#That’s significantly higher than 50-50!!!

[9ofspades]

Glitterhearts has cute illustrations and fun stuff, but the rulebook is under the impression that there’s generally a fifty percent chance of success when you roll for a Basic Move 😶

If as a novice game designer you understand nothing else, please understand that writing for a rules-light system doesn't mean you don't need to know basic statistics. I've seen multiple Apocalypse Engine titles whose authors are clearly under the impression that every possible sum of 2d6 is equally probable. I've encountered at least one that included sum-of-2d6 based lookup tables with twelve entries.

[bitchthefuck1]

In case anyone else has the brain worm that makes them want exact details anytime people talk numbers, in Too Much Birthday the offer to buy Kendall out says that he has 12,904,663 shares of Waystar (worth ~2bil at $156/share), so assuming he didn't sell any stock after that and also that Shiv and Roman all had an equal stake, which the show implies, that means that when they sell the company at $192/share in the finale, each of the siblings gets just under $2.5 billion, half of it in Gojo stock, not counting whatever they inherit from Logan.

[akilahia]

Thinking about IHNMAIMS in pretty much all of its forms.

Specifically Ted and Ellen. Obviously in the Game their relationship is very different from the short story/comic/radio drama, with Ted being in love with Ellen(although it’s evident it’s because she is the only woman left alive). In the game he shows devotion to her, he is willing to push past his usual methods of flirtation and find other ways to get what he needs.

But in the other adaptions his feelings towards Ellen are mixed. I think his unique backstory with being so dependent on women to live a happier and more lavish life style, significantly effect how he views Ellen beyond AM’s tampering

Throughout the short story Ted constantly thinks ill of Ellen. Even though prior to being placed in this hell, she had only had sex twice before. But she is the last woman alive on earth. The video game(while following a different plot line(still one that is extremely tragic and literally made me cry)) expresses that even before Ellen’s assualr she had little to no interest in sex. She would never have had sex with the four men if it weren’t for

1. AM

2. Being the Last women alive

3. AM’s deliberate tampering

In a world where characters like Benny have been so permanently physically marked as a form of torture by AM, something like sex, is not as extreme in comparison(at least from Ted’s perspective). However to be the last woman alive, with minimal interest in sex, to be tampered with in such a way, is such a horrific form of torture.

I’m going to shift a way from this for a second to talk about Ted’s backstory for the video game. I understand that the videogame makes changes in terms of backstory for some of the characters(like Benny), so we can’t claim Ted’s backstory for the game is even remotely close to whatever it might have been for the short story. However, I still think can provide interesting context to his behavior towards Ellen.

Starting off, he really isn’t the cool rich guy that he played himself off to be when life was still normal. He never came from money, he was poor and he was forced to work and couldn’t go to school. However he was good looking which is resulted in older woman being attracted to him. And when he was NINETEEN, one older woman gave him her husband’s money and offered him the chance to travel and live in luxury.

Now this probably isn’t important, or was even taken into consideration by the game makers, but I was curious as to what the possible age gap between this older woman and Ted could be. The were together for 5 years, then she died

She died specifically of an aneurysm, which according to Google typically happens between the ages of 30 to 60. There is all this stuff with the Cold War and ww3 and I was going to try to do all this math with it but it’s too late for that and not relevant to the point I’m trying to make. But I’m just going to do some simple mental math and estimate that it might have been late 60’s or early 70’s when the older woman and Ted first got into a relationship. As I’m assuming everything went to shit in 1995 since that’s when the game came out, and 25 years had passed after he met the woman. Also this makes sense as Ted’s grandfather sold the farm due to the Great Depression, since most people married and had kids young, I’m going to be generous and say grandpa was 30 in 1929, and Ted’s mother or father was 9, then 10-12 years later Ted was born. Then 19 years later it would be about the 60’s or 70’s.

I am going to presume that the older woman had been married to her husband for at least 15 years. So it might have been 50’s at the earliest possibility. And the average age people married at then was when they were in their 20’s. So when she met Ted she was AT THE EARLIEST 35. Making her at least 16 years older than Ted when the first got together. But also worth noting that they do specifically mention older. So if we look on the higher side of the typical ages for aneurisms she could have been 55 when they first met(as the 5 years would pass making her 60) so she could have been 36 years older than him.

This seriously isn’t relevant to the actual point I’m trying to make with Ellen and Ted but I got sucked in. I guess I just wanted to highlight that Ted did not have the power in this relationship, he was young and poor, while she was old and rich, and I can imagine how that kind of relationship would impact him.

The next thing I want to note is the use of the word ‘lover’.

Though it can be used in a strictly romantic non intimate sense, I think it is used in the sexual way here.

Especially with the provided context of two different definitions of the word ‘lover’ both highlighting it’s connotations with sexual relationships

Furthermore, Ted’s relationship with the older woman is essentially just a sugar baby relationship. She is letting him experience things he never could have without her money. She teaches him how to act as a socialite and gets him used to the high life.

In connection to the sexual elements above, there was a video I wanted to link here but I can’t find it anywhere anymore. It was a YouTube video with a bunch of sugar babies discussing their experiences. And one woman confides that you really won’t make much money if you are in a platonic or non intimate romantic relationship with your sugar parent. If you want to make money and live richly, you have to preform sexual favors.

Now it’s hard to say if this was the only relationship with an older woman that Ted had been in. But regardless of whether it was one woman or a billion, using his body in order to get something that he wants has become an important asset to Ted; As seen in the castle with the maid and the witch. His love for Ellen(in the video game) helps him break past this fatal flaw of his, despite AM’s obvious temptations to make him fail.

Even if this stuff was in anyone’s minds when they wrote Ted’s backstory but I think it’s extremely important to note, especially as we return to my main point.

As stated before, Ted views Ellen negatively due to her promiscuity, despite the desire(felt really gross typing this word in this context) being placed in her as a form of torture by AM. She also is a woman, and Ted’s life has been spent around using and being used by women, so definitely lots of conflicting stuff there. Additionally Ted’s experiences with sexual relations are shown to be based in being transactional.

When he agrees with Ellen to go to the caves to get the food, she rewards him by being intimate with him to show her gratitude. Ted sees it as her ‘using him.’ (From the Radio Drama, I was going to post the clip but I could only post one video in a tumblr post apparently)

In the comic, after this encounter he questions her motivations. What she got out of it, once again thinking transactionally. But her response

“Does there have to be a reason”

Really gets to me. Especially after looking at all this intertextual context. Thinking about video game Ted’s backstory with book Ted’s thoughts and behaviors, he is shown to always think there is some kind of catch. No one is doing something without getting something in return, especially if that thing is kindness.

Ted is so intensely paranoid(as seen in all versions). I think by pairing up the backstory for the game with the short story/comic/radio drama it’s evident to see how heavily affected he is by it.

