#because they're just really good illustrations

[lettersregardingjeeves]

Jeeves Takes Charge - The Unused Images

Halloa! Well, the whole first story is out, with all its good fun and illustrations from the Strand. So I figured I ought to show you the illustrations I chose not to use, and - for those interested in my inane commentary - tell you the reason why! They're from the American edition published in the Saturday Evening Post, drawn by Henry Raleigh. Let's have a look!

https://www.madameulalie.org/sep/Jeeves_Takes_Charge.html (need image descriptions)

Now, here's where we get to why I didn't include them. The style is certainly lovely, and the Florence depicted here certainly has a nice enough profile to fit the bill. But is that man on the right meant to be Bertie?? He's much too old! The story, which takes place six years in the past from Bertie's telling of it, says that Bertie had been ratted out by Edwin, Florence's little brother, for smoking Lord Worplesdon's "special cigars" when he was fifteen, and that the event had taken place nine years after that incident of tattling. As such, though most characters are not given canonical ages in the Jeeves series, in "Jeeves Takes Charge" Bertie is provably 24 years old (and thus 30 years old when jotting down his telling of it). And while certainly people aged more quickly in the past, I have trouble imagining a 24 year old would look quite so old as this!

The dog is excellent, however. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no suggestion of a dog even existing in this story. Mr. Raleigh clearly just wanted to draw a really long dog, and by God I do not fault him for it.

Bertie, that knight is not hiding you at all whatsoever.

I actually prefer this Edwin to the Strand version, however. What a jaunty lad.

And I will say, I adore this Jeeves. Look at his nose! His calm, self-satisfied expression! Honestly both illustrators did such a fun job with their respective Jeeveses in this final scene.

Anyway, that's all! Thanks for listening!

[nientedal]

imagine you were mauled by a bear.

you were mauled and it was awful. it left scars on you that may never fully and completely heal. maybe it nearly killed you. bears are now a trigger for you. full on panic at the sight of a bear.

now imagine some people in your town enjoy dressing up as bears. they put on homemade costumes for fun and occasionally meet up. most people are just there to play dress-up with other folks who enjoy wearing bear costumes, but maybe a few of them also play pretend with each other. nobody gets hurt-- they aren't real bears, and they wouldn't want to be! it's just fun to play pretend.

but you were mauled by a bear, and one day you're out walking, and you see some of these people on the other side of the road, and you freak out. most of the costumes aren't even very realistic, but you start screaming at them anyway, throwing rocks, grabbing other people and pointing, trying to get them to throw rocks too, because what the fuck? what the hell? what kind of sick freak pretends to be a bear? don't they know bears are dangerous? and what if there's a real bear in one of those costumes! or what if they're dressing up as bears because they want to maul people! throw rocks! harass! throwing rocks at people in bear costumes is good and righteous! you were mauled by an actual real bear and this is all definitely a reaction to an actual real threat and not at all a trauma response!

meanwhile, the people who enjoy dressing up as bears are trying to explain it's just for fun. they just enjoy playing dress-up. even those who do enjoy pretending, are only pretending. it's just acting. and look-- Ted over there was mauled, too! he likes dressing up as a bear because it gives him a situation he controls. but nobody is trying to actually be bears. that would be fucking deranged.

but it doesn't matter. you were mauled by a bear, and people in bear costumes feel the same to you as bears. it doesn't matter why they dress up, they OBVIOUSLY deserve to be attacked like bears. and anyone who disagrees with you must also be a bear, because omg don't they understand bears are dangerous and people in bear costumes are basically the same as bears!!!

if you react to works of fiction the same way you react to harm done to a real live human being, you are failing to recognize that human beings are separate from works of fiction. whether you're experiencing a trauma response and can't make the distinction, or you were told this was the best way to support people who are traumatized, i don't know, but the result is the same. you need to understand that people are not the stories they enjoy. stop throwing rocks at people in costumes.

[moongothic]

So the One Piece brand has been doing radio broadcasts called Strawhat Space (/Mugiwara Space) where they bring in voice actors to chitchat about the series etc, most of the episodes they've featured just the main cast but they've started bringing in VAs for other characters too (one episode was Mayumi Tanaka/Luffy and Tomokazu Seki/Lucci, another was the OG three admirals etc) This week's broadcast featured Ryuuzaburo Ootomo and Yuriko Yamaguchi as Crocodile and Miss All Sunday respectively

The promotional images for Strawhat Space have been Extremely Adorable and I know I'm a simp but god, this one is so cute

Now unfortunately, while my Japanese listening comprehension is good enough to follow along your average kids anime where the VAs speak clearly and take their turns, yeah, a radio show where the VAs stumble on their words a little and speak over each other is too hard for me to keep up with (not to mention my vocab just not being suited for this kinda thing)

But, if I didn't completely misunderstand Yuriko at one point, she seemed to mention that she hoped Crocodile would remain in the position of an ally in the story (after having teamed up with Luffy during Impel Down), and like. Yuriko I love you, you so are so right

[mars-ipan]

finally checked my professors on ratemyprofessor and every professor with a rating had a good one. i feel lucky as hell

[faedotexe]

So i'm working on a tiny roll & write about being a giant dragonness and conquering the land and burninating the countryside and uh I'm kind of trying to make """"""art""""" for it lmao

chat is this cringe

[maniculum]

Medieval Scorpions Effortpost

So yesterday I reblogged this post featuring an 11th-century depiction of the Apocalypse Locusts from Revelations, noting the following incongruity as another medieval scorpion issue:

The artist, as you can see, has interpreted "tails like scorpions" as meaning "glue cheerful-looking snakes to their butts".

