#metric variation

[the-herdier]

The Pathologic plot but the Bachelor is also allergic to pollen :)))))

[asleepinawell]

every time I'm reminded that almost every other person from the us is out there being wrong on main and thinking that frowning is something you do with your mouth and not your brow I black out from rage and wake up three days later covered in other people's blood

[thaliagrayce]

met god in a dream & they told me thalia grace was short

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Poetry Terminology

Alliteration. Close repetition of consonant sounds, especially initial consonant sounds.

Anapest. Foot consisting of 2 unstressed syllables followed by a stress.

Assonance. Close repetition of vowel sounds.

Blank verse. Unrhymed iambic pentameter.

Caesura. A deliberate rhetorical, grammatical, or rhythmic pause, break, cut, turn, division, or pivot in poetry.

Chapbook. A small book of about 24-50 pages.

Consonance. Close repetition of consonant sounds--anywhere within the words.

Couplet. Stanza of 2 lines; often, a pair of rhymed lines.

Dactyl. Foot consisting of a stress followed by 2 unstressed syllables.

Decasyllable. Line consisting of 10 syllables.

Enjambment. Continuation of sense and rhythmic movement from one line to the next; also called a "run-on" line.

Envoi. A brief ending (usually to a ballade or sestina) no more than 4 lines long; summary.

Epigraph. A short verse, note, or quotation that appears at the beginning of a poem or section; usually presents an idea or theme on which the poem elaborates, or contributes background information not reflected in the poem itself.

Foot. Unit of measure in a metrical line of poetry.

Galleys. First typeset version of a poem, magazine, and/or book/chapbook.

Hendecasyllable. Line consisting of 11 syllables.

Hexameter. Line consisting of 6 metrical feet.

Honorarium. A token payment for published work.

Iamb. Foot consisting of an unstressed syllable followed by a stress.

Line. Basic unit of a poem; measured in feet if metrical.

Meter. The rhythmic measure of a line.

Octave. Stanza of 8 lines.

Octosyllable. Line consisting of 8 syllables.

Pentameter. Line consisting of 5 metrical feet. For instance, iambic pentameter equals 10 syllables (5 unstressed, 5 stressed).

Quatrain. Stanza of 4 lines.

Quintain. Stanza of 5 lines.

Refrain. A repeated line within a poem, similar to the chorus of a song.

Rhyme. Words that sound alike, especially words that end in the same sound.

Rhythm. The beat and movement of language (rise and fall, repetition and variation, change of pitch, mix of syllables, melody of words).

Septet. Stanza of 7 lines.

Sestet. Stanza of 6 lines.

Spondee. Foot consisting of 2 stressed syllables.

Stanza. Group of lines making up a single unit; like a paragraph in prose.

Strophe. Often used to mean "stanza"; also a stanza of irregular line lengths.

Tercet. Stanza or poem of 3 lines.

Tetrameter. Line consisting of 4 metrical feet.

Trochee. Foot consisting of a stress followed by an unstressed syllable.

Source ⚜ More: Word Lists ⚜ References for Poets

[utopians]

I don't want to be that guy but that's not pseudoscience? The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until around the mid to late twenties bc the synaptic connections between neurons in that part of the brain are the last to develop. Source: https:// doi.org /10.1038/ s41386-021-01137-9

I think there might be a miscommunication happening here -- the pseudoscience isn't the assertion that synaptic development continues into adulthood, it's the assertion that synaptic development defines adulthood.

I have now read this whole article and the only assertion that it makes that's relevant to this discussion is that synaptic development continues "into the 3rd decade of life". this doesn't -- at least in my opinion -- give any meaningful credence to the idea that the brain isn't fully 'mature' until this point, bc this idea relies on the assumption that 'maturity' is a static biochemical state that the brain organically reaches and not a complex interplay of life experience, societal conceptions of 'maturity' and 'adulthood', and individual variations in development/cognition in addition to the broader process of brain development. additionally, 'brain development' is far more complicated than just the synapses of the prefrontal cortex finishing development, and is a process that continues throughout one's life.

CONTINUED below the cut bc I don't want to annihilate everyone's dash with this but I have a lot more to say

continuing the previous thought: if we're measuring maturity strictly by brain development, then things get extremely dicey, because the brain continues changing beyond your twenties and throughout adulthood! consider this study, which finds that the age of peak performance for different cognitive abilities varies widely, with some peaking around 20 and others closer to 50. the brain doesn't reach a state of 'maturity' in its cognitive functions at age 25 that it then maintains consistently through adulthood, it's far more complicated than that.

essentially, while synapses in the prefrontal cortex keep developing into your 20s (curious as to where you got 'mid to late twenties' from as well; the study only references 'the third decade of life', which could mean anything from 20 to 30), the idea that this development means anything particularly concrete about maturity or adulthood is based on (imo) a faulty and oversimplified understanding of both the brain and what 'maturity' actually means in the context of society. if your conception of 'maturity' asserts that adulthood begins in the late twenties, this conception may be due for a serious reevaluation.

and the reason I'm concerned about all this isn't because I'm a pedant -- it's because this matters in our current political climate. conservative politicians in the UK are currently trying to raise the legal age at which one can transition to 25 based on exactly this faulty conception of maturity, which argues that trans people can't make 'adult' decisions about their own bodies until this point. this is wildly infantilizing and patronizing, and I imagine I don't have to explain why it's a problem, but to elaborate: adulthood and maturity aren't apolitical concepts, and the assertion that adults don't have the right to bodily autonomy because they have been deemed medically incompetent by a truly arbitrary metric is an act of political violence.

I highly recommend this slate article: it goes into this topic in a lot more depth than I do, and features commentary from a lot of neuroscientists who know a lot more about this than me.

[onecornerface]

New study finds cash-transfers didn't have some expected benefits- But why??

A new study (NBER Working Paper) seemingly finds that a monthly cash-transfer ($1000 a month over a few years) to poor people in the US failed to benefit recipients’ mental and physical health or food security in a bunch of ways after the first year. It’s apparently more ambitious than some previous studies of cash transfers in the US. This may be some evidence that UBI doesn’t have all the benefits we’d like it to have for helping poor people or some subsets of them, which could impact future debates on UBI. There may still be consequentialist and/or deontological reasons to support UBI, but we need to ensure they’re aligned with the best evidence on the (good and/or bad) results (or lack thereof).

