#the sick is such a good complicating factor

[pumpkin-in-a-pear-tree]

I have been working my way through sweet tooth for the first time and oogf the ending to s2e6 is BRUTAL. I knew it was suspicious that everything was going so well only 3/4 of the way through the season but man... That's such a good twist

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

for whom good omens is being written

Hey maggots and the rest of the fandom, it's the Good Omens Mascot here. Today I read a post about this tweet:

The accompanying video genuinely made me cry. And I've been thinking about this for a long while, as far back as February, when I saw a lot of conflicting opinions on what people wanted from the third season. It really is true that no matter what you do, some people will be dissatisfied. But what matters is that Neil is writing this for Terry.

And I was reminded of some paragraphs from the Good Omens TV Companion, which I'd read in Amazon's sample excerpt of the book. I know this is a long post, but I really truly do think you all need to read these, I've done my best to select only the most important parts. Here you go:

'His Alzheimer's started progressing harder and faster than either of us had expected,' says Neil, referring to a period in which Terry recognized that despite everything he could no longer write. 'We had been friends for over thirty years, and during that time he had never asked me for anything. Then, out of the blue, I received an email from him with a special request. It read: “Listen, I know how busy you are. I know you don't have time to do this, but I want you to write the script for Good Omens. You are the only human being on this planet who has the passion, love and understanding for the old girl that I do. You have to do this for me so that I can see it." And I thought, “OK, if you put it like that then I'll do it."

'I had adapted my own work in the past, writing scripts for Death: The High Cost of Living and Sandman, but not a lot else was seen. I'd also written two episodes of Doctor Who, and so I felt like I knew what I was doing. Usually, having written something once I'd rather start something new, but having a very sick co-author saying I had to do this?' Neil spreads his hands as if the answer is clear to see. 'I had to step up to the plate.' A pause, then: 'All this took place in autumn 2014, around the time that the BBC radio adaptation of Good Omens was happening,' he continues, referring to the production scripted and co-directed by Dirk Maggs and starring Peter Serafinowicz and Mark Heap. ‘Terry had talked me into writing the TV adaptation, and I thought OK, I have a few years. Only I didn't have a few years,' he says. 'Terry was unconscious by December and dead by March.'

He pauses again. 'His passing took all of us by surprise,' Neil remembers. 'About a week later, I started writing, and it was very sad. The moments Terry felt closest to me were the moments I would get stuck during the writing process. In the old days, when we wrote the novel, I would send him what I'd done or phone him up. And he would say, "Aahh, the problem, Grasshopper, is in the way you phrase the question," and I would reply, "Just tell me what to do!" which somehow always started a conversation. 'In writing the script, there were times I'd really want to talk to Terry, and also places where I'd figure something out and do something really clever, and I would want to share it with him. So, instead, I would text Terry's former personal assistant, Rob Wilkins, now his representative on Earth. It was the nearest thing I had.'

(...) As Neil himself recognizes, this is an adaptation built upon the confidence that comes from three decades of writing for page and screen. But for all the wisdom of experience, he found that above all one factor guided him throughout the process. 'Terry isn't here, which leaves me as the guardian of the soul of the story,' he explains. 'It's funny because sometimes I found myself defending Terry's bits harder or more passionately than I would defend my own bits. Take Agnes Nutter,' he says, referring to what has become a key scene in the adaptation in which the seventeenth-century author of the book of prophecies foretelling the coming of the Antichrist is burned at the stake. ‘It was a huge, complicated and incredibly expensive shoot, with bonfires built and primed to explode as well as huge crowds in costume. It had to feel just like an English village in the 1640s, and of course everyone asked if there was a cheap way of doing it. 'One suggestion was that we could tell the story using old-fashioned woodcuts and have the narrator take us through what happened, but I just thought, “No”. Because I had brought aspects of the story like Crowley and the baby swap along to the mix, and Terry created Agnes Nutter. So, if I had cut out Agnes then I wouldn't be doing right by the person who gave me this job. Terry would've rolled over in his grave.'

And, finally, this paragraph:

"Once again, Neil cites the absence of his co-writer as his drive to ensure that Good Omens translated to the screen and remained true to the original vision. 'Terry's last request to me was to make this something he would be proud of. And so that has been my job.'"

I think that's so heartwrenchingly beautiful, and so I wanted you all to read this, too, just in case you (like me) don't have the Good Omens TV Companion. It adds another layer of depth and emotion to this already complex and amazing story that we all know and love.

Share this post, if you can, please, so that more people can read these excerpts :")

Tagging @neil-gaiman, @fuckyeahgoodomens and @orpiknight, even if you've definitely read these before :)

[vigilskeep]

i have never thought of the bg3 paths as railroaded before but oh my god... i see your vision. i think that, for all that can be picked apart in the writing of dragon age, the worldbuilding in that series is so so interested in complicating all factions that you can envision a character who /makes sense/ while bouncing through various ideologies. and the sort of fantasy writing in (most of) the forgotten realms doesn't really allow for that.

dao is particularly the light of my life because the origins mechanic is specifically intended to let you create a character who has a distinctive perspective on the world that’s grounded in the worldbuilding. one of my favourite aspects of this is several origins having completely different codex entries on their own culture as opposed to those an outsider would get. it’s really good! it’s also a reasonably grounded world (while obviously silly) because, like, the basic fundamental premise of thedas, from which they ikea flatpack built almost every feature, is “how would people react to magical and fantastical diversity? the same way they react to human diversity.” you’re meant to feel like, aside from i guess the darkspawn, people are normal and have real motivations. sure it has to fulfil certain roles in a story, and dragon age was manufactured too quickly and purposefully for everything to land feeling authentic, but evil in dragon age should feel recognisable. and in most of the origins they give you a chance to do something that is bad, but also totally makes sense, because of the context of your character belonging to this world where these things happen

in dnd/the forgotten realms it’s a bit different because capital e Evil exists, so there are people and deities and devils (and, to open another can of worms, races) whose entire goal is to Do Evil. it’s also harder to produce grounded evil because in a world where i’m being given basically no context and just told to make whatever i want, i don’t have an inch of the kind of social information i get from for example a dao origin: what my character has been taught to believe they should do to survive, who they are willing to sacrifice, whatever. bg3 also happens to have a main plot goal that is, at least for the first part of the game, broadly selfish (“i am sick, and i need a cure”) which works really well for getting a bunch of people with vastly differing moral standards to band together for the same goal, and not so good for any kind of “greater good” type blurred morality, so that’s out too

however much the worldbuilding factors into this, bg3 specifically went for quite a clear distinction between the good path and the capital e Evil Path, and i find it pretty hard to vary up the good path. when i say railroaded i mean you either do the specific thing that gets you a quest down the line or not. i was really disappointed actually in my playthrough where i totally fucked up in the druids’ grove and caused a fight to break out, because it immediately instakilled tons of characters i knew i would need down the line. the few it spared needed some of the dead ones to stay alive in later quests, so it’s like... oh. that’s just... over. for both factions. bg3 arguably lets you do basically anything you want but they are able to do that because if you fuck around it just breaks the entire quest line from coming up again, which means playing a character who fucks up is not even really going to get me consequences it’s just going to cut content from the game. does that make sense? and then the Evil Path is just straight up evil, like... there’s no way for me to complicate and empathise, here, especially playing a blank canvas character whose motivations i would have to make up from nothing, and who faces basically no consequences for not doing this. the only neutral/cowardly/self-interested option in act 1 is to do neither path, which gets me the least content because i literally don’t get to play the fucking game

i don’t know, i’m not saying it’s necessarily bad just that it’s hard for me, personally, and how i like to create characters. especially when you have my constant restart disease and you have to do this all over again a dozen times just for a handful of different dialogue. does any of that make sense

[ghoulfuckersincorporated]

I'm not sure if you've answered this before or touched on the subject, my apologies if you have, but would a condom help protect you from most of the radioactivity of ghoul semen? Just a thought, because I've noticed a lot writers use Rad-X or RadAway as a catch-all to safe(ish) ghoul sex; whereas some say there's still damage to be done even with these. But have we considered a condom?!

WARNING: YET ANOTHER RANT ABOUT GHOUL CUM IMMINENT, BRACE FOR IMPACT

And thanks for the ask, Anon. I really do enjoy these ghoul biology questions.