Anyway, it occurred to me that the medieval scorpion thing might not be as widely known as I think it is, and that Tumblr would probably enjoy knowing about it if it isn't known already. So, finding myself unable to focus on the research I'm supposed to be doing, I decided to write about this instead. I'll just go ahead and put a cut here.

As we can see in the image above, at least one artist out there thought a "scorpion" was a type of snake. Which makes it difficult to draw "tails like scorpions", because a snake's tail is not that distinctive or menacing (maybe rattlesnakes, but they don't have those outside the Americas). So they interpreted "tails like scorpions" as "the tail looks like a whole snake complete with head".

Let me tell you. This is not a problem unique to this illustration.

See, people throughout medieval Europe were aware of scorpions. As just alluded to, they are mentioned in the Bible, and if the people producing manuscripts in medieval Europe knew one thing, it was Stuff In Bible. They're also in the Zodiac, which medieval Europe had inherited through classical sources. However, let's take a look at this map:

That's Wikipedia's map of the native range of the Scorpiones order, i.e., all scorpion species. You may notice something -- the range just stops at a certain northern latitude. Pretty much all of northern Europe is scorpion-free. If you lived in the north half of Europe, odds were good you had never seen a scorpion in your life. But if you were literate or educated at all, or you knew they were a thing, because you'd almost certainly run across them being mentioned in texts from farther south. And those texts wouldn't bother to explain what a scorpion was, of course -- everyone knows scorpions, right? When was the last time you stopped to explain What Is Spiders?

So medieval writers and artists in northern Europe were kind of stuck. There was all this scorpion imagery and metaphor in the texts they liked to work from, but they didn't really know what a scorpion was. Writers could kind of work around it (there's a lot of "oh, it's a venomous creature, moving on"), but sometimes they felt the need to break it down better. For this, of course, they'd have to refer to a bestiary -- but due to Bestiary Telephone and the persistent need of bestiary authors to turn animals into allegories, one of the only visual details you got on scorpions was that they... had a beautiful face, which they used to distract people in order to sting them.

And look. I'm not here to yuck anyone's yum, but I would say that a scorpion's face has significant aesthetic appeal only for a fairly small segment of the population. I'm sure you could get an entomologist to rhapsodize about it a bit, but your average person on the street will not be entranced by the face of a scorpion. So this did not help the medieval Europeans in figuring out how to depict scorpions. There was also some semantic confusion -- see, in some languages (such as Old and Middle English), "worm" could be a general term for very small animals of any kind. But it also could mean "serpent".* So there were some, like our artist at the top of the post, who were pretty sure a scorpion was a snake. This was probably helped along by the fact that "venomous" was one of the only things everyone knew about them, and hey, snakes are venomous. Also, Pliny the Elder had floated the idea that there were scorpions in Africa that could fly, and at least one author (13th-century monk Bartholomaeus Anglicus) therefore suggested that they had feathers. I don't see that last one coming up much, I just share it because it's funny to me.

*English eventually resolved this by borrowing the Latin vermin for very small animals, using the specialized spelling wyrm for big impressive mythical-type serpents, and sticking with the more specific snake for normal serpents.

Some authors, like the anonymous author of the Ancrene Wisse, therefore suggested that a scorpion was a snake with a woman's face and a stinging tail. (Everyone seemed to be on the same page with regards to the fact that the sting was in the tail, which is in fact probably the most recognizable aspect of scorpions, so good job there.) However, while authors could avoid this problem, visual artists could not. And if you were illustrating a bestiary or a calendar, including a scorpion was not optional. So they had to take a shot at what this thing looked like.

And so, after this way-too-long explanation, the thing you're probably here for: inaccurate medieval drawings of scorpions. (There are of course accurate medieval drawings of scorpions, from artists who lived in the southern part of Europe and/or visited places where scorpions lived; I'm just not showing you those.) And if you find yourself wondering, "how sure are you that that's meant to be a scorpion?" -- all of these are either from bestiaries or from calendars that include zodiac illustrations.

11th-century England, MS Arundel 60. (Be honest, without the rest of this post, if I had asked you to guess what animal this was supposed to be, would you have ever guessed “scorpion”?)

12th-century Germany, "Psalter of Henry the Lion". (Looks a bit undercooked. Kind of fetal.)

12th-century France, Peter Lombard's Sententiae. (Very colorful, itsy bitsy claws, what is happening with that tail?)

12th-century England, "The Shaftesbury Psalter". (So a scorpion is some sort of wyvern with a face like a duck, correct?)

13th-century France, Thomas de Cantimpré's Liber de natura rerum. (I’d give them credit for the silhouette not being that far off, but there’s a certain bestiary style where all the animals kind of look like that. Also note how few of these have claws.)

13th-century England, "The Bodley Bestiary". (Mischievous flying squirrel impales local man’s hand, local man fails to notice.)

13th-century England, Harley MS 3244. (A scorpion is definitely either a mouse or a fish. Either way it has six legs.)

13th-century England, Harley MS 3244. (Wait, no, it’s a baby theropod, and it has two legs. (Yes, this is the same manuscript, that’s not an error, this artist did four scorpions and no two are the same.))

13th-century England, Harley MS 3244. (Actually it’s a lizard with tiny ears and it has four legs.)

13th-century England, Harley MS 3244. (Now that we’re at the big fancy illustration, I think I’ve got it — it’s like that last one, but two legs, longer ears, and a less goofy face. Also I’ve decided it’s not pink anymore, I think that was the main problem.)

13th-century England, MS Kk.4.25. (A scorpion is a flat crocodile with a bear’s head.)

13th-century England, "The Huth Psalter". (Wyvern but baby! Does not seem to be enjoying biting its own tail.)

13th-century England, MS Royal 1 D X. (This triangular-headed gentlecreature gets the award for “closest guess at correct limb configuration”. If two of those were claws, I might actually believe this artist had seen a scorpion before, or at least a picture of one.)