I’ve read the Twitter summary thread, and skimmed several sections of the paper (especially intro sections and Discussion), but haven't fully read the paper.

Some initial thoughts & questions I’m wondering about—

My main concerns are about the mechanisms, by which I mean how the cash-transfers impacted people’s behavior or psychology in ways that would bring about the measured results (assuming the metrics/results are valid). One of the most puzzling results is on food security.

“We also find that the transfer generated large and highly statistically significant improvements in food security in the first year. However, mirroring our results for mental health, these improvements were short-lived and, by the end of the program, participants in the treatment group reported no better ability to meet their food needs than those in the control group.” (Page 3)

If cash-transfers indeed fail to improve food security for a lot of people after the first year (yet apparently did help during the first year), why? What are the mechanisms by which it would fail?

From my armchair speculation, I can kind-of-sort-of imagine how psychological adaptation (or suchlike) may explain how cash may fail to improve mental health or stress after the first year, leading to something of a return to baseline (albeit with many reservations).

And some of the physical health results also might not be too baffling, since the relationship between income, medical care access, and health results, may well be complex and wonky. Medical access may be reduced by non-income factors, effective medical advice may not be taken up, and many medical practices may be ineffective. That said, there are still a lot of very plausible mechanisms as to how poverty would worsen health—it’s not all specious correlation (even if some is), and it’s not all the result of third-factors causing both poverty and illness (even if some is) and/or illness causing poverty. So there’s still some more explanation needed as to how a lot of these wouldn’t be impacted much, or would be impacted only temporarily, by cash transfers.

All that said, I’m still more puzzled by the food-security results. People’s food needs are a lot more consistent and predictable than their physical healthcare needs, and seem less likely to change due to any return to baseline.

Do the recipients develop a bigger appetite or altered metabolism after the first year? Do they start making worse (or at least, less food-focused) spending decisions, resulting in less money to spend on food? Or what? Was there something else they preferred to spend their money on, besides food, after the first year? Did they not have enough money to spend on food? Did rent take up so much they didn’t have money for food?

Maybe some of them spend more money on drugs or suchlike, resulting in less money for food—but the study seems to find mixed results as to whether drug use increased or not (see Page 36, and search the document for “drug” to see variations of the same claim throughout), and I assume a large chunk of the recipients didn’t spend a lot of money on drugs (even if there was also a large chunk who did). So, in any case, I don’t think very much of the food security result can be easily explained by “recipients spent the money on drugs instead of food.”

So… what gives? Why did food insecurity go down and then back up again??

I’ve skimmed the paper, and it looks like most of it consists in arguments that their statistical methods and suchlike are valid and not confounded, or suchlike. I probably don’t have the expertise to evaluate any of those arguments. But it doesn’t look like there’s much, if any, discussion on the mechanisms. Maybe it’s in there somewhere, I don’t know.

The results wouldn’t be magic. If they’re valid, they should be happening as a result of the recipients changing (or failing to change) their consumption patterns or other decisions or circumstances in various sorts of ways. So what are those? If there aren't any plausible mechanisms (which admittedly would be very hard to show), this could also be reason to question the validity of the results.

It sounds like the lead author, Sarah Miller, is in favor of cash transfers. So the negative results can’t be readily explained by a lead author’s bias against the policy.

Some of the failure may be explained by the fact that the study was only three years, and some benefits may take many years of cash transfers to achieve. However, this doesn’t address why the study did find a bunch of benefits in year 1 which then ceased in year 2. This pattern of benefits appearing and then disappearing also seems to count against the possibility that the study’s method was simply unable to detect the benefits. Apparently it did detect the benefits in year 1, which makes it puzzling why they disappeared in year 2.

A bunch of twitter commenters seem to think the study confirms UBI sucks actually, because poor people are just intrinsically shitty and make bad decisions that keep themselves poor and in bad health completely regardless of what the government does—as the critics had been saying all along.

I’m certainly open to the possibility that poor people tend to make bad decisions, and I want to guard against any politically-correct bias that wrongly rules it out. If and insofar as poor people make decisions that contribute to keeping themselves poor and in bad health (whether these decisions are bad or defensible, which is a further question), then we should want to know what those are, so we can work with them to improve their situations more effectively and ethically.

Many progressives are likely too biased toward underestimating the agency of some poor people, and may well underestimate how many poor people could somewhat improve their situation by making different decisions. I think we can concede a lot of these points without drastically undercutting the position that poverty is obviously extremely bad and unjust, that some forms of government intervention & redistribution are effective, and that the main in-principle objections to government redistribution are weak.

I’m also pretty confident that most of the critics are ideologically committed to the “poor people make bad decisions” hypothesis for biased and unempirical reasons—and also seemingly haven't put forward any detailed hypotheses for how exactly the “poor people make bad decisions” view actually explains the evidence.

Arguably, even if poor people make bad decisions, this isn't enough to explain how and why their consumption or lifestyle decisions (etc.) were impacted by cash-transfers in the right sort of ways to explain any of the main interesting data.

My ideas on the study here are all very provisional. But the study seems worthwhile for UBI proponents to get ahead of, and develop a well-thought-out empirical analysis as to what it does or doesn’t imply for UBI.

[petermorwood]

I COULD MURDER A CURRY... Well, at least commit a certain amount of violence on one.

In other words, I wanted something curry-ish the other day without taking much trouble over it, so I threw this together from what was in the cupboard, fridge and freezer.

(There was rather less than I expected. That's been fixed.)

When I discovered we had no lamb or chicken it ended up as unintended vegetarian, and can as easily become vegan; just leave out the ghee. If my result is anything to go by, all variations will taste great.

NB #1, there's no salt; the preserved lemon has plenty.

NB #2, metric measurements are correct, Imperial are approximate, but this whole recipe was pretty vague from start to finish, so wing it.

That's what I did. For instance, preserved lemon is Moroccan not Indian, yet it worked just fine.

