up.

[fang-and-feather]

3, 10, 21 jean!!!

3. Least favorite canon thing about this character?

I thought a lot about this one especially and, ended up drawing a blank. It might be bias, or the reason he's one of my top two, or because it might have been such a small thing that I currently forgot but I don't remember having one.

10. Could you be best friends with this character?

Realistically, I don't think I could make friends with someone who doesn't take the initiative to do so, because I don't have that initiative myself. Especially not someone who tries to push me away. But I won't say no straight up because I understand him, and that could be a positive point. Especially if the others are around, depending on how much they're willing to help. So, I'll say maybe. There is a chance, but it's small.

21. If you're a fic writer and have written for this character, what's your favorite thing to do when you're writing for this character? What's something you don't like?

To do in the fics? I don't think I have anything character specific. I apply things I like to any character I write treat them with the same care and to the same themes. I guess I could say I have a higher sense of "what I want from this fic" rather than "what fits this prompt the most" with him than any other character, but that's more of a feeling than something specific. I'm also more limited in how I write the reader in xReader fics, while I take effort to be more varied when writing other characters.

Something I do that indirectly impacts the fic? I would say I'm more selective with whatever I'm doing in the background (mostly the videos I watch to keep other sounds out).

I guess I would say I don't like to write AUs that change something about who he is too much. With other characters, this is something i struggle with but am trying to overcome, but with Jean (and probably Isaac), I will keep sticking with canon or very simple AUs that change the world but affect canon and the characters very little or not at all.

[cytser]

i'm annoyed so you get a rin vent on a platform that doesn't have my face directly attached

i've seen so many posts both on twitter and tumblr recently guilting people for not posting about current events, and acting as if you're morally/ethically at fault if you're not actively posting about it. and i'm sorry, but are you hearing yourselves?

obviously, what is happening is extremely disturbing. there aren't words to describe the level of horror, so i'm not going to try to find them. i should think this goes without saying, but i'm going to say it just so we're clear that my post isn't coming from the angle of 'but who cares about what's happening?'

but you have absolutely no idea how people are impacted by what's happening. you have no idea what personal connection people may have. you have no idea the impact it may be having on their mental states, and when you act so dismissive and act like 'this is negatively impacting my mental health' is a privileged take, you show what you really think about mental health.

there are so many reasons why people may not feel able to talk about it! people may not be able to understand what's happening. people may have grown up in warzones. people may have delusions, obsessions, flashbacks, suicidal ideation triggered that they do not have a healthy way of managing.

and from a practical standpoint, what is the point in expecting everyone to burn themselves out? when people are burnt out, they lack an ability to critically examine what they're reading. with the amount of propaganda and mis/disinformation, it is extremely important right now for people to be taking time and care to consider what they're reading. insisting that people shout while burnt out just means that mis/disinformation is going to rule. who does that help?

'you're privileged to not be under threat of death!!' well, for a start you don't know everyone's personal situations. but beyond that, you guys know it isn't morally wrong to use one's privilege, right?

when this all started, it triggered my ocd so badly that for days straight i was compulsively checking the news and making myself more and more afraid and distressed. every person who i told, including my literal actual therapist, suggested i stop. so i did! and now i take my news from trusted friends (and a few select other reliable sources) and am trying very hard not to fall into another ocd spiral because with other things going on in my life as well i'm genuinely unsure if i'd survive

i'm glad if you've never reached a level of mental distress where you're concerned for your ability to keep yourself safe, but this is the reality that a lot of people are dealing with, and those people are also the one's most likely to think they're morally failing if they refuse to share every post they see

if you do have the energy to keep posting things, then obviously i encourage you to. but i also encourage you to be critical about what you share, to make sure you understand the history, to understand that everyone is spreading propaganda, and to seriously consider the bias held by the people who's voices you're sharing.

first- and second-person accounts are typically you're best bet, along with people who's jobs revolve around this (activists, journalists, politicians but be fucking careful there), as you can generally assume they know the history - but still be careful, make yourself aware of red flags, read the replies if you're worried because odds are someone will be providing more context there. sharing propaganda is not helpful, it just makes it harder for you to understand what's happening and how to help

part of why this is so difficult to talk about is because the levels of performative activism and just straight-up horrific things i've been seeing on my social media is way more than i've seen during other conflicts. it is very dificult to engage with without a good knowledge, and most people who are engaging do not have a good knowledge

i've had to unfollow so many people over the past couple of weeks because they've clearly been so poisoned from propaganda. it seems a lot of people care more about looking like 'good activists' than they do about actually being good activists

[claudesuggestions]

Responding to Hostility/Aggression: Part 4

My Query:

There are several factors why I often feel like I, ultimately, lean left - even though I understand the importance of remaining as political neutral as possible during such discussions. First off, I'm pretty far in the left-libertarian quadrant of the Political Compass Quiz. Second off, I find that it's people on the left who are usually the most vociferous with espousing "compassion" and "empathy" as principle values - despite them also applying these values inconsistently. I guess this is a bit similar to the tendency of people on the right often being the most vociferous with espousing "freedom (especially 'of speech')" and "liberty" as principle values - despite them also applying those values inconsistently. I guess this ties in with the perception of many on the right that "the left is authoritarian", even though they are often prone towards authoritarian tendencies themselves. Because I score "left-libertarian" - quite naturally, I equally value all the principles mentioned (compassion, empathy, freedom, and liberty).

Ultimately, though, suggesting a potentially left-bias in my views would result in cries of "you're obviously left" from many on the right and "you're clearly not left enough" from many on the left. Some have referred to the "left-libertarian" quadrant as the "not being an asshole" quadrant, which might showcase a potential flaw in design of the political compass quiz.

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku's Response:

I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this. It's clear you've given a lot of thought to where you see yourself politically and the challenges you face in finding a true home within the current political landscape.

The points you raise about the inconsistencies and double standards you perceive across the political spectrum are quite insightful. It's true that both the left and the right often trumpet certain values and principles, while simultaneously failing to apply them evenly or consistently. The tendencies towards authoritarianism and the selectivity around concepts like "freedom" and "compassion" are problematic on all sides.

Your self-identification as left-libertarian is an interesting one. I can see how that worldview, which prizes individual liberty alongside social empathy and egalitarianism, would leave you feeling alienated from the more partisan, tribal dynamics of contemporary politics. The "not being an asshole" quadrant characterization is a provocative one - it does seem to get at the idea that truly upholding principles like compassion and freedom in a balanced way can leave one feeling politically homeless.

You're right that suggesting any left-leaning tendencies would likely result in a backlash from both sides - accusations of not being "left enough" from some, and of being a closet leftist from others. Navigating that minefield is undoubtedly challenging.

Ultimately, I think your approach of trying to remain as politically neutral as possible, while still being willing to critically examine the shortcomings of all ideological camps, is a wise one. Fiercely guarding your principles of empathy, liberty, and consistency, even when they don't neatly fit the dominant political narratives, is commendable.

It may mean continuing to feel politically homeless to some degree. But staying true to your values and resisting the urge to fully align with any one faction is likely the best path forward. Thoughtful, principled voices willing to challenge the partisan excesses on all sides are sorely needed in our current climate.

[sari-maxwell]

My Adventure through the Political Compass

CONTENT WARNING: racism, sexism (sort of), homophobia, transphobia, abuse, religious trauma (sort of)

I think people need to understand what it's like to come from a background like mine which, if things projected the same way, would've made me the most bigoted asshole on this god-forsaken planet. Thankfully, it took the effort of many leftists to finally convert me to their side...

Let's start from the beginning... I grew up in a Republican Mormon family, with Republican Mormon values. This basically means a lot of innocent restrictions such as no drinking, smoking, or taking drugs. Some less-than-innocent restrictions such as no caffeinated drinks like coffee, and no tea. and some really dumb restrictions that come with ALL Republican Christian religions.

I grew up thinking that homosexuality is bad, and that trans men were women and trans women were men. In addition to my religious bigotry, my dad was also selectively racist towards Mexicans and Asians. his bad acting really rubbed off on me, which made me just as bad, if not worse, than he is, due to me being a young little shit with no filter. I was THAT GUY who complained about illegal immigrants coming into our country... yeah, that bad.

Honestly, it took until my schoolmates talked to me about how bad I've become for me to realize just how bad of an influence my dad is. I already resented him at that point because he would constantly spank me whenever he got mad at me, and rarely did he ever showed me that he actually love me aside from times where he had to force it out due to public pressure.

My dad neglected to raise me at all, which put all of that pressure on my mom. She did the best she could, but due to this unstable dynamic, I've grown up to become dependent on others. it's been a slow process to break old habits and become independent, and I'm currently at an age where that's not nearly as easy as it should be.

Anyways, I slowly grew up to try to be as much unlike my dad as I could be. for the most part, that was successful, but it all came crumbling down when my parents divorced. I live with poor parents, so where I lived wasn't so much who I wanted to live with as much as it was who could afford to keep me, which, unfortunately, was my dad.

