#they both know that and they also both know that ted wouldn't make that conditional upon beard following his request

[cilantroodon]

[ID: Gifset of a scene from Ted Lasso:

INT. COACHES' OFFICE. TED sits at his desk, BEARD standing in front of him.

TED: I don't know about you Coach, but I hope that either all of us, or none of us, are judged by the actions of our weakest moments.

(BEARD blinks silently.)

TED: But rather by the strength we show when and if we're ever given a second chance.

BEARD (looking up): Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

End ID.]

I know you've already seen it, I just don't know if you watched the whole thing, look, look, look. Alright. So look, after we came in, Nate had to hide under my desk here for, like, three whole hours while we were whooping and hollering and celebrating all around him. Then, once we all split, he thought he was in the clear and BOOM! Cleaning crew shows up. That's another two hours under that desk, yeah. Well, after they leave he crawls out - his legs just gotta be jelly, barely stand up. Look at this, he goes to check the doors but they're all locked! Oh man, that son of a gun had to climb out the window here just to get out of the building.

TED LASSO S03E11: MOM CITY

[fromkenari]

Here's something that I doubt everyone knows about the disability crisis in the United States. For a civilian to get disability payments, they have to be "totally" disabled; in other words, you have to prove you cannot get any job in any industry based on Department of Labor statistics in your state, not *just* that you have a debilitating condition. For a veteran to get disability payments, they have to prove a percentage of how disabled they are, and getting 100% disability as a veteran is no easy task wording is critical in the documentation if anyone at any point in your medical history intentionally or not downplays your disability you will get percentage points taken off how much pay you get as a disabled veteran. This is particularly difficult for people with any pride or dignity left because, in both civilian and veteran cases, you must explain just how awful it is in explicit terms and quantifiable, dehumanized ways to sate the court's interest, or you will not get "total" disability. Furthermore, until you are considered "permanently" disabled, you must repeat this process every 3-5 years. Yet, again no one anywhere can talk about you improving or you're out (for civilians), or your disability percentage amount is reduced (for veterans.) Also, if you manage to prove a "permanent" disability, you still get checked every seven years to make sure it's still "permanent." Finally, to get your student loans discharged as a civilian, you must prove your disabled status is both "total and permanent," guess what if one of those changes? Those loans come right back. Also, your loans go into forbearance if you're" totally disabled" and not considered "permanent" or "short-term" (more than 2 weeks, up to a year). Yes, that is the one that accrues interest. Not deferment. For short-term disability, you can defer, but if you're long-term, non-permanent, you forbear. Most people on long-term disability are medically permanently disabled but not in the eyes of the law because of their age, even if it is a chronic or progressive disease. This is why people die waiting for total disability, let alone permanent. My disability attorney said straight to my face 10 years ago, "You should get disability because you have a chronic disabling condition in two systems, but it's going to be a fight because you are so young." I was 28, by the way. She said if I had "just Lupus" or "just medication-resistant dysthymia and generalized anxiety," I wouldn't have stood a chance. My cousin "just" had Lupus and was in end-stage renal failure, it took her 3 years to get disability, and by then, she had a kidney transplant. She was in her 20s and on her parents' insurance. I have a friend whose veteran husband couldn't get 100% VA disability because some doctor at some VA clinic years ago had written down "mild back pain" when describing the pain he felt from degenerative disc disease and 2 herniated discs. It took years to get that one note out of his file. No matter what any other doctor said. So when I say you can't comprehend the disability crisis in the United States, I'm talking about this. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

[msrandonstuff]

Can't concentrate because idk why but right now I feel VERY enthusiastic about helluva boss. So i decided to yeah, come here to maybe bother you in your askbox so I can get it all out.

But like.

Stolitz. The main ship.

You could say that Blitzø and Stolas are the two main characters and you wouldn't be quite wrong. Those two losers are the ones that have most of the fandom emotionally attached because. Because. Just. Imps, in the show, are hell's lowest class. Them there are the Sinners (people who died and now are in hell), then there are the Overlords (powerful Sinners because they either did something terribly bad on earth or I think some of them were born in hell?), then the nobility, like princes, dukes of hell. And then Lucifer who is the king. Ok so.

