#this isn’t about anyone in particular! it’s a common phenomena

[womanfredvonkarma]

Top 5 quotes

1.

…there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. Myself is fabricated, an aberration. I am a noncontingent human being. My personality is sketchy and unformed, my heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. My conscience, my pity, my hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it, I have now surpassed. I still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. Yet I am blameless. Each model of human behavior must be assumed to have some validity. Is evil something you are? Or is it something you do? My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this - and I have, countless times, in just about every act I've committed - and coming face-to-face with these truths, there is no catharsis. I gain no deeper knowledge about myself, no new understanding can be extracted from my telling. There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing...

2.

Nothing happened to me, Officer Starling. I happened. You can't reduce me to a set of influences.

3.

CALIGULA: Ah, yes.… Now, listen! I’m not mad; in fact I’ve never felt so lucid. What happened to me is quite simple; I suddenly felt a desire for the impossible. That’s all. [Pauses.] Things as they are, in my opinion, are far from satisfactory.

HELICON: Many people share your opinion.

CALIGULA: That is so. But in the past I didn’t realize it. Now I know. [Still in the same matter-of-fact tone] Really, this world of ours, the scheme of things as they call it, is quite intolerable. That’s why I want the moon, or happiness, or eternal life—something, in fact, that may sound crazy, but which isn’t of this world.

HELICON: That’s sound enough in theory. Only, in practice one can’t carry it through to its conclusion.

CALIGULA [rising to his feet, but still with perfect calmness]: You’re wrong there. It’s just because no one dares to follow up his ideas to the end that nothing is achieved. All that’s needed, I should say, is to be logical right through, at all costs. [He studies HELICON’S face.] I can see, too, what you’re thinking. What a fuss over a woman’s death! But that’s not it. True enough, I seem to remember that a woman died some days ago; a woman whom I loved. But love, what is it? A side issue. And I swear to you her death is not the point; it’s no more than the symbol of a truth that makes the moon essential to me. A childishly simple, obvious, almost silly truth, but one that’s hard to come by and heavy to endure.

HELICON: May I know what it is, this truth that you’ve discovered?

CALIGULA [his eyes averted, in a toneless voice]: Men die; and they are not happy.

4.

The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.

5.

A child is born into a world of phenomena all equal in their power to enslave. It sniffs - it sucks - it strokes its eyes over the whole uncomfortable range. Suddenly one strikes. Why? Moments snap together like magnets, forging a chain of shackles. Why? I can trace them. I can even, with time, pull them apart again. But why at the start they were ever magnetized at all - just those particular moments of experience and no others - I don't know. And nor does anyone else. Yet if I don't know - if I can never know that - then what am I doing here? I don't mean clinically doing or socially doing - I mean fundamentally! These questions, these Whys, are fundamental - yet they have no place in a consulting room. So then, do I?

6.

You see, control can never be a means to any practical end... It can never be a means to anything but more control... like junk...

7.

But at the same time I know there's a third possibility, like cancer, or madness. But cancer or madness contort reality. The possibility I'm talking about pierces reality.

8.

It was not only that I could not become spiteful, I did not know how to become anything; neither spiteful nor kind, neither a rascal nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. Now, I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything.

9.

How far is madness an escape from the burden of expectation into self-protective 'play-acting'?

10.

Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice, To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

[American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis; The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris; Caligula by Albert Camus; The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus; Equus by Peter Shaffer; Naked Lunch by William Burroughs; Possession (1981); Notes from the Underground by Fedor Dostoevsky; An Act Hath Three Branches: Being and Acting in Hamlet by William Christie; Paradise Lost by John Milton]

[ersetu-gazette]

Mother of Learning: A Love Letter to D&D and Downtime

There are so many influences to Mother of Learning’s narrative that you might not be able to list them all. Fantasy novels, real world history, anime, fanfiction, thrillers, video games, and time travel science fiction easily come to mind. But the one major influence that is the most prevalent in my perspective is Dungeons and Dragons.

The world building, the character design, the culture, and the plot itself are grown from a soil fertilized by Dungeons and Dragons. Spells have levels (called circles), cephalic rats were called cranium rats before it was changed to not step on WOTC’s toes, liches are a bloodthirsty and dangerous memento of past norms, dragons are intelligent and powerful threats, and the creation of dungeons are a natural phenomena connected to the origin of the world. I could go for hours on the obvious connection this story has with D&D, but there is one particular facet that interests me. Downtime is a component of D&D that isn’t as well established in some games, but is absolutely vital for having a realistic and spaced out campaign that goes from low level to high level. For those that don’t know, it’s the game play shift from “what to do we do day to day or round to round” to “what do we do over the next few weeks, or months, or sometimes years.” It’s when characters have chance to accumulate resources, enact social change, chase down mysteries, build organizations, or further develop their personal power. It most importantly gives players narrative breathing room to imagine their characters when tension isn’t at it’s highest and live a more reasonable life. Some d&d players don’t care if they level up every day from constant adventuring would be great, but for others it ruins the immersion by presenting them with a world in which anyone can become a god in just a month of adventuring.

Mother of Learning is very much in love with this aspect of D&D play in how it serves the character development, but also the greater narrative and suspension of disbelief.

Let’s look at how a “common” D&D party uses downtime and how Mother of Learning does. The iconic d&d party (acting in a stereotypical manner) would have a wizard that was either researching magic spells or building magical items, a (let’s assume good) cleric would either be performing acts of community service or spreading the word of their god, the fighter would be either training or establishing political/social power for an order/organization, and the rogue would be planning a heist or investigating a lead in the underworld. The DM in this situation might just let the players make progress in their personal interests outside the context of the campaign/adventure hooks, or they naturally set up some of the party’s downtime to lead in the direction of a new adventure.

Either the wizard discovers some dungeon that the whole party wants to go through, an NPC the cleric cares about is in trouble and needs a lost medicine formula to be saved, the fighter needs to go on a quest for some noble, or the rogue discovers an imminent problem brewing that needs to be taken care of right now (or yesterday if possible). The details and specifics don’t matter, the overall point of downtime is to allow players breathing room to pursue what interests them, and a good DM will take that investment to weave it into an engaging and compelling campaign to be shared with the party.

Now, let’s look at some of the activities Zorian does throughout the narrative. Zorian at the beginning focuses on training and research. Some of the research is regarding the time loop itself but with his low level he’s not making much progress. Zorian at one point makes enough progress that he impresses Ilsa which gives him the job of escorting Kael and Kana, allowing him to properly meet one of the important side characters. When Zorian invests in his relationship with Taiven it lets him meet the aranea in a sewer run, characters integral to the plot and investigation and mentors that help him understand and develop his empathy. When Zorian invests in his relationship with Kirielle by bringing her to Cyoria he is able to further develop his relationship with Kael (which later gives him the opportunity to learn about the Sudomir subplot but meet many interesting soul mage characters), but also makes a connection with local shifters, which will be his clue and plot hook to the invasion needing primordial essence. He investigates the spider webs to learn how to read araenea memories and make memory packets, which allows him to learn about the Ghost Serpent’s web that is key to the time loop mystery.

Now, I could go through the rest of the plot but I think it’s clear now how Zorian’s “narrated over” activities map very cleanly onto tricks DMs use to make downtime more engaging. It’s a mixture of Zorian responding to pressing needs and investing in things he likes, and those actions leading to threads connected to either the greater plot or compelling subplots. But most importantly during this is that Zorian’s actions seem to be based on what he as a character would do, what he thinks is a solution, not the only one presented by the hypothetical DM. Multiple times Zorian is presented with a problem and decides to solve it and investigate in his own way instead of a clearly “obvious” solution. If this were an actual D&D campaign and I was Zorian or Zach’s player I wouldn’t think that I was being railroaded at all. This method of narrative and how long it takes is believable, and engaging, and importantly, helps with the suspension of disbelief.

A problem a lot of DMs have with D&D story is that if any group of schmucks can take adventuring jobs every day/week and level up after every other one, then why isn’t everyone level 20? If power scales so quickly and so easily for the heroes, what is keeping everyone from following the same path? Some DMs solve this by having the adventuring party have access to a resource that lets them level up (that not everyone has), or by making every adventure ridiculously deadly, but the solution a lot use is with downtime. Adventures and high sources of xp aren’t easily accessible, and you have to wait long periods of time in between each one. Downtime is what people do while they wait for, or look for, the rare chances of issues that are difficult enough to warrant leveling up.