He thinks he has been tormented less by AM, making him paranoid of the others, contributing towards his behavior towards Ellen. Yet despite everything from the past and all of AM’s tampering, he still finds comfort with Ellen. Her unfaltering kindness manages to reach him even when he dismisses it as a farce. She doesn’t hate him or the others for how they’ve treated her, she still wants to help them. He still cares for her and the others. But he is filled with so much fear. He even apologizes to her.

I feel like at that point in the Radio drama marks a shift. Ted has made a realization about AM and it’s a lot for him, but Ellen is there for him. It’s a genuinely sincere act of kindness from her where she doesn’t ask or expect anything in return. They have some kind of connection. Once again blending the different versions, I think that this moment between them comes together in the end when they kill the other victims together. They don’t speak to each other, they just do it quickly and he kills her. And here he doesn’t refer to her by any degrading names. In the comic he holds her. Like how in the radio drama she held him.

Overall I just wanted to point out how well all these versions really mix to provide so much more behind each character. The backstories for the video game allow the reader to understand book Ted’s actions and relationships from a new angle.

The is was super duper major mess of a ramble. It’s now 3 am and I have a migraine, so I’m done for tonight. I might clean this up another time or make another post about Video game Ted with context to his backstory since I didn’t include the events from the video game in here.

Once again these are just my thoughts and beliefs on how I think the video game backstory for Ted provides interesting context for Book Ted. I know that both stories play out differently and both Ted’s act differently so please don’t get angry if you disagree with the message of stuff I said

mini sequel post about video game Ted

[ms-demeanor]

Hey, if you have the time, would you be willing to help me understand whether msg is harmful or not? I'm seeing a lot of conflicting information when I try to look it up, though I understand that a lot of the basis of the (us) hate for it is just racism. In particular this paper worries me and I don't feel that I have the tools to parse it well- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5938543/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjyoJ_3-bqBAxXRF1kFHeF1DPMQFnoECA0QBg&usg=AOvVaw0i4ZlJU2xakrpbz-DMFx24

Okay, we're going to play chase the reference with a few of the links in this paper.

the [3] link there (which makes the claim that MSG reactions occur 20 minutes after consumption) leads to this paper, which is a case study of a single patient who had swelling in his throat after eating at a Chinese restaurant. That paper has only 7 citations, 4 of which were at least 30 years old (and one was 50 years old) at the time of publication.

Let's dial in to something interesting in that case study:

First of all, the case study that proved symptoms come on in 20 minutes was for a case when symptoms came on after more than eight hours. Secondly let's look at that last sentence - those two papers found that MSG consumption without solids (as in soups) was associated with more reported symptoms, right?

Well. Not completely. Obayashi and Nagamura's review found that the studies in which increased reports of symptoms were present were the ones in which it was possible to taste the difference between MSG and the control, OR in studies where the flavor of even the control was so strong that people might have thought they were being given MSG. The studies in which the MSG was dissolved in chicken stock found no significant difference between groups consuming MSG or a control.

And the other review cited there [7] did note more symptoms reported without solid food, but also noted that those results weren't reproducible.

So the root paper links to a case study that doesn't actually support the sentence it's cited in and that itself cites two papers as evidence that draw different conclusions than the authors of the case study.

That's one source chased. Let's chase another. The misused paper from the case study also shows up in the root paper.

the claim "75 mg/kg MSG significantly elevated systolic blood pressure" is supported by two whole citations. Let's see what they say. Obayashi and Nagamura are pretty clear:

That's the only observation of blood pressure listed in that paper.

What about Shimada et al.?

well, that actually wasn't what they were looking at, there were confounding factors, and the dose that produced the described results is twice what was listed in the root paper.

and actually the 75mg/kg dose in the root paper is mentioned in citation [5] in this paper and whoops, the low (75mg/kg) dose was *not* associated with increases in blood pressure:

Also. I mean. Jeeze. For an adult weighing 200lbs, 75mg/kg is 6 grams.

What did the root paper say they thought the average daily intake was?

so 75mg/kg is six times higher than the high end of an estimated average and is not enough to cause a statistically significant increase in blood pressure. Cool cool cool.

I've looked at this paper long enough now to get really mad at it.

Paragraph by paragraph, here's what this paper says:

MSG: what if it's poison?

According to multiple studies of rodents in which MSG was injected subcutaneously in juvenile animals MSG might cause obesity or neurological symptoms similar to traumatic brain injury. If humans were to get doses similar to infant mice being subcutaneously injected with MSG as toddlers it could be catastrophic.

This one guy even got a swollen throat from MSG eight hours after eating some soup once and some people who study headaches says it's more common to have bad reactions to msg in soup and he ate soup please ignore that actually the headache people weren't saying reports were more common from people eating soup.

Both animal studies with extremely high doses of MSG and a human study with broken links that doesn't appear on the publisher's website anymore suggest that MSG could do reproductive harm or at least make cramps worse possibly.

The way that people have discussed asthma and MSG in the past is really extreme and super negative but actually there's never been a connection proven there.

And actually it seems like maybe MSG prevents anemia? Neat? Possibly. ANYWAY:

what harmful effects??? You have not successfully described any harmful effects!!!!

this kind of thing shows up all the fuck over the place, look at this bit from a totally different paper:

that cites one nearly 40 year old study, two studies that are nearly 30 years old, two rodent studies, and:

and a literature review that does not reflect those findings and calls for further research because there is poor evidence for those claims.

I'm so mad.

I'm not mad at you, I'm mad that the root article frontloaded with a bunch of complicated neurological stuff that is difficult for anyone without a neuroscience background to parse (i sure can't) and then left the bullshit and misused citations for later in the paper. I'm mad that half of the articles cited in every one of these papers is skeptical of MSG as a risk or a threat and those skeptical papers are being linked to as evidence of MSG as a threat. I'm mad that this stuff is inaccessible and confusing because it doesn't need to be confusing i don't know why these people who work at universities and hospitals are writing these kinds of bullshit papers, I don't know why if you look for information about the safety of msg you get webMD "medically verified" articles that tell you to avoid tomato sauce. I hate all of this and I'm so mad and it's bullshit but here is a very long writeup on why the methodology of a lot of the studies cited in the article you linked are not ideal; this piece goes over a lot of the supposed harms of MSG with a fine toothed comb and generally finds that food amounts of MSG are likely fine and that it's probably worthwhile to do some research on MSG as it relates to fetal development but that it should pretty much be considered safe.

[robertreich]

How Amazon Is Ripping You Off

Shopping on Amazon? Stop! Watch this first.

Amazon is the world’s biggest online retailer. This one single juggernaut of a company is responsible for nearly 40% of all online sales in America. In an FTC lawsuit, they’re accused of using their mammoth size, and consumers’ dependence on them, to artificially jack up prices as high as possible, while prohibiting sellers on Amazon from charging lower prices anywhere else.