I have touched on the effects of ghoul semen on humans before, largely in this post, but I didn't elaborate much on condom usage. We endorse safe sex here, but...well, let's just say there's a lot more demand for portraying no-condom fucking than there is for the opposite. For this reason, at least personally, I usually just use Rad-X and Radaway as a sort of catch-all since it's basically in-game magic. Plus, my readers yearn for the c r e a m p i e aspect of it all.

Besides, if I'm honest, I'm not convinced that a condom would be of all that much use when fucking a ghoul, at least an older ghoul.

I spent some time browsing through a few research papers and articles about how gamma radiation affects various materials to give a 'not completely bullshit' answer to this. I know a fair amount about how radiation can impact the body, but relatively little about how it can impact non-biological material. Turns out, it's quite hard on most things! Shocker!

I think the biggest determining factor about whether or not a condom would provide you any actual protection with a ghoul lover would be the age and transformation status of the ghoul. I've mentioned before how I theorize that they become more radioactive over time, even if they never enter a more advanced stage of ghoulification, like becoming a glowing one.

A newly-transformed ghoul would likely both have lower levels of radiation in their bodily fluids AND no sperm (as I elaborated on in my post about ghoul-fathered pregnancy), so a condom would really only provide protection from the mild damage and irritation that prolonged or repeated exposure to low-level rads would cause your vaginal/anal/oral tissue. Not to say that isn't helpful! No one really likes the idea of being all raw from mild radiation burns inside them, and sometimes you just wanna go a half-dozen rounds with your high-stamina lover with no stress. Besides, if you're not a ghoul yourself, less overall radiation exposure is an unquestionable good.

Older ghouls (and obviously those who are in more advanced stages of ghoulification), being more radioactive overall in this scenario, also have much more radioactive fluids. Obviously anyone who is pre-war would fall under this category, but frankly anyone who has been a ghoul for more than a few decades is probably gonna be pretty "hot" overall. Low rad-resistance/low endurance folks may need to strongly consider alternative forms of intercourse, especially if Rad-X and Radaway aren't available or sufficient. With partners like this, the condom keeping the semen confined inside it means it's effective in stopping things that have to actively work to infect you (sperm, viruses/bacteria, etc.), but radiation doesn't work like that. It can easily impact you negatively if you're simply close enough to the source of it without any direct contact. If I wrapped a polonium core in a condom and shoved it inside you, you would still get incredibly sick and burned, and I think essentially the same would apply to telling your older ghoul partner to use extant barrier contraception (condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, etc.). Honestly, if they have a high enough rad level, they may just literally melt straight through whatever you're using.

It is possible that ghoul-friendly contraception could be created, at least in my opinion. But it would be complicated and difficult to find something that "ticks all the right boxes", per se. For obvious reasons, you wouldn't want a lead wool diaphragm or a cadmium-lined condom or anything like that. I understand there are a lot of different polymers/plastics that are resistant to radiation, and I'm sure that some of them are made of components that wouldn't necessarily be harmful to have inside you, especially since some of them are used to manufacture things like radiation PPE (personal protective equipment like gowns/gloves/shields/radiation blankets/etc.). However, I don't have a broad enough understanding to say for sure whether or not any of these polymers would make for the sort of material you could manufacture physical/barrier contraception from. I have a degree in a biology-heavy STEM field and not a pure-chemistry STEM field for a reason. Either way, I feel like it might be a little hard to get your hands on material like that, at least consistently, 200+ years after a nuclear apocalypse, unless you could find a way to freshly manufacture it. If you're going older in terms of your search for a ghoul partner, you're probably better off sticking to Rad-X and Radaway, overall.

If I, personally, were president in the Fallout universe, whatever funds that were earmarked for scientific research would be reallocated to figuring out how to mass-produce and distribute a ghoul-friendly form of contraception. I think it would be a great healing step for what remains of America if all the ghouls and all the smoothskins could get in a big pile and just fuck it out. Vote for me.

[dravenscroft]

So I make a loooot of shitposts and jokes (mainly because my actual career is writing dark and serious novels and therefore I come to Tumblr to get away from that) but I FINALLY wanted to write a post that sums up my thoughts regarding the Hickey/Tozer dynamic because it fascinates me so much.

I'm putting it under a read more because I know I'm going to ramble.

Okay so first of all, as much as I may like to make jokes about the sex being so good it drove a guy to mutiny, I don't actually believe there was any sexual intimacy between Hickey and Tozer at all. This is mostly because I think post Carnival NOBODY was getting laid, everyone was far too sick and weak and tired for that - do I think in different circumstances it could have happened between them? Possibly, yeah. I definitely see the dynamic as romantic, but in a weird, unspoken, 'whatever the hell they have going on is also way more complicated than that' way.

The main thoughts I have about how and why Tozer ends up locked into in the Worst Situationship Of All Time are mainly due to three factors:

Heather's death and the breakdown of command.

The obvious Oh Shit moment of watching the Tuunbaq devour Collins' soul.

Physical touch.

The first one is the primer, as it were. It sets Tozer up as angry, desperate, and willing to mutiny. It's already become clear by Carnival that command is breaking down, they don't know what to do, and what a soldier needs more than anything is a CLEAR, DECISIVE CHAIN OF COMMAND. Without that, Tozer - who already has some Opinions about the way the marines are being put at additional risk (unionise, king) - has no one to keep him on a leash, for want of a better word. He's a dog trained to kill that suddenly doesn't have a master. He cannot be in command himself. He needs someone above him; he's not a leader.

This builds and builds, but then Heather's death - the loss of any vestige of something that would keep him loyal, since evidently Heather's care would continue under ordinary command - at the hands, essentially, of the very command he's started to doubt...well, that's it. Gun primed.

The discovery of Fairholme's group shatters any remaining hope he may have had, Crozier's reluctance to tell the men only further compounding the 'command is failing' mentality Tozer already has in spades. And there you go - the trigger is pulled.

BANG. Mutiny.

The second major factor comes after he's thrown in his lot with Hickey in a way he can't go back on. He sees Collins' soul sucked from his body by Tuunbaq before his very eyes. Suddenly, everything he thought he knew has been tipped on its head and an existential crisis he definitely didn't expect or need is thrust upon him, but now any decision he might have made to stay with Crozier and co based on this revelation is no longer open to him. The gun is still smoking, there's no way of putting the musket ball back, and now Hickey is his only option.

But maybe that isn't so bad? Because Hickey is providing something command didn't. He seems in control. He seems to know what he's about, what he's doing, and what to do next. He gives clear concise orders. He's taken up the leash command dropped, and Tozer has a master again. He feels like a marine again, like some of his identity has returned to him in a weird, perverse way (and we know Tozer is incredibly proud of being a Royal Marine from his earlier conversations)(not to mention Crozier's remark to Fitzjames about not asking the men to leave bits of themselves behind straight away when leaving the ships; Tozer has already lost bits of himself, when Heather died, and he lost faith in command).

Tozer is NOT willing to do a second mutiny because that would put HIM in charge, stripping him of that identity all over again, and he cannot handle that.

And finally, physical touch - physical touch is one of the things that keeps him chained to Hickey (quite literally by the end). It's perhaps not nearly as much of a factor as the other two, or perhaps an enormous factor, but definitely there. Throughout the earlier episodes we see that Tozer is a pretty tactile guy. Playfully wrestling at the birthday party. Caring for Heather, squeezing his hand to try and get signs of life. This is a man who isn't afraid to touch other men. When Hickey holds his face in That scene, he doesn't appear surprised - a little spooked by the way he leans in suddenly, and Hickey's intensity, but not shocked. Not like it's the first time Hickey has ever touched him. I generally imagine there's a lot of physical intimacy Hickey offers him during the scenes we don't see, because Hickey IS good at recognising things in people most of the time, and I can see him honing in on that need for touch immediately.

I imagine him touching him a lot, sleeping unusually close to him, soothing him, everything to make Tozer feel safe and secure and remind him WHO is meeting those specific needs. He's providing certainty, command, and comfort, three things Tozer desperately needs.

If there WAS any sexual intimacy between the two, I believe it would build off this even further - confuse Tozer about his feelings, make him feel uniquely bonded to Hickey in a way he can't easily undo. Especially as a Royal Marine, essentially a symbol of the warlike 'noble' Empire, with all the corresponding Victorian hangups and ideals, which would no doubt feel incredibly threatened by any attraction to Hickey. Hickey, who, as we know, WANTS to erase this sense of Empire as identity, not because he understands the evils of Empire but because he wants to replace it with his own where he is at the top.