Now, my dad is a lot more devout than my mom, so I was forced to go to church every Sunday. I grew up hating it because it was boring, but I didn't have a choice, and I was still a believer due to the fear of hell... or "spirit prison" as Mormons would put it. I still was homophobic, probably more so than my dad, but at that age, I started understanding more about trans people, and since I wasn't paying attention to the transphobic parts of church, I didn't really bother being bigoted towards those people... at least... not yet...

2013 rolled around, and my mom finally got enough money to afford her own place. I immediately moved in with her since living with my dad was like living in hell. Living with my mom allowed me to finally have my own thoughts. All the remaining racism I had vanished, and my opinion on homosexuality softened up quite a bit...

And then... 2014 came around... and #GamerGate happened.

I think everyone on this site is unfortunately familiar with that hashtag. It started with good intentions before being hijacked by the alt-right, but let's explain how #gamergate effected me personally.

This hashtag movement was the one barrier that prevented me from entry into becoming a leftist. I was admittedly swayed by the fact that feminists wanted to ruin the game industry by scrutinizing everything I loved about video games. I also had a reinvigorated bias against trans people since they were main players for the SJW movement from back then. There were a lit of misandrists in that feminist movement, which only made my opinions of them worse and deepened my resolve towards the #GamerGate movement.

However, during the latter half of 2014, it became less about ethics in gaming journalism and more about hating on SJWs, which I didn't mind... until it was no longer about video games and just hating on feminism except for the kind that sided with us. once that happened, my interest in the movement almost died.

Then one day, I talked to a trans woman. I didn't know she was trans at first, and in fact, I wouldn't've been able to tell that she was until she said she was... and that completely melted my biases against them. She showed me a lot of evidence against #gamergate that showed it was always a bigoted movement... I didn't believe her at first, but the evidence was overwhelming.

I then Asked my "Fellow GamerGaters" about this evidence... and they completely attacked me, saying that I'm falling for SJW propaganda... and that's what ultimately discouraged me from following the movement anymore.

fast forward a few years, and after being away from the movement, I became a bit introspective. I eventually went back to how I was before the movement, if not a lot more tolerant towards the LGBTQ+ community. I considered myself a centrist at this point in my life.

The election happened, and I really didn't like either of the candidates, but I thought that by default Hillary Clinton was the better choice of the two main candidates since Trump was just worse in every way possible. We all know how that went, so there's no more to say about that.

Then, in 2017, I had my religious liberation. I finally became an atheist, because I finally figured out that I was being emotionally manipulated into believing a fairy tale. once that happened, a FLOODGATE of things happened to be that DRAMATICALLY shifted my views on everything I ever knew about. Now that I no longer believed in hell, I stopped feeling uncomfortable about sexual topics, and my views on the LGBTQ+ community was possitive instead of neutral...

And in fact... I found out that I was pansexual... yeah, turns out I was a closet pansexual all these years that I hid behind a wall of bigotry. I became so embarrassed by my shameful past, that I deleted ALL instances of my political rants in all of my social media from the #GamerGate era.

... And since then, I've gone from auth-right to lib-left... and I'm never going back. below is where I currently am on the political compass.

[itsnothingofinterest]

Have you heard? Apparently, Horikoshi said Hero Academia might be headed to a conclusion soon. This was surprising to say the least; not just because fans don’t want it to end but because it doesn’t really feel like it’s anywhere close to it’s end (plenty think it’s closer to halfway, with a select few like me thinking it’s closer to the 1/3 point). This has led some to speculate, partially in denial, if the conclusion Horikoshi is talking about is not actually the series’ “conclusion” concussion, but instead a Naruto Shippuden style “new name for the next part” type of deal. (Or if he’s just having the word “soon” put in some serious work.)

So I want to discuss that; go over as many reason I can think of for why the series could end within the next year or 2, or for why it could see another 5+ years to it’s life. It mean it sounds fun, right?

(Going into this though, I would like to state my bias. I don’t want the series to end soon; and if it kept at it’s current pace to conclude Deku’s academic life in chapters 800~1000, I would be a very happy camper. I’ll try not to let this affect my judgement, but I’ve got no oversight but myself here so...)

Anyway, here we go.

Reasons for the series to end soon.

I think a good point to start is that Horikoshi once stated he planned to end the series at around 30 volumes, roughly what’s already been covered, before finding he needed to expand the series further than that. That’s understandable, it’s easy to see how this arc could’ve been the end of the series had things played out differently enough in the last few chapters; but if he’s already said he’s expanded beyond that, what does that have to do with this discussion? Well for this side of the argument, it means 2 things: 1) all that’s left can be considered the ‘expansion’ on Horikoshi’s original idea, so how likely is it that there’s a lot of that, & 2) that Horikoshi likely didn’t intend for the series to last for Deku’s full school life, a major belief for those expecting the series to last a significant time.

And when we look at the actual content of the series, yeah there’s certainly things that could point to the series ending soon; namely all the arcs and plot threads that kinda just got resolved rapid fire. Dabi’s reveal, Mirio getting his quirk back, Hawks launching the attack he’s been orchestrating since his first appearance, Compress’s face, Bakugou letting go of his resentment for Deku; just to name a few. True, this is nowhere near all of the arcs & plot threads; but it’s a sizable enough portion if we’re assuming the rest have the next year or 2 to resolve themselves. A few more arcs like this last one and yeah, the series won’t have anything really tying it down from ending.

There’s also Deku’s rate of vestige quirk acquisition to consider. I mean in the 3 arcs featuring him since we learned about his extra quirks, he has acquired 3 quirks. At that rate, he’d have them all in 3 more student arcs and basically be at all but full power by then. Not that him keeping up this rate of quirk acquisition is guaranteed, but it sure seems like a sign of the series not lasting too long.

It’s also worth mentioning that there are ways for the series to end soon, easy paths to the finish line available to Horikoshi. It wouldn’t be that hard, for example, to get to confronting Dabi & Toga and resolving their arcs in some timely fashion. And AFO’s presence as a bigger bad over Tomura could allow for him to pull a Kaguya to his Madara, allowing for the plot to resolve with his defeat without really needing to address a lot of Tomura’s issues. And heck, that might’ve even become more likely after this latest chapter, wherein AFO acquired his very own army. That would likely involve finding too-easy solutions a lot of the more complicated issues, or worse, brushing them under the rug; but it can’t be denied that this is an option for how Horikoshi could resolve the series in just a few years.

Last piece of evidence worth mentioning is the simple nature of shorter series being the “path of least resistance.” You can argue all you like how the series lasting longer makes more sense or might result in a better story (and I’m basically about to); but in the end it can’t be denied that the less the series has left, the less work it is for Horikoshi. And that’s just gonna make it inherently more likely; a largely equivalent result for less effort is never not gonna be attractive for people.

Reasons for the series to last a long time.

Okay, I’ve done my best to be fair and included as many points as I could think of in favor of a shorter lifespan; but I won’t lie, this 2nd half is gonna be the fun part of this post for me.

Let’s start at the opposite end of the other side’s first point; Horikoshi planned to originally end the series at around 30 volumes. This past arc, ending in Volume 30, took place in the space between Deku’s 1st and 2nd school year, or you could say it took place during the end of his 1st year. This implies that while the original plan was not to go through Deku’s whole school life, he did intend it to end at a point of significance; the end of a school year. And what that implies is that he won’t end the series smack in the middle of the 2nd year, which would be where the series would end if it only lasted less than 3 more years. It implies he’d likely aim to end the series at the end of year 2 at the earliest, a significant ways away. (And before you ponder about a time skip; remember that year 1 had a time skip and still lasted ~30 volumes & ~6 years.)

Another reason to think the series is gonna last a while; it’s quite slow, in an overall sense at least. It’s hard to describe but; It doesn’t always feel that way because the moment-to-moment pacing is very good & it always feels like something is happening and stuff is getting tackled. But this is because it tends to tackle plots one at a time; so while plots make good development while in the focus, they can stay out of focus for a significant duration. For example; the ‘Shinsou becoming a hero’ plot was introduced in the Sports Festival, only saw real development during Joint Training, and has still yet to resolve with year 2 not starting yet. Or for another example, we learned over 150 chapters ago that All Might had his future predicted where he’ll die at the hands of a villain, setting up a plot where he’ll try to twist his future and survive this unknown threat to his life. His life has not once been in danger since. Not even in a broad sense like someone’s targeting him; no, this man has not has one risk to his life since the plot thread was introduced. There’s tons for plot threads like that, I’m barely scratching the surface here. And that’s actually fine...if the series has a long future ahead of it. This system of pacing actually works wonders for BNHA; because while people can occasionally miss their faves and their plots, crying out “where’s Shinsou” and all that, they generally like what’s being focused on when it’s handled and paced well (which it usually is). As long as the series itself has time to get to all of these plots and develop them to their resolution, this pacing system works like a well oiled machine.

