#the difference is that when i posit something with zero textual evidence

[queermania]

I'm just wondering why you get mad when people make up things about Dean but it's okay for you to say Sam is a serial killer

ron swanson i have a permit dot gif

[tossawary]

Recent "Star Trek" reboot universes have really tried to sell me on three different romances for Spock with other TOS characters whom he did not have romantic relationships (at least not positive ones) with in TOS, which makes it particularly annoying when some fans try to squirm away from the idea of ST ever doing a future reboot or remake in which Spock/Kirk are explicitly queer.

Like, "But it's not in the original! They want to be faithful to the original!" really, REALLY does not pass the "I think you might just be discomforted by queerness and you should work on that, rather than making appeals to the authority of textual accuracy to avoid being called a homophobe or transphobe" check here. Because it's not as though these reboots care about perfect faithfulness on pretty much any other front. We'll accept that the costumes and special effects get updated to move with the times, we'll accept wildly different characterization choices that essentially give these characters new personalities, we'll accept new timelines that change the entire political map of the galaxy, but you as a fan draw the line at "What if this character was bisexual this time?" Really???

To be clear, I am not trying to dunk on Spock/Uhura, Spock/Chapel, or Spock/T'Pring here, I am merely trying to illustrate a frustrating double-standard. TOS Uhura does notably flirt with Spock several times! I see it! I remember TOS Chapel's feelings for Spock being one-sided, but I also don't think it's a bad thing to try to update TOS's more misogynistic writing choices regarding female characters. TOS T'Pring did... kind of try to kill Spock because she didn't want to marry him, but again, I don't necessarily think it's immediately a bad thing to try to explore her as a character and her betrothal to Spock. It's fine! It's fine by me to explore new takes in new AUs.

It's just that none of that evidence from TOS for those relationships holds much of a candle to whatever the fuck Kirk and Spock had going on to inspire The Premise. "Amok Time" is an Experience. There's only so many times that Kirk can say something like, "The cost [of abandoning Spock] would have been my soul," before you want to put your face in your hands. They are taking shiny pebbles from TOS and trying their very best to sell them to me as the basis for romantic relationships in reboots, sure, while they are standing in the shadow of Spirk Evidence Mountain (TOS).

(Yes, I have seen the recent "Unification" short film. Yes, I enjoyed it. No, I will not consider Spirk "officially canon" until all plausible deniability for the squirmy folks has been completely, explicitly destroyed by a HUMAN kiss onscreen.)

And okay, I must admit, at the moment, I don't actually want Spirk to eventually happen in "Strange New Worlds" now that they've finally met. I'm mostly indifferent to their Spock and Kirk actors, personally, and the writing for every canonical romantic relationship in both SNW and "Discovery" so far has gotten a solid "well, they certainly are standing next to each other" from me. (Yes, even the gay marriage in "Discovery". I just haven't been into it so far.) I think the writers would fumble Spirk if they tried it in this specific show and then annoying fans would use the fumble as "evidence" never to try to do Spirk or queer retakes on other TOS characters ever again, or as "proof" against other queer ST in other shows characters generally.

I'm mostly just mildly annoyed that I have to keep watching Spock specifically, famously read by many people as a queer man, be straight and messy about it, especially when there has not really been a significant queer relationship onscreen in SNW yet, unless you count M'Benga's daughter Rukiya and her glow cloud friend named Debra, which I personally don't, honestly. I'd like an onscreen relationship with a main character with zero plausible deniability. There's definitely nothing yet that comes remotely close to the screentime that Spock/Chapel, Spock/T'Pring, and Kirk/La'an have all been given so far, unfortunately. (Sulu is not here yet. Scotty has just shown up. If Scotty gets to make out with a guy next season, or Uhura or Ortegas gets to make out with a lady, without it being part of some god-like-being's fantasy world, then I may be satisfied.) (Also, yes, I am aware of queer characters and relationships in other "Star Trek" shows, thanks. I very much enjoyed Mariner having her incredibly silly breakup with her girlfriend in "Lower Decks".)

"Star Trek" is one of those properties where some people's double-standards regarding romantic interpretations of the original series really jump out. "They can't do Kirk/Spock because they want to be faithful to the original!" Get real.

[alwaysspeakshermind]

Top 5 Anti-Varchie Arguments & Why They Make No Sense

#5: “Varchie’s so bland/there’s no chemistry between them at all.”

