#but the more she uses it the less effective it gets

[quailfence]

[Image description taken from alt: Image 1: Irene clasps Mina by the arms and looks up at her intently. She asks, “Mina, I have to ask you…how did you know?” Mina blushes slightly as she responds, “Know, ah, know what?” Image 2: A view from behind Irene as she faces Mina. Irene continues, “That Jonathan was alive. I thought you might simply be in denial, but now…” Mina glances to the side as she responds, “The truth is, I…since our ordeal with the vampire, when I was—was nearly turned myself…” Image 3: A close-up of Mina as she says, “I was spared that fate in the end, thank God! But there have been…lingering effects. Some more frightening than others.” Image 4: Mina lays a hand on her chest, looking down thoughtfully with her pupils glowing white. Both her and the background are shadowed, with a glowing white spot over her heart. She says, “I can’t describe it. I feel a connection to Jonathan—I suppose I always did, but this— (italics)” The second speech bubble has a tail shaped like a heartbeat as she continues, “It’s as if our hearts truly beat as one. I can sense where he is, feel his heart, the blood rushing in him.” Against the shaded background are two pulses of a heartbeat monitor in white. Image 5: Mina looks up, distressed, with her hand still over her heart. She says, “I can feel a trace of it with others, but it’s strongest with him. Sometimes, it…it frightens me, Irene.” Image 6: Irene clasps Mina’s hands in hers and says, “Such trials always leave their marks on us, but we are no less for it. And here, it let you give hope where there was none.” Image 7: Mina lifts one hand from Irene’s to wipe at her eyes. She smiles and says, “Thank you, Irene. I’ve never told anyone but Jonathan…” Irene smiles warmly up at her and replies, “Of course, my dear. Come, we’d best get ‘decked out,’ as our Texan friend put it.” End description.]

First page || Previous page || Next page

Start reading Episode 1

Dialogue transcripts:

Panel 1

Irene:  Mina, I have to ask you...how did you know?

Mina:  Know, ah, know what?

Panel 2

Irene:  That Jonathan was alive. I thought you might simply be in denial, but now…

Mina:  The truth is, I…since our ordeal with the vampire, when I was—was nearly turned myself…

Panel 3

Mina:  I was spared that fate in the end, thank God! But there have been…lingering effects.  Some more frightening than others.

Panel 4

Mina:  I can’t describe it.  I feel a connection to Jonathan—I suppose I always did, but this—  It’s as if our hearts truly beat as one. I can sense where he is, feel his heart, the blood rushing in him.

Panel 5

Mina:  I can feel a trace of it with others, but it’s strongest with him.  Sometimes, it…it frightens me, Irene.

Panel 6

Irene:  Such trials always leave their marks on us, but we are no less for it.  And here, it let you give hope where there was none.

Panel 7

Mina:  Thank you, Irene.  I’ve never told anyone but Jonathan…

Irene:  Of course, my dear.  Come, we’d best get “decked out,” as our Texan friend put it.

[fuckyeahisawthat]

Most of the takes I’ve seen about Caitlyn’s Jinx-hunting strike team and their bit of light chemical warfare tend to focus on either justifying or condemning Caitlyn’s actions as if the characters are on some kind of morality points leaderboard, which makes even less sense than usual in the Everybody Does Terrible Things show. Litigating whether Caitlyn did a limited police action intended to minimize harm or a war crime is not only kind of pointless, but imo not really the intended function of this story element at all.

The point of this story element in the overall arc of S2 is that you can’t expect to do just a little bit of state violence and then stop. It’s the beginning of Caitlyn’s slide into her dictator era—using her power both as an enforcer and as a Kiramman to get the revenge she has fixated on in her grief.

(A lot of discussion of this sequence of events slides right over what to me is by far the most horrifying detail—which is that it seems like the plans for a major public works project in Zaun are proprietary to one single rich family in Piltover. Why? Because the Council couldn’t care less whether people in the Undercity were dying of Fantasy Pollution Consumption. Which left any mitigation up to the benevolence of private charity from wealthy Piltover families. And as we learn very early on by watching how Jayce is treated, Kiramman charity comes with conditions attached, and can be indistinguishable from control.)

Of course Caitlyn sees her plan as the lesser evil; as a limited and proportionate response that will be less destructive than a full police occupation of the Undercity. But the problem with a limited and proportionate response intended to only target Bad Guys is that it rarely stays that way. Because people will react to repression in ways that are often used to justify more repression.