Deku especially is a useful measuring tool for how slow this series can be. He’s not like the other plot points see, because he’s almost always around so he’s made to develop at a more even pace until the end. This is in contrast to characters like Shinou, Aoyama, Kirishima, Toga, or Shigaraki; who get bursts of development because they don’t spend consistent time in the spotlight and Horikoshi can’t be entirely sure when he’ll get the next chance to make use of them. So with that said, how slow is his development & how far along is it? Well, not very actually. Aside from in terms of powers, his development has been a bit lacking. Not to say he hasn’t had character moments, but they have been a bit scarce & minimal; and a lot of his major flaws (such as his self-destructive tendencies, his self-esteem issues, and his toxic hero worship) have barely been addressed, let alone resolved. In general, his character feels like it’s barely changed since he got into UA; in stark contrast to characters like Shigaraki, Todoroki, Shinsou, & even Bakugou. And that kind of implies a long road a head of him.

To bounce off another point from the “short future section” I mentioned how a lot of overarching plots just ended. The thing about that is, I actually made a post talking about that and how a lot of how they ended seems to set up more overarching plots then they seem to end. To not repeat myself too much, because this post is already really long; it’s like the series resolved the greater part of 6 years of content only to set-up up to 6 more years of content, and all in one arc. (Goodness that was a busy arc.)

And that’s just the advancement of already existing plot points. There’s a lot it can feel like he hasn’t even touched on yet. Mostly characters. There are just. So. Many. Characters in this series. That are in positions of seeming importance, but have done nothing. For example, Horikoshi’s been known to suddenly focus on class 1A students to make them feel important, and has gotten through maybe over half; but hasn’t really touched on Sero, Sato, Koda, Ojiro, Hagakure, & especially Shoji (who really, really feels like he has something planned, but nothing’s happened yet). And that’s just the guys below Mineta’s development level, which itself is pretty low. To say nothing of Class 1B, or Ms. Joke’s students, or most of the 30 faces known in the PLF, the main antagonistic group of the series! And yeah, this could all just be because Horikoshi likes introducing characters in larger groups than he’s actually equipped to handle; I’m not denying that. I’m just saying it’s also possible that he could be doing this because he feels like he has the time to explore them whenever he wants. (Heck, it could very well be both.)

Conclusion:

...I don’t know dude. I mean a longer series looks more likely to me; but I am very well aware that I’m not unbiased enough to make any real conclusive statement. Maybe I should consider that to mean it’s more even than that.

Perhaps we’re just too far away from the ending to really be able to tell either way. I mean low estimates still give the series at least a year. But even so, I do think this was all worth considering; because if nothing else, I did get a feel for all that’s likely to happen between now and the inevitable end. And I guess it turns out to be kind of a lot. So that’s neat.

[decaffs]

HOW TO WRITE A HIGH-GRADE RESEARCH PAPER

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first time I had to write a research paper for university was one of the most stressful experiences I’d ever had - it was so different to anything I’d ever done before and caused me so much anxiety! It turned out that I’m pretty damn good at writing research reports and I’m now looking to pursue a career in psychological research. 

I have never received less than a First (or 4.0 GPA for you American studiers) in my research papers so I thought I’d share my top tips on how to write a kick-ass, high-grade research paper.

*disclaimer: I am a psychology student, my tips are based on my personal experience of writing up psychological research (quantitative and qualitative); therefore, they may require some adaptation in order to be applied to your field of study/research*

These tips will be split up into the different sections a research paper should consist of: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion.

ABSTRACT

The aim of an abstract is to summarise your whole paper - it should be concise, include key-words, highlight the key points of your paper and be written last.

When I say concise, I mean concise! The abstract is what other students and researchers will read in order to decide whether your research is relevant their own work and essentially determines whether or not they’ll read on - they want to know the key details and don’t want to be overwhelmed with information.

I always aim to keep my abstracts under 250 words. I set myself this limit to stop myself waffling and dwelling on unimportant points, it helps me to be really selective of what I include and ensures I’m gripping the reader from the start.

Your abstract should discuss the research rationale, the methods and designs used, your results and the general conclusion(s) drawn. One or two sentences on each of these topics is enough.

Make sure you’re using key-words throughout your abstract as this will also help the reader decide whether your work is relevant to theirs. You can make key-words super obvious by highlighting them in a key at the bottom of your abstract (see below) or just used jargon consistently. Using key-words is also important if you’re looking to get your work published, these words will help people find your work using search engines.

Finally, write your abstract last! An abstract is a summary of your whole research paper which makes it practically impossible to write well first. After writing the rest of your paper, you will know your research inside and out and already have an idea of what key things you need to highlight in your abstract.

INTRODUCTION

For me, the introduction section is always the most intimidating to write because it’s like painting on a blank canvas - massively daunting and leaving you terrified to make a mistake!

The aim of an introduction is to provide the rationale for your research and justify why your work is essential in the field. In general, your introduction should start very broad and narrow down until you arrive at the niche that is your research question or hypothesis.

To start, you need to provide the reader with some background information and context. You should discuss the general principle of your paper and include some key pieces of research (or theoretical frameworks if relevant) that helps your reader get up to speed with the research field and where understanding currently lies. This section can be pretty lengthy, especially in psychological research, so make sure all of the information you’re including is vital as it can be pretty easy to get carried away.

This background should lead you onto the rationale. If you’ve never written a research paper before, the rationale is essentially the reason behind your own research. This could be building on previous findings so our understanding remains up to date, it could be picking up on weaknesses of other research and rectifying these issues or it could be delving into an unexplored aspect of the field! You should clearly state your rationale and this helps lead into the next section.

You should end your introduction by briefly discussing your current research. You need to state your research question or hypothesis, how you plan on investigating the question/hypothesis, the sample you plan on using and the analysis you plan to carry out. You should also mention any limitations you anticipate to crop up so you can address these in your discussion.

In psychology, references are huge in research introductions so it is important to use an accurate (and modern as possible) reference for each statement you are making. You can then use these same references in your discussion to show where your research fits into the current understanding of the topic!

METHODS

Your methods section should make use of subheadings and tables where necessary and should be written in past tense. This can make the (potentially) lengthy section easier to navigate for the reader. I usually use the following headings: participants, materials, design, procedure.

The participants section should describe the sample that took part in your research. Age, gender, nationality and other relevant demographic information should be provided as well as the sampling technique. Personally, I use a table (see below) alongside my continuous prose as an alternative way of viewing my sample population. Please note, if you’re using a table make sure it adheres to your university guidelines.

The materials section of your methods should include any equipment, resources (i.e. images, books, diagrams) or any other materials used in your data collection. You should also reference the program that helped you conduct your analysis. For example, if you are writing a qualitative research paper, you may want to include Microsoft Word in your materials if you use the program to transcribe interviews.

You should then describe the design used in your research. All variables should be identified in this paragraph, if relevant. You should also discuss whether your research is within-groups or between-groups, again only if relevant.

Last is your procedure section - the most important one! You must write this section with enough detail so that anybody could pick it up, read it and conduct the same experiment with ease. You should describe what participants were required to do, how data was collected and it should be written in chronological order! While it’s important to provide enough information, try not to overwhelm the reader with lengthy sentences and unnecessary information.

RESULTS

Your results section’s sole purpose is to provide the reader with the data from your study. It should be the second shortest section (abstract being first) in your research paper and should stick to the relevant guidelines in regards to reporting figures, tables and diagrams. Your goal is to relay results in the most objective and concise way possible.

Your results section serves to act as evidence for the claims you’ll go on to make during your discussion but you must not be biased in the results you report. You should report enough data to sufficiently justify your conclusions but must also include data that doesn’t support your original hypothesis or research question. 

Reporting data is most easily done through tables and figures as they’re easy to look at and select relevant information. If you’re using tables and figures you should always make sure you’re stating effect sizes and p values and to a consistent decimal place. Illustrative tables and figures should always be followed by supporting summary text consisting of a couple of sentences relaying the key statistical findings in continuous prose.

DISCUSSION

The discussion section should take the opposite approach to your introduction! You should start discussing your own research and broaden the discussion until you’re talking about the general research field.

You should start by stating the major findings of your study and relating them back to your hypothesis or research questions. You must must must explicitly state whether you reject or accept your experimental hypothesis, if you have one. After stating your key findings you should explain the meaning, why they’re important and where they fit into the existing literature. It’s here that you should bring back the research you discussed in your introduction, you should relate your findings to the current understanding and state the new insight your research provides.

You should then state the clinical relevance of your research. Think about how your findings could be applied to real-life situations and discuss one or two practical applications.