Lemon and lime lentil curry

Ingredients

1 tablespoon ghee or coconut oil (I used a 50-50 combination)

2 onions peeled and chopped fine

2 tablespoon hot curry powder

1 tablespoon mild curry powder (or 1 hot / 2 mild if preferred)

6 cloves of garlic peeled and chopped fine

2 400g / 14oz tins chopped tomatoes in juice

1 400g / 14oz tin kidney beans, drained and rinsed

250 g / 1 cup red lentils

250 g / 1 cup each of red, green, and yellow peppers, sliced and coarsely chopped (optional; we had them in the freezer)

2 heaped tablespoons lime pickle, chopped fine (hot or mild as preferred; Patak brand is good. I used home-made hot)

2 heaped tablespoons preserved lemon, chopped fine (again, I used home-made) *

1 tablespoon garam masala

* If you can't source preserved lemons, use the zest and juice of at least one fresh lemon (two might be better). If you've only got bottled lemon juice, add 125ml / 1/2 cup of it when the tomatoes go in.

Method

Heat your preferred cooking fat in a pan (a wok is even better), add the chopped onions, and cook until soft and translucent. If desired, cook until starting to brown (this may take up to 45 minutes).

Push the onions to one side, allow the fat to flow into the centre of the pan, add the dry spices, combine well with the fat and cook for about five minutes.

Add the garlic and cook for a further five minutes.

Add the kidney beans and lentils to this mixture, stir well, add the peppers, lime pickle and preserved lemon, and stir again.

Add the chopped tomatoes, and one tomato-tin full of water. (Also add the lemon juice (and zest), if that's what you're using instead of preserved lemons.)

Stir well, turn the heat right down, cover, and simmer for about 30 to 45 minutes. (This is where I'd have added 2 cubed chicken breasts, if I'd had them).

Check occasionally to ensure nothing is sticking, adding a little water if required. Taste during this process, and adjust the seasoning. (Which means, if you're using fresh lemon or bottled lemon juice, this is when to add some salt.)

When the lentils are done (I like them a little al dente), sprinkle on 1 tablespoon garam masala, stir it in then serve.

Accompany with Basmati rice, or chapatis (flour tortillas / wraps will do just fine), or naan bread, or any combination of these. I did a mix of 1/3 brown Basmati / 2/3 white Basmati.

@dduane pointed out that what with the carbs, protein, dietary fibre etc., this is also quite healthy. That's an unexpected bonus for something I just thought was no trouble to make, tasted good...

And didn't involve committing even a minor felony, though a slice of apple tort to follow would have been nice... :->

[apolloendymion]

ok! i think tumblr ate my fucking apple cider recipe post. still, my autumn equinox tradition must carry on!

Apollo's Foolproof From-Scratch Apple Cider That Was So Good It Allegedly Landed Me A Boyfriend

you will need:

12 apples (the variety is up to you, i usually do half granny smith and half whatever's on sale plus a red delicious for garnishing)

10oz raisins

cinnamon sticks, whole cloves, star anise, nutmeg, allspice, cardamom pods, any other warming spices u like (whole > ground) (follow ur heart on the amounts, it's like garlic just throw so much in there. just go wild)

1 orange

brown sugar (i don't have measurements but be prepared to use a LOT lmao, i always buy at least one 32oz bag. you'll be sweetening to taste.)

large pot with lid

potato masher (optional)

two large bowls/pots/receptacles to strain the cider into

fine mesh strainer

cheesecloth or coffee filters (optional)

apple corer or knife

citrus zester

slotted spoon or ladle

the steps:

1. scrub apples gently under hot water to remove grocery store wax coating. core apples making sure all seeds & stems are removed. add apples, raisins, and mulling spices to pot with enough water to fully cover ingredients, and bring to boil. reduce heat, cover, and simmer for 1 hour.

2. scrub orange to remove wax. zest and juice, avoiding the pith & seeds. use a potato masher or other utensil to lightly mash boiled apple mixture so every apple slice is at least partially broken up, then add the zest & juice to the pot. bring back to boil, reduce heat, cover, and simmer for another hour. then turn off the heat and allow mixture to cool.

3. place two mesh strainers over two bowls or pots (and cover each with a cheesecloth or coffee filters, if you have them). with a slotted spoon or ladle, remove as much of the solids from the pot as you can and place them in one strainer (the larger one, if they are different sizes) to drain, then press out as much liquid into the cheesecloth as possible.

4. pour the cider from the simmer pot into the second cheesecloth and press. combine the liquid from both bowls.

5. add brown sugar to taste

cooking tips:

the times listed above are bare minimums. once all the ingredients are in the pot (minus sugar!) you can simmer as long as you want, so long as someone's nearby to supervise.

always add any sweeteners after the cooking process. otherwise, they'll burn and make the whole thing bitter.

if it's too acidic, add baking soda or more spices. if it's not acidic enough, add lemon juice, additional orange juice, or apple cider vinegar.

variations:

add 12oz fresh cranberries to the first step

sub oranges for lemons or apple cider vinegar

sub brown sugar for straight molasses, maple syrup, or alternative sweetener of your choice (I'd imagine fig or other fruit-based sweeteners would work best)

report back to me if you try something new!! i want to hear how it turned out!

serving suggestions:

add three or four cinnamon imperials (red hots) to your mug, along with a dash of fireball whiskey if you're so inclined. i cannot stress enough how fucking amazing this tastes.

garnish with apple slices, orange slices, cinnamon sticks, and/or star anise

if you have dairy-free ice cream on hand, pour some cider over a scoop. you can use dairy ice cream, but it's more likely to curdle.

freeze some in an ice cube tray, then blend with some non-frozen cider for a slushie

ok I've never tried this, but i bet blending with pumpkin puree would slap. PLEASE tell me if you try it

this makes a metric fuckload of cider, which is very rich and can be watered down considerably (seriously). share with your friends and/or freeze some to last the season (or halve it, i guess, but that's no fun :P)

[muses-with-afp]

In terms of Bleachy things that I am never not thinking about given my particular sort of brainrot, it would have to be Chapter 179, Confession in the Twilight. Today, I want to overthink long and hard about assumptions fandom often makes about Hisana. Some of these assumptions are not well-supported by the canon. Other of these assumptions likely stem from material added by the anime and/or the movie Fade to Black.