13th-century England, "The Westminster Psalter". (A scorpion is the offspring of a wyvern and a fawn.)

13th-century England, "The Rutland Psalter". (Too many legs! Pull back! Pull back!)

13th or 14th-century France, Bestiaire d'amour rimé. (This is very similar to the fawn-wyvern, but putting it in an actual Scene makes it even more obvious that you’re just guessing.)

14th-century Netherlands, Jacob van Maerlant's Der Naturen Bloeme. (More top-down six-legged guys that look too furry to be arthropods.)

14th-century Germany, MS Additional 22413. (That is clearly a turtle.)

14th-century France, Matfres Eymengau de Beziers's Breviari d'amor. (Who came up with that head shape and what was their deal?)

15th-century England, "Bestiary of Ann Walsh". (Screw it, a scorpion is a big lizard that glares at you for trying to make me draw things I don’t know about.)

I've spent way too much time on this now. End of post, thank you to anyone who got all the way down here.

[imbecominggayer]

How To Write Character Flaws

One of the most important aspects when writing a character are flaws since flaws increase reader immersion, reader investment, and the overall compelling energy of a story.

Flaws are necessary in creating character arcs where either these initial problems are improved or exacerbated.

Despite the fact that flaws are important, writers can struggle with how to seemlessly incorperate flaws within their characters in an interesting and natural way without just feeling like they're throwing bad traits in randomly.

Here we go!

A) All Character Traits Are Both Flaws And Strengths

Flaws are often dark reflections of the positive qualities identified in an individual.

If your lover is a strong and determined person then you are also likely dating someone who is stubborn.

If your friend is emotional and caring then they're also overly sensitive.

This is due to the fact that flaws are really just character strengths taken to their logical extreme. As the saying goes "the dose makes the poison". An excessive amount of carelessness, curiousity, love, emotion, confidence, and every single virtue inevitably results in personality defects.

You most likely have your character's strengths somewhat laid out whether these strengths be open-mindedness, kindness, determined, and anything else.

Taking these strengths to their logical extreme, you will often find flaws such as naivety, savior complex, stubborness, and other such flaws.

B) Whether Something Is A Strength Or A Flaw Depends On Context

Character A is trusting and Character B is distrusting.

Let's put them in the situation of meeting someone in order to illustrate how both character's defining traits could be their downfall depending on who this character is.

If this "someone" is a helpful individual, then Character B's flaw of distrust create unnecessary discorse within the group and could drive away this positive influence.

If this "someone" is a manipulative someone, then Character A's trusting nature harms the group as it allows someone harmful to enter.

Whether or not a character's actions are perceived as beneficial or harmful depends on if the result is good or bad for the character's goal.

This means that when you are presented with a character who seemingly has no flaws, what you can do is create situations where these good actions result in bad results.

An open-minded character might accidentally walk face first into a cult because they were too accepting of the weird activities

A kind character might cause their allies to become overly dependent on the individual's generosity

A determined character might be so obsessed with succeeding at this specific task that they fail to see the bigger picture and the more effective solution

[mlarty]

A couple of ppl asked us about Astarion and Marrow's relationship, so here is some text to the last illustration with them. Or.. more precisely about the best part of it. For them

So... they're like two cats. Two gremlins. A beautiful elf and a bedside monster. The chemistry between them is passionate, chaotic and in many ways weird, and it's hard to call their relationship any kind of healthy thing — they're both traumatized and not perfect people. They argue, they fight, and then BAM!, they are in love again. They are freaks with questionable morals and views on life that unexpectedly resonate with each other, although everyone else thinks they're the normal ones here. Marrow absolutely accepts the vampire nature and pesonality of Astarion, and he calmly understands her durge side and wildness. Another murder, another body, another nightmare — it's okay, as long as he's not involved. And it can even be used. And Marrow uses him too

This leads to a deeper bond — they’re monsters who share a deep mutual passion and the ability to see humanity in each other, even when it seems there is nothing human left. And monsters don't always mean something bad, it's just their love is a bit, well, twisted: their relationship isn't about typical romance stuff, but filled with almost animal adoration and desire. Kind of a dark magnetism that would freak out (and for good reason) the average people. But here's the thing, they're totally okay with that. Neither Marrow nor Astarion are about to change themselves or pretend to be these so-called "normal people" — they're not relearning how to love the "right" way, they're learning to love in their own style

And of course none of them planned to really love each other. And no one thought about "true love". True love is hard stuff when one is a vampire ex-slave and the other — a Bhaal's daughter and a murderer. It all started with manipulation: Astarion was looking for someone who would save him from Cazador, while Marrow wanted someone to save her from herself (or should we say she didn't dare admitted it openly, but needed). Then something happened and they fell in love because they finally found someone who accepted them just as they are. Because the scars on their lives are so similar. And because baby, let's live in darkness and sin together because that's what we want, not because someone told us to

[gnomewithalaptop]

Y'know, it's so funny to me when people make out like Tim Drake would keep files on how to take down his friends when Tim has explicitly said he disagrees with Batman on this:

[Young Justice (1998) #36]

Like, yes, during his Red Robin tenure he does make a Hit List full of contingency plans for known heroes. But if you go and read that, you'll notice that, while the Justice League and Damian may be on there, Tim's own friends are decidedly absent:

[Red Robin (2009) #14]

In fact, a lot of these heroes are people that have either (a) attacked Tim specifically, (b) have a track record that includes turning evil/getting mind controlled, or (c) are on the JLA (meaning Batman probably already had those files compiled and Tim just stole them).