They’re accused of using a secret algorithm, codenamed "Project Nessie," to charge customers an estimated extra $1 billion dollars,

If this isn’t an abuse of power that hurts consumers, what is? So much for all of those “prime” deals you thought you were getting.

Project Nessie isn’t the only trick Amazon has been accused of using to exert its hulking dominance over the online retail industry — leading to higher prices for you.

Much of the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit centers around the treatment of independent merchants who sell items on Amazon’s online superstore — accounting for 60 percent of Amazon's sales.

Amazon allegedly uses strongarm tactics that force these sellers to keep their prices higher than they need to be. Like barring them from selling products for significantly less at other stores — or else risk being hidden in Amazon’s search results or having their sales stopped entirely.

And Amazon is accused of engaging in pay-to-play schemes and charging merchants excessive fees that end up costing you even more.

Independent sellers are effectively forced to pay Amazon to advertise their products prominently in search results. If they don’t fork over cash, then their products get buried underneath products of companies who do. This hurts sellers but also harms shoppers who have to parse through less relevant products that may be more expensive or lower quality.

And to be eligible for the coveted “Prime” badge on their items — which is considered crucial for competing on the platform — independent sellers are pushed into paying Amazon for additional services like warehousing and shipping, even if they could get those services cheaper elsewhere. If sellers forgo trying to qualify for Prime, their goods apparently become harder for customers to find.

When all of these extra fees are added up, Amazon takes around a 50 percent cut of each sale made by a third party. It’s projected that Amazon will earn around $125 billion from collecting fees in the U.S. in 2023, most of which get passed on to you.

By charging all of these extra fees and stifling independent companies from selling their products for less elsewhere, Amazon is using its dominance to essentially set prices for all consumers across the internet.

And when you combine Amazon’s control of ecommerce with all of the other industries it has entered by gobbling up companies — such as Whole Foods, One Medical, and MGM — you’re left with a behemoth that simply has too much power.

This is all part of a much larger problem of growing corporate dominance in America. In over 75% of U.S. industries, fewer companies now control more of their markets than they did twenty years ago.

The lack of competition and consumer choice has resulted in all of us paying more for goods because corporations like Amazon can raise their prices with impunity. By one estimate, corporate concentration has cost the typical American household $5,000 a year more than they would have spent if markets were truly competitive.

This power isn’t just being used to siphon more money from you. A giant corporation has the power to bust unions, keep workers’ wages low, and funnel money into our political system.

It’s a vicious cycle, making giant corporations more and more powerful.

But under the Biden administration, the government is making a strong effort to revive antitrust law and use its power to reign in big corporations that have grown too powerful.

We must stop the monopolization of America. This FTC lawsuit against Amazon is a great start.

[ghoulfuckersincorporated]

If you get pregnant from a ghoul, what would the kid be like? Human? Ghoul? Some weird freakish third thing? Even Gulpers are just mutated humans so anything is possible.

(I'll put a trigger warning here for "mild discussion of pregnancy loss/premature birth", in case that upsets anyone.)

My official answer to this is: "looks human, but closer to a freakish third thing when you get down to the details".

The pregnancy certainly wouldn't be a cakewalk. Frankly, I think you'd have to have a pretty preternatural resistance to radiation to successfully conceive with a ghoul to begin with (which we see is achievable for some people; otherwise I think there would just straight up be no successful fertilization/implantation). If you were able to make it happen, I think the fetus would be quite radioactive itself early on, and you'd struggle a lot. You might be able to get away with the occasional dose of Radaway if you're incredibly sick, like too sick to function, but too much of it and I think you'd be risking unfavorable outcomes. With luck (and maybe a higher-than-average endurance), things might taper off the further along you get. I imagine the birth would be unremarkable, all other regular health factors considered, unless you found yourself so ill from the baseline radiation that you were unable to continue carrying to full term and were forced to deliver prematurely. The odds of that certainly aren't zero. Your breast milk would make a Geiger counter go nuts.

It's hard to imagine the 50% genetic spawn of a ghoul wouldn't be significantly more radiation resistant, right? Like, at minimum? Personally, I think if you had a baby with a ghoul, that kid would be constantly drawn to play in puddles of nuclear fallout, to drink from dirty sources, to want to go outside during rad storms. Radiation is healing and refreshing for ghouls, so I would imagine at least some of that would transfer, no matter how much it makes you worry. You'd probably find the kid sucking on a power core if you turned your back for too long.

I, personally, would think that a kid like that would age normally, but since we know ghouls have that super-regenerative ability, maybe there's a chance that they'd shoot through the puberty phase really quickly? I mean, that "growing" phase in adolescence is basically just a bunch of cells dying off and being regenerated/high rates of cell generation to build muscle and bone mass. Again, I'd like to think they'd grow pretty typically, all things considered, but it's certainly something to think about.

That regenerative ability could certainly prove quite...tricky at times. We've seen how quickly it can heal wounds, which is great for something like a puncture or a stab wound...but what about a broken bone? I can't help but be reminded of an audio diary you can find in Bioshock 2 that talks about the Little Sisters' insane regenerative ability and its disadvantages. At one point, one of the girls escapes from the researchers studying them and throws herself over a balcony (trying to escape or end her life, though which is unclear), shattering both of her legs. But by the time they've made it to the bottom where she's lying, her legs have already healed at a bunch of fucked up and unnatural angles, so they have to break her legs over and over again until they can set them correctly. With as quickly as we see ghouls heal in the show (and in the games), it's hard to imagine you wouldn't run into the same issue, as horrific as it is.

Can you imagine your child having to go through that because they fell playing (or fleeing, god forbid) and broke their arm, or their collarbone or something? Can you imagine having to be the person doing the breaking? What if there's no one else to do it?

I'd also assume that, as they age into their teen years/early adulthood, their aging would slow, though I think exactly how much it would slow would depend on the individual child and their circumstances. I do think half-ghoul children would be able to be turned fully ghoul through some conventional means, just maybe over a longer period of time and with much higher doses of radiation.

[mariacallous]

A little bit of alcohol was once thought to be good for you. However, as scientific research advances, we’re gaining a clearer picture of alcohol’s effect on health—especially regarding cancer.

The complex relationship between alcohol and cancer was recently highlighted in a new report from the American Association for Cancer Research. The report’s findings are eye-opening.

The authors of the report estimate that 40 percent of all cancer cases are associated with “modifiable risk factors”—in other words, things we can change ourselves. Alcohol consumption being prominent among them.

Six types of cancer are linked to alcohol consumption: head and neck cancers, esophageal cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and stomach cancer.

The statistics are sobering. In 2019, more than one in 20 cancer diagnoses in the West were attributed to alcohol consumption, and this is increasing with time. This figure challenges the widespread perception of alcohol as a harmless social lubricant and builds on several well-conducted studies linking alcohol consumption to cancer risk.