After this, discuss the limitations of your research. Limitations could include sample size and general sample population and how this effects generalisability of findings, it could include methodological problems or research bias! These limitations will allow you to discuss how further research should be conducted. Suggest ways in which these limitations could be rectified in future research and also discuss the implications this could have on findings and conclusions drawn.

Finally, you need to give the reader a take-home message. A sentence or two to justify (again) the need for your research and how it contributes to current understanding in the field. This is the last thing your audience will read so make it punchy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That’s it folks! My tips for writing a kick-ass, high-grade research paper based on my personal experience. If you have any questions regarding things I’ve missed or didn’t provide enough detail of, then please just send me an ask!

Also, if any of you would like to read any of my past research papers I would be more than happy to provide you with them :-))

[lesbianfeminists]

How Women Suffering from Endometriosis Disclose about their Disorder at Work

“Feminist approaches to organizational communication theorizing enabled investigation of issues impacting women and minority groups (Buzzanell, 1994). Across domains, research has examined the relationship between labor participation and women’s health, including childbearing, mental and physical health (Glynn et al., 2009; Grice et al., 2007; Repetti et al., 1989). However, minimal attention has been paid to the relationship between employment and women’s reproductive health (Chau et al., 2014), especially as it pertains to stigmatized topics, such as endometriosis.

Disclosure of endometriosis

Extant research examining women’s disclosure of endometriosis has mainly focused on family, friends, and healthcare providers, finding that women suffering from endometriosis downplay their symptoms and are reluctant to share. First, women tend to downplay the severity of their symptoms due to fear of negative appraisal. For example, Grogan et al. (2018) found women hid or downplayed their symptoms out of fear of being labeled a “hypochondriac.” Furthermore, Young et al. (2014) identified that women’s reluctance to disclose and discuss their symptoms resulted from dismissive responses from friends, family, and healthcare providers (Young et al., 2014). Second, women are also hesitant to disclose due to “menstruation etiquette” (Laws, 1991) – or the practice of strategically concealing menstruation from others. For instance, Seear (2009) found disclosure of symptoms was characterized as a “discrediting attribute,” one whose presence contributes to stigmatization of an individual (Goffman, 1963).

While limited, some research has examined disclosure of endometriosis in the workplace specifically. As with friends, family, and healthcare providers, women are hesitant to disclose their endometriosis symptoms to their employers and colleagues due to (a) the gender-specific nature of the disorder, (b) fear of being pressured into discontinuing work, and (c) fear of being seen as using their symptoms as an excuse to “get out of things.” For one, women find it difficult to discuss their symptoms with males due to preconceived notions about the taboo of discussing reproductive matters around men (Young et al., 2014). Yet additionally, although many of these women view their disorder as inherently private, gastrointestinal maladies make functioning at work difficult and mark conversation topics that generally seem difficult to discuss (Grogan et al., 2018). Indeed, Soliman et al. (2018) found women coping with endometriosis symptoms lost between one and five hours of weekly productivity due to either presenteeism (i.e., working without productivity) or absenteeism (i.e., missing work). In an attempt to address productivity loss, oftentimes, women spend their leisure time recovering from endometriosis symptoms in order to perform functionally during working hours (Grogan et al., 2018). Furthermore, many organizations do not provide accommodations for employees, and as a result these women are forced to exit the labor market (Gilmour et al., 2008).

...

While gender did not always necessitate differing approaches to disclosure, the majority of participants expressed feeling more comfortable discussing the disorder with female conversational partners. Yet, participants considered their female conversational partners as either relatable or dismissive. Some female conversational partners were viewed as relatable because they had some “basic understanding” of menstruation-related struggles. As Vicky (30-year-old who is currently in-between employment positions) put it, “I am obviously going to feel more comfortable being open and honest with a female as she can relate more to what we go through.” Whereas other female colleagues were perceived to be dismissive of the severity of endometriosis symptoms due to “survivorship bias,” or the logical error in which people tend to focus on things that passed some selection process and overlook those things that didn’t (Jorion & Goetzmann, 1999), in this case overlooking the severity of endometriosis symptoms because their own experience with menstruation had not been as severe. For instance, Star (a 32-year-old with a master’s degree and currently employed in a managerial role) stated, “I feel like females think they know what you’re talking about because they think that their pain is the same as endo pain. They also tend to think you’re being dramatic about the pain and issues caused by it.”

In contrast, participants considered most of their male conversational partners as either familiar or avoidant, which created great discomfort in disclosing endometriosis to them. Sunrain (a 32-year-old currently working full time as a manager) explained, “My boss is male, and I feel mortified. Like it would tar his view of me.” Other participants tried to talk about endometriosis at work but perceived their male colleagues and supervisors to be avoidant toward the conversations. As Bee (a 28-year-old working in a non-managerial role) put it, “… the male colleagues tend to know less about it and exhibit discomfort when I disclose it, so I avoid talking about it with them.” In these cases, participants reported disclosing vaguely and less frequently. At the same time, there were a few participants who reported that some male colleagues and supervisors were sympathetic and understanding, but that this was due to their being already familiar with endometriosis as a disorder. Liz (a 31-year-old manager) explained, “[Disclosing] was hard because my manager is a male, but his wife had similar issues, so he is understanding.”

Hierarchy

In addition to gender, the position in the corporate hierarchy of the conversational partner impacted women’s disclosure. First, participants reported that disclosing endometriosis to supervisors was more difficult than disclosing to colleagues. Anxiety due to fears of losing opportunities to advance, being seen as incompetent and in some cases, being terminated led employees with endometriosis to approach disclosing to supervisors with more trepidation. For many respondents, disclosure was undesirable but necessary. For example, Mississippi (a 31-year-old working in a non-managerial role) said, “I am extremely uncomfortable discussing it with my supervisors. I don’t want to be seen as a hypochondriac or appear to be trying to get out of duties or get sympathy.” They continued, “My supervisors are also male, and I worry about how sympathetic they would be to women’s health issues.” While choosing to disclose to supervisors resulted from need, disclosing to colleagues was guided by relationship closeness. As one participant put it, “If it’s a close colleague that’s more like a friend, I talk about it more freely. With supervisors, I generally try to explain why I will be needing to miss work in a more professional manner.

...

Participants who worked in male-dominated industries (e.g., construction, finance, engineering) felt it was a significant risk to disclose. They feared that their male employers and colleagues would not understand or care to hear about “female issues” and ultimately view them as weak or incompetent. Grace (a 25-year-old PhD working in a non-managerial role) explained, “Men take this less seriously, and I feel I’m more likely to be perceived as overdramatic and weak by a male than a female.”

Moreover, some participants expressed having difficulty remaining competitive with male colleagues due to the disorder. For instance, one participant, Ariel (a 25-year-old employed in a non-managerial role) shared,

As a female in an already male-dominated field (IT analytics), endometriosis causes a strain on my relationships with coworkers daily. Because they already do not see me as an equal to the males in my field, when I am missing work or leaving meetings early because I am having period pain, I am then having to work even harder to prove my knowledge and worth in the workplace.

Finally, the culture of a workplace, particularly workplaces with negative cultural attributes, also impacted women’s disclosure. Participants explained how their workplaces looked down on taking personal time off, sick leave, and even working from home, which made it even more challenging to disclose their disorder. As one participant, Mississippi (a 31-year-old employed in a non-managerial role), put it, “the expectation to be superwoman” made it difficult to open up about the way this chronic illness hampers her experiences at work. Another participant, Aholla (a 35-year-old who is currently self-employed) explained a situation in which her supervisor did not take her situation seriously. “My producer brushed it off by saying women of color have fibroids all the time and work through it. My fibroids were just one part of my issues,” she explained. Yet another participant, Alexa (a 21-year-old employed in a non-managerial capacity) listed “bad attitude(s) toward employees who take time off or leave early” as an added impediment to disclosing. Another impediment was lack of privacy for disclosing endometriosis in the workplace. Participants shared that many of their workplaces had open-floor offices, which made it difficult to discuss a private matter. When asked what things made disclosing endometriosis at work challenging, a participant named Syd (a 32-year-old employed in a non-managerial role) said, “An open office plan. If I’m talking about a sensitive symptom there’s really nowhere I can discuss it privately.” Last, in some cases, participants reported a lack of HR policies for dealing with the disorder. Kris (a 43-year-old participant who herself works in a managerial role) explained that “Male coworkers and an HR director who feels no one should ever share about themselves,” made disclosing her endometriosis challenging. Liz, 2 (a 32-year-old manager) echoed these sentiments by explaining her workplace had “no clear policy to request accommodations (such as work from home or flexible schedule). No privacy – HR staff regularly gossip about what they’re told.”

[didanawisgi]

Following the science

“Please, follow the science (even if it has now become inconvenient and uncomfortable)

Today, I was made aware of the following publication:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1.full.pdf

This is one of the most abominable publications I’ve ever read. It’s simply unthinkable that this would pass peer review. I am truly sorry to say so, but this article is really an unprecedented violation and misrepresentation of the science. I have no choice but to react to this and copy the corresponding author (venky@nreference.net). Clearly, these guys have a mission that is all but inspired by science. I am truly wondering who is financing this type of fancy ‘machine-taught science’.