In a way, Mother of Learning’s plot structure does the same thing, force Zorian to go through downtime before he is able to “access” the next plot point. Many people complained that sometimes Zorian would announce that he had to solve (plot point x) as soon as possible, and then he’d go and dick around with something else. While some people say this is him being easily distracted or whimsical, it was very clearly understood by me that Zorian recognized that he couldn’t solve (plot point x) right then with his information & skill level. Zorian can’t solve a mystery, or make fast enough progress in a magical skill, or anything, and decides to better spend his time in making more meaningful progress in other fields, in the hopes they’ll tie back and help with the “pressing” issue (But few issues are truly pressing in a time loop, not until after the second arc). It’s also believable from the perspective of a D&D metaphor because do you know what’s the most boring thing about downtime? When one player dedicates all their time doing one thing only.

You ever sit at a table trying not to look at your phone while some player is making 50 craft & profession checks with no interesting progress after the fifth? It’s boring as shit. The most interesting downtimes I’ve experienced and done are when a pc does a handful of meaningfully different tasks split out across the time given, and investing enough focus to have something interesting happen in the narrative or in any character interactions. And Mother of Learning simulates this very faithfully.

Overall, even with the occasional flaws of Zorian acting a bit oddly during these periods of investigation, practice, and social connection, Mother of Learning faithfully and skillfully integrates downtime into it’s narrative in a way I fucking love. A lot of what makes fantasy adventuring engaging isn’t just the adventuring itself, but the downtime in between and consequences of both.

[bookwyrminspiration]

I love when a fandom gets new fans and they go “so I had this thought/theory” or “unpopular opinion but—“ and then state the most widely accepted already discussed idea in the fandom. like of course they have no way to know but I find it so endearing

[thelegendofstella]

Sephiroth’s true eye color (among other things)

Ever since I got into FF7 stuff I’ve wondered about Sephiroth’s rather inconsistent eye color over the media he’s appeared in (which is a lot), and I think I finally have an answer for it, as well as answers for other slightly unexplained phenomena. Warning you now, this will be fairly long and full of spoilers for multiple games in the series, yet hopefully informative.

Sephiroth is best known for his green, cat-pupiled eyes, among other things, and that’s generally the accepted eye color for him in fan works and such. But his eyes are actually light blue, and not just mainly in spinoffs. There will be a TL;DR in about the middle of the post for one interesting point, and another at the end for the whole post in general.

Disclaimer: This isn't intended to be a "this is the right way to portray Sephiroth's eye color" gatekeeping thing, this is just an analysis of an element of character design that went way too deep and is breaking Tumblr as we speak hfsdgyfudgfsd

Evidence, theories and such under cut-- all 63 images (yes, you heard me, be warned) either come from various wikis as official art/screenshots/etc. or are my own screenshots:

In Final Fantasy 7, where this mess all started, his iconic official art has green eyes:

But in all other art, models, etc. for the game, even the Ultimania scan, his eyes are light blue (or some sort of blue in general):

Of course, you could argue that Sephiroth’s official art also has blue eyes if you stare at it hard enough, but at first glance it’s more green than blue, and with the amount of green-eyed art I’ve seen, I’m sure many people have just accepted that his eyes are green and nothing more.

Several other games in the main series also portray Sephiroth’s eyes as light blue, sometimes borderline colorless depending on the lighting:

I particularly curse Advent Children for it’s washed-out aesthetic because in the darker scenes it completely masks Sephiroth’s real eye color. Thank the gods for HD screenshots.

However, there is a very interesting phenomenon that only seems to happen in Last Order, the 25-minute animated retelling of the Nibelheim Incident and Zack and Cloud’s escape 5 years after. No one seems to have noticed this yet, to my knowledge, so I’ll go through this as clearly as I can.

When Zack confronts Sephiroth in the reactor, the latter’s eyes are light blue:

It isn’t very obvious due to the mako glow tint and his face being in shadow, but I’d think green eyes would look different here, so they are light blue. They stay light blue for a while after this, until Zack begins to fight him and parries him onto the ceiling (anime physics...), resulting in this peculiar scene:

Light blue into green. Literally, you can see it happening in the actual video. This happens a second time when Sephiroth has Cloud skewed on Masamune, just more subtly:

Again, light blue into green(er). Definitely something funky going on here. It goes back to light blue when Cloud tosses him away, though:

And speaking of Cloud... he, too, shows very obvious eye color change directly after this scene, as seen below:

In the video they are visibly, animatedly glowing, it’s not just me discerning between two different flat shades of color. Keep in mind this is before he gets mako poisoned and Jenova-celled and whatnot, so this isn’t due to SOLDIER enhancements. What gives?

Here’s my take: it’s the Lifestream. People are made of Lifestream like everything else in in the FF7 universe, and it’s common knowledge that Lifestream/mako can do some pretty weird shenanigans. SOLDIERs are literally pumped full of the stuff and have seemingly superhuman abilities, and that’s just the lower-ranking ones. But the series has also placed a lot of emphasis on willpower, which Cloud post-experimentation struggles with due to the J-cells and stuff. A lot of people with particularly bright or “glowing” eyes have expressed an incredible amount of willpower, some of which include Cloud, Sephiroth (unsurprising), and Aerith:

Aerith’s eyes have always been incredibly bright in the series, regardless of which game you reference. Remake especially makes this obvious, as it seems like every close-up shot of her makes her eyes the centerpiece regardless of lighting, setting, etc.:

Like, seriously, they almost seem to glow they’re so bright. But here’s the kicker: Aerith is a Cetra, and the Cetra, obviously, communicate with the Planet... or, in other words, have an incredibly strong willpower that influences things. It’s been stated before by various people and media that Sephiroth and Aerith are two sides of the same coin, but not quite like this, I think. Cloud shows a similar phenomenon in his close-up shots as well, though the artificial SOLDIER glow is most likely contributing to most of it:

Compare these to younger Cloud in the Nibelheim flashback, when he was more innocent and had no need for incredible willpower, artificial or not:

Going back to Cloud in Last Order, the point we can make about him in particular is that when he was stabbed, literally at death’s door, he drew on his inner Lifestream for the strength to toss Sephiroth away. People have wondered for years about how this moment was even possible besides Protagonist Syndrome, and this may be the answer.

If this is the case, then this could apply to anyone: Aerith, Sephiroth, Zack, hell even Tifa seems to have slightly glowing eyes in the Remake sometimes-- and sure, it may be just the game engine making sure we can actually see their eyes in key cutscenes... but it ties into canon lore and actually makes sense, so I’m sticking with that. It’s also not a coincidence that Aerith specifically has green eyes, too, since the Lifestream in general is green-colored and whatnot.

Midpoint TL;DR: people with lots of inner willpower can call on their own Lifestream to give them strength, resulting in “glowing” or even color-changing eyes depending on how much Lifestream/mako they have in them. SOLDIERs, for example, would fall in the latter category... the most extreme being Sephiroth.

Now that's we're back at Sephiroth, another interesting point is that his eye color in Remake is consistently light blue, or some blue variation depending on the lighting, with green centers, as seen below:

Cloud obviously shares the same eye color pattern by this point because it's implied that he has the same if not slightly more mako in him than Sephiroth, which very conveniently also equates to him having the same if not slightly more willpower than Sephiroth.

An honorable mention goes to the Remnants, since they, too, follow the light blue with green centers pattern, appearing to fluctuate between the two colors at certain times:

With all of that said and done, I’ll wrap this up by going through Sephiroth’s appearances in side games and other franchises as quickly as I can:

1) The Dissidia series (Dissidia, 012/Duodecim, NT, Opera Omnia) almost always portrays Sephiroth with light blue eyes in art, renders, and models, occasionally with a hint of green in them:

A very interesting exception is NT Sephiroth's Safer Sephiroth costume, which has completely white eyes in all three of its alts. Yes, it's basically just a cosmetic costume, but it's still worthy to note for comprehensive purposes:

2) World of Final Fantasy’s Sephiroth has light blue eyes:

3) Record Keeper Sephiroth’s sprites are very obviously based on the original FF7 official art where he has green eyes (yes, I checked the colors by hand, they're all in the greener sections of the color wheel):

4) The Kingdom Hearts series is particularly unique because it features a blue-eyed Sephiroth but with an explicit reason for it. Kingdom Hearts 1 simply says that Sephiroth is part of Cloud’s past, but Kingdom Hearts 2 literally has Cloud saying “I'll get him. This time we settle it. Me, and the one who embodies all the darkness in me.”, and then explicitly clarifying that it’s Sephiroth he’s talking about. Sephiroth even shares Cloud’s facial shape, which is particularly obvious in KH2 renders:

All other Sephiroth appearances in the KH series also feature him with blue eyes, except for any usage of material from other media.