Hickey both offers Tozer his identity back while at the same time trying to reshape it to fit his own empire. And for Tozer that's confusing and conflicting - but it's better than what he had before. Because Tozer, too, cannot see the world through any lens but that of Empire and hierarchy and command - that's the fatal flaw of all these men.

By the end, it seems he's starting to see what a horrible mistake he made - but by then it's far, far too late.

And a dog NEEDS a master.

Tldr; I think Tozer's bond with Hickey stems from both very human needs such as touch and closeness and certainty, but also from a very thematic need to have a place and easily understood identity within the structure of Empire. And there's almost no real way for those two different sorts of needs to coexist without disaster.

(One day I'll go into how I think Hickey gets more from this relationship than a mere henchman, but this isn't the post for it! This is about Solomon)

[covid-safer-hotties]

Do At-Home COVID-19 Tests Still Work? - Published Sept 6, 2024

These days, many people use at-home COVID-19 tests when they feel ill, rather than going out to get tested by a professional. (That’s when they bother to test at all.) But for all their convenience, the antigen tests commonly used at home have never been as accurate as PCR tests done in a lab—and the continued mutation of the virus raises additional concerns about their performance.

Rapid COVID-19 tests have never been perfect. How are they holding up as new variants emerge?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to monitor the efficacy of the diagnostics it regulates—and as of August 2023, the FDA said none of the antigen tests on the market were expected to have reduced performance against Omicron or its subvariants. (All of the variants that have emerged since late 2021, including recent ones like KP.3.1.1, are relatives of the original Omicron strain.)

The FDA has also collaborated with a U.S. National Institutes of Health task force set up to monitor how variants affect tests. In 2022, well into Omicron's dominant era, that team concluded that DIY diagnostics continued to work well. Task force member Richard Creager wrote in an email to TIME that the tests still seem able to catch the Omicron spinoffs that are circulating now. “The rapid tests are having no issue detecting the variants,” he wrote, noting that the protein that antigen tests look for has remained fairly stable as the virus changes.

Even if tests have remained constant, our immune systems haven’t. Early in the pandemic, an infected person's “viral load”—the amount of virus in their system—tended to peak around the time their symptoms began. So if someone self-tested on the first or second day they felt sick, they likely had enough virus in their body for a rapid test to detect it.

Now that most everyone has prior immunity from multiple vaccines or infections, the timeline seems to be extended. Viral load now tends to peak around day four or five of symptoms, according to a study published in early 2024. That’s likely because the immune system is primed for action by its previous encounters with the virus, so it responds faster, even before lots of virus has built up in the body. A quicker immune response may mean a faster onset of symptoms.

“If your body has seen the virus before, you’re going to react to it and have an immune response more quickly,” explains study co-author Dr. Nira Pollock, co-director of the Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory at Boston Children’s Hospital. “That immune response can show up as symptoms.”

From an immune perspective, that’s a good thing. But it can complicate testing, because it means someone may not test positive for COVID-19 until they’ve already been feeling sick for days. In their recent study, Pollock and her co-authors estimated that a COVID-19 antigen test is somewhere between 30% and 60% accurate at detecting an infection on someone’s first day of symptoms, but up to 93% accurate on day four.

Based on such findings, Pollock and other researchers cautioned in a recent review article that people who are symptomatic shouldn’t assume they’re COVID-free based on a single negative antigen test result. Although it's a hard sell for people who no longer take precautions, the ideal scenario is for someone to stay isolated—or at least wear a mask when around other people—and test again around day four of symptoms.

“The instructions for these tests are to do serial testing,” Pollock says. “If you’re symptomatic, you should test early. But if you’re negative, you need to repeat it, because the amount of virus in your nose may not be high enough yet to detect.”

One other factor to consider: tests don’t last forever. Many people stockpiled tests when they were previously available for free through government programs and insurance, and those kits may have since expired. (You’ll soon be able to order four more free tests through the government.) The FDA’s website provides up-to-date guidance on determining how long your kits last.

Expired tests can still work, says Dr. Zishan Siddiqui, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He co-authored a 2023 study on Abbott’s popular BinaxNOW tests, which found no major accuracy differences between unexpired tests and those that were five months past expiration. (Siddiqui’s other research suggests unexpired BinaxNOW tests accurately detect COVID-19 cases more than 80% of the time.)

But, although Siddiqui says he isn't too worried about using expired tests, it’s good to remember that their performance can suffer if they’re long past their recommended use dates. If the control line on your test strip doesn’t show up or looks distorted, that’s a good indication that it’s too old to use, he says. Even in Siddiqui's study, which found that expired tests still work, the lines on the old tests showed up more faintly than on fresh tests, making them harder to read.

Whether your tests are old or brand new, it’s good to use some healthy skepticism when interpreting their results. “I trust these tests,” even as the virus evolves, Siddiqui says—but a single result doesn’t always tell the whole story. If you have COVID-like symptoms but test negative, it’s best to be cautious and retest in a few days.

[lavender-romancer]

Winter

Ivar Ragnarsson x Reader CW: suicide mentions, conflict

You wanted to be his again, not owned by him but a part of him. But it had been so long since you'd felt close to Ivar that it felt out of reach as he descended into rage filled madness

”*°•.˜”*°•. ˜”*°•. ˜”*°••°*”˜.•°*”˜.•°*”˜.•°*”˜

You were drifting apart more and more with every hastily made decision fueled by anger that Ivar made. He would curse you, berate you and you could do anything because you didn't trust that he wouldn't kill you himself. You knew something was deathly wrong when you kept finding yourself high on a hill looking over a rock face, moving closer to the edge every time and not feeling afraid. It was impossible to not feel that you were lost in the dark of Ivar's tyranny. But you still craved his adoration, his love and the affirmation that he only wanted you. All of these things would never happen now, you weren't good enough for him.

You needed him running through your veins like a sickness that couldn't be cured- a toxicity that fuelled your love and in turn, your hatred for him. You didn't want to need anyone, when you were younger your mother had always taught you to never need anyone more than yourself. To stay self-reliant and not let anyone control you but, it was impossible. When you met Ivar he was the son of Ragnar, a grumpy boy with no battle experience and a soft spot for you. Now, after 6 years of marriage you couldn't decide if you needed to try harder or just throw yourself on to that cliff face.

"It feels like he's trying to erase me, fade me out of his life and forget I was ever there." You told Helga as you sat descaling some fish with her.

"Ivar is… complicated, I'm sure I had this conversation with you when you started seeing him. He's a different type of person from us. Not as emotional," she tried to smile but could tell that her words weren't necessarily comforting.

"I was so convinced that he loved me then, that he would do anything for me. But he just wants power and money and meaningless sex, I just can't believe he deceived me into this marriage." Helga suddenly gripped your hand.

"This is not your fault. As you said, you were deceived by someone who claimed to love you. The boy has some kind of power. It pulls some people in and I don't know what it is but it captured you," She paused. "I think you should tell him."

"He wouldn't even see me, I can guarantee there's a thrall rooted to his lap right now." You clenched your teeth together and tried to hold in your rage.

"You need to let it out, your rage. Go to the top of a mountain and scream, allow yourself to feel it." Helga suggested and you nodded.

"What I really want is to have him, it's pathetic but I'm so in love with him it's hard to overcome." You placed down the fish and groaned.

"It will pass, and if it doesn't, meet someone else who will be more emotionally attentive. Ivar seems like the kind of man who needs other people's feelings laid out in front of him." Helga smiled and her dark rimmed eyes made contact with you as the two of you carried on with the fish.

Ivar was drunk out of his mind, two naked thralls sitting on his lap as he'd occasionally take their breasts into his mouth. Some days he would forget you were even his wife, you hardly saw each other. He wouldn't say it was an excuse for his behavior but it was definitely a promoting factor of it. You used to smother him, cover him in a blanket of affection and make him feel like no one could hurt him. Ivar didn't remember when that stopped but he also didn't remember when he began sleeping with other women. The crossover between the two was so seamless it made him feel less remorseful, as if your absence made his actions warranted.