Blitzø is an imp. Hell's lowest. Stolas is a prince. Hell's nobility. They both met as kids because the day of his tenth birthday, Stolas' father told him about his arranged marriage, Stolas was sad and so his father "bought" Blitzø for an afternoon. Blitzø's father told him to steal anything valuable from Stolas' house because nobility. So Blitzø tricks Stolas into helping home steal. And they both enjoy themselves while doing it. When it's all done, Blitzø could have left, but he didn't because he had a good time.

It seems that from that moment, Stolas had some sort of crush on Blitzø.

Then, years later, Blitzø wants to make his own business: killing people that haven't died yet, being hired by hell's Sinners. But in order to go to Earth, he needs a portal, a spell. And, one of the places where he can find something to go to Earth is in a book Stolas owns.

So. Blitzø happens to decide to steal the book the same day of Stolas'wedding anniversary. His wife (who doesn't love him, and apparently is abusive towards him) is laughing at him, ridicules him in from of the guests. So Stolas drinks fucking absinthe, and while he's drinking, the guards bring Blitzø to him because he tried to break in.

Strong alcohol leads to bad decisions so somehow they end up in Stolas' room, Stolas flirting with Blitzø and Blitzø playing along because he wants the book that desperately. And kaboom they end up fucking. Next morning Blitzø leaves with the book, fucking crashes Stolas'wife with cake and so she knows of the infidelity.

So. After some time, Stolas'proposes that Blitzø can stay with the book on the condition that once a month he fucks him. But it's like nonsense because in the same book there's a spell that can grant free access to Earth without the necessity of the book so Stolas could have easily made that. But he didn't because apparently he enjoyed himself too much with Blitzø.

Their emotions to one another are a MESS. Specially considering both have daddy issues. Stolas sees Blitzø as an equal, but hell's social system is stuck into his head no matter how hard he tries. And Blitzø has severe inferiority complex, thinking of Stolas as very, very above him socially. And also, all previous romantic relationships Blitzø had were apparently a failure so he craves love but fears attachment.

So yeah. It's all a MESS. But it's a mess worth watching.

thank you for listening to my ted talk.

I have no idea of what that is, but trust be im loving to read all this my dearest

first i loved this universe???? ngl this whole thing rlly caught my attention wdym the nobility of hell??

omg them meeting each other #couplegoals

ngl you've basically converted me into wanting to watch it in the winter break from school like wtf it is just so good??? you've got me hooked up on this and i loved it

loved the ted talk btw. if ya ever need know that my inbox is always open :)

[stormyoceans]

The only scene i wanted to change was this scene with Day's friend/badminton partner because let's be real thai series can't make good jealousy plots (yet?). But your remark about wanting to see Mork falling in love made me think so hard about it i think i had a whole ted talk in my head uvuctxj

So as we all know the stereotypical division of roles is common inThai dramas (I'm talking about the role of the one who initiates and the role of the one who accepts). I would say that puentalay are better in this regard but it still feels like Jimmy is the initiator in their pair. I think it's normal for Thai culture (he's older, he's more experienced, he even has more acting experience, he's a doctor, which drives everyone crazy). And the dynamic of the daymork is similar, only in my opinion, they are more open. Puen and Talay both seemed to be hiding some part of themselves for different reasons. I got the impression that Mork and Day wouldn't be like that. it will be easy for them to fall in love with each other. But damn, I wish I could see the reverse dynamics.... those rare moments when Sea led and Jimmy played shyness were good. and I understand that Mork is a big flirt, but if Aof made him more shy and yk besotted after realizing his feelings for Day, it would be just amazing. So yes, i demand scenes of Mork visibly being affected by Day. Let the man be smitten and blushing and kicking his feet and smiling widely because of Day