But this isn’t just about the present—it’s also about the future. The report highlights a concerning trend: rising rates of certain cancers among younger adults. It’s a plot twist that researchers like me are still trying to understand, but alcohol consumption is emerging as a potential frontrunner in the list of causes.

Of particular concern is the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer among adults under 50. The report notes a 1.9 percent annual increase between 2011 and 2019.

While the exact causes of this trend are still being investigated, research consistently shows a link between frequent and regular drinking in early and mid-adulthood and a higher risk of colon and rectal cancers later in life. But it’s also important to realize this story isn’t a tragedy.

It’s more of a cautionary tale with the potential for a hopeful ending. Unlike many risk factors for cancer, alcohol consumption is one we can control. Reducing or eliminating alcohol intake can lower the risk, offering a form of empowerment in the face of an often unpredictable disease.

The relationship between alcohol and cancer risk generally follows a dose-response pattern, meaning simply that higher levels of consumption are associated with greater risk. Even light to moderate drinking has been linked to increased risk for some cancers, particularly breast cancer.

Yet it’s crucial to remember that while alcohol increases cancer risk, it doesn’t mean everyone who drinks will develop cancer. Many factors contribute to cancer development.

Damages DNA

The story doesn’t end with these numbers. It extends to the very cells of our bodies, where alcohol’s journey begins. When we drink, our bodies break down alcohol into acetaldehyde, a substance that can damage our DNA, the blueprint of our cells. This means that alcohol can potentially rewrite our DNA and create changes called mutations, which in turn can cause cancer.

The tale grows more complex when we consider the various ways alcohol interacts with our bodies. It can impair nutrient and vitamin absorption, alter hormone levels, and even make it easier for harmful chemicals to penetrate cells in the mouth and throat. It can affect the bacteria in our guts, the so-called microbiome, that we live with and is important for our health and well-being.

Alcohol consumption is also linked to other aspects of our own health and lifestyle and it’s important not just to consider this alone. Tobacco use and smoking, for instance, can significantly amplify the cancer risks associated with alcohol. Genetic factors play a role too, with certain variations affecting how our bodies metabolize (break down) alcohol.

Physical inactivity and obesity, often associated with heavy drinking, also separately increase cancer risks but on top of alcohol makes this much worse. Despite this, misconceptions persist. The type of alcoholic beverage, be it beer, wine, or spirits, doesn’t significantly alter the cancer risk. It’s the ethanol (the chemical name for alcohol) itself that’s carcinogenic (cancer-causing).

And while some studies have suggested that red wine might have protective effects against certain diseases, there’s no clear evidence that it helps prevent cancer.

The potential risks of alcohol consumption probably outweigh any potential benefits. The takeaway is not that we should never enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with friends. Rather, it’s about being aware of the potential risks and making choices that align with our health goals. It’s about moderation, mindfulness, and informed decisionmaking.

Alcohol has lots of effects not just in terms of causing cancer. A recent large study of more than 135,000 older drinkers in the UK has shown that the more people drink, the higher the risk of death from any cause.

These and similar findings underscore the importance of public awareness and education about the potential risks associated with alcohol consumption. As our understanding of the alcohol-cancer link grows, it becomes increasingly clear that what many consider a harmless indulgence may have more significant health implications than previously thought.

Unfortunately, not many people appear to be aware of these risks. In the US, around half of people don’t know that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done to overcome this lack of awareness.

[curlyhairedbooklover]

What is the gender spilt of the murders in NBC Hannibal?

This is the third of three posts though this one works as a standalone, the first two are about the characters saying each other’s names and can be found here and here (I promise they are much more interesting than that summary makes them sound….) I decided to make this post because of this quote from Bryan Fuller; “And we are very conscious in the writer’s room; ‘Okay we just killed a woman, we have to kill a guy now.’” (47:20) And I always wondered how well they actually managed to do that…. thus I went out and collected the data and here it is!!

Adding a quick disclaimer that I did this for fun so I haven’t double checked it meaning there may be some mistakes!

As you can see from the data it turns out that they did kill less women than men during the show!!!! The total known kills in the show are 200 with 98 of them being men, 65 women and 37 were unknown!! I also kept track of who did the murder and those categories are: Hannibal, killer of the week, Will, and other.

To preface, I am only using “women” and “men” for my categories in this data as the show does not depict any trans or nb people (explicitly at least, there are a couple metaphorical/subtextual ones…) and if I could not tell the person’s gender or I simply did not see a body I categorised them as “unknown” 

You will be pleased to know that Hannibal killed 39.5 people (the 0.5 is Dolarhyde which I split between Will and Hannibal as it was a joint kill 😌)  over the show on screen and that 26.5 of them were men, 9 were women and only 4 were unknown! All I can say is that Hannibal is a feminist queen! That or women are significantly less rude in the Hannibal universe… although Freddie seems to defy that theory…. He does kill the most in s1 at 21 times! That essentially halves in s2 to only 12 times and again to 6.5 times in s3.. although it’s worth noting that I was unable to count his kills at Muskrat Farm as we don’t see any bodies on screen (though the script implies it was at least 7) and I only counted the Il Mostro kills that we saw evidence of instead of including the amount killed by the actual Il Mostro killer(s).. Not to mention that he spent half the season in prison! So all that said he did okay! Also I personally believe that his kill count across his lifetime is easily in the high hundreds, he has to meal plan if nothing else so let's put some respect on his name as Hannibal THEE Cannibal!

Unsurprisingly the killers of the week did make up most of the kills in the show, and killed 62 men, 56 women and 33 of unknown gender altogether. The killer of the week who did the most murder is James Grey at a whopping 50 but he did have a mural to create so that takes a lot of bodies! Second place goes to Lawrence Wells who murdered 17 people over his lifetime to create his totem pole, while Clark Ingram sneaks in at 3rd with 16 murders, although he only killed women and is the main reason why the women’s s2 kill count is higher than the men’s, boooooo! Poor Dolarhyde had to pick up all the slack in s3 as the only killer of the week but he did at least get 15 kills in! Sadly he was bound by the orders of the moon and could not do the suitable legwork 😔

Now Will DID get his own section of the table as is his right as the main character 😤 even if he only killed 3 people (which translates to 2.5 on the table as a result of having to share the dragon with Hannibal…). But they were all monumental kills, I mean Garret Jacob Hobbs haunted the rest of the show, Randall was turned into a magnificent tableau, and Francis was the culmination of his becoming and gave us That Ending!! It’s also not like he didn’t successfully manipulate multiple people into killing (or almost killing) people so I think he deserves extra points for those if only in our hearts!! Despite his low kill count he is the character we see commit murder the most on the show! He fantasises/imagines/hallucinates murdering 32 people across the show!! As the show moved away from the procedural nature he imagined killing less people; with s1 standing at 16, s2 moving down to 9 and then only 7 in s3! Just because most of the time he’s empathising with killers to recreate their kills doesn’t make the scenes any less sexy or iconic!!