When Ivar saw you walk into the Great hall he felt less than he thought he would. In some ways he was happy to see how miserable you looked, hopeful you'd come crawling back to him in pure adoration. Ivar couldn't think of a better way to gain a woman's affection than by making her jealous. Unaware of his ridiculous thought process, Ivar continued looking you up and down through his eyebrows. You could only glare back at him as you headed towards your room, but you annoyingly had to go past Ivar.

"You despise me, wife?" Ivar asked and you stopped in your tracks, sighing deeply.

"Yes." You said simply, even though you loved him you needed him to wake up.

"But… that's not. What?" He said confused, pushing the thralls to the floor, with a resounding yelp from both the women.

"What do you want, Ivar?" You looked at him with such disdain it genuinely surprised him.

"You cannot speak to me like that!" He yelled and you sighed again.

"Then kill me." You sounded defeated, you didn't care anymore. It would be easier for it to all be over so you didn't have to deal with the emotional turmoil of him.

"I'm not going-" he paused. "You are my wife! Why won't you respect me?" He yelled again and you almost winced at the level of noise he was making.

For a few moments all you could hear was the scrape of his crutch and the crackle of the fire, for a moment it felt surprisingly peaceful. You just wanted to exist in that scene, a beautiful fire with furs on the floor in front of it where the local children would sit and be told stories. There was such a serenity to watching children's faces as they listened to a story, they hadn't experienced the hurt or the pain. All they knew was that this was their favourite day because they could sit inside the great hall and feel important. Even Ivar couldn't take that sense of pride away from them.

"Are you going to say anything, wife?" Ivar broke the blissful silence and you couldn't quite believe how aggravating it all was.

"I hate you, I hate what you've done to me." Was all you said and he looked astonished.

"I won't have this bullshit!" He yelled even louder before calling for his guards. "Tie her to a tree in the forest." He swatted you away like you were a pest but, at this point you saw no reason to resist. Ivar would do whatever he wanted with his power and most of the time that would mean fucking you around.

Even the guards were uncomfortable as they threw a rope over a strong tree branch and tied you by your wrists so that your arms always had to be extended. It wasn't the worst punishment you could have got, you were surprised Ivar hadn't got a lust for blood when you disrespected him. He would continue to degrade you and debase you no matter what you did, even though you loved him it didn't matter anymore. Ivar was so consumed by greed or power or hatred for you that he couldn't focus on anything else.

Your heart felt cold and tight. There wasn't any room for any more love because you had given it all away to someone who didn't want it or didn't realise how much he needed it. In one breath you would hope that he would just come and kill you and in the other, you still hoped he would wait for you. That he would allow your coupling to at least attempt to survive. Sometimes when you were around Ivar, you would feel a tiny part of your body decompose. One part of you died because you couldn't hold on to someone who only wanted to break away from you. But all you wanted was to be taken back to when you were younger, you needed him, you wanted him and he would never be what he was again.

[maxwell-grant]

Only one of his at least 5 identities was a straight-up FF villain, but that story was iconic and also he's tied to them by blood, so. Thoughts on Kang? Please don't just talk about how the MCU handled him.

I'm not gonna talk about the MCU at all actually, but Kang was a colossally stupid idea for a next big bad/Thanos from the get-go, he is just not great villain material. The issue with Kang, besides the time travel variant bullshit complications that have their uses but are clearly a major factor against his viability as a villain (and besides him being overwhelmingly a classic Avengers villain and classic Avengers being overwhelmingly boring), is that everything is too utilitarian with him. His core concept makes it so that either he wins too easily, because he has literally all the time and resources he could possibly need to win, or he loses despite having all the time and resources he could possibly need to win, which makes him a colossal loser. He has all-powerful resources and is kinda inevitably fated to win, and is still a chump loser who is also inevitably fated to lose and become an even more boring person at the end.

Nothing Kang does matters, because all of his victories are cheating, and everything he does can be erased and retconned away with another time jump, and so he's forever stuck between anti-climactic boring victories in a vacuum, because he can bend time, and being a chump, because that's what you are if you're bending time and still losing. I heard Kang described as the cosmic equivalent of a bored rich white hunter who goes to hunt animals in nature preserves just because he can, except the animals are constantly kicking his ass, and that's really fun, that's a good character to have around, but that's not really thrilling big bad material.

I think Kang works fine in his current role as someone who will never materially be a big deal supervillain, in a world where Doctor Doom exists, but is powerful and far-reaching and full of enough potentially interesting bullshit that you can pin stuff on him. Not at all an exciting villain to put big stuff in, but as some horrible guy everyone has to deal with, Father Time as a pompous punchable and horribly petty supervillain who can always make a situation cosmically volatile by showing up, is a thing you can bounce good stuff out of in 1-to-1 character interactions, even with himself.

The very things he has going for him as a character make him suck if you try and make him the main threat to take down, but he's good connective tissue and a decent interim villain and a nice fixed quantity to pin dynamics around, and every direction you can take his character is covered by an alternate identity he has, which are essentially different characters, and that can be interesting too, having a time traveling villain fragmented enough that he can sit on a circle with versions of himself at potentially different points of his life and they will be essentially different characters, that kind of stuff is pretty interesting to me.

To me he's like Apocalypse, in the sense that he's really only interesting to me as a character who exists in this world and not so much as a villain, but at least as a villain Apocalypse says and does cool sick shit on occasion, where as Kang, despite some efforts (I did like his solo mini), ultimately only interesting for what he brings out of others. Which can be good, again I do like him somewhat, I think his existence as a major player/threat the Avengers have to deal with is perfectly justified, but he is an Avengers problem largely because he's not good enough to be a Fantastic Four problem, hence why, as Kang the Conqueror, he is consigned to a suitably mediocre existence, as the number two time-traveling supervillain of the world.

[hello-nichya-here]

I have a question that might be offensive, and I'm sorry in advance for any hurt it may cause. I've been trying to search for an answer online for a while but I'm not able to find a proper one, and hoped you could help me.

From what I have gathered, autistic people do not wish for there to be a cure for autism, which I understand because well, it would change your brain and the way you view the world. Some even insist it cannot exist (which I'm not so sure about but whatever). My main question is, there are thousands of people out there who are affected by some kinds of ASD so severe that they can never lead a proper life, will never mentally develop beyond a child, and often have to live through agonizing pain and overstimulation. When it comes to these cases, would they not prefer a cure? So wouldn't it be more ethical for a cure to exist, but taking the cure not be compulsory? Those people are obviously not on social media, so their voices go unheard. But wouldn't they and their loved ones not want them to be in pain?

Thanks in advance.

First off, here's why a "cure" is indeed impossible: autism is a neurotype, not a disease. It's not the brain or any organ/system doing something it shouldn't or being damaged by some internal and/or external factor. An autistic brain functions DIFFERENTLY, not DEFECTIVELY, though obviously there is a variety of ways in which it manifests, and it is very rare for an autistic person to be ONLY autistic, there's often one, or more, conditions affecting them at the same time (anxiety, ADHD, schizophrenia, depression, OCD, etc). It is also likely a result of multiple cromossomes working in atypical ways (unlike with Down Syndrome, which is a result of cromossome 21 and ONLY 21 working differently) - and we still don't know which ones, or even how many said cromossomes are.

What does all of that mean for a cure? It means that:

1 - To make an autistic person non-autistic it'd need to be possible to discover it when they're still a fetus and somehow force their brain and entire nervous system to form differently - both things modern science can't do and that we're not sure will EVER be possible.

2 - It is very likely that even if a cure is possible, it will NOT be a one-size-fits-all kind of deal, and it will work on some cases and be useless in others.

So it is already a far, far, FAR more complicated deal than just "If we put enough money, time and effort into it, we can find a cure." Part of the reason why many autistic people are sick of nearly every fucking charity about autism being focused on a cure is because, instead of that money going directly to us or to our caretakers (be it family or any form of hospice/home) and having a very real positive effective, that money goes into searching for a something that might genuinely not be biologically possible.

This is sadly the common history for nearly every group under the large umbrella of Disabled People. Sign Language was discouraged and even made ILLEGAL in some countries long before there were was a reliable, safe way to allow deaf people to hear. There are THOUSANDS of horror stories about people with any form of paralysis or mobility issues being just let root and die in their beds, even after all kinds of mobility aids were invented because "it's a burden to the caretakers" and a "miserable life to live anyway." A disabled athlete in Canada has recently complained about lack of accessibility and was offered EUTHANASIA as a solution because God forbid someone has to build a ramp.