So yeah: Tim's not down with contingency-planning for his friends. You know which one of the YJ crew DID agree with Batman though? My favorite blorbina Anita Fite, aka Empress:

[Young Justice (1998) #36]

But yeah, this contrast is honestly fascinating to me. Because while both Anita and Tim have been shown to be incredibly loyal individuals, this exchange really highlights the fact that, between the two of them, Anita is far more likely to engage in this kind of pragmatism when she thinks it's necessary to get the job done

The whole Our Worlds at War arc actually does a really good job of illustrating how both of them react to betrayal from within. It's not just the Batman Files conflict either -- I'm thinking specifically about the hallucination-based torture Granny Goodness put them through, which showed them their worst fears. Most of the team ended up having to watch their loved ones die, but what's super interesting to me is that we really only see Anita and Tim hallucinate that their loved ones blame them for their deaths:

[Young Justice (1998) #37]

Like. It's not the same as a teammate turning evil at all. But it does give us a good idea of how they'd both react when faced with a friend or teammate doing harmful things, albeit on a smaller scale. Because where Tim kind of just accepts Superboy yelling at him and moves straight into bargaining for Kon's life, Anita actually flips the script, gets angry, and defends herself against her father:

[Young Justice (1998) #37]

(she actually gets so righteously pissed off that she manages to break out of the VR simulation Granny Goodness had her trapped in, but that's another point)

But yeah, it's super interesting, because by this point, both Anita and Tim have been set up to be very similar characters. They both can be a little bit obsessive, they both have some issues with boundaries and stalking (Tim with Nightwing and Batman, Anita with Cissie), and of the team, they're both portrayed as the "normal" members (Anita does technically have mind control powers but she barely ever uses them, and in a fight, she's basically just a very good, human-level fighter)

But at the end of the day, though Batman forces Robin to put on a cool front of objectivity, Tim (at least in his pre-grief-spiral era) ultimately wants to see the best in his team. When the people he cares about screw up, he wants to give them second chances. And when that trust gets broken, his first instinct is to try to use diplomacy, or, failing that, simply remove himself from the situation (as we see at the end of the Our Worlds at War arc when he quits the team)

Anita, on the other hand, while still incredibly loyal, does not hand out that loyalty unconditionally. We see this when she tries to keep her identity secret from the YJ squad, we see it when she gets pissed in Granny Goodness's hallucination when her father blames her for her mother's death, and we see it when she later blames Secret for her perceived role in Anita's father's death

Anita also happens to sit right smack dab in the middle of the YJ morality scale; while she's generally pretty chill and willing to abide by typical superhero codes of ethics (unlike Slobo and Secret), she's also been shown to bend those rules when she believes it's necessary (as seen here when she tortures and threatens to kill a man for trying to hurt Cissie). Ultimately, what this means is, between Tim and Anita, it's honestly Anita who'd probably be the most willing to put her personal qualms aside, buckle down, and go against her loved ones if it was the only reasonable option

Anyway. This is a really long-winded way of saying I think Gun Batman's biggest nemesis should be Empress

[ms-demeanor]

Hi! You’re in the LA area, right? I hope you and your family are okay.

Unrelatedly, I ran across a thread on Mastodon about Proton Mail, which I think you’ve talked about before, and was curious what you make of it / how credible it is: https://code4lib.social/@inthehands@hachyderm.io/113838748729664639

I'm fine thanks! Worried about some friends but I'm good.

I think that thread is not incorrect, but is also bullshit.

Email protocols do not allow for 100% anonymous communication and never will, when Proton was subpoenaed for user data that ended up with some French climate activists getting prosecuted they were transparent about what was requested and updated their logging rules to store less data. *Starting* from the assumption that protonmail is supposed to be totally secure OR sells itself as totally secure is disingenuous.

The great thing about open source software is that you never have to trust a shithead CEO when they talk about what the software does. I get why people are angry at the CEO (I think the CEO is at least half wrong in that he is claiming that Republicans will challenge monopolies, but he's not wrong about the destructive corporatism of the Democratic party even if he is *in essence* wrong about which party is more likely to gesture in the direction of breaking up tech monopolies) but A) the thread says that proton's software is "opaque" and it just. Literally is not. and B) that thread links to another thread talking about how what proton is selling is trust and nope. They don't have to sell trust; you can see what their software does if you choose to investigate it, there's no need for trust when you can verify. What they're selling is transparency and from where i'm standing they are indeed quite transparent.

God. Imagine thinking that a zero trust service is selling trust.

So I think the argument that "protonmail actually isn't as secure as it claims" is bullshit that people bring up whenever they're mad at the company (whether they have legitimate reasons to be mad at the company or not).

For the record: you should never, ever, EVER treat email as a secret. Nothing you do over email is really secret because *the rules that allow email to function as a service* require at least some very sensitive information to be an open part of the protocol.

The Proton page on end to end encryption is *very* clear that it is the contents of your email messages that are encrypted, not your email as a whole, and in the image they use to illustrate this the parts of your email that *cannot* be made private (sender, recipient, subject line, time sent) are shown unencrypted:

They're not subtle about letting people know this. Nor are they quiet about the fact that replies to encrypted emails are not encrypted by default.

So the thread is *technically* correct in that all the security "holes" described reflect reality, but it's correct like saying "McDonald's says that you can eat their food for every meal and you'll put on ten pounds of muscle but ACTUALLY putting on ten pounds of muscle requires a huge amount of dedication and a very careful diet and a lot of resistance exercise" - like, I guess yeah that's what you have to do to put on ten pounds of muscle but where exactly was McDonald's making that claim? Did they actually make that claim or are general statements like "I'm Lovin' It" being misinterpreted in bad faith by people on the internet who are mad at something a CEO did?

So. Like. Yeah the CEO is being a shithead, the social media team made a pretty bad fuckup by doubling down on his shitheadery, the product still works as described, AND the thread discussing all of that is deeply annoying.

So.