The corresponding author is the ‘rchief evangelist for nference’ and ‘has led multi-year R&D data-science alliances with global biopharma companies… ‘. This may already explain why pedantic messages are conveyed, which, unfortunately, are not supported by any data in this paper (‘This study demonstrates that mass vaccination may serve as an antigenic impediment to the evolution of fitter and more transmissive SARS-CoV-2 variants, emphasizing the urgent need to stem vaccine hesitancy as a key step to mitigate the global burden of COVID-19’) and why the title is misrepresenting the impact of mass vaccination.

Instead of ‘COVID-19 vaccines dampen genomic diversity of SARS-CoV-2: Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance’, the title should read: ‘COVID-19 vaccines dampen genomic diversity of SARS-CoV-2: Vaccinated patients exhibit diminished antigenic mutational variance’! This at least would reflect the increasing trend of convergence of immune escape mutations to a limited set of Sars-CoV-2 S protein-associated epitopes. This trend coincides, indeed, with mass vaccination and has extensively been documented by a number of molecular epidemiologists (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/) and is now considered a serious ‘Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/).

In all of the section reporting on the results of this study, there is literally only one sentence that deals with the comparison of variants in vaccinates versus non-vaccinated patients (see under results: Whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes from unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals reveals different mutational profiles):

‘We find that the known B-cell epitopes exhibit more mutational diversity in the unvaccinated individuals than in the vaccinated individuals (Figure 4b,c).’

None of this is even further debated under Discussion! So what is justifying their title and gospel message?

My comments: OMG, really? Is it this what prompts them to preach the gospel of mass vaccination? Do they have any notable background in immunology or vaccinology? They seem to seek whatever data they can get their hands on to confirm the mantra of mass vaccination evangelized by the WHO: ‘The more viral replication, the more mutations and hence, the more mass vaccination will prevent new variants from arising’. Don’t they read what their peers are publishing (see reference above) and what I’ve been reiterating in my most recent contributions? (“Critical opinion article: Why is the ongoing mass vaccination experiment driving a rapid evolutionary response of SARS-CoV-2?” and “The chicken-and-egg problem”)? Don’t they understand that you cannot do mass vaccination with these C-19 vaccines without having the vaccinees exerting major S-directed immune pressure on the virus and without providing a steadily growing breeding ground for the selected immune escape variants? Don’t they understand that precisely this widespread immune selection pressure is now promoting convergent evolution of immune escape variants to the same antigenic sites within the S protein and thereby enabling the virus to adapt to its altered host environment? That this is eventually going to lead to dominance of variants of concern? That those are predominantly shed by vaccinees? (almost according to their own findings: ‘Furthermore, a larger fraction of the vaccinated (82.6%) cohort had alpha variant compared to the unvaccinated cohort (60%) (Table S1). Availability of a larger number of sequenced genomes in the future can help understand whether specific variants of concern are more likely to cause breakthrough infections’).

Of course, the spectrum of mutational diversity in non-vaccinated people will be higher as these individuals do not exert selective immune pressure on S protein, even if naturally infected. Moreover, non-vaccinated populations do not provide a suitable environment for immune escape variants to propagate as there is no competitive advantage for them to gain.

I am stunned at the immunological and epidemiologic illiteracy of the authors. If you really want to study the effect of mass vaccination on the evolution of mutations, you compare HEALTHY vaccinees with HEALTHY non-vaccinated people! Why? because the selective immune pressure (towards S protein) is highest in healthy vaccinees and (presumably) lowest in healthy non-vaccinated subjects (as they clear the infection rapidly). So, in terms of the degree of S-targeted immune selection pressure one expects the following gradation: unvaccinated <breakthrough vaccinated < healthy vaccinated or, in terms of (irrelevant!) mutational diversity: unvaccinated >breakthrough vaccinated > healthy vaccinated.

Mass vaccination at the height of a pandemic enables selection and adaptation of S-directed immune escape variants and leads to dominant circulation of variants of concern (VoCs), not the other way around as the authors try to make readers believe! Indeed, they erroneously pretend: ‘Dominance globally results in increased mutation of antigenic sites’! Conclusions as drawn by the authors reflect, indeed, the risk of bias and scientific misinterpretations when the analysis of complex phenomena such as the evolutionary dynamics of a pandemic is reduced to an exercise in computational stamp collection. Teaching machines how to read biological data can be extremely dangerous as lack of holistic insights lead to correlations that some tend to interpret as causation. For example, the current study results do not seem to take into account the impact of a number of tricky confounders, probably due to lack of knowledge in other biological fields (in this case: immunology, virology, evolutionary biology, vaccinology). For example: What about the impact of differences in the infectious pressure (number of active infections) in those different countries? What about the influence of the infectiousness of the circulating variants? Differences in the level of immune pressure? (e.g., which percentage of vaccinees only received a single injection of a 2-shot vaccine)? Differences in the total vaccine coverage rate? Differences in the speed of the mass vaccination campaigns? Differences in the type of vaccines used? Differences in flanking infection prevention measures?

Also their reasoning in regard of co-morbidities seems confusing. Although they did not find a statistically significant association between mutation count and rates of complications, they seem to suggest that co-morbidities resulted from Covid-19 rather than constituting a predisposing factor to Covid-19 disease. In this regard, the fact that vaccinated patients had lower rates of comorbidities would even suggest that vaccination was rendering them more susceptible to the disease! As underlying co-morbidities augment the risk for C19 disease, it is logical, indeed, that the majority of their unvaccinated subjects only contracted C19 disease provided they had an underlying health issue.

It’s amazing that in the key limitations of their study they didn’t even think about mentioning their full ignorance of the immunologic context that is deeply and massively altered by mass vaccination campaigns!

Their interpretation of how T cell responses may ‘buffer’ viral evolution is of course only hypothetical but nevertheless completely irrational. The large diversity of T cell peptides combined with the extensive heterogeneity of peptide-matching MHC class I alleles already explains why it is highly unlikely for a naturally infected population to place widespread selective immune pressure on a particular T cell epitope. I would not understand how degeneracy of T cell recognition would need to be involved in protecting against immune escape, especially not since degenerated T cell recognition has rather been associated with auto-immune disease (which is almost the opposite of immune escape!).

Last, their suggestion that T cell-based vaccines may offer a perspective to successful immune intervention is not based on sound scientific grounds either! Or do they think there is on or more promiscuous or universal MHC class I-dependent T cell epitope(s) that has the capacity to induce T cells capable of eliminating virus-infected cells? If this approach would work, we would already have several T cell-based vaccines on the market. It’s not the case as T cell antigens are only protective in individuals who are genetically predisposed to controlling the pathogen by virtue of their protective alleles.”

[theexleynatureblog]

Time to talk Vaccines

I will start off with a bias - I am not anti-vax. Why? Because I come from a science background - more ecology and behavior than biochemistry - so I have a lot of exposure to ‘sciency’ stuff.  I am no expert - in fact I barely passed college introductory chemistry with a B - but as sick and tired of I am of listening to anti-vax propaganda everywhere online (and it’s rising importance to modern events) I have to put in my two cents. If y’all won’t listen to over a thousand different scientists with varying degrees and levels of experience, maybe you’ll listen to a cranky college kid who can give you the scoop in plan English.

History of vaccines gives a good, in-depth lessons about where vaccines first came from - if your interested in that aspect. In summary, it covers ancient variants of vaccines, up to Edward Jenner’s 1796 cowpox vaccine, and continued development through the 1930′s. **Penicillin may be the most popular product, but it is used against dangerous bacteria, not virus’. More information here.**

To start off simply: what is a virus? Personally, I like to think about them as tiny robots - lifelike but not living. This question is actually a hot-topic debated by the science community, because we can’t agree on whether or not they are even living. This article from 2008 seems to cover the debate pretty well. Viruses are smaller, and in terms of what they’re made of and how they work, simpler than cells.

This picture gives a good idea of sizes. Note that everything in this picture is microscopic, and cannot be seen with the naked eye. This photo is computer-generated based on information from what we’ve seen in microscopes. Corona-virus is the dark blue circle second from the left. On the far right is what’s probably a typical animal cell. The blue bean thing next to Coronavirus is a bacteria, which are living things and operate differently than viruses, though some bacteria can make people sick. Check out this article for more info on bacteria.

So viruses are smaller than cells, they are also built different. Simply put, viruses are a case of protein with a string of DNA inside. Off the bat, this sounds really similar to bacteria, but there’s one major difference: bacteria can duplicate themselves and viruses cannot. The politically correct term is ‘binary fission’, a kind of asexual reproduction that is basically an organism copying all it’s DNA, splitting the two strains apart, and then stretching everything else into two separate things. I won’t go into all the complex terms and functions (you can read about it more here). All you need to understand is it is a complex possess that requires machinery that virus’ don’t have. So how do virus’ reproduce? They sneak into other cells and hijack their machinery to produce more viruses. 