[Note: I would like to apologize in advance to anyone/everyone upon whose timelines I’m inflicting this series of semi-rant-y posts. Someone on Pinterest felt the urge to leave an outraged comment about why they hate Varchie on one of my pictures (clearly, they confused Pinterest with Twitter/Tumblr/Instagram), and it was so unnecessary and full of all the usual incorrect twaddle I see used on SM to discount A&V’s relationship that it annoyed me and made me decide to go ahead and start writing all the refutations I’ve been keeping to myself since S2 released its first trailer and the essay-length grumbles began. Because as much as I try to steer clear of entering this type of fight, I have trouble standing by when obviously-wrong conclusions are being drawn from obviously-misconstrued information and being presented as fact. And since it doesn’t take me long to write analysis-type posts, my usual ‘I don’t have time for this nonsense’ excuse is kind of removed.]

Right, so…chemistry. Two quick things:

Number one, on-screen chemistry is about rapport between actors, and just because a specific romantic pairing does not personally do it for you does not mean that they lack chemistry. 

Number two, in acting/performance art, chemistry is a tangible, quantifiable aspect necessary to any and all interactions between performers, so it is essentially false to state that any pairing that has made it to TV is utterly without chemistry. For writers to allow a couple to happen at all, for actors to even be cast in the first place, at least some chemistry must be present; it’s simply a matter of what kind of chemistry each pairing has, how much, and how well that chemistry translates onscreen.

Random example: Prior to Friends, Lisa Kudrow (Phoebe) was cast as Roz in Fraiser, but was subsequently replaced with Peri Gilpin because the latter’s onscreen chemistry was better with Kelsey Grammer (Fraiser). It was not a romantic chemistry issue. It was not a no chemistry, period between the actors issue. It was just that there wasn’t enough of the right kind of chemistry, which made the Kudrow/Grammar dynamic less compelling than desired.

Chemistry is, however, notoriously difficult to explain if you’re not familiar with most generally accepted forms of film-criticism, so I feel it’s useless to try proving anything with examples pulled directly from source material—for instance, anyone relatively adept at dissecting performance can see at once how the entire Riverdale pilot showcases the chemistry between Archie and Veronica so that the closet scene feels like a natural culmination of something that began the second they saw each other. If you can watch that episode from start to finish, pronounce “no chemistry” and actually believe it, providing textual evidence and defining terms is going to be a waste of time.

So instead, I’ll take the common sense route and just point out you may rest assured that with Riverdale, a show based in roughly half a century’s worth of comic history, everyone involved in the casting knew going into it that romantic chemistry between the actors playing Archie and Veronica was an absolute must. KJ Apa and Camila Mendes would not be playing the parts they are if they were unable to create any sort of romantic chemistry between them, and S1 would most certainly not have chosen to set up a Varchie relationship from the get-go—much less have continued to emphasize a budding Varchie relationship throughout—if that romantic chemistry had not translated onscreen. Ditto for S2 and S3.

Also, take my word for it: I’m here. It takes a *lot* of chemistry for me to get involved in a ship (to the point that nearly every ship I have ever shipped has involved actors who were married/dating at the time, or eventually married/began dating), and it really takes a lot of chemistry to get me involved with a teen ship because I didn’t like most teen shows back when I was a teen. Yet Varchie’s chemistry popped enough onscreen to reel me in. 

What does all this have to with anything?

Well, in short, claiming Archie and Veronica are “bland” or “without chemistry” is attempting to apply objective terms to a subjective opinion, so if you’re going to do that, it automatically opens your contention up to a couple of counter-arguments:

(1) You are objectively wrong, because by all acting terms/definitions/standards, Archie and Veronica have chemistry. 

(2) You are objectively wrong because you are in essence saying that you do not see/understand the verifiable evidence set before you. (In other words, you have metaphorically gazed upon the color red and announced “this is not red.”)

(3) You are subjectively wrong because you are stating your based-in-subjectivity opinion as fact which inherently implies that you believe subjectivity is allowable in an argument. And if you believe subjectivity is allowable in an argument, than you are essentially contending that someone else’s opposing opinion is just as valid as yours, meaning anyone who says “Varchie has the best chemistry” is just as correct as you are, and your entire point becomes moot. 

Although you may not like Varchie’s dynamic/prefer another dynamic over theirs, attempting to file your dislike under the headings of blandness or zero chemistry simply labels you as someone who either cannot grasp the concept of chemistry in relation to acting, or someone who is too stubborn to admit to its presence. (And to be frank, neither option paints your intelligence in a favorable light.)