Because I'm sort of "meh" on the supplementary material from the anime and pretty "blah" on the Bleach movies overall, I will stick to the manga. (I am also a simple creature with only two brain cells to rub together now-a-days so... there's that, too.) I am sure there are more assumptions one could pick apart and torture to death, but for the sake of brevity (I write cackling because when am I ever brief?) below are my top three.

1. Assumption One: Hisana had no spiritual power/pressure

This one is odd to me because we, the audience, do not have a whole lot of evidence to base this assumption off of. Byakuya never says anything of this sort to Rukia during the confession:

Although, it is possible that Hisana was spiritually weak, and what made it difficult for her to survive was taking care of a baby with significant spiritual pressure/power. This explanation is entirely possible, but, based on the English translation, it is not the only interpretation one could draw.

Honing in on the"[b]ut it was hard for her to survive there while caring for you..." bit, this could suggest that Hisana, in fact, needed more than vibes and water to survive herself. We get a sense in Bleach that siblings often have similar capacities in terms of spiritual power and pressure, and we know Rukia is spiritually gifted. Accordingly, one could make the leap that Hisana, too, had some spiritual capacity. Now, I think the case for sibling similarities in spiritual talents is probably strongest for the souls born in SS since they presumably are most "genetically" related (or whatever concept passes for "genetic" relationships in SS), one assumes. This, of course, also assumes you buy the idea that Hisana and Rukia were just ordinary souls who passed from the WOTL to SS. KT, however, has thrown a wrench into this explanation by suggesting that Rukia is a secret... eighth thing/potential hybrid. (At least, I think we are up to eight soul "ecotypes" now .... Maybe it's nine if we add in the lore from Burn the Witch.) Perhaps this secret variation/hybrid is specific to Rukia, or maybe it applies to both sisters equally.

Other evidence that could support Hisana as having some spiritual capacity (beyond being a spiritual dandelion) includes:

According to Renji, the only way to escape Inuzuri was to attend the Academy/become a shinigami. It's possible that Renji was speaking only in terms of "legality" (i.e., the only legal way to leave your assigned district/town/placement is to gain admittance to the Academy) since we know Kenpachi and crew exist. Could Hisana have gotten out of Inuzuri using the Academy loophole? Sure! Why not? Was Hisana a bloody tank like Kenpachi and fought her way out of the city? Maybe but probably not, since she felt driven to abandon her sister, which doesn't seem very warlord-like of her. Maybe Hisana never actually left Inuzuri after the abandonment. The "[a]bandoned you and ran" (emphasis mine) part of the story makes it sound like she left the city, but maybe she just ran away from Rukia and went to another part of Inuzuri or the district.

Rukia somehow managed to survive (i.e., maybe it wasn't the demands (or just the demands) of a spiritually needy baby that drove Hisana to abandon her). We don't know much/anything about the period of Rukia's life between the abandonment and meeting Renji, so it's hard to say how needy she was as a soul baby.

Hisana hung out with/lived with Byakuya, who we know (a) has a metric ton of spiritual power and pressure, and (b) lives in a city full of similarly situated souls. Canonically, weaker souls seem greatly affected by the spiritual pressure of the more spiritually capable souls in Bleach, which could suggest that she had enough to withstand living in Seireitei and being married to someone with a lot of the stuff.

Depending on whether you think Rukia is anywhere near the ballpark in terms of her age vis-à-vis Ichigo (150 years, by the way), Hisana's life span would have been about 100 years in SS, which isn't particularly short. It seems that souls with some spiritual power/pressure tend to live longer than souls without it.

As Byakuya continues with his confession to Rukia, he says that Hisana "searched for [Rukia] almost every day for the next five years." If you take this literally, it sounds like Hisana went out into the slums regularly, which is pretty far away from Kuchiki manor. Without some sort of fast travel option (the Kuchiki are rich so maybe one exists...), it seems that she would have needed to learn a pretty good flash-step to make that trek anyway feasible. Although, it is possible that Byakuya meant Hisana searched for Rukia in a more abstract sense since, as a noble, she would finally have resources (beyond her physically trekking out there) to conduct a search. It could also be both.

2. Assumption Two: Hisana was (or was not) doing XYZ before marriage

This assumption likely piggybacks off the one above. Since we are given no indication as to what Hisana was doing before marriage, if you assume she was a spiritually weak being, it makes sense for the years between abandonment and marriage to be full of scrounging and hiding from scary beings/thugs/monsters/take-your-pick. And, true, the reckless noble/prince taking an unwashed but kindly peasant girl as a wife is an oldie goldie in terms of romance tropes.

But, as noted above, Hisana could have been literally anything. Shinigami? Sure! Secret agent/informant? Why not!? In CFYOW, Yourichi gets pretty annoyed at Tokinada for speaking ill of Hisana. It's possible that she's irritated with him because he's trying to goad Byakuya into an altercation and is using Byakuya's dead wife as the ammo (which, yeah, is a pretty gross thing to do). Alternatively, there could be a personal connection between the two women (which may provide further color on Rukia being chosen as a vessel for the orb, don't mind me just out here speculating). We know the higher districts are rough, and, at least according to Renji, Inuzuri is full of criminals and bastards of all stripes. Hisana could've been a crime lord, a lackey to a crime lord, a thief, a prostitute, a hustling gambler, a bookie, basically anything. The vagueness is glorious!!!

3. Assumption Three: Hisana died of ghost consumption a respiratory illness

This assumption likely arises from the anime (although forgive me if I'm wrong about this since it has been a while since I've watched the anime) and Fade to Black, which has a scene where Hisana has a coughing fit. The manga, however, gives no indication:

All Byakuya says is he "lost his wife." To what? Who knows?! Be more specific, Byakuya!

We also don't get a whole lot of evidence to indicate what killed her during the confession scene.

Hisana isn't sweating, and her futon is white as is the bit of clothing we see, so it doesn't look like she's necessarily suffered a physical attack/assault. She's also, notably, not coughing....