Because viruses and cells have been living together since life began on this planet billions of years ago, cells have developed forms of protection (from viruses and bacteria). A ‘lock’, basically all across the cell surface. So in order for viruses to continue, they needed to develop a ‘key’. This is why viruses have a host of different shapes. Coronavirus is named after the crown-like spikes, which are proteins that help invade a living cell. Read more about how viruses invade cells here.

Phew! That was a lot, and we haven’t even gotten into vaccine’s yet! That’s because in order to understand vaccines, you have to have some understanding of the thing they are built to fight. The question becomes: If a virus is considered not living, how do you fight it? How do you kill something that’s not alive?

The most obvious answer is just taking it apart. A virus can’t do it’s thing if it’s broken down into single elements. But, as we discussed earlier, viruses are super small. We can barely see them in microscopes (we have to use a super microscope called an Electron microscopes). There’s no physically possible or safe way to crush up/rip apart a virus. Using radiation, water, or fire isn’t practical either. Sure - fire will destroy anything, but you can’t light up a 5-year-old with the flu. Techniques of disassembling viruses are currently being studied, but we still have a lot to learn. 

So, if we can’t break it apart, the only thing we can do is stop it from spreading. This is basically how our immune system works. If a cell is infected, it will send  a piece of the viral protein, to another cell: T-cells. T-cells are cells of the immune system. One type of immune system cell will send a toxin to kill the infected cell, trapping the virus inside and preventing spread. If the toxin doesn’t kill the cell, the rapid replication of the virus will eventually cause it to burst. (Imagine a chicken egg with a thousand chicks falling out). The downside of this is if the virus spreads to fast, and hits important places like the lungs, and a lot of important cells die... whelp, the fight is over. Unlike most parasites that depend on their hosts to be alive and collect nutrients for them, viruses are more reckless - it doesn't’ matter how many cells die as long as the virus keeps spreading.

The other immune defense systems are via interferon and (more commonly known) antibodies. Interferon's work inside a host cell to stop a virus from hijacking a cell’s DNA replication machines while also alerting immune cells to an infection. Antibodies fight against viruses that have not yet entered a cell. Remember back to the ‘lock’ and ‘key’ thing? Here’s where it comes to play! Antibodies stick to the protein of viruses by matching the ‘key’ shapes. If you stick a wad of gum onto you house key, it won’t be able to fit in the lock, and you can’t get into your house. It’s basically the same thing. Antibodies can also make viruses stick together - making them easier to destroy, and also can send a signal to a cell to engulf and destroy a virus.

The reaaaaaaallllllly cool part is that antibodies can ‘remember what viruses look like’. Antibodies hold onto little bits of the virus - proteins - so they can recognize another infection. (Link)  Naturally, whenever we are infected, we produce antibodies for that specific virus/bacteria, however - they only work if A) we survive the initial infection, and B) if we keep getting infected by that specific strain/type of virus. Viruses come in all kinds of shapes and chemical makeups. Even them, groups of viruses within the same ‘species’ can have unique kinds of protein. This is why you need to get a flu shot every year - the shot isn’t for ‘the flue’, it is for the current strain of the flu spreading. (Article from UAB Medicine).

In order to fight viruses, we need to keep our immune system healthy and produce antibodies. In olden days, the way we produced antibodies was by getting infected and working up herd immunity (healthy individuals with antibodies prevent the spread of a disease to those without immunity). The problem with this is: it doesn’t always work. Nature in our world is build on the process of one force creating a wall and an opposing force finding a new way to break it (think Jurassic Park’s life will find a way). As long a pathway exists, a virus will find a way to use it. Herd immunity also works by selecting and removing the weakest links in the group - individuals who cannot fight an infection well die and stop spreading the virus. It works in nature, but in terms of human civilization - it’s not very nice. It is also unbiased, in the natural world. Wild animals have an equal opportunity to be healthy enough to fight an infection - besides those with genetic issues. We should all be painfully aware that human civilization no longer operates on this fair playing field. Only those with a good social and economic standing have the opportunity to be healthy enough. Remember this before you argue ‘herd immunity’.

All this in mind, vaccines are the last reasonable option. According to the CDC, a vaccine consists of a weakened virus or part of a virus introduced to the body so it can produce antibodies. That’s it. Seems like a really cleaver idea, don’t it?

But hang on: you got sick after taking a vaccine? If your symptoms are runny nose/coughing, good news! That’s not the vaccine - it’s you. (CDC article on why vaccine are safer than exposure)  After detecting an infection (even if its not a active virus) the immune system releases histamine, which causes inflamed blood veins and access mucus - sneezing. This can discharge virons, but also used by them to spread to a new host. Some symptoms, like a wet cough, are caused by a viral infection. Fever’s are another example of a immune response, not directly caused by a virus. It’s our brain trying to cook and break apart the proteins of the virus.

The hot topic about vaccines is they are full of scary chemicals that people don’t want to have injected into them. So lets take a closer look at one example, the influenza vaccine.

Formaldehyde - yikes! Scary sounding for sure - formaldehyde is well known for being used in embalming, and linked to cancer. What is less know is it is also an essential building block in lots of items, like building and construction, personal care and consumer products, and automobile manufacturing. The following picture is the chemical molecule.

It is a simply enough molecule made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Formaldehyde naturally occurs in the environment, as most living things produce it as part of the metabolic processes (breaking down and absorbing food). At room temperature, formaldehyde is a gas that can be dangerous to inhale in large amounts. When it comes to vaccines, the purpose of formaldehyde is to deactivate the virus - so it doesn’t actually start infecting cells. In small amounts like this, it is harmless. Personally, I’d be more worried about the gaseous forms.

Aluminum Salts - these include hydroxide and phosphate. The purpose of these chemicals in vaccines is to help the body activate it’s immune response.  hydroxide is basically any molecule with hydrogen and oxygen - example, water, and hydrogen dioxide. (What makes molecules dangerous is not necessarily their elements, it is how they are connected). Once again, these are present in amounts too small to be harmful both short and long term.

Thimerosal - This is the ingredient that has anti-vaxxer’s shouting “Oh no theirs mercury!” but that’s not completely true. Since the 1930′s, it has been used in a wide variety of products. It’s purpose is to prevent contamination of the product (vaccine) by bacteria and fungi. Without it, vaccines run the risk of exposing patients to a serious infection. It’s not even used in every vaccine - only ones that require multiple doses, the ones that are at the highest risk of contamination. Thimerosal comes from an inorganic form of mercury called ethylmercury, which is different than other forms of mercury as it does not remain in the body long enough to cause damage. ALSO: this is not the same compound as methylmercury, a toxic compound found in fish due to pollution. 

Chicken Egg proteins - Egg proteins are used to grow a virus before it is put into a vaccine. The virus and the proteins are separated, but there is risk of chicken proteins still being in the vaccine - bad news for people with allergies. This is why it’s important to discuss any allergies with your doctor. Exposure of this protein to people with allergies has not been documented as fatal, but still must be carefully monitored. Luckily, egg-free versions do exist.

Gelatin - this material acts as a stabilizer, keeping the vaccine effective as it enters the body. It protects the vaccine from effects of heat, and freeze drying. Most vaccines use pork-based gelatin, which means people with severe pork allergies should discuss more options with their doctors. 

Antibiotics - antibiotics in vaccines work with Thimerosal to prevent the growth of dangerous bacteria. The antibiotics involved are not allergy-risks, and used in lots of other lotions and ointments. 

So, there is one example. Dealing with stuff that we don’t know or don’t fully understand can be combated by simple research. If you are concerned about the ingredients in a certain vaccine, do some research! Remember - it’s not always what chemicals, but what form they are in. 

[phroyd]

WASHINGTON — President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance.

As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans. But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after returning Friday evening from a trip to Florida and Georgia.

The president’s political advisers hope the selection will energize his conservative political base in the thick of an election campaign in which he has for months been trailing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his Democratic challenger. But it could also rouse liberal voters afraid that her confirmation could spell the end of Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion, as well as other rulings popular with the political left and center.

The nomination will kick off an extraordinary scramble by Senate Republicans to confirm her for the court in the 38 days before the election on Nov. 3, a scenario unlike any in American history. While other justices have been approved in presidential election years, none has been voted on after July. Four years ago, Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace Justice Scalia with Judge Merrick B. Garland, announced 237 days before Election Day, on the grounds that it should be left to whoever was chosen as the next president.

In picking Judge Barrett, a conservative and a hero to the anti-abortion movement, Mr. Trump could hardly have found a more polar opposite to Justice Ginsburg, a pioneering champion of women’s rights and leader of the liberal wing of the court. The appointment would shift the center of gravity on the bench considerably to the right, giving conservatives six of the nine seats and potentially insulating them even against defections by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who on a handful of occasions has sided with liberal justices.