Personally, I’d like to think this argument gets used so often because most people just don’t understand what onscreen chemistry truly is/how it can be platonic or sexual and what denotes platonic or sexual/how it can exist between actors who hate each other and not exist between actors who love each other/how it can be organic or crafted through sheer effort, etc. Or that it keeps recurring because people just don’t interact with enough different types of people to understand that certain actions mean different things depending on who’s doing them.

But while I get that people have different preferences when it comes to romantic dynamics and interpret certain actions differently, based on the always-solid-yet-consistently-underrated performances KJ Apa and Camila Mendes have been delivering since the pilot, I have trouble buying that the oft-repeated cry of “no chemistry” is due solely to a feeble understanding of what that term means. Based on the inconsistent scads of oddball scenes/out-of-context facial expressions I’ve seen cited as “proof,” it seems a lot more like this argument is a camouflaged complaint against storylines people would like to have for their favorite couple, or the fact that one romantic trope was chosen over another (both of which are other posts entirely).

So, yeah. Pro-tip: choosing an argument that puts you in the position of disputing readily-observable facts is never the way to go. 

If you hate the Varchie pairing and want to talk about how much you hate it, okay. It’d be a nice gesture if you didn’t do in the Varchie tags or on people’s pictures that were literally only tagged Archie/Veronica which means you had to search those terms to announce your dislike and who on earth deliberately goes looking for things they hate, seriously, go search happy puppies or something instead, I promise it’ll make you feel better. You’re allowed to hate things, and you’re absolutely allowed to irrationally hate things. Just don’t confuse your irrational hatred with reasonable dislike, because the two reactions are not at all interchangeable. 

Also? Maybe don’t try so hard to justify irrational hatred with the ‘Varchie has no chemistry’ argument, because any viewer with a working brain can see at once that the visible evidence simply doesn’t back you up. And citing a source (scenes from the show) that disproves your entire thesis doesn’t exactly lend credence to your assertion.

[sazandorable]

so im gonna do that AAW meme thing! cw: tmi about aza’s thrilling life, some cringey or vaguely depressing/upsetting anecdotes, some happy things in a silly way, and fandom

1.      Sunday, 21 October:

o   Describe your experience of finding out about asexuality/the ace spectrum.  What source(s) did you find it from? How did it feel to find out about asexuality? How did it change your life?

~Sherlock BBC fandom~! /o/ Yeaaaaah.

To be precise, the kink meme, on livejournal. just a random prompt asking for something exploring the arrangement between asexual sherlock and uhhh probably john but tbh i don’t remember that. maybe Irene. I’m almost sure this was right after the Scandal in Belgravia episode had aired, and that episode was why people were playing with the idea of Sherlock being uninterested in sex.

I don’t remember my exact feelings when I read that word, but I do remember that I was delighted at the concept (+ the discussion in the same episode about falling in love outside of your sexual orientation) and immediately convinced, that I jumped into researching asexuality, and that barely a few weeks later I was very deep in contemplating and musing about my own levels of attraction and sorting out all that stuff. I do think I just instantly realized this concept applied to me; I found the AVEN site and its definitions very fast, and grey-a felt good instantly. (I found demi later, and it took me a bit longer to claim it for myself, though I don’t remember much details about that.)

Like, years later I’m very much bitter about and Over™ Sherlock BBC, its writers, and that episode in particular and their stance on the sexualities and orientations of all their characters, but... it did bring me something very precious, that it would have taken me years to find out about otherwise.

It did change my life in that this is when I realized that I really, really, really didn’t have to date, have sex, marry or whatever “one day” if I never wanted to and I wasn’t “late” on anything. Took off a lot of pressure, and also made me stop trying to dub-con myself into accepting things I didn’t actively want just because I didn’t actively hate them.

2.      Monday, 22 October:

o   Talk about your coming out experience.  Of course, one many never be finished coming out, but you could describe how you came out to friends, what reactions you have gotten, how you have felt by coming out, and more.

Mm, two:

not quite coming out, and I don’t remember how it came up, but I mentioned “ok but what about asexuality” at my mother, perhaps a year or two after finding out about it, and she just scoffed and said “that’s not a thing, it’s just being scared of sex,” and I just... froze. Blanked out. Zoned out. Possibly shook a little. This was my first first-hand experience of being just... disacknowledged, erased, denied out of existence, and I had absolutely not expected it, nor the violence of it, nor the casual quality of that violence. I couldn’t say anything in reply, and I don’t think my mother noticed anything at all.

on another hand, I once explained to a gay male friend of mine that, well, I don’t call myself a lesbian, I like girls but I don’t call my super-duper-precious-friend my girlfriend, we are extremely close but we don’t have sex or really date, I’m asexual; and his reaction was “?? THAT’S SO COOL. That fits you! I’m glad for you that you can just do whatever works for you without following conventions about relationships! Cool, great!” and that just made my day.