The sad reality is that many non-disabled people are only interested in helping us if the help is guaranteed to make us 100% "normal." If it will gives us a decent, and sometimes fully/mostly independent life, but not make us able-bodied/neurotypical it is NEVER considerd "good enough", and is often talked about as a "set-back for the cure." Giving us ways to communicate our needs, find emotional support, employment, or at the very least multiple sources of aid that will allow our families to not be on "caretaker mode" 24/7 and to not fear what might happen to us once they pass away is considered A SET BACK. Because we're not "cured", but are also not dead.

They're focused on trying to "solve the mystery that will totally lead us to the cure IN THE FUTURE", but never on hearing our VERY basic requests for stuff that would greately improve our lives NOW - Autism Speaks, the largest autism "charity" (hate-group that literally uses "therapy" created by nazis to "help" us) literally popularized the myths that we don't know ANYTHING about autism, how it happens or how to help people with it, and making the "official autism symbol" be a fucking puzzle piece.

The "finding a cure is more important than anything" narrative talks over the needs of EVERY autistic person in existence, including the ones that cannot express their opinion or understand their own condition enough to HAVE an opinon, and yes, including the ones that actively WANT to be "cured."

And speaking of people who do genuinely want to be "cured" of their autism: it is extremely naive of you to think there's any change a cure wouldn't be made mandatory if it existed, and that the choice would be left to the individual, or even to a parent/caretaker on the more "extreme" cases.

Like I said before, things like Sign Language were made ILLEGAL in many countries for the crime of helping disabled have a better life without curing them. We still have cases of doctors operating deaf babies/toddlers without the parents consent. Wheelchair users constantly complain that people just randomly decide to "help" them by pushing their chair towards where they assume the person wants to go, without saying a word to them, without letting them change direction and sometimes even being careless enough to fuck up the chair.

Disabled people CONSTANTLY get called stupid or selfish for not opting for long, expensive treatments that will often only TEMPORARELY make them abled-bodied because being "normal/not a burden" should be more important than anything, including the completely unnecessary and often brutal emotional turmoil of getting used to a "normal" life just go then have to get used to being disabled again. And yes, autistic peoplel, from the completely indepent ones to the ones that need constant care, who have said they would NEVER take a cure for it if one existed, ALREADY get condescending, and sometimes openly hateful, comments about it all day, every day, everywhere. For saying we don't want to take the IMAGINARY pill that can "fix" us.

Our lives are already considered lesser, our opinions are already disregarded, and our bodily autonomy is already denied constantly (see the more "harmless" things like people that think it's funny to force hugs and kisses on those of us who hate most physical contact, to doctors that have injured or KILLED us through unnecessary, often violent means of restraining us during meltdowns). If a cure existed, we'd be straight up forced, or at least constantly pressured, to take it. There's a reason WE are the only ones discussing how unethical it'd be to force us to be "cured", while most neurptypicals have not even heard of that objection, and half would get mad at us for being "ungrateful" - after all, they spent so much time, money and effort on this thing (that we've been rejecting from day one), we can't just refuse it like that!

I know you probably mean well, anon, but the sad reality is that nearly every talk of "curing" autism (and almost anything that is considered a disability) is often rooted on nothing but society's very open disgust and disdain towards our very existence, not a genuine desire to make sure we're safe and happy - and as you can imagine, we're mad that we constantly have to justify our right to be alive and actually listened to, not spoken over by people who are "trying to help" by telling us to shut up and be glad that they're trying to make us "normal."

[joesalw]

This conversation about Taylor's downfall in 2016 and what led up to it, plus this lie that most criticism of female celebrities is just misogyny is really interesting to me because it's something I talk to people about in real life. There's this idea that in mainstream media people love to build female celebrities up and then rip them apart when they get successful, which don't get me wrong is absolutely true, but in some cases it's a little more complicated than that. There are times when certain celebrities brand and present themselves as "the ideal dream woman" of whatever period they're in, and then when the societal image of what "the ideal dream woman" shifts but the celebrity's image doesn't, the facade cracks.

I think a good example of this is Jennifer Lawrence. I was a teenager when the hunger games movies were coming out and was obsessed so I used to watch a lot of the interviews with the cast. Jlaw presentes herself very much as a "cool girl", she was the youngest of 2 older brothers so she was a "tomboy" that loves sports and drinking beers and shots. She also made it a big deal about how she doesn't diet and is constantly eating yet still has a slim body and doesn't know about designer clothes and is so above all this fame thing. Whilst all this was happening the Gone Girl monologue was gaining traction particularly the part about cool girls and how women alter their personality for men's consumption. Eventually people caught on about all the fictional women and celebrities that fall into the trope and were over it, yet jlaw kept up with the persona. Couple that with her continually working with David o Russell, the insensitivity to other cultures, the overexposure and people realising her acting ain't really all that, you have the general public getting sick of her and her having to take a break. She's sort of made a comeback now and people are just chalking her downfall to "misogyny".

I wasn't really following what Taylor was up to in the lead up to her crash because I'd gotten sick of her long before that and avoided her stuff like the plague, but I did see someone on Reddit talk about how her winning album of the year over Kendrick Lemar and then using her speech to shit on another prominent black hip hop artist over something that was a lie wasn't a good luck for her. Add in the racist undertones in shake it off and wildest dreams videos for good measure.

This time around I do think her not adapting to the political and societal change is going to be a major factor if (I hope) she has another downfall. Before I get to the next part I do have to say I'm from England (you may have heard of it but it is a very foreign country/s) so if I'm wrong about the American political atmosphere someone feel free to correct me. After the election of trump there was a whole knew political awakening and conversations happening, one of them being about how Hillary lost due to misogyny (not completely true) so there were conversations about patriarchy, sexism, double standards and all that. This was the perfect climate for Taylor to be able to swoop in and use all these buzzwords she's learnt and blame anything bad that happened to her on misogyny and made all of her problems into "women problems". You had her giving quotes like how women are only allowed to react or some shit and released "the man" (side note but does anyone else find the bridge to the song kind of racist? Especially the way she's constantly compared to black artists?). She was of course celebrated for all this and had successfully rebranded to politically conscious Taylor Swift.

I don't think she expected the political climate to shift so quickly once again. In 2020 we had those viral videos of white women calling the cops on black people and the conversations about how white women use their privilege and tears to harm others and get away with it. During BLM there were talks about how certain white women will present themselves as allies and progressive but still have friends and date people who are bigots showing their politics is skin deep *cough cough*. COVID had us talking about the disconnect from celebrities about the real world and how capitalism is just another plague that is killing us normal people. You had certain companies and people becoming billionaires during this time and this truly began the crumbling of the pedestal the rich and famous were on.

Flashforward to now, where there are multiple genocides happening in front of our eyes. A time where you can't open any social media site without seeing innocents being slaughtered in ways that fills you with a rage and sorrow I can't even put into words. A time where our world leaders are doing Jake shit like some Arab leaders or actively funding it like the UK and US. A large number of Americans are saying they won't vote for Biden next year, others are screaming if you do that we'll get a repeat of 2016. But people are rightfully pointing out that Hilary is also a war criminal and the DNC were told people are not going to vote for her so pick a different candidate, they didn't and lo and behold those people stuck to their word. Women being in power does nothing if they uphold the same system which is exactly what women like Taylor do.

So the women Taylor rebranded herself to is the exact kind of woman whos shit people are sick of. Her face literally being used as the face of the western media ignoring the atrocities happening to brown and black people and upholding the status quo is just poetic justice. Add in the absolute shallowness of that interview and the whole capitalism is okay when you're girl bossing and you've got people wondering who the fuck does she thinks she is.

There's obviously a lot more to any potential crash Taylor may have and this is all my observations that may be wrong, but I do find all this shit fascinating and I wish people smarter than me would look into it to see if I've got a point.

You’ve got a great point

[transmutationisms]

I'm curious if you've come across any examples of what you would consider effective communication or collective organizing around Covid? I know of a few groups who I think are doing good work to get people access to masks and rapid tests, making connections to broader issues such as lack of sick leave, barriers to healthcare etc, but they're also relying on things like questionable wastewater data extrapolation to make their points. I don't really know what to do about the latter issue, since we've just had access to all data taken away from us by the government. (I know it's not an effective tool for collective action, but tbh I also struggle with the idea that all alarmism is bad, because I am high risk and I am scared!)

well 1st of all to be clear, i think wastewater data are valuable and i do look at them. what i don't do is make wildly overconfident guesses from those data about exactly how many people are infected, how many sick people are standing in any given room, how many people will eventually qualify for a long covid dx, etc. i think wastewater data are a rough proxy but still an important one, and generally more useful at the local level (where they can be cross-referenced with factors like vaccine uptake, circulating variants, and municipal public health policy) than at national or regional levels (where the necessary amount of aggregation makes it difficult to tease out much useful information about any one town or city).