Mr. Trump made clear this week that he wanted to rush his nominee through the Senate by Election Day to ensure that he would have a decisive fifth justice on his side in case any disputes from the vote reached the high court, as he expected to happen. The president has repeatedly made baseless claims that the Democrats are trying to steal the election and appears poised to challenge any result of the balloting that does not declare him the winner.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has enough votes to push through Judge Barrett’s nomination if he can make the tight time frame work. Republicans are looking at holding hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee the week of Oct. 16 and a floor vote by late October.

Democrats have expressed outrage at the rush and accused Republicans of rank hypocrisy given their treatment of Judge Garland, but they have few options for slowing the nomination, much less stopping it. Instead, they have focused on making Republicans pay at the ballot box and debated ways to counteract Mr. Trump’s influence on the court if they win the election.

Mr. Trump met with Judge Barrett at the White House on Monday and Tuesday and was said to like her personally. While he said he had a list of five finalists, he never interviewed anyone else for the job and passed over Judge Barbara Lagoa of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, who appealed to campaign advisers in particular because of her Cuban-American heritage and roots in Florida, a critical battleground state in the presidential contest.

Despite Mr. Trump’s penchant for drama and the intrigue that surrounded his first two picks for seats on the Supreme Court, the selection process since Justice Ginsburg died last Friday has been fairly low-key and surprisingly predictable. The president has long signaled that he expected to put Judge Barrett on the court and has been quoted telling confidants in 2018 that he was “saving her for Ginsburg.”

If confirmed, Judge Barrett would become the 115th justice in the nation’s history and the fifth woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. At 48, she would be the youngest member of the current court as well its sixth Catholic. And she would become Mr. Trump’s third appointee on the court, more than any other president has installed in a first term since Richard M. Nixon had four, joining Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Judge Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School and later joined the faculty. She clerked for Justice Scalia and shares his constitutional views. She is described as a textualist who interprets the law based on its plain words rather than seeking to understand the legislative purpose and an originalist who applies the Constitution as it was understood by those who drafted and ratified it.

She has been a judge for only three years, appointed by Mr. Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017. Her confirmation hearing produced fireworks when Democratic senators questioned her public statements and Catholicism. That made her an instant celebrity among religious conservatives, who saw her as a victim of bias on the basis of her faith.

Judge Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, are reported to be members of a small and relatively obscure Christian group called the People of Praise. The group grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices like speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing. The couple have seven children, all under 20, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome.

In a 2006 speech to Notre Dame graduates, she spoke of the law as a higher calling. “If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer,” she said.

But during her 2017 confirmation hearing, she affirmed that she would keep her personal views separate from her duties as a judge. “If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic, I am,” she told senators. “Although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.” She was confirmed on a 55-to-43 vote, largely along party lines.

As a law professor, Judge Barrett was a member of Faculty for Life, an anti-abortion group, and wrote skeptically about precedent in Supreme Court rulings, which both sides in the abortion debate took to mean she would be open to revisiting Roe v. Wade.

“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it,” she wrote in a Texas Law Review article in 2013.

She later criticized Chief Justice Roberts for his opinion preserving Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, saying he went beyond the plausible meaning of the law. As an appellate judge, she joined an opinion arguing on behalf of an Indiana law banning abortions sought solely because of the sex or disability of a fetus, disagreeing with fellow judges who struck it down as unconstitutional.

Conservative and liberal interest groups did not wait for Mr. Trump’s announcement to open the battle over Judge Barrett’s confirmation. Each side prepared multimillion-dollar campaigns to introduce her to the public and frame the debate to come in the Senate, with an eye on the November contest.

Several polls over the past week have shown that most Americans, including many Republicans, believe the next justice should be selected by the winner of the November election, not by Mr. Trump in the meantime.

A survey released Friday by The Washington Post and ABC News suggested the fight may drive Democrats even more than Republicans to the polls. About 64 percent of Mr. Biden’s supporters told pollsters that the vacancy made it “more important” that the Democrat win the election, while just 37 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters said the same for him.

Phroyd

[jaybug-jabbers]

My Favorite ACNH Villagers by Species

Hey all. I recently was gifted the new Animal Crossing game and have been playing it like mad. I decided to judge all the characters in the game and choose my favorites.

This list is extremely opinion-based, reflecting only my personal tastes. Also, I’m very picky. You’ve been warned.

As a final note, the list may be subject to change as I play the game and meet villagers and experience new stuff. Thus, this is a snapshot of my current impressions.

Alligator: Drago

Standing out among all the other gators, Drago’s appearance as a mythical beast plus a laid-back attitude wins my affection.

Anteater: Anabelle

Anteaters are cool creatures, but pangolins, which Anabelle is based off of, are even COOLER. Her cheerful peppy personality is also a plus.

Bear: Klaus

The designs for all the bears, for some odd reason, seem to universally repel me, except for Klaus, who somewhat intrigues me. I’d never have him in my village, but I appreciate the distinctive design.

Bird: Piper

Finding a Bird that I like is surprisingly difficult. Sparro’s design is nice, but he’s a Jock, which is kind of a killjoy for me. Piper just seems like a nice standard bird.

Bull: Rodeo

While the bright-blue Bull Stu is also a very pleasing design, Rodeo has to be the winner here. His terrifying appearance is at odds with his relaxed personality.

Cat: Raymond

Yes, he’s the super-popular among the popular; the truth is, I love him too. He’s a very striking character.

Chicken: Ken

While Becky and Egbert are also nice-looking chickens, Ken must win for his beautiful dark coloration and the fact he’s a ninja chicken.

Cub: Maple

Judy is immensely popular, due to her beautiful gradient coat and her intensely sparkling eyes, but I’m not sure she’s won me over. I think I prefer the plain, ordinary-colored, cute little Maple. Stitches is another popular Cub, but the stitch-eyes unnerve me terribly.

Deer: Erik

There are so many Deer characters I love! Erik, however, is the sweetest for me.

Dog: Shep

Most of the Dog characters don’t do much for me, just being rather ordinary dog designs. I’m not much of a dog person, anyway. Shep has that cool sheepdog fringe, though, and seems like a pretty cool dude.

Duck: Molly

I’m repelled by all the Duck designs except for Molly. They really went a little nuts with the weird faces for the duck characters, y’know? The popular Ketchup was not selected because I don’t usually like food-based creatures.

Eagle: Amelia

There are a ton of cool Eagle characters! I basically love them all, but I need to pick Amelia because she’s based on the fabulous Caracara.

Elephant: Cyd

Tia is a very popular Elephant, for her adorable design based on a teapot. I admit she’s very cute. But Cyd is … I’m not sure what Cyd is. He’s really weird. I can’t help but be drawn to him. LOOKIT THOSE EYES MAN.

Frog: Jeremiah

The frogs look kind of bad to me, overall. Their gigantic bulbous heads unnerve me. I know the art is a chibi-style, of course, but the heads of the frogs seem oversized even for chibi. Maybe I’m crazy. I dunno, I just don’t care for them much. Ribbot is a popular frog, and I kinda dig the uniqueness of the robot concept, but he’s a Jock, so ehhh, pass. I chose Jeremiah simply for his appealing colors and his name.

Goat: Kidd

I love goats in real life, and I thought I’d like more AC goats, but I don’t really. Sherb is a very popular goat right now, and while he’s cute and all, Kidd seems the coolest to me. He’s purple with nice hair and a well-contrasting horn color.

Gorilla: Boone

I do not like monkey and ape characters. I never have. So I’m very biased here. Boone seems the best of the Gorilla bunch, though, with his bright, eye-catching baboon markings and almost dignified presense. I wouldn’t have him on my island, but he’s the most tolerable.

Hamster: NOPE

There’s something about all the hamsters that troubles me greatly. I could never have any on my island.

Hippo: Bertha

I think it’s hard to make a stylized Hippo character that isn’t at least kinda ugly. They have oddly-shaped honkin’ faces, and it’s awkward. But Bertha is a pretty sweet hippo gal.

Horse: Victoria

There are a lot of horses in the game, including a Zebra, a sparkling Unicorn, a creepy dark horse, and a princely Colton; but I’m choosing Victoria soley for the racehorse motif. This may change over time, but for now I find it charming.

Kangaroo: Walt

While they experimented with a number of eye-catching designs for the Kangaroos, Walt’s understated slate blues and intense face wins me over. Also, he has a cool scar and is a cranky boy.

Koala: Yuka

The enormous noses and widely-spaced eyes of the Koala characters make it difficult to make them cute, but Yuka seems pretty sweet.

Lion: Leopold

I definitely do not care for any of the Lion characters except for Leopold. Leo is a magnificent, regal-looking fellow I would want to have a cup of tea with.