I think this thread actually does a great job of explaining why I've never seen a "hackers for social justice" group that has lasted. This reminds me a LOT of when someone tried to say that you shouldn't use firefox because the former CEO was a homophobe. There are a lot of deeply shitty people who have made important contributions to our tech ecosystem and if we threw the baby out with the bathwater every time Notch from Minecraft ended up being Notch from minecraft you'd lock yourself out of a lot of really important tools. And this isn't the same as "buying harry potter merch funds transphobia" because it literally doesn't; especially with open source tools you can continue using the software and cheerfully hate the CEO because A) fuck that guy and B) what the fuck are you going to do about it, guy, this shit's encrypted.

I don't want to get too deeply into a discussion about what is or is not cancel culture, but what I'm seeing in that thread (and what I see coming up every time someone brings up the "But the French Climate Activists!" thing) is an attempt to prioritize political alignment over real-world utility. It's attempting to cancel a *genuinely useful tool* because someone involved in the development is an asshole.

By all means, don't give protonmail money if the CEO's trump-positive comments make you feel unsafe.

However: What service are you going to use that is as accessible and as secure to ensure that you actually *are* safe? There are alternatives out there. Do they actually do more than proton? Are they easier to use? Are they open source? One of the responses to that thread was "yeah, that dude seems shitty; i'd switch to another service if there was another one that I felt was as secure" and that's pretty much what I think the correct attitude is. (If you really, really still want to switch, Tuta has been the broadly recommended alternative to protonmail for years but at this point Proton has a suite of services that some users would need to replace, not just email)

IDK i think shit like this contributes to a lot of the bad kind of security nihilism where people are like "oh no, things will never be secure and even my scrappy little open source product is headed by an asshole, i may as well use google because everything sucks" when they should have the good kind of nihilism which is like "man, there are a lot of assholes out there and they're never going to stop being assholes; i'd better take proactive steps to act like the people who make tech stuff are assholes and operate from a better base of security at the start"

so the takeaways are:

Proton never claimed that anything but the message contents of your e2e encrypted messages are encrypted; as far as these things go, they do a pretty good job of being both secure and easy to use compared to other offerings.

Yeah the CEO is being kind of a shithead and I'm not a huge fan of that.

If you think the CEO is being a shithead and don't want to give the company your money, don't pay for their services, but the CEO being a shithead doesn't actually mean you can't trust their services; their services are literally built on zero trust, if the CEO literally wanted to hunt you down personally he wouldn't be any more able to decrypt your emails than he was before and he wouldn't be any more likely to respond to a subpoena than he was before (proton does respond to subpoenas when required but not otherwise; they've been compelled to produce more data in the last decade than before because law enforcement finally realized who they needed to yell at - one of the bigger issues here is the Swiss courts being more willing to grant subpoenas to international complainants than they were before)

The reason we don't go see hogwarts movies is because doing so gives JK money and that does actual real world harm; using firefox does not have an impact on Brendan Eich's ability to materially change the world. It is very weird that we're in a place where we're treating *open source encryption software that is simple enough for your grandma to use it* as though it is Orson Scott Card.

Sorry i'm still stuck on people thinking that proton, famously open source, is opaque, and that an encryption service with zero trust architecture is selling trust.

Anyway if you've ever got questions about security/privacy/whatever services privacyguides.org is a very reliable source.

OH I FIGURED OUT WHAT WAS BUGGING ME

There are a bunch of people discussing this talking about how the CEO's social media is what has made them feel unsafe and I'm going to be a dick here and say that facts don't care about your feelings.

The CEO saying stupid shit doesn't actually make you unsafe in a situation like this; if the CEO was a violent transphobe or aggressive racist or horribly misogynist that wouldn't actually make any of the users of the product less safe. That's why the SJ hacker stuff I've seen hasn't had much staying power; I think that groups that focus on making people feel included and welcome and safe to be themself within the group run into really big problems when there's a conflict between people in the group FEELING unsafe because of (genuinely important in many ways) cultural signifiers like political alignment and so in order to accommodate that feeling they end up doing things (like some kinds of collaboration/accountability practices, abandoning useful tools, WAY too much personal transparency and radical vulnerability for people who are doing crime shit) that ACTUALLY make them less safe.

The CEO being a shithead may make you feel bad, but moving to a less secure platform may actually be dangerous. One of these things can have a big impact on your life, and it is not the one that is happening on twitter.

Anyway. Email is inherently insecure and if you want a secure messaging tool use Signal.

If you are doing crime shit don't talk about it on the internet and DEFINITELY don't talk about it in any kind of unencrypted platform.

If you are a French climate activist who would like to not get arrested if Tuta gets a subpoena for data, use the email service in concert with tor and be cautious about senders/receivers and subject lines.

[alicenpai]

my piece for the Hemisphere: a Witch Hat Atelier seasons themed zine! thank you for having me! they're having a leftovers sale until stock runs out 🖋🍀🌷🍁❄🌧 WIPs + inspiration board + symbolism under the cut! got some requests to put this on my inprnt! the site has sales very often & you can grab it as a small or big size print.

I had a pretty good idea of the composition from the get-go. I took inspiration from art nouveau (primarily Alphonse Mucha), German fairy tales, and some 1920s perfume ads. I wanted the girls to look like fairies, akin to The Root Children by Sibylle von Olfers.

Olly just didn't work out in this drawing due to time restraints. I do love him very much though.

I actually kinda stopped making illustrations like these (including the TGAA/DGS tarot card + TGAA/DGS zine pieces a while back) because they were starting to get very hard on my arm, as I had an RSI (repetitive strain injury) a few years back during school. (Not putting the onus on the zines at all ofc! I genuinely love working with zine projects! it's def a me thing WAHAHAHA. my style was getting too anime and too detailed for my liking and everything was just taking forever to finish ngl. but I didn't have time to experiment with a more simple style outside of all of my deadlines)

I think that realizing you need to stop is okay. It's something that Shirahama teaches us in her story and I want to learn to take it to heart.