5) Itadaki Street games feature Sephiroth with green eyes:

6) Puzzles and Dragons features a rare teal-eyed Sephiroth:

And finally 7) All other Sephiroth appearances in spinoffs and other media feature him with light blue, blue, or rare teal eyes, except for sprites, which are (most likely) reused from Record Keeper:

And that’s FINALLY a wrap. All my evidence for Sephiroth’s actual eye color in one place, and even a theory on why it can potentially fluctuate between that and the iconic green.

Actual TL;DR: Sephiroth’s eyes are actually light blue in 90% of his appearances, and the remaining 10% either comes from temporary green-ness or partial green-ness thanks to mako/Lifestream stuff, or spinoffs.

There is one small point I’d like to make at the end of this, and that is the remaining mystery of why Sephiroth’s pupils are even slitted and cat-like in the first place. That... is far more ambiguous in terms of evidence than the eye color. Some series, particularly the Kingdom Hearts series, have them as regular round pupils, while others sometimes if not most of the time give him the cat-like ones. I may make another in-depth analysis post trying to figure it all out, but for now I’ll say that it may just simply be a result of the Jenova cells he has or something along those lines.

If you made it this far down and didn’t just instantly scroll past my massive log of images and sundry, thank you so much for reading all of this! If you did just instantly scroll past, I don't blame you. I guess I'm in proper Sephiroth hell now, lol.

I hope you have a great day and that things turn out well for you fhjksdgfyhughuhyudfs

[thosearentcrimes]

Ok so a short while back the Bay Area Rationalist community seems to have been revealed to be lousy with high-profile cults, most notably and convincingly, Leverage, which obviously makes me feel rather vindicated but also isn’t really what I want to talk about. Instead, what really struck me is a recurring fascination, whether openly discussed and a part of the dogma of the cult, as in Leverage, or discussed furtively without official sanction, as in MIRI, but in either case apparently quite common. The fascination is with what they call demons. Now, you might think that committed technologists in California getting sucked into weird occult cult shit is strange, but if you believe that I recommend reading up on Jack Parsons. Of course, Jack Parsons co-founded the genuine rocketry pioneer JPL, while the crowning achievement of Yudkowskian Rationalism still seems to be a Harry Potter fanfic and an extraordinarily large scam/cult incubator, but I digress.

By demons they don’t seem to mean quite the same thing as in the pop cultural or religious tradition, of a hostile supernatural (non-human) being manipulating or outright possessing people to do evil. Instead, what they appear to mean is a person, not even necessarily deliberately, getting other people to internalize their beliefs and thought patterns (these would then be referred to as demons). They call it demons though, because rationalists appear to be fundamentally opposed to being intelligible to anyone else, and also are massive nerds (for what it’s worth, one of their own favorite thinkers coined the term “meme” to describe something pretty close to this phenomenon already, though of course it’s not really usable these days I guess, and doesn’t allow you to develop paranoia about extremely ordinary social interactions). They also call it demons because they think this is an extremely bad thing, and not something that just tends to happen when you hang out with people for a while. I’m not here to make fun of people for being unfamiliar with social interaction, but the way many rationalists seem to have processed this apparently novel experience seems both unhelpful and in many cases actively dangerous.

I feel like there’s a lot to unpack with “demons”, really. I suspect I’ve observed the same phenomena as the Bay Area Rationalists did, and I’ve even been briefly distressed by them existentially, but I certainly did not become paranoid about being mindcontrolled by everyone I knew. Why is that? Well for starters I’m not in a cult. But there’s more to it than just that. There’s a particularly dangerous combination of intellectual rigor with self-evident, but wrong premises. See, if you’re both devoted to reason and to a particular set of premises, you will reason along with Sherlock Holmes, that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Of course, in reality arriving at an absurd conclusion is much more often an indication of some unexamined flaw in the reasoning, or the premises.

I’ve already explained that what these people seem to be experiencing as a novelty is something which most people are used to as a basic feature of social interaction. However, this does not itself suffice to contradict their claims. In fact, a lot of people who are entirely used to adopting beliefs, mannerisms, or entire ways of thinking from their environment could stand to do at least a little more thinking about the process. So if we ignore, to the best of our ability, all the cult stuff, and as much of the untreated (or unsuccessfully treated) mental illness as we can, what can we try to reconstruct of the chain of reasoning here, and actually respond to the argument. I will be venturing into quite a lot of conjecture here, but I think I have a pretty good idea.

We start with the premise (though because it is such a fundamental premise, they likely don’t usually think of it as such) that there are such things as individuals, and that we are those individuals. An individual is a fundamentally unique entity (perhaps we could call it a unique string or pattern of information), separate from other individuals and the world, that interacts with the world as a coherent whole. Next, we engage in some self-reflection, and we compare our image of ourselves with our experiences of ourselves. We discover that they differ in important respects, and that often, in our experiences of ourselves, we find things that seem more like our images of others than of ourselves. Perhaps they are simply verbal tics, or turns of phrase, perhaps they are something more significant. This is, in any case, a violation of our individuality, manipulation, a hostile act, an infection. A demon. That’s roughly my interpretation of the thought process, simplified a bunch.

If I’m right, and this sense of disrupted individuality is at the core of this demon paranoia, then I think the people suffering from it are the unfortunate victims of unexploded ideological ordnance from the Cold War, either capitalist Cold War propaganda or 90s triumphalism taken to unfortunate extremes. See, the central narrative of the soi-disant First World was that, with their democratic governance and free market economies and freedom of speech, they understood the importance and the rights of the individual, whereas the communist states were a homogenous and terrifying mass of insects, or endless ranks of individuals, suppressed but yearning for freedom, or both, depending on the situation. The US likely has the most of this propaganda floating around in the environment, polluting political discussion with libertarianism and other preposterous nonsense. Rationalist communities in particular seem to have a lot of members who are still in their libertarian phases or are carrying serious baggage from them, specifically including the exclusive focus on the individual.

So what’s so wrong with strict individualism as a premise? Well, it’s just not true. Yes, everybody is unique and everybody deserves respect and such. But that is not incompatible with recognizing that we are all but mosaics of mosaics, that we are formed by our experiences and relationships. And not only in good ways. No man is an island, entire of himself, for both good and ill. We construct our selves, sometimes in opposition to, sometimes along the pattern of our social environment, but always in the context of it. We live in a society.

I can, from experience, anticipate a likely objection to the low importance I assign to individuality. Surely I respect people’s rights, and wish to protect my own? And how can I defend the rights of individuals if I deny their existence? In fact, the so-called “individual” rights are misnamed, and the concept of individual, even though I do not mean to abandon it, is by no means necessary for them to be applied, at least if by those rights we mean, and this is generally what is implied, freedom of speech, thought and assembly, of political participation and various others besides. Because if any of those grand rights are to be rights in the first place, they must apply to the society at large. If they only applied to a particular subset, to some individuals, then they would be nothing but the privileges of a particular class. So they are not "individual” rights, but the rights of a society, and also its duties to itself.

[culturenosh]

GOD IS TRANS

All my friends keep asking me ‘Are you happy?’/ Happy as a girl can be! Are you happy?

In 2017, I wrote for The Singles Jukebox that SOPHIE’s single “It’s Okay to Cry” was proudly, explicitly, beautifully artificial, and that its hyperreal video in which the artist danced topless in a synthetic rainstorm felt something like paradise. I said that its unreality didn’t matter to my emotional response. I agree with most of what I wrote, but I take back the last part. The unreality was, in fact, central to how SOPHIE’s work makes me feel.

SOPHIE’s breakout single, “Bipp,” posits, “I can make you feel better — if you want to.” Accompanying that melody, low bass tones rev and ripple, while high sounds bubble and bounce; there’s a feeling of elastic grace in its movement, like each sound is a molecule colliding into others. The adjectives critics reached for when it was released always carried that element of physicality. Patric Fallon writing for Pitchfork called it “sticky” and “rubbery”; Boomkat’s product description of the vinyl single compared it to “sugar-glazed silicon”; Killian Fox for the Guardian described the song in 2016 as “an elasticated squelching noise with a helium vocal on top.”