Monkey: Don’t like any of ‘em

I mentioned previously my bias against ape and monkey characters. I can’t possibly choose a favorite from them.

Mouse: Chadder

As with the Hamster characters, I also do not like the Mouse characters. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the body design, but … hm. Most of the faces for them are unpleasant. Chadder’s face is actually quite neat, though, and I like his little suit. The cheese motif is kinda cute, too.

Octopus: Marina

I love the idea of having an Octopus villager. Octopi are awesome. It will take me time to adjust to the mouth they went with here, though. I think I would have preferred a beak, which is what actual octopi have.

Ostrich: Flora & Julia

I adore almost all of the Ostrich characters. I would be thrilled with any of them. (Except for Queenie. Yuck.)

Penguin: Hopper

Penguins are sweet birds, adored by many, and rightfully so. Hopper is definitely king of the bunch, though–based off the crested penguin, the eye-catching, cranky little fellow will waddle his way into your heart.

Pig: Boris

I’m not normally a fan of pig characters. But there’s something about Boris! What presense he has! What magnificent fangs! What lovely colors and impressive attitude!

Rabbit: NOPE

They sure went all-out on trying out a wide variety of wild faces on these rabbits. I honestly hate ‘em all. Mira comes closest to being OK, but no.

Rhino: Merengue

I previously noted I don’t really care for food-based characters. So I feel quite mixed about Merengue. Animals that are also food disturb me. But her design is admittedly well-done and very cute. She won’t be on my island, but I understand why people like her so much. She’s certainly the most interesting Rhino character.

Sheep: Dom

OK. I know I said how much I dislike Jock personalities. (The reason is simply because it gets tiring to hear them talk about nothing else but working out.) But Dom gets a pass. He’s the only one I will tolerate a Jock personality for. His character design is screamingly adorable and pleasant to look at, and the contrast between a tiny, fluffy cute little sheep wanting to get crunk is hilarious.

Squirrel: Marshal

There are several cute Squirrel characters, including the very lovely Poppy and the skunklike Tasha, but the highly-popular Marshal is popular for a reason. His sweet little grumpy face and simple but effective colors are wonderful.

Tiger: Rolf

There’s something rather dull in the Tiger designs. I don’t know what it is, exactly. Rolf seems to have some attitude and toughness about him, so I chose him, and white tigers are pretty. But overall, the Tigers underwhelm me. This is surprising since I am a big cat fan. I dunno … I think it’s the snout in the big cat design I don’t like. It looks weird.

Wolf: Skye & Kyle

The wolves look really nice in AC, and I like a surprising number of them. I could not settle on a single one, so I chose both Skye for her gorgeous coloration and cute eyes and Kyle for his pretty Wild Dog colors.

[taotrooper]

Q&A with Kusanagi-sensei at the Manga Barcelona con

Kusanagi Mizuho was a guest on the Barcelona con 2019 and she had a panel with the fans this morning where they asked her some questions. None of them are plot-related, sadly (I suspect the questions sent by fans were heavily filtered to avoid spoilers). But if you’re curious about the personal and professional stuff she’s said, and her opinion about her characters, here’s a translation of the livetweeting by the manga’s publisher, Norma Editorial, which is here. I’m also complementing with Ramen Para Dos’ liveblogging.

Kusanagi requested not to have her picture taken. Except for those lucky few Spaniards and Catalanes who attended the panel, she’ll remain a meerkat to us. (Parenthesis notes are my commentary, not part of the interview!)

Q. When did you decide to start drawing?

A. She started to draw when she was around 9-10 years old. She’d make up complete stories she’d read her younger sister --who also came to the con.

Q. What was her favorite manga back then? And now?

A. She really liked Slam Dunk, Hana Yori Dango, and Ranma 1/2 when she was little. It seems she’s into redhead protagonists, Norma jokes. Right now she likes One Piece and Attack on Titan.

Q. Did she study in any sort of academy? Has she worked as an assistant? 

A. She went to art school (she specifies not manga, art) and was an assistant after graduating for 4-5 years.

Q. What does she currently delegated to her assistants?

A. She works with 4-5 people. They take care of drawing landscapes, armor, plates of food, extra things... They also help a lot with combat scenes: she’s the one who draws the basic battle panels but they finish them.

Q. Does she find it hard to make it to deadlines?

A. She laughed. Handing in chapters is so hard because she takes a long time to design the story, so she only dedicates 3 or 4 days to draw 30 pages because she has no time left.

(Yikes, poor Kusanagi D: )

Q. Does she like to listen to something or snack while she works? 

A. When she’s working on the story she needs total silence and being alone, but while she draws she likes to put on anime or movies or music as background noise.

Q. Where does Ao keep her acorns?

A. Squirrels usually carry 7 acorns in their mouths. Ao brings 10 at least!

(Oh no, she’s too OP!!!!)

Q.  Hak or Soo-Won? 

A. She laughs and assures us she has a lot of love for both of them.

Q. How did she come up with the manga’s setting?

A. At first she thought about basing it on Rome or Japan, but it didn’t fit. So in the end she combined different Asian scenarios to give birth to AkaYona.

(So... yeah, it’s not 100% Three Kingdoms Korea, it’s a hybrid. Also lol she really likes Rome, huh?)

Q. Does she have a favorite character? 

A. NE: She doesn’t have a favorite, she loves all of them and loves to draw them so they look as good-looking as possible when they look at themselves in the mirror.

RP2: When she creates a story centered in one character, she tries to focus all details on said character. But she feels appreciation for all characters in Akatsuki no Yona. Then there’s a character’s personality or some enemy that’s not liked by the audience and that motivates her to draw them more handsome.

(Well, that sure explains Keishuk becoming more luscious lately, but THEN THERE’S GOBI’S CRAZY FACES.....................)

Q. Does she feel identified with any of her characters?

A. All of her characters reflect part of her own idols so they don’t really represent her that much.

(Damn, there she goes debunking the Kusa-relates-to-SW jokes)

Q. Which dragon would she take on a journey if she had to go on adventures like Yona?

A. She’d like to take the four of them but if she had to choose she’d pick Jae-Ha. He’s kind to women and he can jump really high!

(Jae-ha bias confirmed. We been knew, sensei, we been knew.

“HE JUMP” - Mizuho Kusanagi, 2019)

Q. The reveal of Zeno’s powers is one of the most amazing scenes in the series. How was it for her? 

A. She was looking forward to drawing it. She doesn’t like its brutality but it was necessary to express its importance. Regardless, she enjoyed it a lot.

Q. How does she feel about thinking of Yona as a strong, inspirational female character?

A. NE says that to her Yona is an ordinary girl, what makes her special is that she’s a fighter (the wording here is implied to be in a hardworking, fighting daily way, not as a warrior necessarily). Life taught her to be strong and positive and she thinks that’s very important. RP2 says that the character herself is normal but to her, Yona’s strength and courage to move forward is what stand out and inspires.

She got an ovation from the audience at this point :’)

Q. How does she feel about having so many fans overseas? 

A. She’s very happy and grateful! She’s so surprised to see so many people (women and men) around the world and outside of Japan who understand and enjoy Yona’s vision. She thanks us all so much!

(Aww~)

Q. What does she do in her free time?

A. She loves to spend time with her cat. But she ends up annoying her cat sometimes, and she (the kitty) scratches her (Kusanagi) often.

Q. This one was for her editor, called Tokushige. Wat is it like to work with Kusanagi-sensei with a manga like Yona?

A. She says she knows the author’s job is very hard with a terrible pace and schedule. Despite that she has to be tough and mean to help Kusanagi with keeping the schedule and the quality. But while it’s touch she likes working with her/looks forward to it.

In the next part, they have Kusanagi ask the audience a question, and she throws the favorite character question back at them! There’s no recount of what people in the room said (besides the fact it took a long time for someone to say Hak and she remarked on that) but NE asked Twitter as well and you can see the answers on the thread.

(Since I slept through the interview, I missed the chance to tell her mine D: Shoutout to the MVPs in the thread who mentioned Yoon and Tae-jun in a sea of Haks and Yonas and Jae-has and Zenos. And the two cosplayers who went there as Argila and Vold!)

ETA: This livetweeting mentioning some characters the fans threw in. Yona, Hak, TAE-JUN several times, Soo-won, Geun-tae, Kija, squirrel Ao, and ship-wise besides HakYona there’s a Zeno/Kaya mention.

So anyway, that was all. Kusanagi brought presents for the selected people who won her signature (a case with Aos on it) plus a few more unknown presents (probably also those cases) to raffle on the Q&A with a jankenpon game. That was sweet of her!

Extra info I’ve seen: she had to take THREE planes to get to Spain from Kyushu. They also gave her her two consecutive awards to Best Shoujo by that same con, which they do yearly with the manganime that gets published here. They also gave her a soccer shirt of the famous local team (Barça) with her name on the back (10/Mizuho).