---

MILD SPOILERS AHEAD (for those who havent read the story I guess)

each character's symbolism:

- Coco - spring, clovers - Coco is the quintessential spring girl, and I wanted her to symbolize new beginnings, and oh boy did Coco bring a big one. The four leaf clover in particular symbolizes luck and good fortune - to some characters, Coco may have brought fortune, to others her presence brings misfortune, take that as you will.

- Tetia - summer, gladiolus - the name "gladiolus" comes from the Latin word "gladius", meaning "sword", based on the shape of the flower. you can interpret it as "you pierce my heart", perfect for a girl like Tetia, who has a contagious energy, with a romantic and grandiose nature.

- Agott - autumn, marigold - I read somewhere marigolds symbolize strength and power, perfect for our little magical powerhouse Agott. They can also symbolize jealousy (yellow flowers in particular have this association), which reflects on her rivalry with Coco in the beginning.

- Riche - winter, snowdrop - The white color of snowdrops has a strong connotation to innocence, which reflects on Riche's wish to stay a child forever. It can also symbolize rebirth and new beginnings (like Coco's clovers), as the snowdrop is the first flower to bloom in the spring, when the snow has not yet melted. I wanted the concept of "rebirth" to associate with Riche's friendship with Euini, and of his sort of "rebirth" into a new being.

- Qifrey - he does not have a flower per se, but as the caregiver and educator of the four girls, he represents the rainy season - precipitation being the one thing that binds all of these seasons together. (Note some areas of the world do not have a rainy season like where I live). I think somewhere along the line I wanted to put hydrangeas behind him, to really bring out the "rainy" theme, but the thought probably got lost somewhere in translation...

- bg flowers - honestly I just picked whatever. white lily, daffodil, hydrangea, zinnia, tulip

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

june 2024 octa + 4koma manga updates

As a reminder, no Episode of Savanaclaw manga chapter this month ^^ And without further ado, some of the highlights (in my opinion) of the latest manga updates:

This month's cover page illustration features Yuuta and Grim marveling over a chess board (since at this point in the story they're camping out in Savanaclaw). If you look closely, each of the pieces on the chessboard represent the relevant TWST characters; there are two card soldiers (presumably one for Ace and one for Deuce), a wolf for Jack, a hyena for Ruggie, and a lion for Leona on the "white" side. On the opposing "black" side (fitting, since Azul will OB soon) are two eel pieces for the twins and one octopus piece for Azul.

We continue the adorable overly flattering Ace from last month's chapter! Sad to say that I, too, would be completely fooled by this act-- asbfalebqejdqo The older merguard is also very cute and enthusiastic. I love that the manga can give faceless NPCs and mobs actual eyes. It grants them a lot more personality and soul! We continue the adorable overly flattering Ace from last month's chapter! Sad to say that I, too, would be completely fooled by this act-- asbfalebqejdqo The older merguard is also very cute and enthusiastic. I love that the manga can give faceless NPCs and mobs actual eyes. It grants them a lot more personality and soul!

HECK YEAH, IT'S TWEELS tERRORISM TIME BBABY 🤡 Jade and Floyd got sooo many good shots this chapter????? Love that the second page above shows us just how long Floyd is + how the two genuinely delight in scaring our crew (RIP Ace, he looks so close to death's door when he seeks Jade and Floyd peeking at him).

These panels paint the picture of the chase and fight being very frantic for our crew, but really being a chill game to the Leech brothers. They definitely have the upper hand this whole time, and the art helps to convey that feeling!

(Side note: that face Deuce makes with the pinched mouth is also top tier 👌)

So this chapter is the one where Leona swipes the keys to Azul's vault and robs him of all the golden contracts. This results in many, MANY distressed, panicked, and/or desperate expressions from Azul... all of which are soooo delicious <3 There's a ton more than what I've included here (I picked some of my faves), I just couldn't include them all because of Tumblr post image limits.

THE SMUGZUL LAUGH?????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ? HIS ANSWER TO THE OJOUSAMA LAUGH

Featuring: out-of-shape nerd (relatable) Azul fans fr feasting this update 🙏

RUGGIIIIIIE 🥰 He makes a lot of :3 faces that are just great!!

ANOTHER THING THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS THE SHEER AMOUNT OF LEONA SMUG IN THIS CHAPTER I MEAN SEEING LEONA SMUG MAKES ME GRIT MY TEETH AND WANNA KNOCK HIM DOWN A PEG BUT WOW IS HE PRETTY LIKE THIS AUVYFB32T73RANfhbabfobiqrBI/.L;,'KJM;N GGRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I HAT EYOU KINHSCHPLAR I HATE YOU SO MUCH i'm gONA PUNCHHF YOU IN YOUR STUPID SLUTTY ,.,NAFCLAVICLE

anyway Anyway ANYWAY!!!!!! Azul is so close to snapping now, boys :)))) Soon... SOON, OB AZUL AND CHILD!OCTAVINELLE IN HIS FLASHBACK...

Now for 4koma news! This month features a comic about Epel playing Magift/Spelldrive and another comic about Jamil cooking curry.

My favorite segment from the Epel comic! Grim is peak cuteness here, love that he curls into himself to brace for impact, INCLUDING THE FRIGGIN TAIL.