The 7 other kills actually all come from women!! Another feminism win!! 3.3 is when Chiyoh killed her prisoner after being manipulated into it by Will. 3.7 sees Chiyoh kill again, this time’s it’s the 2 guys who were going to kill Jack and the 2 guards at Muskrat Farm, where we also we get Mason’s murder from Alana and Margot!! Then in 3.10 we get the flashback to Bedelia killing her patient! Go Girls!! Whooo!! 

In conclusion no one is surprised that there is a lot of murder in this show and Bryan Fuller while not exactly alternating each week in killing off each gender did not kill more women than men so arguably achieved his goal!

(part 1) (part 2) (part 3)

[solarpunkani]

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Dockworkers at ports from Maine to Texas began walking picket lines early Tuesday in a strike over wages and automation that could reignite inflation and cause shortages of goods if it goes on more than a few weeks.

The contract between the ports and about 45,000 members of the International Longshoremen’s Association expired at midnight, and even though progress was reported in talks on Monday, the workers went on strike. The strike affecting 36 ports is the first by the union since 1977.

Workers began picketing at the Port of Philadelphia shortly after midnight, walking in a circle at a rail crossing outside the port and chanting “No work without a fair contract.”

The union had message boards on the side of a truck reading: “Automation Hurts Families: ILA Stands For Job Protection.”

Local ILA president Boise Butler said workers want a fair contract that doesn’t allow automation of their jobs.

Shipping companies made billions during the pandemic by charging high prices, he said. “Now we want them to pay back. They’re going to pay back,” Butler said.

He said the union will strike for as long as it needs to get a fair deal, and it has leverage over the companies.

“This is not something that you start and you stop,” he said. “We’re not weak,” he added, pointing to the union’s importance to the nation’s economy

At Port Houston, at least 50 workers started picketing around midnight local time carrying signs saying “No Work Without a Fair Contract.”

The U.S. Maritime Alliance, which represents the ports, said Monday evening that both sides had moved off of their previous wage offers. But no deal was reached.

The union’s opening offer in the talks was for a 77% pay raise over the six-year life of the contract, with President Harold Daggett saying it’s necessary to make up for inflation and years of small raises. ILA members make a base salary of about $81,000 per year, but some can pull in over $200,000 annually with large amounts of overtime.

But Monday evening, the alliance said it had increased its offer to 50% raises over six years, and it pledged to keep limits on automation in place from the old contract. The union wants a complete ban on automation. It wasn’t clear just how far apart both sides are.

“We are hopeful that this could allow us to fully resume collective bargaining around the other outstanding issues in an effort to reach an agreement,” the alliance statement said.

In a statement early Tuesday, the union said it rejected the alliance’s latest proposal because it “fell far short of what ILA rank-and-file members are demanding in wages and protections against automation.” The two sides had not held formal negotiations since June.

“We are prepared to fight as long as necessary, to stay out on strike for whatever period of time it takes, to get the wages and protections against automation our ILA members deserve,” Daggett said in the statement. “They must now meet our demands for this strike to end.”

The alliance said its offer tripled employer contributions to retirement plans and strengthened health care options.

Supply chain experts say consumers won’t see an immediate impact from the strike because most retailers stocked up on goods, moving ahead shipments of holiday gift items.

But if it goes more than a few weeks, a work stoppage would significantly snarl the nation’s supply chain, potentially leading to higher prices and delays in goods reaching households and businesses.

If drawn out, the strike will force businesses to pay shippers for delays and cause some goods to arrive late for peak holiday shopping season — potentially impacting delivery of anything from toys or artificial Christmas trees to cars, coffee and fruit.

The strike will likely have an almost immediate impact on supplies of perishable imports like bananas, for example. The ports affected by the strike handle 3.8 million metric tons of bananas each year, or 75% of the nation’s supply, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

It also could snarl exports from East Coast ports and create traffic jams at ports on the West Coast, where workers are represented by a different union. Railroads say they can ramp up to carry more freight from the West Coast, but analysts say they can’t move enough to make up for the closed Eastern ports.

“If the strikes go ahead, they will cause enormous delays across the supply chain, a ripple effect which will no doubt roll into 2025 and cause chaos across the industry,” noted Jay Dhokia, founder of supply chain management and logistics firm Pro3PL.

J.P. Morgan estimated that a strike that shuts down East and Gulf coast ports could cost the economy $3.8 billion to $4.5 billion per day, with some of that recovered over time after normal operations resume.

The strike comes just weeks before the presidential election and could become a factor if there are shortages. Retailers, auto parts suppliers and produce importers had hoped for a settlement or that President Joe Biden would intervene and end the strike using the Taft-Hartley Act, which allows him to seek an 80-day cooling off period.

But during an exchange with reporters on Sunday, Biden, who has worked to court union votes for Democrats, said “no” when asked if he planned to intervene in the potential work stoppage.

A White House official said Monday that at Biden’s direction, the administration has been in regular communication with the ILA and the alliance to keep the negotiations moving forward. The president directed Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and National Economic Council Director Lael Brainard to convene the alliance’s board members Monday afternoon and urge them to resolve the dispute fairly and quickly — in a way that accounts for the success of shipping companies in recent years and contributions of union workers.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Adjusting for specificity of symptoms reveals higher prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections than previously estimated - Preprint Posted Sept 12, 2024

A very important preprint I'll be keeping an eye on: 40% asymptomatic cases may be a dramatic underestimation.

ABSTRACT Accurate estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, ψ, have been important for understanding and forecasting the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. Two-part population-based surveys, which test the infection status and also assess symptoms, have been used to estimate ψ. Here, we identified a widely prevalent confounding effect that compromises these estimates and devised a formalism to adjust for it. The symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are not all specific to SARS-CoV-2. They can be triggered by a host of other conditions, such as influenza virus infection. By not accounting for the source of the symptoms, the surveys may misclassify individuals experiencing symptoms from other conditions as symptomatic for SARS-CoV-2, thus underestimating ψ. We developed a rigorous formalism to adjust for this confounding effect and derived a facile formula for the adjusted prevalence, ψadj. We applied it to data from 50 published serosurveys, conducted on the general populations from 28 nations. We found that ψadj was significantly higher than the reported prevalence, ψc (P=3×10−8). The median ψadj was ∼60%, whereas the median ψc was ∼40%. In several instances, ψadj exceeded ψc by >100%. These findings suggest that asymptomatic infections have been far more prevalent than previously estimated. Our formalism can be readily deployed to obtain more accurate estimates of ψ from standard population-based surveys, without additional data collection. The findings have implications for understanding COVID-19 epidemiology and devising more effective interventions.