3.      Tuesday, 23 October:

o   Describe your experience of confronting stereotypes.  There are many stereotypes or expectations of what being on the ace spectrum is like, but of course aspec people are just as diverse as any other group.  How have you defied or corrected these stereotypes?

uuhhhhh

Mostly this happens when I talk about asexuality with people who are questioning themselves, explaining the many different flavors it can come in, that yeah you can be asexual at the same time as enjoying sex, masturbating, having fantasies, wanting to date, etc. Not so much smashing established stereotypes, more confirming that nop this thing that you think would “disqualify” you from being asexual doesn’t, actually, you still might be, you’re not “fake”.

4.      Wednesday, 24 October:

o   Talk about positive representation of aspec people in media which has benefited you or speaks to you strongly.  Aspec people are not often represented in media, so it will be nice to see which representations have the strongest impacts.

*STANDS UP, VIBRATING*

TWENTYACETEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

This year I got two cases of explicit, confirmed, canon, accurate and nuanced representation with central characters in two series that were already extremely close to my heart, and I’m so happy about it!!!!

Spoilers for both fandoms!

1) Shimanami Tasogare: a recently finished manga about LGBT community. In one of the last arcs, we learn that the very central yet mysterious character Anonymous (Dareka-san) is asexual. Like, the character says it, in full letters, and it’s discussed a lot.

Well, it’s more complicated than that, because it’s set in Japan and written in Japanese and Japan has different approaches, concepts and vocabulary around asexuality than English-language; what Anonymous initially describes might be closer to what English-language would call aromanticism. But they also later go “Am I interested in sex, or not? Who knows :)”, with their potential interest in sex represented with them reading porn magazines, and they’ve already expressed that they’re not interested in dating, so as it happens they’re probably both aro and ace (in English terms) anyway. (In the same sequence, they also explain that they might be male, or female, and generally aren’t overly concerned with how people think of them, anything works for them.)

This brings the other characters to think some more about their own desires for love, sex, relationships, human contact... There is a beautiful scene where the main character thinks that knowing this lets him finally understand Anonymous, that this must be why they are so mysterious and detached and fleeting — and Anonymous tells him point-blank that nah. They’re not just their asexuality. Don’t reduce them to that. They’re not “anonymous” because they’re asexual, and vice-versa — those are just two incidental parts of who they are. They are a full person, who just happens to be asexual, and also to enjoy being anonymous and unknown and find freedom in living their life this way.

It was just incredible to read entire chapters dedicated to a central character talking at length about their asexuality, and also how they relate, not only to straight people, but also to queer non-ace people. In the end the main character still doesn’t quite get Anonymous, and that’s how they like it.

2) The Magnus Archives: an ongoing horror podcast that’s casually LGBTQIA-friendly. (Like, a lot of horrible stuff does happen to queer people, but that’s because there’s a lot of them, and I do think that statistically more of them survive than straight people. Equal opportunity horror.) I had been toying with headcanoning the main character Jon as asexual for a variety of reasons for a while, and then in an episode that aired a few months ago a character casually mentioned that “apparently [he] just... doesn’t. At all.” Asked to elaborate, the writer confirmed on twitter that yup, he’s written as asexual (though who knows if Jon would use that word himself, he doesn’t really think about it).

I’m especially delighted because this came up, in context, because Jon has dated. At least once. We know his ex, and she is super chill with him. This reveal also comes up in the same breath as the reveal that a male character seems to have a crush on him, and IMO the show seems to hint that said character is aware that Jon doesn’t do sex, and doesn’t/wouldn’t mind this if they were to date.

Jon did start out as the usual cold, rational, unempathetic character archetype (in fact, he’s very reminiscent of BBC’s Sherlock in early episodes), but by the time this line comes up, the listener knows that he actually cares a lot and is full of emotions. He’s shown to be very, very protective of the people close to him — though also very bad at it. And at expressing it. But, still around the same time of the ace reveal, he is making deliberate efforts to communicate more and value everyone’s feelings. And of course, being the central character, he’s a veeeeery developed character with tons of evolution and nuances, and a huge fandom fave. The reveal that’s he’s asexual has changed exactly nothing in the show; but, like I said, it fits him, he read as asexual to the point that I was suspecting it despite zero real textual evidence until then.