HLBQVUFOQVIYFA; This part made me think of my Gordon Ramsay in Twisted Wonderland series, specifically the fish-themed installment with Jamil and Deuce; in it, Jamil plots on making a seafood dish to serve to Azul as revenge for the events of book 4. In the Jamil 4koma this month, Jamil sees Octavinelle and then considers making a seafood/fish curry with that smug-ass face in the bottom-most panel 💀 That's all for now! See you next month for more~

[rayroseu]

I feel like this was obvious already but the castle illustrated in the Holiday Card that Malleus has given Yuu is actually Wild Rose Castle 😭 Before Book 7, I assumed this was the castle that is Malleus' home (Black Scale Castle basically), but Black Scale is covered with mountains instead of trees.

Whereas both the castle on the card and Wild Rose... their trees and the shape of the castle matches a lot, the position mirrors each other.

It just makes me tear up that there is actually references to Book 7 even earlier in game !! 😭✨This scene happened before Jamil's Overblot iirc and that was released so long ago now lol???

I wonder after Wild Rose Castle became a ruin, its become an "iconic place" on Briar Valley, that they make paintings that still "commemorates it."

I really believe that the castle Malleus wants to visit is actually Wild Rose (on his Bloom Birthday Interview).

However, based on Lilia's dream, Wild Rose doesn't seem to be getting reclaimation by Briar Valley,,, even though (as assumed by the art, it seems like its still in good condition, just covered it thorns), they're just letting it decay/become a ruin. Maybe to pay respect to the faes that died with it? Kind of like the Titanic and how "we can retrieve its ruins" but its more ethical to just let it deteriorate to pay respect to the dead that rests there yk

Also there was interesting build up in this vignette before the castle part... its that Malleus can go anywhere he wants, but he cannot go to places where he is uninvited. I wonder what makes him feel that he's "uninvited" with this castle ruin???😭 Its like he's repeating Lilia's situation where he took 400 years to visit Wild Rose again. Its assumed that Lilia didnt visit for a long time maybe because of his Unique Magic that he'll see how Meleanor died on that place?? There was also this instance where it feels like Malleus is referencing Lilia's UM, just that he's not seeing the past in scenery like Lilia, just feeling their presence for a bit(?).

Funny thing is about Malleus' Holiday Card... is that he sent this AFTER the holiday in Book 4 was over JDJSJS also I wonder what he said in this letter?

Malleus has always been consistent in inviting Yuu to Briar Valley, but this fact that he gave us a Holiday Card with Wild Rose Castle, a presumably ruin near Briar Valley reminds me of his wish that he wants to go to a castle ruins with someone... If we ever visit Briar Valley, I wonder if he'll take us on tour with the ruins instead of the Black Scale Castle/Dragon Capital City (out of the Senate's view yk) lol

[howtofightwrite]

Have you read GRRM books? He claims swords needed to be “especially designed for women’s hands” how true is this?

About as true as all of those, “girl guns.” Because, as you know, a woman cannot hold a Glock unless it's pink or sky blue. Which is to say, not even remotely true.

You might get a situation where a child would be unable to operate a weapon designed for adults because the grip is too cumbersome, but even this is going to be something of an outlier. Even years later the Nicholas Cage's line from Lord of War (2005) sticks with me, when describing the AK he narrates, “...so simple a child could use it, and they do.”

Just like basically any other common grip you encounter in your daily life, from screwdrivers to steering-wheels and cell phones, selling smaller, or more colorful ones, is strictly a marketing gimick.

Now, is a legitimate context, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the wielder's sex. If they had the money, the time, and the desire for a perfect grip, they might commission a smith to produce a grip specifically for their hand. Though, the only place I've ever come across this was in competitive fencing. I have seen cases where someone modifies their blade's grip with tape or other materials to better fit their hand, or the addition of a leather (usually shagreen) wrap over their grip, but even that is somewhat unusual. (Shagreen is leather from a shark or ray, and it grips the skin, making it easier to hold, especially when wet.)

Ironically, girl guns do illustrate the one case where have some weight: Weapons as fashion accessories.

I know I've complained about weapons (particularly handguns) as fashion accessories in previous posts, but the truth is that using weapons like this is not new behavior. In the early modern era, one of the ways the rising middle class liked to display their status was with a sidearm. (In this case, referring to a sidesword or, later, a rapier.) I've looked specifically into women carrying sidearms at that point in history, but it really would not surprise me in the least if they did, and if there were, that at least some of those swords were specifically designed to be more delicate and, “feminine,” per their owner's tastes. (Though, to be fair, a more delicate grip on a rapier would be fairly impressive, as the grips tend to be pretty thin.) This is a case where you might want to look into it further, if it really catches your interest, but I've never really run this down before.

If you're still dubious, feel free to wander into nearly any HEMA event, and you'll have a better than average chance of a woman being willing to prove this idea false with a Zweihander, that may in fact be taller than she is. (Historically, Zwiehanders could be over 2 meters long, and chances extremely good that you're shorter than 2 meters.)

I know I'm regurgitating previous posts here, but it really is worth remembering that swords are much lighter than people think. Zweihanders are some of the heaviest battlefield swords from history, and even the heaviest examples weigh less than 9lbs. Women in HEMA can, and do, use them effectively. Swords aren't about being big and heavy, they're about being a (in this case) seven foot long razor blade.

Since we're on the Zweihander specifically (and this may also apply for some of the other greatswords, such as the Scottish Claymore), this is a case where you might have a custom weapon forged for you. However, in this case, that's more about the right blade length, then worrying about the grip being too thick or too thin. Ideally, you want the blade length to match your height (roughly), this is because of the drills with the weapon itself, though you could adjust to a longer blade if that's what you had.

Now, to be clear, the idea of someone, particularly a noble, having a blade custom forged for them specifically isn't strange. That's something that did happen, both at the noble's request, and also as diplomatic gifts from other nations. Examples of the latter resulted in beautiful art pieces that you would never take into battle.