For reference, below are Byakuya's bludgeoned panels because we have a lot of parallels between her deathbed request and Byakuya's confession to Rukia:

To be fair, Byakuya's blanket and pad aren't bloody either, but his captain's coat sure is, and, goodness, is he sweaty! Although, perhaps Byakuya's memory of Hisana strips away the gory and gruesome bits (e.g., blood, sweat, coughing, gasping, gurgling death rattles, anguished groaning, etc.) since... well... no one actually dies pretty.

Based on the manga retelling of Hisana's expiration, the cause of death was... literally anything. Okay, I kid. I kid.

Sort of.

Maybe her COD wasn't literally anything. She was at least in a bed ready for death and had enough time to call upon her husband. (Although, so is Byakuya here, and he was stabbed like thirty minutes ago and is giving similar sorts of vibes to poor Rukia.) My guess is that whatever Hisana had, she succumbed to it over a period of time, which rules out causes of death that come fast, but a lot of deaths aren't immediate (unfortunately). Maybe she sustained internal injuries that took her, which would parallel nicely with Byakuya in these panels. Maybe she had "beautiful wife consumption," which is an oldie goldie trope for doomed lovers. Maybe she had whatever soul flu or illness afflicted Byakuya's dad. Maybe she had some sort of soul cancer. If you're doing the math (or a version of the math since time in Bleach is wobbly), Byakuya and Hisana married a year or so after WWII. It's not a pleasant thought, but cancer (leukemia and solid) rates went up five+ years later for obvious reasons, and perhaps this is an abstract/unconscious nod to that of sorts.

But, who can say??? Not me, that's for damn sure!

From a practical story-telling perspective, I imagine that KT leaves a lot of wiggle room around this period to avoid caging himself in for whatever reveal he had/has in store regarding Rukia's backstory/heritage/why Urahara picked her to put the orb into/etc.

[asha-mage]

"Sid Meier's Civilization is actually about a group of immortal god kings condemned to forever struggle against each other in a never ending cosmic game in which their empires and nations are but pawns" gets brought up as a funny 'ha ha' joke about Civ, but the thing is that is the most supported reading of the game's mechanics, writing, art direction, and even trailers.

But what's really funny is that each new installment leans harder into this idea then the last. With Civ 7 making it so that leaders aren't even tied down to their 'historic' civilizations (meaning you can't even argue the 'national personification' thing anymore) and since Civs can change while leaders can't, that means that leaders are also the only constant across an entire campaign.

This means, for example, in the universe of Civilization, the likes of Gaius Octavius, Hatshepsut, Napoleon, and even Gandhi are constantly reborn, take up leadership of a small singular village, live for uncountable eons (unless slain by another Leader or dethroned), rebuild the same nation, people, empire over and over and over again with only slight variations, until one achieves victory over the others (be it by sending their people into the stars, building a society that culturally subsumes all others, conquering the world, or otherwise somehow 'winning history' by the metrics they held dear in their mortal lives) and gains...nothing as far as we know.

We don't know if they wither to dust instantly Gothel style, or reign until the heat death of the universe, or begin aging and live out a mortal life for however long remains to them. All we know for certain is that they are right back there again at the stone age as soon as the next game starts, becoming chiefs of a tribe of thatched roved houses on some unrecognizable landmass, with nothing to do but start all lover again from scratch. Build the same walls and monuments and wonders, fight the same endlessly shifting battles against the same rivals. Maybe this time Rome is stamped out in antiquity, and maybe this time is launches the first space colony. Maybe Egypt raises up the pyramids once more, and maybe they raise up the Colossus, or the Hanging Gardens, or Statue of Liberty, or the Sydney Opera House. Maybe Napoleon's France finally achieves perfect ideal democracy, or maybe his warring ways lead a coalition of Japan, China, the Gauls, and Sumerians facing off against him all over again. Maybe Gandhi decides mutually assured destruction is the only way to protect world peace. The names change, the lands and continents change, the ages change, eventually even the civilizations themselves change- Gaius finds himself the Emperor of Egypt and Hatsheput the Queen of the United States of America- but the only thing that doesn't change is the leaders. Their configurations vary and sometimes they face off against a newcomer they haven't before, but always it ultimately comes back to a group of immortal rulers- the great and the good, the wicked and the genius, the mad and the unlikely, and the just plain lucky that one and all ended up in the history books- who keep trying to take one more swing, one more run, one more turn at fulling the ambitions of their mortal life, and leading their people to glory.

Because the only way to break the cycle, to the end the game (both in universe and out) is to stop playing. Give up. Stop pushing that glowing little arrow button. Stop following the ambitions, the ideals, the dreams, the hopes that lead them here in the first place.

But just like Civ players and just like humans in general, they never do.

[virtues-end]

Duuuuuuuude, it's been ages since I last played this and now I saw you updated and went "Oh yeah! That one was good, wasn't it? I think?" And I played it and duuuuuuuuude. You're so fucking excellent. A fucking transcendent experience. Penroooooose, my beloved, my dear and Shea!!!! It is really hard to make an mc that hates them, although i am intrigued by the enemies to lovers potential. And I love to see the variation!! And oh, Elexis. Cannot wait to get to know them more. More smooches required. And the WORLDBUILDING i love it, I love all of it it's so good man, not to mention the humanity track, we looooove an mc having a metric to see just how inhuman they've been this week you rock, you rock so much, my hat's off and everything, thank you SOOOO much for making it and thank you SO much for sharing it AHHHHHh, you're an excellent writer, the whole rewrite was 1000% worth it, bless you I will be thinking about this game for the foreseeable future. 💛

Thank you! I've been battling the flu and generally feeling crappy, and your kind message just absolutely made my day. Really glad you enjoyed it!

[i-scan-your-poems]

hello! i took a poetry class and it was p cool but we never really learned how to tell stressed and unstressed syllables apart. what's your trick?

I don't really have a trick and I don't remember if I ever had to learn to tell them apart, but I can try to explain how I think about it.

In multi-syllable English words, having stress on a particular syllable is part of the word - just as much as, say, starting with b is part of the word; for some words, like proDUCE versus PROduce, if you change the stress it becomes a different word. The stressed syllable is the one that's usually pronounced a little higher-pitched, a little longer, and/or a little louder (if you shout the word or imagine shouting it, the difference in volume might become more apparent). You can look it up in a dictionary if you're struggling to figure out what to listen for or if you're still learning English. Typically there's one stressed syllable in each word, but often in a longer word you can optionally give a smaller, less prominent stress to another syllable too.