ALWAYS HAPPY TO PROMPT ELABORATE DISCUSSIONS WITH ONESELF BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY ME EVERY DAY IN MY HEAD SFJKSGFKGSJSG

you know.. i do wonder if the industry expects us to perceive jimmy's characters as the active pursuers just because he's older than sea, but i've actually been thinking that, at least in vice versa, the narrative doesn't really back this up. i guess this can be up for interpretation, but while there is a slight power differential in puentalay because talay is usually more shy and puen more 'aggressive', i feel like there's no established seme/uke dynamic between them, which is yet another reason why i love them so much (and please notice that im using 'seme' and 'uke' just because BL has its roots in yaoi and those terms carry a whole lot of specific characteristics that have defined BL pairings for a long time too)

it's true that puen is the one to pursue the relationship more, but the relationship actually happens only on talay's 'conditions': only when talay admits to like him back puen kisses him again, only when talay tells puen that he has opened his heart to him a long time ago they officially become boyfriends. there are also moments where talay IS the more 'aggressive' one, either consciously (when he makes puen shy in ep 4) or unconsciously (when he manhandles puen out of tess' shirt in ep 7), and this versatility in their relationship is also displayed by the way they easily exchange roles in some tropes: for example, we see puen feeding talay very often, but we also see talay feeding puen in a couple of occasions, and similarly we have both puen laying his head on talay's lap AND talay laying his head on puen's lap

all this to say that i actually think (and hope) we're probably gonna have a similar situation with morkday, because while mork definitely seems like a big flirt and day is visibly affected by it, in the trailer day is actually the one we see initiating a kiss BUT NOT SEEING MORK REACTION IS KILLING ME. so i guess this is why i would have loved to see mork being affected by day as well, because they have the potential to have the same versatility as puentalay while also having day being the more 'aggressive' one when it comes to pursue an actual relationship!!!

[indyexploits]

This is actually a good question, poses a lot of story and theorycrafting concepts, but, you actually, without realizing, may have hit on the answer already. Or the one that feels most likely, other than "Did the rules change." And no, I don't think they did. The Method changed.

This got away from me so we're putting a cut...

While the Crystal Tower and its abundant energy were the catalyst to allow time travel in both G'raha's trip back in time, the actual method itself was mechanical in nature. Garland Iron Works combined the magic with the machine that allowed the whole damn tower, G'raha included, to shoot itself backwards in time far enough for him to make a difference. In this case, G'raha himself was the one moved.

Now, how did we get to Elpis? It was a combination of the last of the shade of Elidibus, whose memory of the era of Elpis and the energy of the tower being used as a focus. It was the "self-same magic" so to speak, but it wasn't filtered through the ironworks machinery. Highly impressive for someone who was probably only about 1/8th alive at that point, but he also wasn't even able to get you all the way there! The Warrior of Light arrives in Elpis barely there, a literal shade of who they were, and it took some prodding to get Emet to give up energy to solidify you in that memory of a time period.

So, basically, G'raha's time-hopping was facilitated not just by magic but machine. The Warrior of lights jump was all magic and memory.

There are lots of other factors to explore as well.

For instance, Elpis was the realm of the ancients, tied to the star, whose memories themselves formed aspects of all creation. Going back in time and interacting with those beings there would be no way that memories of exploits and knowledge from a being of the future wouldn't mix and mingle in with all that would come later. But, in G'raha's future, there isn't anyone whole enough to fill that role. Can then the memories the remaining Ascians in the future flow backwards to catch up to G'raha, or are the lost looking forward?

Can a different calamity happen other than Black Rose that fulfills the conditions of what would have been the Warrior of Light's destiny? Is their death necessary for the 8th Umbral Calamity to happen?

Finally, in our era, G'raha has awoken, merged with his future/present self and mixing/matching knowledge and skills learned from his time as the Exarch. But, he's not the Exarch anymore. He isn't ageless. Its likely he wouldn't make it to the time period he was sent back from to begin with.

Time Travel is weird. There's as many rules as there are exceptions, and you never know which version you're following until after it doesn't matter. Like I said, my assumption is Technological Time Travel vs Purely Magical Time Travel are allowed different rules in this case.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

I had a random 3am thought last night about something that I don't think ever really gets brought up again, but:

Endwalker's Elpis storyline confirms quite clearly that time travel follows the rules of a stable time loop. If you are able to time travel, the past cannot be changed, because it already happened; your actions in the past cannot change the future, because you were always there. Right?

G'raha Tia time traveled when he went to the First.

Now, I'm willing to concede that, as Shadowbringers came first, either the rules of time travel weren't well established at that point or even simply that Endwalker changed the rules. That's the simple Doyalist answer.

BUT

Garlond Ironworks accomplished an unprecedented, seemingly impossible feat in trying to prevent the 8th Umbral Calamity they were living through from ever coming to pass - to erase their own timeline in the hopes that the new one could avoid their terrible fate.