If you had a situation where you couldn't use a sword because the grip was too large (for, whatever reason), there are ways to fix that. In an ideal situation, you could simply pop off the pommel and grip, and then replace the grip with one that was a better fit to your hand. If the tang itself was the problem (this is the metal core of the grip, and is part of the blade, which the pommel attaches to), you might be able to shave (or file) down the tang, and then replace the grip with a new one, fitted to the now smaller tang. I'm not particularly wild about modifying the tang directly, simply because there is a (minor) risk of reducing the structural integrity of the sword in the process. Though, replacing the grip (especially on a sword with a threaded pommel) is very doable, and unless someone, somehow, screws up catastrophically, it should be a pretty trivial modification. (Again, replacing a sword's original grip with a new shagreen grip does make a lot of sense if the owner wants that improved grip.)

But, to the original question, it's not really a thing.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[ichiwashername-o]

Hi there. I know you're a fan of wicked, and your scarecrow comics are amazing, but, how do you feel about the wizard's? I know the wizard was a conman, but he wasn't the monster portrayed in the musical or film, he was trying to help Oz, something like Oz the Great and Powerful, and the quote "He was a good man, just a terrible wizard". To me, it feels weird making him worse than he was in the source material, and how accepting everyone is of that. But what about you, you prefer him "wicked"?

Oh, this is such an interesting question, because like everything, it's not so black and white, is it?

I believe that The Wizard, whose real name is Oscar, never intended to be a bad man. He was just some simple podunk hick (his own admission) thrown into a position of power and quickly found himself way over his head. He was admired, practically worshipped, and an entire country turned to him to save them from what we can only imagine was some truly desperate times. There was a famine. People were starving and hurting and when you're starving and hurting you become angry, so what do you do when you have such a volatile population looking to you for guidance?

Oscar's approach was undoubtedly wrong, let's get that straight. Blaming the people's plight on the Animals was objectively the wrong thing to do, but I think the song Wonderful illustrates Oscar's thinking brilliantly.

There are few at ease with moral ambiguity-- people don't want nuance. Nuance is hard. Isn't life so much easier when everything is black and white? Bad People cause Bad Things to happen, so blame them. Oscar's a con man through and through--he has experience working in a traveling circus and his whole gig was putting on a show and making people happy. And I genuinely believe he wanted to make the people of Oz happy.

But life is hard and complicated and there are no easy answers. Oscar knows this. And if he can't make the people happy and magically solve all their problems, they'll turn on him and eat him alive. So . . . he does the only thing he can think of, the only thing he can do.

He lies.

He's a performer. He's a con man. He knows how to lie. And he's really, really good at it.

He had good intentions, but you know what they say about good intentions. He wanted to help but did it in the worst way possible--uniting the people with a common enemy. A very effective strategy--just look at what's going on in the political atmosphere today--and I really hope the movie leans into that nuance more. Can you really call yourself a good person if all you do is lie and manipulate people, even if your goals are in the service of "good" and "making people happy?"

Wicked is very clear on that--no. No you can't be. But of course, everyone's a hero in their own story, so Oscar is the hero who saved Oz in her time of need. Even in the original Wizard of Oz, I don't think Oscar was meant to be a genuinely good person, either. Of course Oscar thinks he's a good man--everyone thinks they're a good person because they'll always find a reason to justify their own actions. Oscar still lied to everyone--he lied to Dorothy and her friends, he lied to all of Oz. He doesn't even really give the quartet what they want--he lies about that, too. He gives them meaningless trinkets and sells them the belief that they're real.

And fun fact, the Scarecrow's incorrect reciting of Pythagoras's Theorem was intentionally written wrong to further drive home the point that the Wizard's gifts were bullshit.

In my opinion, Wicked is just leaning harder into the story of the everyman who was corrupted by power and did terrible things, despite his original intentions. It's a much more interesting take, and I really hope they don't make it so simple as him being outright evil. I don't think they will. Because Oscar can be seen as a very effective cautionary tale about how our actions, no matter their intentions, can lead to serious harm if we're not careful.

[thatswhatsushesaid]

if i had a nickel for every time i encountered some version of the following observation in the mdzs fandom:

"i'll never understand why fans of jin guangyao and jiang cheng and xue yang keep insisting on defending these characters' virtues. you can just admit that your favourite characters are assholes and terrible people. it's fine. why are you defending them."

i could probably buy myself a packet of some really sick edibles the next time i hit up the dispensary. but more to the point, what truly frustrates me about this observation (aside from the implicit arrogance that seems smugly baked into it every time i stumble upon it) is how completely it misunderstands what villain and antagonist fans are doing when we discuss the positive attributes of our favourite characters. it's the assumption that what we're doing must always be about defence, about arguments, about insisting that the characters we like are Good, Actually, And Here's Why--when in reality i have never, ever, ever encountered a fan of any of these characters who has been interested in definitively declaring that any of them are good or bad people. like that just straight up hasn't been part of the conversations we've been having with each other.

like, what you are interpreting as us "defending a character's virtues" is very often just us literally stating how the characters' actions have had a positive impact on other characters' lives, or the world more broadly. or we are just trying to compare acts of cruelty/violence committed by one of these characters vs the acts of cruelty/violence committed by the protagonist and his inner circle, to draw inferences about one or both characters, to better understand them and the story and how they illustrate various themes, whether mxtx meant for them to appear in the text or not. it's just... analysis. and yes, a core competency when it comes to literary analysis means being able to critically defend your arguments using examples from the source material.

jokes about the jgy or jc stans and "defence squads" aside, it's not about defending individual characters, because the characters don't need a defence, because they're not real. but the work we've all collectively put into examining these characters, and contextualizing their actions within their circumstances within the source material, is certainly real, and it makes sense that we'd want to step up and defend our work when people who disagree with us choose to misrepresent our arguments.