For one-syllable words it's a bit more open-to-interpretation; in a series of one-syllable words the stressed syllables are just the ones that are emphasized when you say it out loud, and obviously it's possible to read a sentence several different ways with different emphasis, although you'll find that content words (such as nouns and verbs) are more often stressed and function words (such as prepositions) are more often unstressed . Saying it aloud in the way that sounds most natural to you is a good start. (The most natural accentuation might not always fit the basic metrical pattern, as you'll notice once you get a feel for the metrical pattern of the poem you're reading – you could see those divergences as variation in the meter, and/or just as the meter encouraging you to emphasize things in a particular way.)

[tom781]

SEO for YouTube: How to Optimize Your Videos for Search

Meet Paul. Paul is a budding YouTuber with a passion for tech reviews and tutorials. He’s been creating content for a while, but his channel isn’t growing as quickly as he’d hoped. Paul’s videos are high-quality, informative, and engaging, yet they’re not reaching a wide audience. The key problem? His videos are not optimized for YouTube’s search algorithm. This is where SEO, or Search Engine Optimization, comes into play.

Understanding YouTube SEO

SEO for YouTube involves optimizing your videos so they rank higher in search results. Higher ranking videos get more views, which can lead to more subscribers and overall channel growth. Here’s how Paul can optimize his videos for YouTube search:

Keyword Research

Paul’s first step is to find the right keywords. Keywords are the terms and phrases that users type into the search bar when looking for videos. Paul uses tools like Google Trends, TubeBuddy, and VidIQ to identify popular keywords related to his content. For instance, if Paul’s video is about the latest iPhone review, he might discover that “iPhone 14 review,” “iPhone 14 unboxing,” and “iPhone 14 vs Samsung Galaxy S22” are popular search terms.

Optimizing Video Titles

Once Paul has his keywords, he needs to incorporate them into his video titles. A good title is clear, concise, and includes the main keyword. For example, instead of titling his video “My Thoughts on the New iPhone,” Paul titles it “iPhone 14 Review: In-Depth Look at Apple’s Latest Smartphone.” This title is more likely to match what users are searching for.

Creating Engaging Thumbnails

Thumbnails are the first thing viewers see. An eye-catching thumbnail can significantly increase click-through rates. Paul creates custom thumbnails that are visually appealing and relevant to the video content. He includes the video title or key phrases in the thumbnail to attract viewers’ attention.

Writing Detailed Descriptions

The video description is another crucial SEO element. Paul writes detailed descriptions for his videos, incorporating his main keyword and related terms naturally. He includes a brief summary of the video, timestamps for different sections, and links to his social media, website, and other relevant videos. This not only helps with SEO but also provides a better viewer experience.

Using Tags Effectively

Tags help YouTube understand the content of a video. Paul uses a mix of broad and specific tags, including his main keyword and variations of it. For his iPhone review video, he might use tags like “iPhone 14,” “iPhone review,” “Apple smartphone review,” and “tech reviews 2023.”

Engaging with Viewers

Engagement metrics like likes, comments, and watch time also influence search rankings. Paul makes an effort to engage with his audience by asking questions in his videos, responding to comments, and encouraging viewers to like and share his videos. The more engagement his videos get, the higher they are likely to rank.

Promoting Videos on Social Media

Paul doesn’t rely solely on YouTube’s search algorithm to drive traffic. He promotes his videos on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. By sharing his videos with a broader audience, he increases the chances of getting more views and engagement.

Analyzing and Adjusting

Finally, Paul regularly reviews his analytics to understand what’s working and what’s not. He looks at metrics like watch time, click-through rates, and viewer retention. Based on this data, Paul adjusts his SEO strategy and content approach to continually improve his channel’s performance.

Conclusion

Through consistent effort and strategic optimization, Paul starts to see his videos rank higher in YouTube search results. His channel grows steadily, attracting more viewers and subscribers. By following these SEO practices, Paul not only improves his search rankings but also enhances the overall quality and reach of his content.

For any YouTuber looking to grow their channel, understanding and implementing YouTube SEO is crucial. Just like Paul, you too can optimize your videos and achieve greater success on the platform.

[goodtoyous]

The Trouble With Tagging

Tagging in fandom is useful, but ultimately detrimental because of how people are using it.

When I shop online for shoes, tagging is what lets me filter my view to white sneakers in size 7.5. But there are other attributes I look for in shoes. Maybe I want shoes with widely-spaced holes so they aren’t too tight when I lace them. Maybe I want to buy soles that aren’t too thick because I think that makes them clunky. And there will be other people who have these preferences too, so that must mean they’re useful classifications to have!

So it should be in a company’s best interest to provide me a way to find white sneakers in size 7.5 with widely-spaced holes, thinner soles, and whatever else I want in my shoes. Because otherwise it’s just a waste of time for me to buy something and return it later when I don’t like it, right?

No. Absolutely not.

I can’t ask for all the shoes that aren’t red to be tagged as #Not Red. I can’t ask for all shoes to be tagged #Loose Around the Ankles, when that isn’t a universal metric. The best way for me to find the shoes I want, and maybe this is still somehow controversial but I can’t imagine how, is to go into the store MYSELF and either try on shoes until I find ones I like, or ask a salesperson to help me.

Yet, somehow, people fail to see how this applies to tagging.

Back in the days of cable television, when a show was about to start, you’d see a rating and a content warning. ‘Viewer discretion is advised’, and maybe a few more words on what kind of content to expect: crude language, sexual situations, or graphic violence. We still use variations of those ratings and contents warnings on AO3 today, and they are very useful, standardized indicators.

Writers would use these indicators, and it was understood certain ratings would contain adult topics. There was nuance there, and room for interpretation, and responsibility on the reader’s side for monitoring their own content consumption.

In fandom, we coined our own terms to help enforce the idea that fanfiction was a free space for everyone to write what they wanted. ‘Don’t like; don’t read’ (DL;DR) is a common term that has perhaps become less common over the years, and has lost some of the meaning it used to have.