They did this with the help of G'raha Tia, freshly awoken into not the utopia he'd hoped for, but a world in turmoil on the brink of collapse. The Crystal Tower is an incredible well of aether and repository of technological knowledge, after all.

But if time is a stable loop, did it matter?

After at least 100 years, G'raha Tia eventually succeeded in bringing the Scions and the WoL to the First, where they succeeded in stopping the shard from being utterly consumed by Light and triggering the Rejoining Emet-Selch and the other Ascians were working so hard to achieve. But did we really stop it for good, or did we just delay the inevitable?

Does the WoL still die in the 8th Umbral Calamity, except that the Calamity happened 100 years from now, triggered by a different Shard becoming consumed? Or even Light reawakening and finishing its consumption of the First, without us or Ryne around to stop it?

At some point in the future, is G'raha Tia going to have to go back to sleep in the tower and start the whole loop over again, for all eternity?

[kraniumverse]

you know i was thinking about the ninja's element reactions to different conditions, mainly when can their elements be naturally nullified (or at least, wouldn't be able to be sustained)

like, kai can't use his fire in extremely humid weather and under water. cole cant use earth powers if he's high up in the sky. zane cant use his ice in really hot and dry conditions, same for nya. lloyd i would say is pretty much the exception to this, i think. since his element is really ambiguous. but you know what surprised me? jay is also the exception. jay's element can't really be nullified naturally. or at least as far as i know

lightning is generated by the electrons in the clouds being attracted to the protons in the ground. and since jay generates lightning without a need for clouds or ground, it's safe to assume he's controlling both the electrons and the protons to make his lightning

which means. his powers can't be nullified with atmospheric conditions. atoms are everywhere. everything is made of atoms. it doesnt matter if he's in the north pole or in a desert or in a volcano or at the bottom of the ocean, because his lightning can be generated and sustained anywhere

which is reason number 184 he's underappreciated and full of potential. thank you for coming to my ted talk

[bitchesgetriches]

To get this one out early to all your followers who I'm sure will eventually be asking: NFTs are essentially a scam. They're the digital equivalent of the creator of parks and rec scribbling you an autograph saying "Piggy owns parks and rec now, love, Mike" on the back of a napkin and jotting his phone number down on the bottom of it in case anyone wanted to ring and confirm that he did actually sign this autograph.

It's *technically* not actually a scam because deep in the small print it does usually specify that your NFT grants you zero rights zero ownership and is absolutely meaningless despite the marketing claims, and in theory the NFT in itself *could* have some sort of collectors' value (like an autograph could) but the marketing around them is VERY scammy making all kinds of ownership promises and rights implications that they really can't deliver on. It's also got a whole 'nother level that the whole scam essentially exists to suck real fungible money into the eretheum system, which as a previous poster has already pointed out is also a proof-of-work-based environmental disaster. NFTs are essentially a barely legal cash fleece to prop up the crypto bubble.

So buyer beware people, if you wouldn't pay that for an autograph from whoever it is, don't pay it for their NFT.

I suppose we should also cover "What is an NFT" shouldn't we?

An NFT is a Non-Fungible Token. What does that mean you might ask? Well fungible means it's practically exchangeable for anything else like it in the same class. The best idea of this is money. A ten dollar note is fungible. If I have my ten dollar note, or I swap it for a different ten dollars with you, or I swap two of them for a twenty, I don't fundamentally care. Ten dollars is ten dollars.

Non-Fungible is like an autograph. If I have an autograph from Joe Biden, it's not immediately and self-evidently equivalent to an autograph from Barack Obama. Sure, you might *decide* to make the trade, it might be worth it to you, but they're not inherently interchangeable. If you woke up one morning and someone had swapped out your Joe autograph for a DJT one, or your mom borrowed your Joe and promised she'd replace with a Ford one later, you'd be well within your rights to be pissed in a way that you just wouldn't be with a simple ten bucks.

An NFT takes this idea and makes it ~digital~. It's built on the same idea as crypto currency but they've made each one unique. Like putting different people's autographs on a ten dollar bill, I suppose - now your Joe Biden $10 IS different to your mom's Barack one (very ELI5 don't @me).