When this episode came out and I heard that line (... I actually had missed it on first listen), I was at work, and I just started almost crying at my desk.

And then I got to go around yelling about it at my fandom friends.

... And at my non-fandom friends.

[dictionarywrites]

Jötnar Hour: Do The Jötnar have fat asses?

SO, today, kids, we’re talking about fat ratios and that sexy Jötunn bod you probably wouldn’t want this arctic winter, but that they seem to do just fine with. 

Right off the bat, I’m going to say that although as a rule I’m heavily influenced by a lot of 616 canon, I think the 616 canon is really fucking dumb in this scenario (they have this whole idea that frost giants “melt” in warmer climates and get smaller, which... is stupid) so I’m electing to ignore it. Instead, I’m gonna do some textual analysis of some of what we see depicted in the MCU and its contributing concept art. 

I’m gonna make Jötnar hour a relatively regular thing until I run out of things to say, so feel free to HMU with any feedback/discussion on this, et cetera. 

 So, in the canon and in most of the fan art, we tend to see the Jötnar depicted as having little to no bodyfat. 

This is some of Michael Kutsche’s original concept art for the Jötnar, which I’m going to be using heavily throughout my Jötunn meta because I just really love this dude’s style, and it’s great to examine alongside the actual presentation of the Jötnar in Thor (2011).

So, let’s look at these guys. Where is the evidence - at a glance - that these guys come from a cold climate? If we’re looking at them from a human standpoint, that’s just not going to work at all: they’re basically naked, they’re not wearing any furs or armour, and they haven’t even got any body hair to keep them warm, even around the face and head. And most of all? These guys are muscular, visibly muscular, but there’s barely any fat on them at all. Even yer man to the right, who’s a little heavier than the others, hasn’t got much fat on him, and his muscles are visibly toned to the naked eye.

So, right off the bat, they’re fucking aliens. 

And I know I shouldn’t have to say this, and I know I perhaps sound immeasurably salty when I point at the aliens and say grumpily that they are aliens, but I just want to make it clear I’m gonna be looking at them as a completely different species from both humans and the Aesir. The Jötnar are really obviously not just big humans who’ve been painted blue, and I’m not gonna be talking about them as if they are.

So, we have a species that lives in the cold, thrives in the cold, but doesn’t have any fat on them. 

For me, personally, I tend to consider the Jötnar as comfortable in that freezing climate, and I tend to imagine them as cold-blooded with a different system of running their organs - firstly, I would argue based on the depiction of both their control of ice and and the GIF above from that intro scene to Thor (2011), where just a touch forces a long-standing, thousand-year-old illusion aside, that the Jötnar have magic. 

Not only do they have magic, but it’s natural and normal to them, and seemingly something they use casually without having too much reliance on it. I would posit that they’re cold-blooded, thrive in the cold, and that the seidr helps keeping their organs running on track, despite the sub-zero conditions. I definitely wouldn’t buy into the idea that they’re somehow internally running very hot, because it’s just too inefficient, and would make little sense re: the lack of insulation on the outside of their bodies.

Now, secondly, I want to talk about how little fat the Jötnar have on them - now, I think they have fat on their backsides, and likely a fair amount of it, as well as lightly packed on the rest of their bodies, but this is purely like, an energy concern rather than one of insulation. The fat is packed somewhere out of the way, something they can literally sit on and land on hard, but mostly, they’re muscular and hard.

So, I tend to work with the theory that instead of relying on fat to keep them insulated from colder or, much more dangerously for the Jötnar, hotter temperatures, they have an additional layer of muscle-like tissue that tenses or relaxes in order to allow heat to escape the Jötunn body. This means two things - firstly, that there is a layer of insulation, but instead of being soft and jiggly, it’s gonna be quite stiff and hard to the touch, lending itself to those stark lines.

Secondly, it means when you push a Jötunn, when you press on their skin, unless you go straight for that fat ass, it means the flesh isn’t really gonna give way or dimple in the way Æsir flesh would. If you punch a Jötunn, they don’t need to have fat to disperse the force of the blow, because instead of doing that they’ve just evolved to be as hard as possible so that your knuckles just break when you punch them. 