DL;DR does not mean ‘we, the writers, will warn for every topic that this work will include so you can avoid it’. What it meant was, if you read a story and came across something you didn’t like, you would stop reading. It did not have to be something triggering, it could just be something you didn’t like. You would hit the back button and that was the end of it.

Using tags became a way to include additional information on a story so that people could avoid certain topics more easily. So that back button didn’t need to be hit quite as often. Nowadays, I feel as though people have begun to see it as a requirement.

People will preach about wanting to avoid content they don't want, but you have always been able to do that from the very beginning. You always have the option to close the tab, to stop reading.

‘I wouldn’t have read this if I had known ___’ is a complaint most writers are not unfamiliar with. Readers complain about having wasted their time on stories that were ‘disappointing’, ‘problematic’, or ‘misleading’, simply because there is an aspect of a story they disagree with.

If a story doesn’t have ‘Unhappy Ending’ slapped on it, readers hold the author responsible for their emotional response. If one topic isn’t tagged, the author is somehow at fault for being ignorant, insensitive, or irresponsible.

It is grossly misleading to approach this by assuming authors are acting incorrectly, or possess malicious intent for not including a tag. Simplifying fiction by categorizing it into tags is exactly what that is, simplifying it. Maybe it isn’t tagged because it's a spoiler. Maybe the author didn't think it was an important aspect of the story. Maybe they just forgot!

If an author is mistagging and misrepresenting their work, that is a different story that is subject to different nuances. But it is not a requirement, unspoken or otherwise, to include a tag, because this isn’t how reading works! There is a reason why 'Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings' exists, and that is because tags are for an author to classify their own work how they see fit. It is their choice!

People have been trained by social media into not curating their own content; they let algorithms and FYPs do it for them, and when they see something they don't like, they blame it on the person who posted it.

"How dare anyone encroach on this public space with something I don't want to see!"

So I ask you this: does an author’s opinions and desires on how their work is presented not matter? Are authors shackled to public opinion irregardless of what they believe is most important about their own creation? Should creative control be fully relinquished because people who had nothing to do with a work's creative process believe they know better?

If your answer to that last question isn’t a firm, resounding NO, then you are admitting you feel more entitled to a creator’s work than the actual creator.

Society has evolved to no longer value art for being art, but value art only if it is able to conform to various labels for commodified consumption. Yet there is no faster way to kill true art than to try and cram it into a billion tiny little boxes.

Fiction is subjective. Tastes are subjective. Tagging is useful, but it isn’t everything. Take responsibility for the content you consume. Stop asking people to pick out your shoes for you, and go try some on for yourself.

[astronomodome]

Tumblr Poll Tournaments & MCYT

So a while ago I made a post expressing my frustration with the way a lot of tumblr poll tournaments seem to exclude mcyt characters- or if they are included, people in the notes are rude about it. The first situation of these- the poll organizer including rules against submitting characters from mcyt- is something I can easily quantify. I've crunched some numbers in order to find out two things:

How common is this phenomenon, really?

Why does this happen in the first place?

A note before I start: I'm not blaming the poll organizers for this, and I don't want anyone to get angry at them for excluding mcyt. At the end of the day, it's up to them to curate what they want their poll to be, and if they don't want to deal with the toxicity that often comes with letting mcyt characters run (or if they just don't like it for whatever reason), that's their decision. Trust me- poll organizers have to put up with a lot of shit already, and I don't want to add to it, regardless of their opinions on mcyt. If any poll organizers recognize their own words in the later part of this overview, they can contact me and I'll remove it. This is also why I have chosen not to identify the blogs from which I took the examples- I mean no harm to any poll organizer. They are a symptom of a much larger problem and they haven't done anything wrong except be a little misinformed at worst.

Excluding mcyt characters from poll tournaments really isn't that big of a deal on its own- though it is frustrating- but it does speak to the larger attitude of the general tumblr population towards mcyt. While not without its flaws, this can be used as a metric to measure the extent of this attitude and maybe get a hint of why it exists.

...Please note, also, that most of these polls date back to around March-June 2023, when poll tournaments were a big thing on Tumblr. Not super outdated, but I still should note that opinions might have changed since then.

Also also, be warned that there are examples below of some organizers being pretty toxic! It's not a whole lot, but if you don't want to expose yourself to that, maybe pass on this post!

With that out of the way, let's get started.

Part One: The Numbers

The first thing I decided to do was figure out a rough percentage of how many poll tournaments have a rule that excludes mcyt characters from being submitted. To get a sample batch of poll blogs, I used one of the blogs that pits the winners of tournaments against each other and checked each blog included in that. This ended up being a more tedious process than I had thought, since there's a lot of variation in the way poll organizers, well, organize. I ended up with 123 blogs sorted into three categories.

The first category included tournaments where a rule for or against mcyt characters wouldn't really make sense, for a variety of reasons. Most commonly, the tournament was between letters of the alphabet or animo acids or government agencies, not fictional characters, so I counted them out. There were also a handful of blogs where the contestants were determined by the organizer, not by nomination at all. Combined, blogs that did not fit my criteria made up 60/123 of my samples.

The second and third categories were the blogs that either had a rule against mcyt characters, or didn't. Most of the blogs I looked through had rules I could find, and some were more thorough about it than others. For my purposes, I counted the blog as a no only if they explicitly had a rule against mcyt characters, or clarified later that they weren't allowed. Most poll blogs didn't mention mcyt at all. (This will become relevant later.)

Of the 63 blogs that fit my criteria, 11 (17.5%) of them had a rule against mcyt characters, while the remaining 52 (82.5%) did not.

To me, this seems like pretty good news! I had honestly expected the percentage of blogs that excluded mcyt to be much higher. This is definitely a good sign! But I wouldn't really jump to assuming that mcyt characters would actually be accepted in all of these blogs. I will explain this in the next part of my research.

Part Two: The Examples

The second thing I wanted to find out with this research was why organizers end up having rules against mcyt in the first place. Is it just the bad reputation the mcyt space has (largely a result of one green man in particular)? Let's look at a few examples of poll rules against mcyt characters. Some of them are from my sample blogs and some of them aren't.