[maaarine]

Iron age men left home to join wives' families, DNA study suggests (Nicola Davis, The Guardian, Jan 15 2025)

"Writing in the journal Nature, archaeologists report how they studied the genomes of more than 50 individuals buried in a cluster of cemeteries in Dorset.

Most of these individuals were associated with the Durotriges tribe, a Celtic group that occupied the central southern coast of Britain from about 100BC to AD100.

These sites have previously been of interest to experts, not only because iron age burials are rare but because the women tended to be buried with valuable items more often than the men.

“That is suggesting not much of a status difference between men and women, or even perhaps higher-status burials for women,” said Cassidy.

“How that actually then translates into the role of women in the society, that’s hard to say. And that’s why genetic data adds another important dimension there.”

Cassidy and colleagues analysed DNA and mitochondrial DNA – genetic material from within the cells’ powerhouses – revealing that the majority of individuals were related to each other.

Crucially, many shared the same mitochondrial DNA – genetic material that is passed down only from mothers to their offspring.

“They all were female-line descendants, [from the] same woman,” said Cassidy.

The team say this genetic evidence and modelling work suggest the community was matrilocal: in other words, the women stayed put, with men moving into the group to join their wives.

The conclusion was supported by considerable diversity in the Y chromosome of the men, with males showing significantly lower levels of genetic relatedness to other individuals, and by males being more likely to have different mitochondrial DNA than that which was widely shared.

The team then looked at DNA from other iron age burial sites across Britain, again finding signs of matrilocal communities.

“It’s looking that this is quite widespread across the island by that period,” said Cassidy.

While the study does not reveal whether the iron age societies had tribal groupings organised specifically around the maternal line, or suggest there was a matriarchy, the results offer new insights into the communities.

“Matrilocality is a strong predictor of female social and political empowerment,” Cassidy said, noting that if the women stayed put, they were more likely to inherit, control land, be players in the local economy, and have influence.

Writing in an accompanying article, Dr Guido Alberto Gnecchi Ruscone from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, said the findings echoed Roman writings that depicted Celtic women, such as Boudicca, as empowered figures.

“Although Roman writers often exoticised these societies,” he wrote, “the genetic evidence shown by Cassidy and colleagues validates some of their claims about the special role that women had in Celtic Britain.”"

[gabbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

Tnmn AU idea: UNL1K3LY.

A very creative logo here, i know.

CHARACTERS (w/ subtle premise mentions)!!

Mask Clown/“Anon”

(Will be addressed as “Anon” until a canon name is provided by NachoSama)

Early-mid 30s, Mechanic/Engineer

Just some strange guy in his apartment that builds cool and silly little things—before meeting the Nightmare Clown that is…

Rather than spending his days passing out papers about evil nightmare clowns and the secrets of the D.D.D. As his basegame counterpart, this man is an engineer/mechanic who holds no affiliation with the D.D.D. Whatsoever, and just so happened to encounter the Nightmare Clown/“Unlikely” one night after a long day of work (the rest being history)

Became close with the Nightmare Clown, through game-playing, and chatting about the mortal realm, something that the paracosm-borne clown seemed to be heavily interested in…

Likes robots. A lot.

Chester Titor

Early 50s, Farmer Programmer/Engineer

A grumpy next door neighbor, gone wacky time-traveling sci-fi loving 22nd century cyborg, as a result of a sudden Alien abduction just a few months before.

Ever since the abduction, Chester and Anon became close pals, teacher and apprentice, helping him with his inventions, lending tips, and even assisting him in building a robot…a suspiciously clown-shaped robot

Is also affiliated with Unlikely, having met him and a few times, and even helping Anon out with building a surprise for the clown…

Also likes robots. A lot (as well as having more knowledge on the subject)

next up, is Unlikely…

…

Correction…

UNL1K3LY

The same, bad good ol’ Unlikely, now piloting a direct metal replica of himself! (Now with a slightly higher amount of loose screws!)

The once widely feared cognitohazard/nightmare, now possesses this hunk of steel, he’s a little clumsy, but he’s getting the hang of it (his “soul” can retract itself from the machine, and can be transferred to computers, and other devices such as tvs and gaming consoles.)

Significantly more powerful, his already brutish nature and horrific strength boosted with the help of technology, and the brains of two smartass weirdos and their tools

Can summon holograms of cards, dice, and can even turn your deepest fears into burned in mirages…

Edgy robot stuff aside, he’s prone to glitching and burning out easily, usually from strong emotions of anger, or embarrassment. He also gets feisty during maintenance time. (His wires are…sensitive.)

And for those who are wondering…yes, there are still some parts of him that are considered ‘squishy’, which are his torso, and most of his face, due to a protective silicone layer!

Important notes: the storyline of this AU is in the early 2000s, rather than the 1950s. Characters and ages are the same, the time simply shifted for the Au’s sake.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Rebecca Solnit: photographer unknown]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 10, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Jan 11, 2025

Today the Department of Labor released the final jobs report of Joe Biden’s presidency. The nation added 256,000 new jobs in December, a number significantly higher than economists expected. That brings the total number of jobs created under Biden to 16.6 million and makes Biden’s the only administration in history to have created jobs every month. Under the Biden administration, the nation has also had the lowest average unemployment rate of any administration in 50 years, ending at 4.1%.

Dan Primack of Axios reported that the U.S. gained more jobs during Biden’s four years than it did under President Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or George W. Bush.

In a statement, Biden noted that when he took office, economic forecasts projected that it would take years for the country to recover fully from the effects of the coronavirus shutdown. In fact, the U.S. economy has grown faster and created more jobs than any other country with an advanced economy. Working-age women are now employed at record levels, and the gap in employment between Black Americans and their white counterparts is at the lowest level on record. The administration has brought the inflation of the early recovery back down almost to target levels, while incomes have increased about $4,000 more than prices. The administration, Biden said, has “achieved the soft landing that few thought was possible.”

CNBC economist Carl Quintanilla quoted Matt Peterson of Barron’s, who wrote: “It looks a lot like U.S. consumers are happy with the way things are...[a]nd so are the markets.... The only one who doesn’t seem to be happy with the way things are is Trump.”

Brian Platt of Bloomberg reports that Trump’s threats of tariffs against Canada already have Canadian officials drafting plans for retaliation. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau told CNN yesterday that Trump is talking about annexing Canada to divert attention from how significantly his tariff plans would raise consumer prices.

As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo noted late last year, MAGA was never an ideological movement so much as a vehicle to pull together different constituencies in order to get Trump elected president. Since members of those constituencies have little in common, that effort centers around creating a false world that demonizes Democrats and insists they have created a dangerous world that is biased against MAGA. The only one who can stand against them, the story goes, is Trump, who is being persecuted for his defense of his supporters. That narrative has helped MAGAs to find common ground in their defense of Trump and his cronies and their support for Trump’s vows to retaliate against those he considers his enemies.