And we see that it is a VERY short slide from the strike team into tactics that do broadly target civilians for things that in our world we would call protected political speech—things like dyeing your hair a symbolic color or standing around in a square listening to someone give a speech. We go from the strike team to checkpoints, mass arrests, and violent interrogations in like. One episode. Which anyone familiar with the dynamics of state violence in the real world could tell you was exactly what was gonna fucking happen.

(The scene with the cops harassing people at the checkpoint into Piltover is very sharp imo because it shows quite accurately that whatever the stated purpose of a police checkpoint is, the actual effect of a checkpoint is to force interactions between civilians and police, and if police are looking for reasons to target people they will find them.)

So on one level, this storyline is not really about Caitlyn’s personal moral compass at all. It’s about how the logic of state violence tends to drive escalating cycles of conflict.

But also…we’re not supposed to just be okay with a bit of light chemical warfare either! I think the show is pretty unambiguous about that! The whole sequence with Caitlyn’s strike team using the Gray is supposed to be a warning that things are going nowhere good! There’s a reason why the scene in the abandoned arcade, where Jinx learns Vi has become an enforcer, is set up to mirror the scene of child Powder and Vi hiding from enforcers in the same location in S1. We are shown that scene from Jinx’s POV in a way that invites us to sympathize with her. Caitlyn and Vi look like monsters, stalking through the fog in their enforcer gas masks, because they are doing something monstrous.

[cybershock24601]

Something something embarassing Illario in front of all the important houses is the equivalent to an assassination by Nevarra standards so Illgellvar is more or less satisfied. Lucanis complains about some guy who he can't have killed for whatever reason and his darling wife (whos is, idk, fidgiting with skeletal hand) causally suggesting ruining his reputation instead.

Personally my Rook advocated for Illario's imprisonment because they were hyperfocusing on what the political ramification of Lucanis, literally just promoted to First Talon, letting his cousin off with just a slap on the wrist for what essentially amounted for treason in front of the rest of the Talons would be. In short, it would be the wrong message to send to the other Talons as it would imply that Lucanis was weak and wouldn't take appropriate measures to deal with troublemakers which might get people thinking they could take him out to steal his spot as First Talon. I also think my Rook would suggest letting Illario join the final battle and suggest ways to reintegrate him into the crows post canon so Illario isn't stuck on house arrest for the rest of his life. (This is part of the reason that Illario and Rook's in law relationship is so complicated because Rook has fucked him over but has also done a lot to help him)

However that second statement is totally accurate to my headcanons as my Watcher Rook moves herself into Lucanis' office post canon while she works on her thesis (the watch is pretty split on whether to promote Rook to a senior watcher because on one hand she did kill two gods but on the other the more conservative watchers are still pissed about her stunt during the war of the banners so don't want to allow her promotion so Rook decides to become a Senior Watcher the traditional way which is basically writing the mourn watch equivalent to a doctoral thesis so that a) no one can question her qualifications and b) she doesn't have to necessarily be at the Necropolis to do that so she can move in with Lucanis while she works on it) so that the two of them can spend time together while they work. Lucanis is having a meeting with Teia and Viago on how to deal with a troublesome Antivan noble they can't outright kill without causing more problems and Rook who's just sitting in the corner annotating a tome on necromancy and half listening to the conversation just causally throws out the most devious idea to completely ruin the guy so he can never show his face in public again and gets all three Talons looking at her like she has a second head.

When Rook looks up from her reading she wants to know why they're all staring at her like that and they're just all curious on how Rook who is usually very aloof to politics came up with a plan like that to completely destroy this random guy. Rook explains that they used to be apprenticed to a very politically active Mortalitasi in the Mourn Watch (who may or may not be Henzenkoss' ex gf) and just got used to coming up with creative ways to eliminate her mentor's rivals without killing them because murder is not super effective in within Mortalitasi social circles.

[keldjinfae]

To quote prev's tag "esp since the magic is stripped out the mythology," exactly. They introduce wolfsbane as almost certainly fatal to werewolves in season one, while it gives Jackson nightmares about the fire and hallucinations. In season two, Lydia's able to simply spike a punch bowl with it and it doesn't kill anyone, and simultaneously uses it to knock Derek unconscious long enough for her to resurrect Peter.