As a people, they’re going to naturally be a lot stiffer and straighter than the Æsir are, and I would really doubt that they find themselves inclined to lounging, or to sleeping on soft beds or cushions. Just like lying down on too firm or hard a surface would do your back no good, lying down on a surface that’s too yielding (like a bed), would doubtless feel very uncomfortable for the Jotnar, and I imagine that given that they seem unused to wearing clothes in general, they probably don’t have sheets or blankets, either - they probably lie on slabs of stone or ice, and are going to be more comfortable on a hard, unyielding surface than they would be on a cushioned sofa or a bed, and even then, it’s not gonna be for really long periods of time.

I imagine the Jötnar are very comfortable remaining very still for long periods of time, too, as they don’t really have to worry about moving about to stay warm. 

Anyway. The Jötnar definitely do have fat asses, but they don’t have much fat anywhere else, and that’s the most important thing. 

Thanks for reading! Totally feel free to drop me an ask about meta or headcanon, and if you feel like it, I have a tip jar here. 

[unknought]

Angels, in the cosmology of the webcomic Kill Six Billion Demons, don't have gender, but there is nevertheless a certain sense in which they're generally understood as male. They are traditionally referred to using male pronouns, and their bodies, when humanoid, tend to read as male to human observers. (More on bodies a little later.)

There are a couple possible reasons for this. One would be that the societies of Kill Six Billion Demons, like many in our own world, treat male as the unmarked or default gender. According to this theory, angels, being genderless, simply default to male.

Another possible reason, which in my opinion has stronger textual support, looks like this: Angels, like humans, devils, and servants, were created by members of a pantheon which I'll refer to here as just "the gods". (There are other beings in the comic which might deserve that name, but they won't show up here.) That pantheon was highly dualistic, divided into the black gods and the white gods. The black gods were associated with heat, femininity, and the primordial principle YIS, “infinite mother of the rampant flame, master of all that is". The white gods were associated with cold, masculinity, and the primordial principle UN, “lord of empty and still places, master of all that is not". Not all of the white gods were male and not all of the black gods were female, though in each case a majority were. In particular, the white god Koss and the black god Aesma, who together created the four races, were male and female respectively. Angels were created by Koss and are referred to collectively as "the cold white flame" implying a strong association with UN and the white side of the pantheon. The masculine default, then, is not arbitrary, but arises as a consequence of angels lying firmly on the male side of the duality.

When I say that angels' bodies tend to read as male, I should clarify what I mean by bodies. An angel acting in the world has two parts: an "immortal flame" which was originally created by Koss, and a stone body to house it, typically created by lesser beings much more recently. The stone bodies appear neutral-to-masculine simply because their creators choose to make them that way. The structure of a body tells you relatively little about the angel who inhabits it. On the other hand, the appearance of the immortal flame, which can be seen if e.g. the angel's stone body is disabled, provides a great deal of information about the angel's nature. It seems that the appearance of the flame is dependent on the angel's self-image and encodes in a symbolic language the central elements of an angel's personality. Exactly what information it encodes is a little unclear, but we do at least know that it can change over time and that angels which deal more with humans tend to have more humanoid flames.

The fact that the stone bodies range between neutral and masculine in appearance is without exception. There are, as far as we've seen, zero feminine stone bodies in the world of Kill Six Billion Demons. The fact that the immortal flames range between neutral and masculine... isn't. There are angels whose flames, representing some combination of their self-image and personality and place in the world, appear considerably more like human women than like human men.

It's overly simplistic to say that these angels are trans women, or even that they're women. The one example we've seen in the most detail, an angel known as White Chain, expresses something closer to a nonbinary identity: She never expresses any preferences about pronouns and is referred to different ones by different characters (I use "she" because that seems to be what most of her friends use) and rejects both male and female gendered terms when people use them for her. Interestingly, although given this evidence her identity might reasonably be described as agender, she's not genderless in the same sense that other angels are: Angels refer to each other as "brother" and presumably most of them don't feel misgendered by it, but White Chain objects to being addressed in this way.

Whatever White Chain is, it isn't something that's very well accepted by angelic society. Her gender is seen as excessive attachment to the world and to human values: "You cling obsessively to this world, White Chain! To its inhabitants and their petty morality! To putrid form! To insipid gender!" The appearance of her flame as feminine is explicitly linked to the appearance of her flame as more humanoid than most angels', and is seen as evidence that she's been corrupted by the world. (Since they link corruption by femininity with corruption by humanity, it may be pertinent that while angels were created by the white god Koss, humans were created by the black goddess Aesma and are thus symbolically associated with the feminine.) Friendlier angels think that she's a nice person who's taken a wrong turn, "but nothing that a few millennia in the void won't fix!" Less friendly angels refer to her as a "deviant" and express disgust at her presence.