What they claim to do is provide digital "ownership" of art, or music, etc. As we all know, digital artwork can be copied and pasted to your heart's content, and no one can really own an original. Copyright law can come into play, but who *owns* the original. NFTs (claim to) attempt to solve that. When an original is created, the artist creates an NFT that says "X person owns this artwork" and sells it. This person now has a cryptographically secure little badge saying "I own this artwork", that they can prove no matter how many people copy and paste it. The idea being that everyone can see the Mona Lisa, or copy and paste a print of it, but only one person gets to OWN the Mona Lisa, right? Even owning the artwork doesn't necessarily give you copyright over it - that's normal, so NFTs just work the same. You get to own it and be the only person in the world who can prove they do. Seductive marketing. Cool, right?

Wrong.

Firstly - you do not "own" this artwork. Like, not even slightly. Hell, the artwork itself isn't actually contained within the NFT. It's usually just a link to another website that is contained within the NFT. Something like "the person who can correctly prove possession of this token owns the artwork at www dot artwork dot com". Well, can you imagine if the Mona Lisa did the same?? You'd never stand for that, would you? Can you imagine if you spent $1bn on buying the Mona Lisa and then looked at the fine print and it actually said that you own the painting that stands at the middle of the Denon Alley in the Louvre? Sure, that's the Mona Lisa NOW, but there's no guarantee it'll be the Mona Lisa next week.

Secondly. You do not actually own the art in any meaningful sense. The terms and conditions confirm this. You do not gain the copyright. You do not get the right to have it taken down. You do not get the right to exclusive use of the photo. You don't get the right to destroy it. You literally only own this digital token that says you own it. To take it back to the Mona Lisa example, it would be like getting a piece of paper saying you own the painting at the middle of the Denon Alley in the Louvre, but we're gonna keep hold of it: you're not allowed to move it, touch it, tamper with it, copy it, take photos of it, sell merchandise of it, stop anyone else from looking at it, or do any of the things that one usually associates with "owning" a painting. In fact, all you get is a piece of paper saying it's yours, and you can ring us up anytime to check we really did give you that paper. That's it.

What's the point? You don't actually own the painting in any meaningful way. It's like those "name a star" gifts. It may well be "official", but in practical terms it's worth diddly fuck all. You'd be pretty annoyed if someone told you you'd bought the Mona Lisa and that's all you got.

Thirdly (and finally)

There is literally NO benefit to 'owning' it for you. To go back again to the Mona Lisa, the example the sellers use to justify the "but anyone can copy it" is that anyone can own a print of the Mona Lisa, but only one person can own the original. You're the original owner of this digital artwork.

Except... The Mona Lisa is unique. Digital artwork isn't. The original and copies of digital artwork are - ironically - completely fungible. If I copy-paste the original file, they're both "originals". Neither has any more claim to be original than the other. And remember, there's no "original" actually stored in the token, just a link to something that shows another copy. The Mona Lisa is unique, different, there's only one copy. He only put his paints on one piece of canvas. Prints aren't the same. But a digital artwork? By the time it's finished being drawn and copied over to the website, it's a completely different set of electrons on a completely different server. It's already not an "original". It's a completely, utterly, identical copy. Which I can then download. And copy a thousand times. And they're all still perfect copies and indistinguishable from the original. If I swapped one of them out for another on the website my link points to, there's literally no technical or practical way to tell.

After all that. NFTs DO have some uses. They are ways to support the artist. They are ways to give money back. They are ways to make people feel special (like autographs). You may ask why would you buy a digital print from the K&P Etsy store if you think all digital art is the same. Why would you pay to download an ebook when you could pirate an identical copy for free. This is what they will come back to me with. And there's many - good - reasons to do so! There's many good reasons to buy digital art. And you should! Support your local artists! But this can be, and is already, all achieved without paying over the odds to falsely claim I actually own some sort of permanent original. It can certainly be done without all the crypto-hyped middle men taking their cuts. And it can be done in a way that doesn't prop up the horrible eco-disaster bubble that is a proof of work Blockchain.

The technology isn't a scam. The technology has real world uses and benefits. But the entire marketing ecosystem around it is a scam.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

Now this is the kind of “better know a scam” content for which I come to the internet. Thank you so much for this primer on NFTs!