2nd, i don't know what country you live in but i do look in on CDC's covid dashboard, which includes data on hospitalisations, emergency department visits, deaths, vaccine uptake, test positivity rates, &c. if this is applicable to you i strongly encourage always reading the footnotes as these statistics vary in accuracy (in particular, test positivity rate is very unreliable at this point). i consider a lot of these numbers useful primarily as indicators of comparative risk: eg, i assume hospitalisation numbers have been inaccurate lowballs for the entirety of the pandemic; however, it is still useful imo to see whether that number is trending in a particular direction, and how it compares over time. again, local results are sometimes more helpful as well. i also glance in on the census bureau's household pulse survey results, which come out numerous times throughout the year and include questions about duration of covid symptoms, ability to function, and vaccine uptake. these numbers skew in the opposite direction to many of CDC's, because the phrasing of the covid questions is intended to be broad, and does not attempt to distinguish between the sort of long covid that entails a 6 or 12 month recovery period, vs the sort of long covid that turns out to be me/cfs or other chronic long-term post-viral complications. again, i still think these numbers are useful for viewing trends over time; no data will ever be completely 100% without flaw, and i'm not holding out for that. what does frustrate me, though, is people (with any and all ideological axes to grind!) interpreting any of these numbers as though they are in fact perfect flawless representations of reality, with no further caveats or critical analysis needed. that's what i'm pushing back on, whether it comes from the "pulse survey says long covid prevalence is decreasing, so fuck it!" crowd or the "biobot says last week was a micro-surge so we're all going to die!" crowd.

as far as local orgs or groups doing actual action, like distributing masks or vaccine clinics, i don't put so much stock in what they say on instagram or whatever because frankly i think it matters very little. the masks and vaccines and air filters and so forth are useful in themselves; that work is valuable. if someone's positioning themselves primarily as a communicator then yes, i'm going to scrutinise their communication methods more. if it's an action org i'm honestly less concerned, unless there is egregiously unreliable information being propagated or they're communicating in the sort of stigmatising manner that many peak Posters have adopted (people who got sick are stupid / immoral / deserve it, etc).

i'd also just like to make it clear that like... i live with someone who is at high risk, i accordingly treat my own covid precautions as though i am also at high risk, and i wouldn't want covid regardless... like, please understand that when i talk about this i'm not coming at it from a perspective of someone who's unaware of the need for caution! my concern is, again, that caution and risk discussion are not synonymous with "making frightened guesses and asserting them with 100% confidence" or "selectively attributing truth to data because they agree with me, regardless of the actual methodology and any problems therein". i understand that when people are behaving recklessly and being encouraged to do so by state and medical authorities, it is tempting to look at that situation and think that communicating the seriousness of the virus is worth risking a little bit of inaccuracy if it protects people. however, i do not think that strategy actually pays off in the long or short term as far as changing people's behaviour (if it did, wouldn't it have by now?) and i think it is playing with fire to encourage this manner of interpreting and disseminating scientific information as though it is a kind of ideological buffet requiring no further verification or investigation beyond a cherry-picked deference to the stated objectivity and ideals of The Scientific Method.

[all-pacas]

DIAGNOSTIC OLYMPICS, SEASON 2, EPISODES 10-18

S1: part one, part two, part three

S2: part one

Hi! I was curious about who on House (besides House) gets the most diagnoses right. Other folks have already run a tally (it's Chase), but I was curious how other factors would influence the tally — whose ideas get run with, who manages treatment, who screws up… So I thought I'd keep score.

1 point for getting the answer. This is almost always going to be House.

.5 points for Valuable Contribution — stuff that isn't the final answer, but either is thought to be the final answer or is valuable to the solving of the case. Stuff like "noticing something on the MRI" doesn't count; things like "figuring out how to treat" does.

-.5 to -1 for Mistakes — stuff that delays or prevents diagnoses, injuring or killing patients, etc.

FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE DIAGNOSES: Brain Malaria

+1 HOUSE: Honestly, should get more than one point: he solves the case by phone with no information. That’s more because this is a weird and pretty weak episode, though. +.5 CHASE: Although he was wrong in the end, he got an early win realizing the patient was on drugs, and suggesting a lumbar puncture that only later (on House’s order) was done. That’s two good ideas in a episode with very few ideas at all. +.5 CAMERON: Finally, finally realizes the patient only talks when his wife isn’t around. +0 FOREMAN: Comes up with basically no ideas, and continues to struggle with leadership. Chase and Cameron actively rebel and refuse his orders, and he doesn’t do much to prove himself. +0 TEAM: The Fellows do a pretty terrible job all episode, missing the obvious and running all over the place. But the episode also really isn’t about the case, so whatever. Honestly, wanted to give out no merits this episode at all.

NEED TO KNOW DIAGNOSES: Just so many things. But mostly a tumor.

+1 HOUSE: Another episode where the team is mostly running around chasing symptoms, House figures out the last piece of the puzzle (that the patient was on birth control) at the last second. +5 CUDDY: Her exasperated Stacy impression is, actually, very good.

DISTRACTIONS DIAGNOSES: Anti-depressant poisoning

+1 HOUSE: A not-so complicated case where the main problem was just testing the kid and getting information. House stumbled onto the correct solution, almost killed the patient anyway, and then figured it out for real. +.5 FOREMAN: Now that he’s no longer in charge, he’s suddenly doing much better, suggesting smart ideas and tending the patient. His merit is specifically for doing a very dangerous lumbar puncture successfully.

SKIN DEEP DIAGNOSES: Testicular cancer

+1 HOUSE: Cracks the case, despite the Heightened Pain and all his sleazy comments. As ever, we don’t judge on words, only actions. +1 CUDDY: Not only refuses to misgender the patient and calls House out on it, she manages to completely pull one over on him with her morphine trick. Love to see it. +0 FOREMAN: He makes a big to-do about House rushing things and being wrong due to his pain and haste, but every call House makes this episode is completely right, so probably would have been better saved for another episode. -.5 CAMERON: Early in the episode, she and Chase are told to do an LP and an MRI. The patient has a twitch, so Cameron decides not to bother with the MRI at all. Oops! Now, later in the episode Wilson also did an MRI and didn’t find anything, but at the end of the episode, House did find the cancer during a third scan. In between, the patient got a brain biopsy. Giving Cameron the demerit because if she had done the MRI in the first place, it might have been found sooner, sparing the danger of a brain biopsy.

SEX KILLS DIAGNOSES: Cheese bacteria; STDs

+1 HOUSE: Figures out patient #1 is Cheese Sick pretty quickly — literally, only about fifteen minutes into the episode. +1 TEAM: Most of the episode is spent keeping patient 1 alive and getting patient 2 healthy enough to donate her heart. She turns out to have an STD, but no one person really “solves” the case. +5 MR. NEUBURGER: The episode is intentionally full of very sympathetic characters, but I liked him. I loved how he sort of inserted himself into the case and kept following House around, I liked House being more sympathetic than usual and letting him insert himself into all the DDX’s, it’s just a weirdly cozy episode.

CLUELESS DIAGNOSES: Gold poisoning

+1 HOUSE: Lands on heavy metal toxicity early, but they can’t figure out what metal for much of the episode. He then has a second eureka moment and realizes gold. +.5 FOREMAN: Becomes convinced it’s lupus. It isn’t, but when House continues to insist on heavy metal toxicity despite test results, Foreman not only stands up to him but wins, proceeding with the lupus treatment because House can’t come up with proof that isn’t “because I say so.” Foreman was wrong, but this might be the first time any of the fellows successfully stand up to House like this and get their way.