That impulse appears to be stronger than ever after Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump today in the New York election interference case in which a jury found Trump guilty of 34 felonies for covering up payments to an adult film actress to keep her quiet about their sexual encounter before the 2016 presidential election. Merchan said that he could not impose a punishment without encroaching on the presidency, so in an unusually light sentence, he released Trump without restrictions. As legal analyst Joyce White Vance explained, Trump knew he would not get jail time or a fine, but wanted to avoid the sentencing itself because just a month after the sentencing, the designation of convicted felon will become permanent.

Although a unanimous jury convicted him, Trump insisted the trial was “a political witch hunt…done to damage my reputation so that I’d lose the election…. The fact is I’m totally innocent.” He seemed to think that ratings should override reality, telling the judge: “I got the largest number of votes by far by any Republican in history,” he said, “and won, as you know, all seven swing states—won conclusively all seven swing states.”

Trump’s version of the case appeared to be convincing to MAGA pundits and lawmakers, who echoed his calls for retribution. Trump’s lawyer Mike Davis warned: “Right now the Democrats think they’re the hunters. And guess what? On January 20th at noon, they’re going to become the hunted.” Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Nancy Mace (R-SC), and Ronnie Jackson (R-TX) all echoed Trump. “Trump will win in the end and America wins in 10 days when we get Trump back!!” Jackson posted on X.

MAGA supporters have embraced Trump’s attacks on Democrats and on the government, most notably with their fact-free attacks on the Biden administration's handling of natural disasters—first the terrible flooding in North Carolina, when the right wing spread the lie that government officials were stealing people’s land, and now the terrible fires in Los Angeles that have been fueled in large part by the climate change that cut rainfall since last May and brought an unusually hot summer.

While local, state, and federal officials are doing their best to battle the Los Angeles fires in raging winds and dry conditions, Trump and his allies are lying to create the belief that the Democratic government is to blame for the fires. Trump lied that there is a shortage of water because Democratic governor Gavin Newsom refused to divert water to the area. Others claimed—falsely—that Democratic Mayor Karen Bass cut the budget for the Los Angeles Fire Department, when in fact a 7% increase in funding came through negotiations outside the budget.

They have blamed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts for the blazes because the Los Angeles Fire Department is headed by Kristin Crowley, an LGBT woman who came up through the ranks in the department over twenty years. And Trump sidekick Elon Musk agreed with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones that the fires are part of a “globalist plot” to trigger “total collapse” in the United States. “Gavin Newscum should resign. This is all his fault!!!” Trump posted.

In reality, firefighters are hard at work, with crews from both Canada and Mexico working along with Californians to suppress the fires.

Trump’s false version of reality has been a potent weapon against the Democrats, and he is promising to continue constructing that false reality: this week he has said he would replace the head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), who is responsible for collecting the documents that establish the historical record of the actions of the national government. The archivist’s predecessor was the person who pursued the classified documents Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, and Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt he would make sure that he had a loyalist in that position.

But it is an open question whether Trump’s false reality will be as convincing when he is back in the White House as it has been when he was sniping from outside. Trump has promised a number of conflicting things to the different constituencies in MAGA, and it is not clear that he can deliver them. And if he does, it’s not clear the American people will want what he is delivering.

Trump says he will nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services; more than 18,000 physicians have signed a letter warning that he is “unqualified” and “actively dangerous” to the health of Americans. Trump’s plan to elevate him to a position that impacts Americans is “a slap in the face to every health care professional who has spent their lives working to protect patients from preventable illness and death.”

Trump has vowed mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and the reinstatement of Title 42 to close the border to migrants, but as Biden and others repeatedly pointed out when Trump complained about Biden’s ending it, Title 42 is part of a 1944 public health law that can be invoked only to stop disease from coming into the U.S. Once the government declared the coronavirus pandemic over, Title 42 had to go. Yesterday, Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Hamed Aleaziz of the New York Times reported that Trump’s advisors, led by Stephen Miller, are searching for a disease to invoke to reinstate Title 42. They have even considered invoking the old trope that immigrants might bring an unknown disease.

But, unlike non-emergency immigration law, Title 42 does not impose penalties for those who try to cross the border repeatedly, a reality Trump used to great effect against Biden as border encounters soared when people made multiple attempts. Now those numbers will be on Trump’s account if he uses Title 42 going forward.

In the meantime, the Biden administration today extended temporary protected status for about a million immigrants from El Salvador, Sudan, Ukraine, and Venezuela who meet certain criteria. Their protection will be extended for 18 months under a 1990 law that stops the deportation of immigrants to countries at war or suffering from natural disasters. The new protection does not cover immigrants from 13 other nations who currently have protected status.

Nick Miroff, Maria Sacchetti and Marianne LeVine of the Washington Post noted that when he was in office before, Trump tried to end protections for Salvadorans and others, saying they came from “sh*thole” countries, and that he is expected to let protections expire during his second term.

When he was running for office, Trump pledged he would end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 24 hours, a vow Russian president Vladimir Putin has dismissed. Yesterday, Trump told reporters that Putin wants to meet with him and that they are setting that meeting up; the Kremlin denied that statement was true and noted it would be more appropriate to meet after Trump takes office.

Today the Treasury Department under Biden imposed new sanctions on more than 180 vessels, many of them in Russia's “shadow fleet” that carries oil, as well as on dozens of oil traders, oilfield service providers, insurance companies, and energy officials in an attempt to reduce the money Russia can realize from energy exports. The United Kingdom and Japan also imposed additional sanctions.

According to U.S. Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns, the Biden administration is also making a last effort to try to stop China from supplying Russia with equipment that it can use in its war against Ukraine. The U.S. is warning China that it is aligning “with the most unreliable agents of disorder in the international system.”

Trump may or may not be able to turn his promises into reality, but it is clear that some of his supporters’ plans will not go over well with the majority of Americans, especially as Trump fills his Cabinet with billionaires and spends his time next to the richest man in the world, who spent more than $250 million on Trump’s election.

Today, Ben Leonard, Meredith Lee Hill, and Kelsey Tamborrino reported in Politico that the Republicans on the House Budget Committee, chaired by Representative Jodey Arrington (R-TX), have made a list of more than $5 trillion in budget cuts they could make to fund Trump’s deportation plans as well as his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Options include cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (more commonly known as Obamacare), the Inflation Reduction Act’s investment in combating climate change, and the supplemental nutrition programs formerly known as food stamps.

For decades now, there has been enough wiggle room in our system to paper over the gulf between image and reality. That slack may continue.