But also: Whatever White Chain is, it isn't something that's very rare among angels. Although details of how they identify are unclear and may vary,  at this point we've seen two other angels who are considerably more feminine than angelic society deems acceptable. One of them is a pariah for unrelated reasons, uninterested in what other angels think of her(?) and thus free to express herself as she wants. The other is in a social position which would be seriously threatened by being seen as too attached to the world, and is deeply closeted and desperate to hide their true nature.

So that's how Kill Six Billion Demons manages to have the majority of its major angelic characters be transgender, despite the fact that angels are genderless.

[thecloudlight-blog]

New Post has been published on Cloudlight

New Post has been published on https://cloudlight.biz/2-tricks-to-make-ios-control-center-less-annoying/

2 tricks to make iOS Control Center less annoying

Apple launched Control Center in 2013 as part of iOS 7. It gives iPhone and iPad customers quick get admission to settings for aircraft mode, wifi, Bluetooth, display screen brightness among different things. But once in a while errant swipes inner apps and video games can release Control Center by accident — which can be demanding. If you go away your iPhone mendacity around pretty tons anybody consisting of children can get entry to Control Center out of your lock screen — which can be even extra disturbing.

But these annoyances are without difficulty remedied with a few brief adjustments. Go to Settings > Control Center. There you have got options: “Access on Lock Screen” and “Access Within Apps”.

Lock display screen

If you want to gain access to Control Center out of your lock display screen, leave “Access on Lock Screen” became on. But if you want to save you a person from gaining access to it out of your iPhone/iPad’s lock display screen turn this off.

For example, turning off lock display screen access will save you children from knowingly or unknowingly turning at the orientation lock or putting your iPhone/iPad into aircraft mode or putting a random alarm.

Within apps

If you hate having Control Center accidentally pop up while gambling a video game or the usage of apps, you may turn off “Access Within Apps”. The upside to that is that you may not see that black arrow poking up from the bottom of the display screen. The drawback is that this setting applies to all apps that mean that you may handiest have to get right to entry to Control Center from your own home display or lock display screen (except you disabled it).

Display RTF With Images on OSX and IOS Part 1

While it is clean to display text-simplest RTF on OSX and iOS – each NSTextView and UITextView will achieve this – if there are images embedded in the RTF both of the textual content visitors will forget about the pix in the formatted text.

While changing one in every of our applications to run on the OSX platform we had issues showing embedded pictures inside the database’s memo fields. The software program was originally written for Windows, which embeds pics without delay in RTF statistics using a percent keyword accompanied by diverse key phrases indicating the size of the picture, the dimensions of its goal rectangle on the record and the vertical and horizontal scale. More facts on those may be observed at Microsoft’s MSDN website online.

For example one of the images embedded in an RTF facts block reads;

pictwmetafile8picw4286pich2408picwgoal2430pichgoal1365

This decodes as;

Picture

WMF 8-bit document

Picture Width = 4286

Picture Height = 2048

Target Width= 2430

Target Height = 1365

The facts that follow the RTF header is ASCII Hex – this is every byte is written as 2 ASCII characters in the variety 0 -> F – and word statistics, in which it exists, is little-endian – the LSB (Least Significant Byte) is first, followed with the aid of the MSB (Most Significant Byte).

Looking at the first few bytes of the image records gives;

010009000003f85600000000de5600000000

This is part of the picture header and a short search of the Internet famous how to decode this;

The header is eighteen bytes in the period and is dependent as follows:

typedef struct _WindowsMetaHeader

WORD FileType; /* Type of metafile (1=reminiscence, 2=disk) */

WORD HeaderSize; /* Size of header in WORDS (continually nine) */

WORD Version; /* Version of Windows used */

DWORD FileSize; /* Total size of the information in WORDs */

WORD NumOfObjects; /* Number of gadgets in the statistics */

DWORD MaxRecordSize; /* The size of largest report in WORDs */

WORD NoParameters; /* Not Used (always 0) */

WMFHEAD;

FileType carries a cost which shows the vicinity of the metafile information. A price of one indicates that the metafile is stored in reminiscence, even as a 2 indicates that it is saved on disk.

HeaderSize includes the size of the metafile header in WORDs. This is usually 9.

Version shops the version quantity of Microsoft Windows that created the metafile. This value continually studies in hexadecimal format. For example, in a metafile created by means of Windows three.Zero, this object could have the cost 300h.

FileSize specifies the total length of the metafile in 16-bit WORDs.