SAFE DIAGNOSES: Tick bite

+1 FOREMAN: When the patient’s heart starts failing, House wants to come up with a fancy reason the allergy would call it, but has no ideas. Foreman, for the second episode in a row, pushes back and gets his way: to investigate the heart failure rather than start guessing. He then takes charge of the team and whiteboard as House sits quietly, and more or less runs the rest of the case. House even admits he’s right! +1 WILSON: Able to come up with an excuse to get the patient in an elevator with House on the fly. It’s always great to see his lying skills in action. +.5 HOUSE: Realizes the tick bite after he finally talks to the patient, and then is able to find it through, uh, invasive means. +.5 CAMERON: First one to guess tick paralysis, although it’s quickly shot down because at the time they’re no longer thinking allergy. +.5 CHASE: Suggests botulism, which is a long shot but becomes House’s running theory. Also figures out that the patient’s boyfriend has been sneaking in to see her, and is the one to realize they never actually talked to her. The second they do, it clears everything up. No big revelations from Chase, but three little ones makes half a merit fair.

ALL IN DIAGNOSES: Erdheim-Chester

+1 HOUSE: Goes in thinking it’s Erdheim-Chester, and it is; the test just gives a false negative. The rest of the episode is spent throwing things at the wall until he finally is able to prove it. +.5 CHASE: Despite starting the episode whining and skeptical, he gets points for his first guess once he is committed: House compliments it and calls it not just good but exactly what he did with Esther. It’s wrong, but points for a literal House-level theory.

SLEEPING DOGS LIE DIAGNOSES: Bubonic Plague

+1 HOUSE: Everyone is running around with no good guesses, and get distracted by the liver failure, but House pulls it out in the end. +0 CAMERON: While she complains and gets bogged down by the ethics of toxic lesbianism, and is certainly not winning points for bedside manner, she doesn’t let her distaste screw her up. Character development! +0 CAMERON AND FOREMAN: Foreman didn’t actually “steal” Cameron’s article, but he was a huge asshole about it all the same. They both lose points somewhere, but not here for this. +500 TOXIC LESBIANS: I think about these women every single day. This episode is simply incredible and one of the writers clearly has had some Experiences and I salute her for them

RUNNING TALLY:

HOUSE: 32 (+8.5) TEAM: 5.5 (+1) FOREMAN: 3 (+2) CHASE: 3.5 (+1.5) CAMERON: 3.5 (+.5)

Foreman is finally catching up, ironically only after he lost his temporary leadership role. I guess you could say that the experience gave him confidence — his points are mainly for standing up to House and taking charge.

[landoscaring]

my thoughts on the austin gp 2024

hello, welcome to my ted talk, which i've "the ups and downs of being a mclaren fan".

sigh.

i can't even be angry, yknow? cause P4 and P5 are actually pretty good results when you consider. 1) where we were last year, 2) that we knew it wasn't going to be an easy one. lots of factors at play here, and you can choose to believe the ones you want: mclaren's not historically good at this circuit, the upgrades, oscar being sick... but the truth of the matter is, we got away pretty much unscathed. it could've been so much worse.

listen. we got used to winning, okay? we saw the light [the wdc] at the end of the tunnel [the 2024 season] and thought we had it easy. but it never is in this sport! i don't hold it against either lando nor oscar, they did what they could with what they had, and they maximized their results as much as possible.

it's all about perspective.

some thoughts, in no particular order:

1) i had a feeling track limits would cost us, and boy, did they. i have to admit i found the stewards' decisions to be arbitrary at best and extremely inconsistent. imo lando was forced off by max, but whatever. once again, fuck you, fia.

2) oscar, imo, is one of the biggest winners of the weekend. he had a pretty bad start, an unremarkable sprint, and an average quali. P5 today was, all things considered, a pretty good outcome. he also did what he could with the car's conditions, and he *cough cough* proved how much of a terrible teammate he is by slowing down in the last lap so the penalty wouldn't affect lando as much. talk about ego.

3) we have to admit that ferrari has made a comeback, and that it'll be hard to maintain dominance for the remaining races. max is strong, too, so unfortunately our path towards a possible wdc has just gotten a tiny bit more complicated. it's time we all make our peace with that (lando seems to have done so, too.)

anyways. little bit of a shitshow, but with perspective, not so much. i think the next circuit fits us better, so we'll try to push for a 1-2.

onwards! 🧡✨️🤠

[utilitycaster]

24 & 25 for the ask game

24. most rancid discourse - I'm going to the wider AP/TTRPG fandom again because I think most Critical Role dumb discourse things have either a clear eventual end date, or are limited to small subgroups. Anyway, I just said this last week but I'll say it again: it's fine if you don't like D&D, whether your issue is with the gameplay itself or with WOTC/Hasbro's practices. I happen to like D&D as a game and I haven't spent a dime on anything put out by WoTC/Hasbro in over two years, because I already own what I need, and I don't feel bad about pirating other stuff, so boycotting it on a personal level doesn't do shit. The overwhelming attitude from people who want actual play shows to change systems because they "have an obligation to the fans" or people who get shitty on posts about D&D is not "hey, I want to help you find other games that you might enjoy other than D&D;" it's "I HATE D&D AND I'M GOING TO BE A LOUD STUPID DICK ABOUT IT." Like, at this point I personally will not play PF or Fabula Ultima unless a personal IRL friend invites me because every single person plugging those online has been so fucking unpleasant that I don't wish to spend any time in their community. I loved TAZ Steeplechase, which used Blades in the Dark, but I'm actually not super interested in playing out that kind of story at my tables; I want to play a fantasy game with level progression. I've had a good time with some indie solo games, and some Grant Howitt one-pagers, and you know what a big factor for those was? I had a group of people around me who were interested (or I personally was interested) and someone was kind and positive and asked me what sort of game I was looking for instead of just being like PLAY MY FAVORITE GAME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT. And yeah, as a person who is totally ok with actual play shows sticking with D&D if it's what fits the story, a lot of people do repeatedly whine about D&D being the system of choice and then don't watch anything else. and unfortunately I do not see an end to this.

25. This is a complicated one but in CR I think it's both important to understand the context of a lot of fandom attitudes/complaints based on how the fandom was in the past; it's also crucial to understand that fandom is never monolithic, assuming everyone holds the position you like/dislike is false, and when you bring up that context it's vital to make sure it's still relevant. So to give a couple examples, it is an important truth in the history of CR fandom that people were particularly awful to the women, especially Marisha-as-Keyleth, during Campaign 1. It also gets treated as like, this obligatory litany you have to say before any criticism of any female character ever and it's like. I am a woman. My understanding of misogyny long pre-dates my watching of Critical Role. If you are not an extremely stupid person I think you can understand that me saying "Laudna frequently feels underdeveloped" is not me saying "Marisha Ray should be thrown off a bridge". We can similarly acknowledge that some critiques of Campaign 3 are in bad faith and also that there's a lot of valid reasons why many people strongly prefer Campaigns 1 and/or 2 without making up bullshit lies (the idea that people never criticized Liam for main character syndrome when that was a CONSTANT in C2 and, I am told, C1; the idea that there wasn't a lot of pushback towards Campaign 2 for not being Vox Machina Redux).

I guess the best way to put it is that I'm sick of people complaining that not everyone has the same preferences as they do and claiming that they (and the things they like) are the most put upon perfect angel whom the mean fandom hates. If Campaign 3 is your favorite, great. Enjoy. Glad you're enjoying it. If the existence of other people with valid arguments on why they don't like it is making it hard for you to enjoy something, that's either because you are spineless and stupid and lack a coherent individual viewpoint independent of the validation of others; or because their arguments are good and are pointing out things you hadn't previously noticed and don't want to admit. and this goes for any character, any campaign, and any show. You sound like the "potterheads get your wands" people.

[reimenaashelyee]

This is maybe not so important to announce but it's going to affect my online activity/webcomic updates, so here it is:

I am going back to school and pursuing a Masters in Arts Management until 2025

If you recall, I have spoken several times in my blog about my past life in academia, the quarter-life crisis that resulted from it (not the full story), and the occasional spasm of desiring institutional recognition.

I am willingly! voluntarily! going back through the gates of the ivory tower.

For the past few years now, I’ve been slowly crabwalking towards an administrative, organisational, educational/resource-providing, leadership-type role in my areas of work (comics, writing, illustration, commercial art).