These themes pop up again and again in the writing around SOPHIE’s work. It’s rubbery, it’s sticky-sweet, it’s elastic, it’s mechanical, it revs, it screeches, it squeals. SOPHIE’s contemporaries, like Arca or A.G. Cook, might create music that feels alien or dreamy; SOPHIE’s music always felt like it referenced the physical world, but not in a way that you would expect music to do. SOPHIE would reference not physical instruments, but physical objects and materials. 

This specific quality was integral to the work, and it was intentional. SOPHIE sculpted these sounds out of waveforms, instead of relying on samples. In an archived 2014 interview with Elektronauts, the artist talks about sound design as an exercise in defamiliarization: “The language of electronic music shouldn’t still be referencing obsolete instruments like kick drum or clap. No one’s kicking or clapping. They don’t have to!… You can just take a bassline made out of elastic and try it in metal.” In a video interview in 2018 with the German outlet Arte Tracks, the artist discusses making “sounds which cartoonize and exaggerate naturally occurring or organic sounds and phenomena, and materials that don’t exist at the moment.” One of the common adjectives used to describe SOPHIE’s work is “sculptural,” which carries the risk of casting the music as purely abstract; but it also demonstrates that SOPHIE’s sound art was also visual and tactile, while SOPHIE’s physical and visual work was purely conceived as a supplement to and a vehicle for the songs. In that same Arte Tracks interview, SOPHIE discusses the release of “It’s Okay to Cry” and the choice to show SOPHIE’s face and body for the first time in its video. Responding to the framing that this reveal was “brave,” the artist says that the intention wasn’t to create media attention by coming out, but to “use my body more as a material, as something I could express through and not fight against.”

SOPHIE married that philosophical framework to an artistic practice that prioritized movement and pleasure. The currents of kink and sexuality were central to the work — the 2014 single “Hard” opens with the lines “latex gloves, smack so hard/ PVC, I get so hard,” and in the Elektronauts interview the artist talks about synthesizing sounds for “latex, balloons, bubbles, metal, plastic, elastic,” physical materials that share a modern provenance and a fetishistic quality. On “Ponyboy,” from the artist’s 2018 studio album Oil of Every Pearl’s Un-Insides, distorted vocals bellow “Spit on my face/ Put the pony in his place.” But SOPHIE didn’t invoke sex as an end unto itself; instead, sex was an experience that could defamiliarize the omnipresent language of gender. The bridge of “Ponyboy” goes “he is just a pony/ she is just a pony/ they is just a pony/ pony, pony boy.” “Pony Whip,” from the 2019 remix album of Oil, repeats the teasing line “so I treat him like a boy/ so I treat him like a boy/ so I treat him like a pony boy” until the meaning of the phrase bleeds out entirely. The experience of physical pleasure in SOPHIE’s work has a psychedelic dimension, like activating the body allows us to move beyond the definitions that are assigned to it; like the body itself is something we continually create.

This clearly puts SOPHIE’s work in the lineage of pop and disco, genres which use physical pleasure as a means for spiritual transcendence. In a 2017 Teen Vogue interview, SOPHIE says, “A lot of the stuff I’ve done takes the attitude of disco but tries to bring the sound world forward… I’m trying to imagine what music that’s positive, liberating, weird, dark, and real could be in the present day.” In a 2015 Rolling Stone interview with A.G. Cook, SOPHIE says, “I think all pop music should be about who can make the loudest, brightest thing. That, to me, is an interesting challenge, musically and artistically. And I think it’s a very valid challenge — just as valid as who can be the most raw emotionally. I don’t know why that is prioritized by a lot of people as something more valuable.” 

Disco and pop music — electronic music in general — has long been negatively associated with artificiality, as if artificiality is in and of itself less sincere or authentic. SOPHIE’s music is proudly, directly, purposefully artificial; it is also proudly, directly, purposefully emotive. In SOPHIE’s hands, synthesized sensations and materials became the building blocks of the best dance music you ever heard. The textures of real life — car engines, rubber tires, plastic containers, metal bars — are mirrored back at us in strange, sexy new shapes.

I say that SOPHIE’s music is trans, and this is what I mean. Jessica Dunn Rovinelli’s beautiful piece on SOPHIE’s work in the Guardian explains that “SOPHIE molded raw sound to make hyperreal versions of recognizable forms…. Transgender people in particular exist through self-processing: we make a body that we can live in and a world where that body can feel safe.” Sasha Geffen tweeted that “SOPHIE’s music isn’t just ‘about’ transness, its idiom is inherently trans. It traces the process of surfacing interiority.” Transitioning is a kind of inside-out alchemy — I feel a certain way, I learn to understand it, I begin to orient my life in a way that allows me to express it, other people begin to treat me differently. From the interior work comes the exterior effects; from reorientation, new pleasure and new life. Even if the change is synthetic, in the sense that I have to make it myself with chemical supplements or medical treatments or changes in clothing or requests to change the way I’m referred to, it doesn’t mean that its effects reverberate any less.

One of my favorite SOPHIE songs goes “I don’t need anyone to be who I want to be.” You can read this as a statement of satisfied self-sufficiency, like “I can be who I want to be all by myself,” but I prefer to read it like a prognosis: “I don’t need anyone else to demonstrate how to I want to exist.” To create your own future means leaving behind those who want to dictate that future, who demand control over the terms on which you live. In SOPHIE’s alchemical work, familiar sounds become new shapes, so that old structures — the pop song, the chorus, the melody, sound itself — become vehicles for innovation. SOPHIE made that process of innovation sound like the sexiest, most joyful thing in the whole world, so much so that you wonder why anyone would settle for the old and familiar.

Photo cred @corporatebigwig

[slimey-wizard]

As written by Oliver Midas, Adept Wizard -

Magic is a rather complex and frankly uninteresting concept at its very core, but yet I find myself compelled to detail its generalized categories and workings in this document for the ease of access and research by my many students. Note that this isn't an exhaustive guide in every type of magic, or a guide on all the specific ways each type of magic can be used and evoked. As I said, it is a complex topic and not every facet is very well explored (most often due to rarity of examples or, in rare cases, changes in the fundamental laws by which we assume magic to operate). If the above is understood, then please make sure you read the complete document before you come knocking on my door with any follow-up questions, you little pests dear students.

Types of magic can be split into two larger categories, inherent and non-inherent. We will begin by discussing the inherent categories of magic. I will do my best to provide examples of each.

Adepts - I myself am an adept. Adepts are perhaps the rarest and most powerful magicians out there. While we tend to keep the method of our magic a secret to prevent exploitation, I am getting up in my years and will graciously expose the depth of my power. The term adept is used to describe a unique and variable talent that can theoretically be used to accomplish any magical feat, one time and one time only. Each adept has their own particular way of evoking their magic and no two are the same. Mine is poetry, for example. If I were to write a poem about, say, a very good sandwich and then read this poem out loud, a sandwich matching the description in my poem would be conjured before me. I would then be unable to reread this poem to the same effect, and would become unable to recreate the same sandwich. Creativity is more or less the limit. The only other thing of note when it comes to adepts is that our power is inherited. I have no children of my own, but if I did, one would have gained my ability upon my death, albeit in slightly different form. Perhaps it would have been songs. It is impossible to say.

Unique - This is used to describe any magical talent that manifests itself in a way that has never been seen before. Generally less useful than adept type abilities, as this person is usually unable to use any magic beyond their unique talent. An excellent example of this is our very own Maybelle Threeis, who's talent has been dubbed "Mirror Magic". Her ability lets her sort of 'chameleon' any non unique, non adept magical ability from any person she can see. This can make her either a fierce magician or a completely useless on the field, depending on who is with her. Talents like these are curious as we don't know how or why they come to be. They can be born from people with no prior magical history in the family, and don't seem to follow the basic rules of any of the other categories.

Mantel Abilities - Terribly powerful, one note abilities that get passed on either as a gift from one person to another, or by random magical selection. These are the kinds of things that get people labelled as "chosen ones" and the like. I only know of one person with an ability like this, and I dare not speak of them in this document. Powers like these compound in strength over generations and while they are only capable of one thing, that one thing is likely to be more powerful than anything even I can muster.