In season four, it wasn't wolfsbane in the liquor, it was a high-pitched frequency in the DJ's music that weakened the weres. When Scott says they shouldn't be able to get drunk, I think it was largely subjective, based off of his one experience of drinking with Stiles; he has no idea how hard and fast Malia or Liam were throwing 'em back. The weakening effect may have even exacerbated the effects of the liquor. Additionally, and this is more of a subtopic as it branches off into another matter entirely (but still showcases how non-rigid the show's rules are), Scott tells Malia that she can't get drunk. Malia is a werecoyote, and I would accept that it's largely the same for all weres, but then the subplot of Malia's mother happens in season five.

Which, in season five, Deaton says that he is no longer certain of what the rules of the supernatural world even are anymore, after the Dread Doctors use science to slap the boundaries of magic in the face. The show largely doesn't adhere to any set rules. The kanima, the nogitsune, the wendigoes... so many creatures are featured but their representation in the show is often quite different from their actual lore. The same can be said of magic, and in that... er... branch, the magical properties of plants. Even the way Deaton works magic is quite different from the way spells are actually cast.

Omg I'm so sorry for the rambling, but all of this was essentially to say that trying to find one concrete rule for basically anything on this show is more or less futile. What this means is that you can write werewolves trying and failing to get drunk and "be right" about this interpretation, and you can also write werewolves successfully getting drunk without having to lace the alcohol with anything and still "be right."

So if alcohol doesn't affect werewolves, does that mean werewolf parents wouldn't care if their werewolf kids drank alcohol?

[musubiki]

does coco ever bring up the kidnapping to tease taffy?

I DIDNT THINK ABOUT THAT BUT IT WOULD BE AMAZING IF SHE DID!!!!!!!!!!! taffy says anything along the lines of "dont do that" and she goes "or what? gonna kidnap me?"

(bonus points for the rare times where taffy doesnt back down and gives her A Look™️ and says "Maybe." and cocos brain short circuits for a second)

[unopenablebox]

ugh i'm trying not to be a dick to my mom, who suffers enough. but i cannot believe she's decided to go in on "desecrating flags is a bad look for anyone" re: the student protests like a) that's obviously not the principle you're actually using to decide who and what to criticize here b) it's not desecrating a flag to take it down and replace it with another flag c) every time my parents say shit like this it makes me feel like maybe i alone retain memories of my family's beliefs and experiences during the bush administration, which is bad because i was like six at the time

[gibbearish]

am finally back home and can say without a doubt that i am just fundamentally not built for long distance travel however the train was much nicer than planes

[fungi-maestro]

The Question #5 (1987)

[sysig]

I’ve been had!

They are just little guys

[specialshinytrinkets]

[ID:

You do [caps] not [end caps] need to kill off a character for 'emotional impact', or 'realism'. Especially if you've given readers / watchers time to bond with said character. Come on.

/endID]

im starting to think you guys dont like it when stories make you feel things

[smallhatlogan]

Arcane should have starred Sevika it would have been a better show

[fingertipsmp3]

I’m not even gonna lie, a lot of my opinions about people are based on dreams I’ve had about them

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[musubiki]

hello! quick question, i know this is very soon after you posted the comic of young lime trying to bully mochi, and i’m sorry if a question like this has been asked before, but when mochi sees the candy bits and is able to recognize what spells they could be used in and the effects they have, is that from studying magic a lot or is it like a natural identification ability/instinct that she has? thank you!! i hope you have a good day :)

oh thats a great question actually!!!! it comes from studying!!!!

as a kid she was already trying to be a very diligent witch-to-be!! she would spend a lot of time with her mom while she was making spells, so between reading a lot of spellbooks + hanging out when her mom was making potions + wanting to be like her mom, shes good at spotting things that could be used in spells even from an early age!!

(that being said, as a kid she still messed up a lot on the right ingredients. shed bring home random items and be like "I got us spell ingredients!!" and tiramisu would be like "Oh!! Thanks sweetie!!" and didnt have the heart to tell her that whatever she brought home was some useless piece of grass or something jkldj)

[ketchuppee]

During the 2008 recession, my aunt lost her job. Her, her partner, and my three cousins moved across the country to stay with us while they got back on their feet. My house turned from a family of four to a family of nine overnight, complete with three dogs and five cats between us.