I hinted about somewhat being sick of the physical and emotional investment of comics-making trapping me to the same four-walls. The 2-ish years of hard commitment that each graphic novel demands is something that I don’t mind doing, especially for a story I truly believe in. However, I cannot keep doing this consecutively. For two years, I keep having visions of myself in my late-fifties asking me, now, if this is all worth it: to devote all this time to make comics that people like, but to not have a life lived? I am thinking of those mangaka who spend all their time breathing eating knowing only comics, and then suddenly, dying with not much to show except their impressive body of work. Did they see enough of the world? Did they eat enough good food? Have they discovered all their non-comics passions? I certainly don’t want my ghost to ask the same questions when she sees my body.

In a way I’ve sort of outgrown that shine of comics as a full-time job: ironically, in my success at producing audience/market-friendly work in exchange for financial support, I do not have time at all to pursue experimental, personal play and art that truly speaks to me. I’m also facing the reality that, as much as I enjoy working in traditional publishing, I am running out of ideas. I only have 2 to 3 more stories left in me for young adult/middle grade graphic novels. After that? I don’t know…

(Unless the new graphic novel imprints are suddenly hungry for adult work. Because, boy, do I have ten billion ideas.)

Anyway, the situation is that the majority of the graphic novel space in traditional publishing is still cashing in on the boom for middle-grade/young adult stories, with no long-sighted consideration for catering to those readers who will eventually, definitely grow up into adults. Meanwhile, I am running out of kids stories and am desperate to make bloody, complicated work (the kind of stuff I was already making pre-success and am still making), and to disentangle the actual act of creating from income-making. Not in the sense that I don’t want money at all from my comics; just that I don’t want comics to be my primary source of income anymore. And personally… I just want more time to live and be offline.

So this is the emotional aspect that’s been motivating my crabwalking. Still, if that was not a factor, this was always going to be the natural progression of my career anyway.

Like, considering that I began my career as co-founder of a regional comics network and my life-long practice of creating resources, it’s not that surprising. Even when I formally officialised my career in 2018 as a Traditionally Published, Professional Comics Creator in the Mid-list, I was also engaging in the administrative with my dayjob at Hiveworks, in addition to the aforementioned regional comics network UNNAMED, and now, the Cartoonist Cooperative. I continually make resources and facilitate them. The dayjob is expanding to include even larger responsibilities (it’s not really company-related, just a consulting thing we’re doing with a giant entity).

Clearly, the horizontal pivoting has gotten to the point where that aspect is becoming the majority of my practice, into something that I actually want to form the bulk of my career and the foundation of my 30s era. It’s happening at the same time as my desire to withdraw from the cycle of commercial production to focus on what I call studio/residency work aka sketching and making my webcomics.

So yeah, I’ve decided to formalise the other half of what I am already doing, since in this universe one can’t get a job in corporate/NGO/NPO art administration without a degree – despite years of experience and evidence of extremely specialised skills that don’t exist in a university course but are valuable on the ground (do they teach comics crowdfunding and webcomics marketing/production in tertiary?). And I do intend to go somewhat corporate, even if it’s as someone who runs a literary festival or artist residency. Because I actually find pleasure in doing all that admin juggling. I like helping artists pursue their practice. It engages a side of my brain that is understimulated since I stopped academia.

I went to the Orientation session on Thursday. It had been exactly 8 years since I last did an Orientation for school; I am no longer a wide-eyed doe so the entire time I was barrelling through the throngs of baby undergraduates and sitting through the talks with laser-focused practicality (putting aside the nice-sounding speeches for the actual hard facts of where stuff is and who to contact; though the speeches were quite thoughtful).

Anyway,

anyway…

This is a long-winded post to break the Jinx and say I am officially pursuing my Masters in Arts Management. Two years of this. Who knows what may happen?

Hopefully I will come out with better experiences this round, since this would be the first time that I chose a course not out of anxiety for the unknown, but because I very much know what I want based on experience actually working in industry.

[max1461]

From @raginrayguns:

More generally, I think I have a much more uh. I don't know what to call it. I think lots of ethics and aesthetics does and should cash out in very "practical" stuff like having money and not dying, you think it's much more arbitrary and "practical"-sounding justifications are ad hoc. But also my view leaves a lot of room for like, simple pleasures that are part "behavioral loops" that result in practical stuff. Like, don't just clean your house in order to avoid getting sick from black mold etc, tidy it and make it look nice and decorate it. Don't just take care of your health, instead try to make your body more to your tastes not just in health and function but also in appearance and gender expression. Objectivists are like this too, that's why there's so much sex and partying in Atlas Shrugged and the evil dictator is a slob (it keeps mentioning that his shirt has a droopy collar and he doesn't get it starched).

So, for me, it's not exactly that I think ethics and aesthetics are especially arbitrary in actuality, it's more that I think it's better to model them that way.

Like, in reality I do think that a lot of the desires that people have cash out to a small-ish set of "practical"/"visceral" desires, things like self-preservation, desire for food, for sex, for companionship, for admiration, for entertainment, etc. And even a lot of these basic desires share an evolutionary origin, e.g. we evolved to want food because that urge is useful to keep us alive and so on. But, speaking about any individual person and why they seek out food, their answer isn't going to be "because I want to survive, and I rationally concluded that food is necessary for that". It's mostly a pre-rational urge, they're hungry so they seek food. It's effectively axiomatic. This is evident in the fact that they may eat foods which actually aren't good for their survival, like junk food, because those foods taste better or sate their hunger better, etc. People also usually have a desire to survive, which might be strong enough to motivate them to stop eating junk food, but it's certainly best to model these two desires as separate things, individually axiomatic and sometimes conflicting, even though in a biological sense they derive from the same place.

Right, so, I assume(?) you agree already to some degree or another with the above, it seems pretty necessary for modeling human behavior. But I think that what I do is basically to extend this model to more types of desires, even those that indeed may be rationally derived from more "basic" ones as above. Like, if someone tells me they want to live in a snowy, cold weather place... maybe it's because they feel better at that temperature, or they like the smell of pines, or they are more attracted to the way people dress in cold-weather climates, or whatever. Probably it's a complicated mix of a bunch of factors. Unless I know them really well, I can't model all that. So it's useful to just be like "what they want is to live in a cold place; noted" and treat it as basically an axiom.

I guess this is all really tied up in the way that I see ethics generally, which is something that I think about as like, diplomacy, negotiation, an attempt at finding a satisfactory compromise between different people with different wants. So it's useful to think in terms of "what demands are people laying out? What's on the bargaining table?". I can't possibly model everyone's internal reasons for wanting what they want, what I need is an understanding of what people seem to want, and knowledge of how they're willing to trade some wants off against others. Obviously internal modeling can help with this, but at a certain point it's not practically achievable. You just gotta take people's word for it.

Right, so, that's part of it. But the other part is that I think this kind of, uh, official agnosticism towards where desires come from is useful for dealing with psychological variation. Because while it's true that lots of people's desires seem to cash out to a small generating set common to most of us, I think it's also true that some of our desires cannot be derived from this set, and furthermore that perhaps most of us have at least a few desires of this type.

Like, a big part of this is informed by being unusual in various ways (I don't love "neurodivergent", but it's true), and having to argue with people to get my needs met.

A lot of people seem really dedicated to their own substantive system of right and wrong, derived from what they think the wants and needs of "ordinary" people are. Often I'll have some need that is not covered by this, and I'll go "look, I have need X, I'm happy to go out of my way and do Y to accommodate the fact that I am asking you to be considerate of X, let's figure out something that can work for both of us". And their response is very often something like "no, [according to my substantive ethics] it's unfair of you to ask X, and it would also be unfair of me to ask Y ". So what's happening here is that their dedication to this substantive system is getting in the way of them making a compromise that would be good for everyone. And I then need to frame my own need X in terms of some substantive things that they already endorse, make it comprehensible within their system, before they take it seriously as a negotiating point. I find things much easier when people are willing to skip the substantive analysis step and just go straight to "ok, you want X, I want Y, let's negotiate".

So that's really where this is coming from. Yes, I think the bulk of human desires seem to derive from some fairly small set of axioms/terminal goals/whatever, but I also think:

It's really hard to know what exactly is in that set, and to usefully predict what people's on-the-ground desires will be from it, because modeling people psychologically is hard.

There is enough psychological variation in people that an individual's own personal set of terminal goals may differ from the consensus set in a morally- or socially-relevant way, and this happens often.

And so if you see ethics as being about negotiating some sort of "ideal" compromise between different people with different desires, it's better to imagine that anyone could walk up to you one day with basically any old want and be prepared (at least in some philosophical sense) to be able to handle that.

Uh, something like that.