Basic Talent - This is the most common form of inherent magical ability. At a young age, someone who is descended from someone else with a basic talent has the potential to manifest their own latent magical aura. A standard example of this standard talent is current student, Desmond Daedalus. His magical aura manifested in the form of ice magic. Right now he is limited to things he can accomplish with ice alone, and by his own strength. As he ages, he will be able to branch out into things like fire or physic abilities, but ice will always remain the easiest. His mother has a reputation for being a rather powerful "wind" based magician, and Desmond's own offspring are also likely to manifest in an elemental way, but this is far from the only option. Other examples include those who's talents manifest via divination tactics, or perhaps pure kinetic energy. There is no exhaustive catalog, but similar talents tend to run in family trees.

There are potentially many more forms of inherent magical abilities, but those above are the most well documented. Now, let us delve into the much less interesting world of non-inherent abilities.

Basic ritual magic - This is a magic fueled entirely on the foundation of belief. In order for it to function, one must have a circle to contain either the subject or the energy being dealt with, and a selection of materials to operate as focuses to keep the mind from straying too far from the spell at hand. This type of magic is messy, weaker, and much more limited than other categories, but it is unique in that it can theoretically be learned by anyone.

Artifact magic - This is magic that operates exclusively through focuses. It takes a particular kind of brain for this kind of thing to work, but if a person's mind is insistent enough and with proper training, magical effects can be imprinted on physical items. This is how we get potions, talismans, amulets and glamours. The person creating these things can put a clause of activation on the artifact being generated (usually to prevent others from activating them), or they can be left 'open source' so to speak. Examples of these activation clauses include magic words, blood, consumable organic materials and rare metals. This is one of my favorite non inherent forms because it comes with a lot of just delightful applications in the form of traps. Perhaps a brick that explodes when a specific person steps on it, or a door that turns into a goblin when touched by anyone who isn't wearing wool socks. Such fun to be had.

Possessive - Some people have the distinct displeasure to become mediums to magical beings. Most typically various demons that reside within people in order to sap their strength, as per some sort of contract. Normally this would just be all terrible, but in some cases the contract made allows for the host to make use of some of said demon's personal magical abilities, in some twisted symbiosis. This type of magic varies widely depending on the parasite within the person, and is usually rather painful to evoke, as the parasite has to sap the person's own strength in order to use magic. Another caveat is that if the demon saps enough strength or gets banished, the person who was hosting is left powerless. Magic can be rather intoxicating to use, so this is rarely a fun time for the host.

There are three final forms of magic to discuss, and I didn't feel right to include them in the above categories. These are the inherent or absorbed abilities of certain creatures, locations and non artifice objects.

Monsters of all varieties have their own slew of magical properties, and the only thing to really be said about them is tread carefully. Even monsters you've dealt with in the past can have unique talents all their own. They don't tend to be as powerful as human talents, but they do tend to be a whole lot more efficient and violent. They also tend to come with more serious drawbacks. Example, vampires live forever, but will explode in the sunlight.

Locations can absorb raw life energy and latent magical energy, and can then use that energy in magical ways, usually shaped by those around them. Houses have thresholds as a result of this phenomena. If a person sees a place as a safe home, then a magical barrier will form to keep most non corporeal beings out. These things can generally dissolve with time though, and as such abandoned houses tend to be flocking points for various monster packs.

And finally, if an object is revered as sacred or powerful by enough people, this magical essence will manifest in all sorts of interesting ways. I've seen rocks that bring men to tears, body parts that grant wishes and books that can kill very specific forms of vampire. It's the type of magic most heavily influenced by perspective, and is one of the least understood categories.

And that is a light summary of the main types of categorized magic. I hope this helps you get a good score on your exams. Now please, leave me be.

[scifigeneration]

Star Wars: from The Force to R2D2, does the science hold up?

by Carsten Welsch

Nope, it’s not controlled by The Force. Author provided

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker, the final film in the epic Star Wars series, hit the big screens on December 19. Science fiction in general – and Star Wars in particular – is a hugely popular genre, much because of the titillating possibility that the mind-blowing technology we see on screen could one day work.

But what is science and what is fiction in Star Wars? Could the technology be ahead of actual science?

The Force(s)

The Force is at the heart of the Star Wars universe. It “gives the Jedi his powers. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together” as Obi Wan Kenobi once explained to Luke Skywalker. But is there any science to back this up?

Our current understanding is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force and two different forces that control the atomic nucleus and its particles.

But you need different theories of physics to describe these forces. Quantum mechanics, which explains the nuclear forces, is notoriously incompatible with general relativity, which describes gravity. It is the holy grail of physics to try to combine these theories and unify all the forces into one “The Force”.

Science does however support the idea of an energy field that “surrounds everything”. In fact, if you take out all the stuff in the universe – the galaxies, planets and people – you are left with an exotic kind of energy in empty space itself. Curiously, this kind of energy of nothingness can actually give rise to forces, as implied in Star Wars. That said, its effect is tiny and it certainly can’t give anyone special powers.

To explore the forces of the universe, physicists use accelerators to create and study particles associated with forces that – in some cases – have not been produced since the Big Bang itself. One example was the Higgs Boson that was discovered in 2012 by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland.

A lot of science in Star Wars doesn’t hold up. Author provided

The LHC is world’s largest and highest energy accelerator and will soon receive an upgrade, further increasing its discovery potential.

Light sabres

Light sabres are one of the most famous weapon in film history. They are used by the Jedi and Sith and require knowledge of the Force so they can be controlled. Unfortunately, a real-world light sabre cannot currently be manufactured. One problem is that there is no way to make light emanate from a source and stop after only a metre – light will go on to infinity unless it hits something. Also, two intense light beams would cross each other.

However, the name “light sabre” could be misleading. There is a way to make something similar to this awesome weapon using plasma – a fourth state of matter consisting of highly charged particles. The blade could be made of plasma and be confined with an electromagnetic magnetic field. Theoretically, such a plasma sabre should be able to do many of the things the light sabres in Star Wars do. They may be more deadly though.

We are still far from having such a technology available though. One much less glamorous use of plasmas is to melt and weld metal. There are more exciting innovations using high-energy plasmas in the works though. For example, plasmas are now used to propel charged particles to high velocities over extremely short distances. This is helping scientists to design and build ever more compact particle accelerators, potentially up to 1,000 times smaller – and considerably less expensive – than current radiofrequency-based accelerators such as the LHC.

In this approach, a high intensity laser or particle beam is directed through a plasma medium. This creates a wake in the plasma, very much like the wake created by a boat running at speed along a river or lake. This allows the creation of a strong electric field which can be used for accelerating a beam of charged particles that is injected into this wake at the right time.

The hope is that plasma accelerators will pave the way for compact facilities being used for anything from imaging ultra-fast phenomena to testing innovative materials for industry.

Proton torpedoes

In the very first Star Wars movie, Luke Skywalker uses “proton torpedoes” to destroy the Death Star – the giant space station that obliterates planets. According to the Star Wars canon, these are a type of explosive warhead which releases clouds of high-energy proton particles (protons make up the atomic nucleus with neutrons). In Star Wars, these weapons are exceptionally manoeuvrable so they can be used against a variety of targets. This isn’t the case for actual torpedoes though.

More than 40 years on, protons are instead used in a different kind of war – that against cancer. Proton beams can penetrate tissue for a specific distance determined by their energy. They can deposit most of this energy at a specific location, destroying a target tumour but sparing healthy tissue. This is becoming a rapidly developing method of cancer treatment.

To further improve the technology, particle accelerator and clinical experts have been exploring ways to better control proton beams through online beam monitoring. Among others, instruments originally developed for the LHC are used to measure the detailed properties of the treatment beam without touching it. This helps target tumours with more precision and also helps reduce machine set-up times, allowing the treatment of more patients.

Droids

While we cannot currently build droids such as R2D2 or C3PO, research into Big Data Science, machine learning and artificial intelligence brings these technologies ever closer. So far, AI can already sort things, play games, diagnose disease and predict scientific discoveries. But it is still a long way from being able from developing general intelligence – and it is notoriously bad at conversation.

As the voiceover of Luke Skywalker says in the latest film trailer: “We’ve passed on all we know.” And that’s exactly what I and other researchers are trying to do. So let’s hope this article can inspire some readers who dream about what science could achieve in the next 40 years to become the next generation of scientists.

About The Author:

Carsten Welsch is a Professor of Physics at the University of Liverpool

This article is republished from our content partners over at  The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

[lhs3020b]

Some notes on recent polling developments (long, fairly depressing)...