NumOfObjects specifies the quantity of items which might be within the metafile.

MaxRecordSize specifies the size of the biggest record inside the metafile in WORDs.

NumOfParams isn’t used and is set to a price of zero.

There are lots more records on this image format at FileFormat’s website.

So we have evidence that the photograph facts embedded inside the RTF records have been stored in WMF format. This, lamentably, isn’t a local Mac layout so would require a few kind of conversion to display the picture. The subsequent aspect we need to discover is whether the image facts inside the embedded WMF records is a vector or bitmap photo.

The WMF format is largely a listing of commands for your computer’s snapshots card telling it a way to draw the photograph. In our case, we may be almost positive that the image facts is a bitmap as this is the way that our software saves embedded images in RTF memo fields. This is something we are able to take a look at with the aid of looking at the data information after the header;

Out of Control Yarn Stash

Not simplest do I actually have a yarn stash, but I have stash trash or trash. Bear with me as I resolve this phenomenon. Slash is my term for those little bits of yarn that simply don’t pretty make it to the trash. Invariably, as I entire a crochet venture, I actually have leftovers. These small, typically acrylic, balls and extraneous tidbits manipulate to build up through no fault of their own.

As they linger in my hand, I debate their fates. I dare no longer throw them away.

I reach for a clean-sided, zippered field (previously the home of recent sheets) wherein to imprison them. When the yarn “prison” receives complete, I make a striped hat with complementary hues. Sure, it might be treacherous yarn that rips up my palms or is not possible to paintings with. You know the kind. You exit and purchase something you idea looked lovely simplest to have it turn on you and emerge as your worst nightmare. The frugal person that you are, you can not throw it away. You stick it in a trash bucket and desire that a few day after you’ve got forgotten how merciless that yarn as soon as was, you may drag it out once more and give it a 2nd chance.

In the meantime, those nugatory jail balls (or yardbirds, in case you pick) turn on me and imprison me with their possibilities.

I launch a number of those rejects from their overcrowded, zipped up the prison and from them create hatbands and ornamental flowers, edgings and pom poms. These colorful lollygagging bits of fluff now tempt me in diverse ways, this is, as a possibility to spruce up my hats and different tasks. Now, instead of pooh-poohing small bits of yarn that I see as now not being worth of my time, I actively am seeking them out within the stays and used trash buckets of others. If I do not use all of them up, lower back they cross interior their clean lockup. Always searching for new creations and unable to relinquish the riffraff, I battle to finish off my stash and be free of its depraved, wicked recidivism.

How To Avoid Being That Annoying Passenger on a Flight

No remember what kind of flight you’re taking, how long your flight is or wherein airline you’re flying, there are positive styles of passengers who’re continually there to bother you. Or maybe you are that stressful individual for others. Be cautious and avoid being that annoying passenger on a flight.

Look at the individual in the back of you before reclining your seat:

If an airline has a reclining seat, use it however make certain you aren’t disturbing the man or woman sitting behind you. Look before you lie lower back to make sure you aren’t going to break the kneecap of the individual in the back of you. Put your seat up when the meals cart comes and depart it up until the flight attendants have taken away the meals tray.

Don’t consume aromatic meals:

You would possibly love the scent of your meals, however the different humans at the aircraft most probably do now not. Take some snacks, dry fruit or chocolates with you.

Don’t use the seats for balance:

As you stroll down the aisle don’t use the seat for balance rather, use the overhead compartments and slide your hand alongside it. Every time you clutch the corner of a seat you create an earthquake. You will recognise how demanding it’s miles if a person does the identical with you.

The Screaming Kids:

The screaming children spoil the reveal in for anybody. Malaysia airways now ban babies from its First-magnificence phase and a survey found that 70 percentage of British passengers need baby unfastened areas.So in case you are taking your child to a flight make certain your toddler isn’t always demanding every person, try and keep your infant busy. Entertain your youngster through displaying him different movies or his favorite caricature film.

Do introduce yourself for your seatmate:

We have heard humans whinge approximately the passenger subsequent to them who talks an excessive amount of. But it is right to exchange a few pleasantries with your seatmate on a flight. If your seatmate is fiddling along with his or her earphones, casually give up the communique.

Don’t stand in the aisle:

When looking ahead to the restroom do not stand in the aisle. We recognise you need to move, however hovering over a person sitting in an aisle seat would not make it any higher. Stay in your seat until there’s no line or until the man or woman in the front of you comes out. It would not appear now as frequently as it used to due to the fact airways have started out to police this themselves.