It took a few years for them to get a place of their own, but after a few rentals and apartments, they now own a split level ranch in a town nearby. I’ve lost track of how many coworkers and friends have stayed with them when they were in a tight spot. A mother and son getting out of an abusive relationship, a divorcee trying to stay local for his kids while they work out a custody agreement, you name it. My aunt and uncle knew first hand what that kindness meant, and always find space for someone who needed it, the way my parents had for them.

That same aunt and uncle visited me in [redacted] city last year. They are prolific drinkers, so we spent most of the day bar hopping. As we wandered the city, any time we passed a homeless person, my uncle would pull out a fresh cigarette and ask them if they had a light. Regardless of if they had a lighter on hand or not, he offered them a few bucks in exchange, which he explained to me after was because he felt it would be easier for them to accept in exchange for a service, no matter how small.

I work for a company that produces a lot of fabric waste. Every few weeks, I bring two big black trash bags full of discarded material over to a woman who works down the hall. She distributes them to local churches, quilting clubs, and teachers who can use them for crafts. She’s currently in the process of working with our building to set up a recycling program for the smaller pieces of fabric that are harder to find use for.

One of my best friends gives monthly donations to four or five local organizations. She’s fortunate enough to have a tech job that gives her a good salary, and she knows that a recurring donation is more valuable to a non-profit because they can rely on that money month after month, and can plan ways to stretch that dollar for maximum impact. One of those organizations is a native plant trust, and once she’s out of her apartment complex and in a home with a yard, she has plans to convert it into a haven of local flora.

My partner works for a company that is working to help regulate crypto and hold the current bad actors in the space accountable for their actions. We unfortunately live in a time where technology develops far too fast for bureaucracy to keep up with, but just because people use a technology for ill gain doesn’t mean the technology itself is bad. The blockchain is something that she finds fascinating and powerful, and she is using her degree and her expertise to turn it into a tool for good.

I knew someone who always had a bag of treats in their purse, on the odd chance they came across a stray cat or dog, they had something to offer them.

I follow artists who post about every local election they know of, because they know their platform gives them more reach than the average person, and that they can leverage that platform to encourage people to vote in elections that get less attention, but in many ways have more impact on the direction our country is going to go.

All of this to say, there’s more than one way to do good in the world. Social media leads us to believe that the loudest, the most vocal, the most prolific poster is the most virtuous, but they are only a piece of the puzzle. (And if virtue for virtues sake is your end goal, you’ve already lost, but that’s a different post). Community is built of people leveraging their privileges to help those without them. We need people doing all of those things and more, because no individual can or should do all of it. You would be stretched too thin, your efforts valiant, but less effective in your ambition.

None of this is to encourage inaction. Identify your unique strengths, skills, and privileges, and put them to use. Determine what causes are important to you, and commit to doing what you can to help them. Collective action is how change is made, but don’t forget that we need diversity in actions taken.

[ambrosiagourmet]

Every time I revisit chapter 86 and the events right after the group talks Marcille down, I'm always struck by this bit here:

In particular, how similar it is to this:

The Winged Lion ate the same desire in both of them, more or less (I'm sure there are some nuances in both flavor and intent, but they are clearly similar things here). The Lion basically used this technique to kill Thistle, and for Marcille it was... not insignificant, but something she and her friends overcame without even fully realizing it was an obstacle.

I feel like this is another small piece of the story that shows how important support and love are - in navigating mental illness, in dealing with abuse or addiction, or in working through any other similar struggle that can be read into the Lion and his eating of desires.

It almost feels like Marcille was able to borrow the desires of her friends. She loves them and she trusts them, so even when she didn't have a desire to free herself from the Lion, the care they had for her well being still mattered to her.

It's the same thing later, with her hair.

She isn't able to notice the way her messy hair is making things harder, let alone do anything about it. But when Chilchuck points it out and then braids it back for her...

It's better. She likes it, things are easier now. Even though it isn't a desire she can feel for herself, it's not something that doesn't effect her. And because her friends care - because they know her well enough to notice the difference - she is given the chance to have a preference and to ask for their help.

We can obviously see some parallel ideas here with Mithrun and Kabru as well, but I'd also like to point out that Thistle gets this grace, too. Thistle, who had no one to help him up once he lost his will to resist, or to encourage him to find new desires once the Lion ate them all.

Thistle says he doesn't need anything, anymore...

But he is given an apology anyways.

It is not a kindness he desires. It is not a kindness he is able to ask for.

But it is a kindness that helps. It is a kindness that matters.