The YouGov MRP figures came out last night. This is notable because in 2017, the multilevel-regression approach was the sole one that spotted the possibility of a hung parliament. We all ridiculed it at the time - I'll confess that I side-eyed it too. And then - well, we all know what happened to Theresa May, don't we? So, the MRP thing deserves to be taken seriously. And unfortunately, this year, it's looking grim for us. Briefly, the MRP is forecasting a Tory majority. They're also predicting that all opposition parties (bar the SNP, who only stand in Scotland) will lose seats. Labour in particular look in the danger-zone for a collapse, and contrary to their bullish predictions, the Liberal Democrats are also forecast to lose seats. (Note that this is with respect to their current strength - technically, the MRP result gives them a gain of 2 seats on where they were on the 9th of June. They currently have 19, due to defections from various other parties.)

I'll admit that I don't want to believe the MRP results, but this has never been a data-denialist blog, and I don't intend to start on that road today.

One caveat is that the reporting on the MRP results has ben remarkably-bad. The actual YouGov page is here: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/27/yougov-mrp-conservatives-359-labour-211-snp-43-ld- Buried a long way down the page, they say this: "Taking into account the margins of error, our model puts the number of Conservative seats at between 328 and 385, meaning that while we can be confident that the Conservatives would currently get a majority, it could range from a modest one to a landslide." As far as I can tell, the "majority of 68" figure is derived by treating 317 as a working majority and assuming that the Tory vote lands right at the upper end of their confidence-interval. This is poor statistical practice for a variety of reasons. It's also a bit questionable in terms of parliamentary arithmetic - the "working majority" thing depends on how many Sinn Fein MPs Northern Ireland elects (they don't take their seats, so count toward neither Government nor Opposition tallies). And we won't necessarily know how many that is until, well, December the 13th.

(Also, a further health-warning is that apparently the model isn't able to fully-represent some local phenomena, such as independent candidates, and the effect of the Brexit Party's partial stand-down is also apparently somewhat-unclear. The last caveat is that the analysis assumes data that has already been collected - that is, if public opinion changes between now and polling day, then obviously existing projections could become obsolete. This will still be a possible source of error even if the MRP sample is statistically-unbiased and the underlying theory/analysis is all sound.)

However, even the best-case scenario for us gives the Tories 328 seats, which is both a working and a (very small) absolute majority.

Obviously, this is not a good situation for us.

While not quite a landslide, nonetheless an inflated Tory majority will be devastating for this country. The stuff they'll do will be awful. Brexit will happen. There'll be a bus crash late next year, when the transition period ends. (No, they will have no plan for this - they won't feel they need one, as they'll be secure in power until 2024.) There'll be a Windrush for resident EU citizens. They'll trash the economy. They'll probably crash the NHS - the only question there is whether they do it through accidental negligence or through deliberate malice (say, an ideologically-driven trade "deal" that gives President Trump everything he wants on a silver platter). Nothing will be done about the country’s escalating housing crisis. They'll double down on all the maddest of the madcap "law-n-order" stuff - expect an explosion in jailable offences, accompanied by lengthy minimum-sentence tariffs and further restrictions on legal aid. They'll also resuscitate their plans to manipulate the parliamentary boundaries, and change electoral laws in their favour. The media? Expect no surprises from them. The newspapers are largely already Conservative Pravdas. The BBC - nervous about its precious Royal Charter - seems to be in the process of declaring itself for the Tories too.

Bluntly, if the Tories get re-elected this year, they'll gerrymander things so you have little chance of getting rid of them in 2024.

Perhaps this is the key thing to understand about Boris Johnson: really, he's less Britain's Trump, and more Britain's Victor Orban. He'll leave just enough vestigial democracy intact to make what he's doing plausibly-deniable, but he'll busily rearrange the furniture to favour himself and his friends. If he gets re-elected this December, you can expect to be seeing his face into the 2030s. The only reason I put the cut-off as early as that is that I expect the coming climate-crisis will wreak havoc with the Tories' internal coalition. (Oh you've built all your luxury millionaire mansions by the seaside? How nice for you, especially now that the sea is literally in your parlour. Umm, whoops.)

What can be done? Well, the first thing is to reiterate some discussions I've seen on Twitter recently. The TL;DR of them is that hope doesn't have to be something you feel - it can be something you do. (And that's just as well, because I'll admit that 2019 has destroyed what traces of social optimism I was clinging to. I'm dreading the bad end that's coming to us next month, but I also fully-expect it.)

So, my advice remains as it has been: on December the 12th, turn up, and vote for whoever you judge most likely to beat the Tory.

Remember, the MRP approach is fallible. "Mortal, finite, temporary" is absolutely in play here; no model is any better than the data that went into it. Or, indeed, the date when it was calculated. And at the end of the day, the only poll that genuinely-matters is the one on December the 12th, and that hasn't actually happened yet. (Though admittedly, given the storm-surge of pre-emptive grief that's flooding Twitter today, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.)

As for the horrible mess that are our opposition parties, I'll repeat what I said in 2017: it's OK to vote for a least-worst option. You're not perjuring yourself or committing any moral sin, rather you're trying to be a grown-up. Part of the package of being an adult is making the best of bad situations.

It absolutely does suck - believe me, this is one of the most soul-destroying election campaigns I've ever seen. Every single party has clown-show'd itself. All of them have done things that are ridiculous, inept or otherwise ghastly. (Well, maybe not the Greens - I haven't heard of any specific scandals surrounding them - but their cardinal sin is that they have no plausible prospect of winning the election.) But even then, the barrel we're going to have to stare down is going and voting for them anyway.

(As a related case-in-point, one factor that seems to have helped the Tories win their unexpected 2015 majority was that a contingent of left-wing voters simply stayed at home on the day. While it's hard to find concrete statistics on, nonetheless anecdotally, this absolutely was a thing. A lot of people were demotivated by Labour's confused and incoherent campaign, left cold by all the bothering about fiscal rules, and alienated by things like the mug with "controls on immigration" on it. All of those are 100% valid criticisms. Except, except, except ... it helped an even worse party back into office. The theory of "if the choices are bad, sit it out" has been tested to destruction. It turns out that looking the other way is also a choice, and not necessarily the best one.)

I would add that there are also real questions to be asked about the utter vacuum of political strategy of people nominally on the anti-Tory side - it seems the Opposition spent the summer fixated on the minutiae of House procedures, while never stopping to ask why they were on this battlefield to begin with. Meanwhile the Tories largely-ignored Commons process, and instead sent a political appeal straight to Leave voters. It lost them a lot of individual legislative battles (and I'm not minimising their defeats - they were important!), but it put them in a good strategic place to win an election. And in the long run, it turns out that was what mattered.

It's hard not to feel bitter while thinking about the events of spring and summer. Perhaps if Jo Swinson had been less blinkered about Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps if Labour could have had the minimum sense to call a Vote of No Confidence when BoJo was vulnerable, perhaps if the collective Opposition had been able to recognise the huge wave of unharnessed political energy washing through the country during the petition back in March, perhaps if Change UK had managed to be something other than an unfunny joke, maybe if Corbyn had taken the anti-semitism problem seriously in 2018 and had actually done something instead of sitting on his hands and letting it metastasize to the point where it derailed his election campaign ... but, no. That's for some other, better timeline, not the one we live in. We seem to live in the world that resolutely and firmly chooses the wrong fork in every road. I don't know whether our timeline quite qualifies as the Bad Place, but it's certainly a place full of bad choices.

In a weird sort of way, though, this brings us back to the key theme. Whatever you might think of what's happening in this election - and goodness knows I'm as appalled as anyone else - nonetheless, your vote matters. Use it. As we're seeing, this is the ultimate limitation on their power, and the one chance we have of stopping them.

So once more, let me reiterate: turn up. Vote against the Tory. Do it as a hopeful action, even if you don't feel hopeful. If nothing else, do it so that when the bad things happen, at least you can say you tried to stop it. I wish I had something less bleak to offer here, but this is where we are.

[sameboot]

curious-shadow-cat replied to your post “update on the sorry state of affairs[[MOR] um so…. hahahsdfhghgh u...”