But at least in some places, reality is catching up to the fake stories. During the 2016 presidential campaign, right-wing media spread the lie that leading Democrats were operating a child sex-trafficking wing out of Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C. Those lies convinced a man to drive from North Carolina to the restaurant with an assault rifle to stop the crimes, only to discover the story was a hoax. He pleaded guilty to carrying a gun across state lines and assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to four years in prison. This week, two North Carolina police officers shot the same man after he pulled a gun on them during a traffic stop. He later died from his injuries.

Yesterday a New York State appeals court refused to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the electronic voting systems company Smartmatic against the parent company of the Fox News Channel for the lies that channel’s hosts told about Smartmatic rigging the 2020 presidential election. Smartmatic is suing for $2.7 billion.

And today the figure the “Pizzagate” conspiracy was designed to put into the highest office in the land, and that the Fox News Channel hosts’ lies were intended to keep there, officially became a convict.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mayakern]

I second the person who was talking about polyester being the sticking point for the shirts--I've been following for ages because I love your design sense and color choices, but I don't wear skirts much and between overheating issues & personal sustainability goals I've stopped buying synthetic fabrics. I LOVE the designs and several of them are in color combos I'd love to have in my button-up wardrobe, but alas I know I will not wear a polyester shirt. I'm mentally comparing them to Morningwitch, who does similar graphic cotton short sleeve button-ups for $50 each, and I'd be willing to potentially pay more than that for something as striking as the desert sunset button-up in 100% cotton (idk how scales/suppliers compare), but it would *probably* just be one if the price went any higher. Anyways, I'm wishing you good luck! Sucks about the numbers. They are really stunning designs.

i adore polina's work! i have a couple of her old button ups, which use the same fabric mine have now, but i haven't bought any of her cotton ones so i'm not sure if they're a texture i could wear or not.

(i have unfortunately had bad luck with other small artist natural fiber button ups and found them too rough for my textural sensitivities, so between that and me already owning enough clothing, i haven't bought any more in quite a while)

it's also important to note that polina spent an entire year (maybe longer) and a not insignificant amount of money searching for a natural fiber option for her shirts and that because shirts are her staple item (like skirts are mine), she sells significantly more of them than i do (even before making the switch to cotton), which enables her to drive down her PPU (price per unit) slightly and also charge less for them.

also, when the issue of sustainability comes up, it's not as simple as natural fiber vs. synthetic fiber. everything from the high cost in water for growing cotton, to the fuel cost for transporting it, and then its shorter lifespan (which is part of the point, i know, that natural fiber degrades faster, but it also means longterm you are buying more garments), as well as ethical concerns about labor rights...

in my experience when it comes to being a small brand functioning at my size or smaller, you can typically pick one of the following (if even that): natural fiber, ethical labor, or affordable price point. i have personally chosen to prioritize ethical labor over everything else while doing my best to keep my price points as reasonable as possible without undercutting myself. payroll and office space are expensive. 😅

of course, if you sell a higher volume, you can not only negotiate a lower PPU based on volume of sales (a factory will make more money from your business if you buy 10,000 shirts for $10/piece than if you buy 1,000 shirts for $12/piece*) but you can also get away with a lower margin because you're expecting to sell more units to customers. imagine selling 10,000 shirts for $25/ea instead of 1,000 for $35/ea. even with a profit margin of $15/ea instead of $23/ea, you would only need to sell about 1,534 shirts of your 10,000 to make the same net profit and you'd have almost another 8500 shirts you could keep selling.

*these are not real numbers just an example for easy math and to show how stupid manufacturing math is

[nunalastor]

Deer are literally built to default have twins. The first pregnancy when they're young could be one, but second pregnancy on (or first if the doe is older) has a significantly higher chance of having triplets than one.

First pregnancy it's about 50/50 on singleton or twins. Second pregnancy onward it's 80-85% twins, 10-15% triplets, 0-5% one.

Good luck, Alastor.

absorbed in the womb

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lilli Petersen at HuffPost:

When Taylor Swift came out to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris last month, it was the Instagram post heard ’round the world (or at least ’round the TikTok FYP algorithm). “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift wrote immediately following the first, and only, debate between Harris and former President Donald Trump. She signed her message “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady” — a knock at Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, who has used the term to demean women without children.

With her simultaneous endorsement of the Democrat and swipe at the Republican, Swift, at 34 arguably the most famous millennial woman in U.S. pop culture, also made herself the avatar of an ongoing shift in politics among her demographic of young women: For the past few decades, they have been tilting decidedly left. “It’s popping out in the polling because it’s more dramatic this year than it has been in other years,” said Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution. The Harris campaign has been assiduously courting women, and particularly young women. Harris regularly makes abortion rights a talking point in interviews and stump speeches, has embraced the meme-ification of her campaign (including Charli XCX enthusiasm and Swift-themed get-out-the-vote campaigns), and recently went on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy,” which began life as a relationship and advice podcast and whose audience is now over two-thirds female and over 90% younger than 45. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, has been... less deft. From Vance doubling down on demeaning childless women and suggesting they should have less voting power, to Trump promising to be women’s “protector,” to, really, just all of the plain ol’ misogyny, it’s not surprising the gender gap isn’t in Trump’s favor.

“You hear important people talking like this, and you say, ‘What the hell?’ You know, ‘People with children should have more votes than people without children.’ What?” laughed Kamarck. “Between Vance and Trump, they are articulating an amazingly old-fashioned notion of women’s role in society,” she added. The shift of young women leftward is not a particularly new trend. Women are regularly more liberal than their male peers, and young people are regularly more liberal than their older counterparts.

[...] She also noted that the research only focuses on women who were ages 18-29 at the time of polling, which means the data reflects the views of multiple generations, rather than the changing attitude of a steady cohort. The overall picture also shows some variance by race: White and Black women under age 50 have especially moved to the left, while Hispanic women have largely stayed the same or even shifted rightward. “But even with the ups and downs, we’ve ended up at a place that’s significantly higher, on a percent level, than it was in 2015,” Saad said. And while young women are shifting left, young men are staying relatively moderate. Sixty-three percent of young women in 2001-2007 had views closer to those of liberals than of conservatives, a figure that jumped to 78% in the 2008-2016 period and then to 87% in the 2017-2024 period. Young men, meanwhile, saw those same figures move from 47% to 57%, and then fall to 50% for the period from 2017 to 2024. The divide is becoming ever clearer as the 2024 election approaches. According to a fall 2024 Harvard Youth Poll, Harris has a 31-point lead over Trump among likely voters under 30 — and when it comes to likely female voters in that age group, Harris leads 70% to 23%. “Brat,” indeed.

[...] Young women, though, are more likely than young men to be involved in liberal-leaning social movements like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, environmental activism and gun violence prevention. Particularly involved are young women of color, who Kiesa notes have taken on “significant” leadership in activism work.

HuffPost’s Lilli Petersen explores why young women in the USA are shifting leftwards at a historic pace since 2015.

Read the full story at HuffPost.