Type 1: Not understanding the difference between real people and characters in mcyt

The majority of the rules against mcyt I saw were of this type, and honestly, it's pretty reasonable. It's a pretty major debate in the mcyt community over whether mcyts' characters are separate enough from their content creators to count as fictional. However, there are a considerable number of mcyt characters who are explicitly stated to be different from their cc in the same way as a character in a movie played by an actor is different from the actor playing them. Excluding all mcyt characters for being 'real people' is just incorrect, though I can kinda understand where the organizers were coming from with this one.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of poll blogs had a rule against submitting real people. There's a possibility that some poll organizers might have lumped mcyt characters as real people even if they didn't specify it explicitly. Therefore, an attempt to actually submit an mcyt character into one of these tournaments might be against the rules based on what the organizer thinks. I have no way to quantify this, which is why I said earlier that the results of my initial test might not be accurate.

Type 2: 'Problematic fandom' (toxicity warning for some of these)

This type of rule is usually broader than just mcyt, but lumps it in with other fandoms known for being associated with bigotry (often hp, which is... yeah i'm definitely not going to argue in favor of harry potter but yikes. really? we're as bad as terfy potter? really.) At least one of them let dsmp characters in with the exception of dream, which is a lot fairer than... some of the others.

If we want to give the organizers benefit of the doubt here, we can say that these rules are made to keep the poll less toxic than it would be otherwise... but to be perfectly honest, some of these might be more about that phenomenon of purity culture that has had a habit of popping up in fandom spaces since forever. That's a whole other conversation I'm not ready to have now, but it comes as no surprise to me that mcyt has become a little taboo in some places (likely to a large extent because of dream and all the drama he's generated). There's also no telling whether the poll organizers in these cases even know that there are other smps besides dsmp... but that's besides the point, since there are other dsmp characters that aren't associated with dream at all. Excluding them reveals a misconception about the mcyt genre anyway. And of course, I think we can all agree that some of these are just pretty rude.

Which brings us to our conclusion.

I feel like a lot of the toxicity towards mcyt as a genre and mcyt characters boils down to people either not really understanding what mcyt is (i.e. mcyt -> minecraft youtubers -> real people) or hearing stuff about dream and assuming the entire mcyt space is reflective of that. Of course, it's a frustrating issue that some people think this way. I think it's nice to be reminded, though, that this sort of thing isn't very widespread. Alongside the bad examples, I saw a lot of organizers confronting their preconceived notions: one organizer let in an mcyt character after admitting their 'unfamiliarity with the source material', another allowed mcyt characters 'on the condition that you can explain how they are a separate character' and a few others fiercely defended mcyt characters against toxicity in their polls. Every day we grow as a community and we can't let a few people with misguided notions of what we are keep us down. Keep watching, keep creating, and as Zedaph once said, It's okay to be silly!

[sewer-sermon]

dnt normally post oc stuff but i suddenly remembered an old one of mine that was inspired by @bogleech's harmburger stuff (particularly the variation in awful hospital)

idk if they had a name before but its Redbert now!! (Red "40" Bert for long)

they're a cheap shitty fast food megacorp's twisted experiment to make a "meat recycling program", so that when meat went rancid you could recycle it into edible stuff again, so they could save money on outsourcing their meat products! it worked but it also became alive and really really scared

they sound like the most stereotypical awkward "visibly bullied in highschool" nerd you can picture, however that manifests in your mind (i personally think of pete spankoffski from nerdy prudes must die but it's slightly different for everyone). they're pretty timid so it was easy enough for the fast food chain to convince them to work at one of their establishments, and they're technically company property so they didn't have much of a choice anyways, their sentience was entirely unintentional but ultimately means they can learn how to work a cash register and flip patties for peanuts and scraps so naturally they were put right to it!

they are technically food grade at all times- the experiment that birthed them was a success! said experiment being that they basically just threw a metric fuckton of meat in various states of freshness (from "severed, still-bleeding appendage" to "straight roadkill") into a giant vat together and blended it, and the combined hubris of this action alone plus everything else the company had done to get to how bloated it was present-day reviled the universe so badly that the thing was Immediately stricken with life if only to have an outlet for the sheer appall it felt at that microinstant.

it created this single homogenous kind of meat that immediately absorbs anything not resembling it (besides other meats), including bacteria, flies, debris and such, and just. Turns it into more meat. so it can't technically spoil bc any time something tries to break it down it just breaks it down quicker into more meat. that also means they don't really ever get less fresh than "literally still kicking & screaming"- they might get a little nasty being made to stand out in the summer heat but it'll digest back into more, fresher meat the second they get into some air conditioning! so it's totally safe for them to be serving people food & in fact they make the place cleaner just by kind of idly standing around (however they can't leave their bucket. that much contact with the ground might have consequences for the building's infrastructure eventually)

my horrible meat chicken they just wanna scroll thru youtube shorts in the break room

one of my friends asked me if they could lose mass and i said that you could in theory scoop some out of them but if you used your bare hands, it would start taking mass from you rapidly enough to actively feel yourself losing skin cells and the sensation will almost definitely jar you into dropping it on the ground where it'll either fall back into Redbert or crawl into them. sometimes they run under the fridge and we're not really sure what happens to those ones, but sometimes employees find them a couple weeks later hiding behind the grease trap. they hiss

but funny aside they will turn anything into meat eventually but they struggle to digest metal, so they probably get scooped semi regularly with some metal implements that are changed out when they wear down too far and the excess is made into burgers or something. it's to keep them from getting too big that they inconvenience the other workers too much, but i will note that they were in fact smaller upon creation and the scoopings have become more frequent as of late

they were made with my love of drawing long serpentine things in mind and also raw meat :> and chickens! they don't really have to look like a chicken they just reuse those limbs the most consistently bc it's the least offputting way they've managed to make themselves look (as part of their customer training they were made to carefully study how people reacted to their appearance upon using various arrangements of limbs, organs and bone fragments as facial features)

don't know if ill post abt them super often, i don't do a lot of oc stuff often, but maybe ill doodle them whenever i get bored and i have some spare time so ill make them a tag :V

have the old version of them + art i did of them as an animal crossing villager(??) under a cut bc it's Old!