@sameboot​ I'am so sorry about that. If I may ask, what exactly do you have that makes it so difficult to draw?

i have these fun sons a bitches!

this is a myofascial trigger point, an indefinitely tightened nodule in a band of muscle. because they are unable to relax, they are poorly circulated, leading to the buildup of toxins, leading up to continuous poor circulation. an infinite loop of hell. they are an extremely common yet seldomly acknowledged form of repetitive strain injury/chronic pain/etc. they can form in any muscle tissue, but in the arms (or even neck) they can cause pain/numbness/weakness akin to sprains/tendinitis/carpal tunnel/tennis elbow/just about anything, because they have the unusual ability to refer pain to other places. 

heres an example:

I have trigger points all over both arms, but this is one of my absolute worst. that dot there is only painful if i press on it, but when i try to draw, write, or use that particular muscle in any way, in a short time i’ll feel pain in that highlighted area at the back of the wrist. this phenomena has something to do with the spinal cord being a clown

anyway, since i have very little healthy/fully functional muscle tissue left, i feel i permanent low level of exhaustion in both of my arms. kinda like they’re useless sacks of meaty burden hanging from my shoulders. i experience immediate exhaustion over simple tasks which often rapidly leads into pain. for example: typing this single paragraph feels like typing 864,156,386,156 paragraphs.

myofascial trigger points affect musicians, artists, programmers, athletes, slouchers, gamers, writers, anyone that overuses their muscles. oh and heres another thing: YOU CAN HAVE THEM WITHOUT KNOWING YOU HAVE THEM! trigger points are either active or inactive, meaning they refer pain, or they dont. i have a few inactive ones in my legs and they dont refer any pain. i know that there are trigger points in the tissue because when i press down on certain places its like: ouch! its very likely that i had the trigger points in my arms long before they were activated. oh and one more thing: THEY CAN BE ACTIVATED AT ANYTIME. back when this first happened i went from normalcy to cripple in under a week. 

seriously folks repetitive strain injury is so real. doing stretches isn’t enough.

trigger points can be treated with self-message. but clair davies goes more into that with his book (and my source for this post)  The Trigger Point Therapy Workbook which is available as a free (pirated) pdf for those that wanna know more!!!!!!111

sorry. this got kinda long

[chiropteran-hellfire]

Anon Ask:

 “I wished to ask for some advice, in particular about fictionkin, which I hope is all right. The concept of fictionkin isn’t new to me, but lately I have felt myself being drawn to the possibility of myself associating as fictionkin. I wanted to confirm these suspicions with someone that is more knowledgable about the concept, however. I will cut straight to the point and ask, firstly, is what I am identifying actually a “fictionkin connection”, for lack of a better term?

You see, at times, I feel as I am undoubtedly this individual, yet in a different universe, while at other times it feels like something I would otherwise describe as an “obsession”. I understand it is hard to answer, as you do not know me and cannot understand my exactly feelings, but, as of late, I have been… unexplainably drawn to two specific individuals, which brings me to my second and last question.

Is it possible for a fictionkin to identify with more than one individual? As in, can one “connect” with both identities simultaneously? Thank you very much in advance for any answers you can provide, it is sincerely appreciated.“

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well firstly thank you for taking the route of asking my blog rather than one of the many ‘kin help blogs’ out there. Not that this is a bad thing, quite the opposite. I do find many of these ‘kin’ blogs to be terribly misinformed and as a result ironically unhelpful. But I shan’t disrespect that choice to come to me, and will attempt to answer my best for you. Certainly didn’t expect this blog to draw in so many questioning fictionkin before now.

Generally I, along with others, do not tend to see the phrase ‘a connection’ to be entirely genuine to the phenomena of being fictionkin. Simply because to connect to something one must be external to said subject, which leaves the original meaning of ‘identifying as’ rather questionable. However, this said there are some cases where it can have an element of truth, for in regards to fictionkin there is a very clear reality presented where there is both a self here, and a self there. The reasons behind this very from person to person, but the vast majority do tend to go with it being a past life that by happenstance due to the multiverse theory ended up depicted within fiction.

I myself do not adhere to the multiverse theory, and if anything consider it rather unlikely, but am respectful towards the great many others in the community who hold it as true. Personally I consider myself an unusual case, being rather torn between two theories; one quite basic psychological via imprinting, and one more theoretical based around my own ‘fictional life’ theory. I won’t divulge into that too much at present however, or it would derail this answer terribly.

But to summarise; It’s best not to ask the community or others for ‘what is possible’, but merely ask yourself. What is and what can be is only as limited as your own perception of it. What rights do others have to tell you to who you are? Others may inquire and interrogate, they may prod and delve into the mind of someone abnormal from the masses, and you should be prepared for that, but if you question and introspect on your own, most of your answers will come to you, and you will be ready. The truth as to who and/or what anyone is is inside you, no where else. Others both internal or external to the community can only guide, and offer advice along with their own experiences, but yours will be unique, so resist the urge to attempt to find a niche to fit into.

However, to answer your final question, which I shall rephrase as ‘identify as’ rather than ‘with’. Yes, it is not uncommon for fictionkin to carry more than one identity, though this is usually the result of having lived many lives, all of these adding to themself now, and all of them being very much real. It is also possible through psychological means, but tends to be less common, and for many can end up bordering on a rather extreme c’link.

[luci-yabs]

The Way Out - Review

Synopsis: A ship becalmed in space needs repairs. Fortunately, a nearby watch station offers refuge… Surely nothing can go wrong for the crew of the Fortune's Favour?

Plot: This is a fairly good one, definitely the best of Warhammer Horror I’ve come across so far. In many ways the setup is a classical horror and scifi trope which serves it well. A group of spacefarers come across an eerie station and board it...then things start to go bad.

Have you ever watched Event Horizon? In many ways there are similarities between the plots. You have some sort of spacecraft, a spacestation in this case named most ironically Refuge, a group of unlucky victims board it and begin to experience an escalating series of horror phenomena linked to their own personal experiences.

The horror aspect is executed excellently in this one, throughout, playing to the subtle, personal rather than the visceral or gory. The horror strikes at the things the cast regret or feel guilt for, or whatever personal foible they have, dragging it out before them and forcing them to face it. Even till the end there isn’t much in the way of mindless action scenes and the horror remains largely subtle which I enjoy a lot.

In what, I feel, will become a repetitive section when discussing Warhammer Horror is that the ending is once more completely bleak and hopeless. I know Horror loves this as a genre but in my opinion the best horror stories don’t just use the hopeless ending. Regardless though the ending is lacklustre to me the overall plot is still good, develops well and has several good moments. 

Characters: This is one of the most successful juggling of a large cast I have ever seen in a Warhammer audio drama. I’m honestly impressed. Most audio dramas can manage a single protagonist and a single antagonist if they are good, with other characters being very exogenous, but this story manages 5! The character dynamics and interactions are strong here, working together well, in many ways like Corsair: Face of the Void, which also has a very good character interaction web.

Our characters are the command crew of the vessel; Captain Karina, Security Officer Halitz, Techpriestess Sumer (my love) and Navigator Dhovar.

Sumer is my favourite character of the story and is lovingly portrayed. She is by far the greatest source of comedy and such a ray of proverbial sunshine that, although she has no depth to her, she helps prevent the story from lapsing into the common ‘overly dark’ tone by giving it some levity. She’s clearly a character mostly serving the role of tension breaker with no real arc or depth to her but she has a vibrant personality and, most importantly, is simply an immensely likeable character.

Dhovar, obvious bad guy, is the obvious bad guy. For most of the audio drama he is a weak character simply written as the obvious problem. He’s arrogant, likes no-one, constantly hears voices whispering to him and decides he wants to follow the mysterious voices (surely not a bad idea at all!) and tell no-one about them. I’d overall say he’s just a stock bad villain except...the final moments of the story do redeem him somewhat. They give a very personal, human, motive to his recklessness which, though not saving him from being the stock idiot of a horror story who reads the necronomicon, does make him easier to understand.

Halitz is honestly an interesting character. But there is a...a soured aspect to it. You see in many ways Halitz is clearly the stealth protagonist, not Karina. Although the story begins presenting Karina as the protagonist much of the mid and end focuses purely on Halitz and his dark past fighting Tyranids as a member of the Astra Militarum. Halitz has a nuanced depiction; initially a generic military tough guy but then as we see into his mind he’s actually a deeply damaged man, grappling guilt and PTSD and who suffers from the well-fleshed out character flaw that he simply cannot take responsibility for himself, he always, always, needs to find a way to shift his actions, the consequences of them, on to someone else. All this makes for an interesting character who highlights human weaknesses well but...at the expense of very much turning this from a story about Captain Karina’s experience into a story of Halitz’s weaknesses. Part of the problem, I fear, is that as a horror story it needs a character who can feel fear and be affected by the horror inside but Karina is, mostly, depicted as so impossible to scare or intimidate that she doesn’t serve well as a viewpoint character once the horror begins. Still it leaves a bad taste in my mouth as Halitz largely becomes the protagonist and Karina ends up shunted aside.

Karina herself is a fun and engaging character who’s only weakness is that, inside a horror story, she is perhaps to unflappable, able to simply bulldoze her way through the horror with apparent ease, the only member of the core cast who isn’t overcome by some manifestation of her own weaknesses. Atlhough this makes her very fun and enjoyable the result is that I feel the narrative never spends to much time on her since it wants to focus on the other characters who are affected by the horror. I’m already beginning to fear these Warhammer Horror stories will have a trend of female ‘badass’ characters who are ‘important’ and do complete actions in the plot but end up having little substance or agency as Captain Brandon is somewhat similar in Perdition’s Flame. 

Beyond this there is then also Kosch, a lone survivour found aboard the station. There is little to say of Kosch. She does an adequate job of providing exposition in an organic manner, conveying the fear of the horror before it becomes persistent, but she has little character beyond that to discuss. 

Sound Design: The sound work on this one is very good! Sumer’s voice, in particular, I want to praise as conveying both a distinctly human and emotive voice with synthetic and mechanical aspects interwoven which make it actually really pleasant to listen too.

Beyond that the use of accompanying background noises are used well, the voice acting is good for the most part...though I’d note Black Library’s somewhat limited pool of Voice Actors and Actresses is noticeable in a production with a large cast like this because Crewwoman Kosch sounds almost identical to Captain Brandon from Perdition’s Flame. 

A small complaint though: like Perdition’s Flame the ‘supernatural’ voices used are very much of the ‘deep and rumbling’ variety that echo. This isn’t on its own bad or concerning but...if every single ‘spooky’ voice ends up being this same deep, bass, rumble it will soon move from ‘intimidating’ to just boring. I hope we get more range on the spooky voices in the future.

Themes: The story’s focus is rather obviously on the weaknesses of people, things which motivate them. Every member of the core cast has a weakness which rears itself in the story:

Halitz is wracked with guilt over his treatment of a comrade in the past, this manifests in a seemingly compulsive inability to ever accept the consequences for his own actions as part of an extended denial, Sumer is consumed with curiosity and the need to understand the unknown even when she places herself in danger to do so, Dhovar’s issue is the crux of the story so I shan’t go into it in detail, save to say that he misses his home and would do anything to get back there and Karina exemplifies hurting people you care for when they are threatening you and others through their actions. Of all of these only Karina ‘overcomes’ her foible, confronts it and owns it, not as something she must repent for, but as something she accepts about herself. Halitz falls into complete denial, so desperate to never accept blame that he will do anything to escape it, Sumer risks herself to satiate her curiosity and Dhovar makes a terrible bargain even knowing he shouldn’t before he finally sacrifices himself at the end to undo his mistake. 

Conclusion: The best of Warhammer Horror by far yet and honestly just an enjoyable little piece of work. I’d recommend it for anyone who wants to get into Warhammer Horror as I don’t think it holds much for someone looking for a normal Warhammer adventure. 

[adamantiiine-blog]

THE MULTIVERSE

Origins of Magic on Earth

Since there’s no official canon explanation for where magic comes from on Earth in HP, I’m gonna go ahead and make my own explanation. Because I love my random worldbuilding headcanons that don’t exactly have any real bearing on anything but just exist to exist.

ANYHOW, Magic on earth obviously comes from Eä. I talked more about the multiverse and the passageways between in this post so go ahead and take a look at that for further explanation, but a brief run-down is that the passages on Earth exist at prominent intersections of ley lines. In the Harry Potter universe, some of the earliest known wizards are Ancient Egyptians, Indians, and Greeks, which would line up with some of these intersections (One in Southeast Asia, one MAJOR one in Egypt, which was also at one point part of the Greek Empire). There are also other major intersections in North America, and also… guess where… Scotland, pretty close to most speculations of the location of Hogwarts.

Magic on Earth comes from the fragments of the Music of the Ainur that seeped into Earth’s reality, traveling and connecting the passageways along the ley lines. As it travels across Earth, this mystical energy is warped a bit by Earth’s energy, creating some differences between the way magic works in either universe.  

This inundation of Earth with fragments of the Music of the Ainur is what caused the introduction of plants with magical properties, and gave rise to many sorts of Magical Creatures that are similar to nonmagical creatures. Others (creatures and plants that exist in both worlds, for example), appeared as a result of seeds, and of the creatures themselves, crossing through the passageways.

T H E   O R I G I N   O F   W I Z A R D K I N D

As for the origins of wizardkind, and why some humans are wizards and others are not, this is due to interbreeding between people from Eä, who are fundamentally created by the Music, and who it flows through, and humans from Earth. This would create children who were capable of tapping into the residual energy of the Music that laced across and throughout Earth. This ability did not die out, and thus wizardkind as we know it continues to exist.

Important to note that most of this interbreeding was between early Men of Arda and humans. While Men do not have much innate magical ability in Middle Earth, they are still intrinsically connected to the Music, and it is possible for Men to become sorcerers. Thus, Men, or Atani/Edain, are slightly different species than the Humans of Earth, though in many measures there was little difference between them, and they did not often note any.

Because these mixed families tended to settle and live together not too far from the passageways and travel was limited in the ancient world, the distinction between wizardkind and non-magical people became more and more prevalent. Once many of the passageways became inaccessible, the humans of earth and the Atani of Eä no longer interbred, and the worlds were largely separated. Thus, the evolution of both beings and creatures on earth and Magic itself, differed from that of Eä, and the two worlds became much different.

D I F F E R E N T   M A G I C S

Time as a whole moves much more slowly in Eä, which contributes to the rapid development, evolution, and innovation on Earth. This shift in the motions of time-space is also how the traces of Music that cause Magic on Earth became warped to become more external, while mystic powers in Eä remain much more innate, even to the race of Men, well into the Third Age.

The major difference is that Magic, over time, went from extremely innate to becoming a force that must be manipulated. Magic inundated many ancient cultures, not only within people, but in the surrounding lands. Mystical phenomena were far more common-place and everyday. Wands were almost completely unheard of, with ancient wizards able to use and control magic easily without them.

Because of the discrepancy in the motion of time, many of the passageways became narrowed, or choked off, allowing less of a flow. This evolution caused magic to be much less innate, and far less predictable when it was so. Now, most wizards use wands, because the connection of the wand materials to Magic itself causes magical ability to be more easily-controlled, and wandless magic can be learned later. This isn’t always the case, though—it is possible to be taught wandless magic from childhood.

Magic on earth is much more chaotic and unstable than the Music is within Eä. This is because most of the passageways were formed in places where Melkor’s powers were most at use. This is why most uses of ‘magic’ within Eä, aside from the power of the Ainur, are rather passive, unless they are dark forms of magic. Magic on earth has a disproportionate amount of the chaotic, unstable power of Melkor’s influence. This is also why the Dark Arts often seem more powerful. This instability of Magic can also have a mutating effect—this is why there are so many more fantastic beasts on Earth than within Eä, and why conditions such as lycanthropy and blood malediction, as well as metamorphmagi, exist on Earth, but not within Eä. This evolution also had a neutralizing effect, magic on earth shifting from darker to more neutral as time went on.

T R A V E L L E R S   B E T W E E N   W O R L D S

Though most humans, whether Muggle or Wizard, would die shortly after entering Middle Earth due to the locations and surroundings of passageways, it is still possible to survive. If one does survive, a Muggle will feel little effect—they won’t be able to perform magic, because they have little to no connection to it. However, it is likely that a Squib could gain some magical ability, though not much. A wizard, however, will gain much power, in particular the ability to effortlessly perform wandless spells. Wands could still be used in Eä, but they are likely to be overloaded, and could potentially shatter. Most spells will likely function differently, so a wizard should be careful while using magic in Middle Earth until they’ve adapted to the different flow. It is also unwise to apparate within Middle Earth, as that will almost certainly result in splinching.

For those that travel from Eä to Earth, Atani will feel little additional effects. Elves and Maiar, however, will become significantly weaker, because they are intrinsically tied to the Music, and the fact that the Music is fainter and functions differently on Earth can cause problems.

The reason for these differences is that, in Eä, the Music flows through and around everything in a rather aimless pattern—the entire world is basically composed of Magic. On Earth, magic travels along ley lines in a fixed pattern. Thus, magic in Eä is of an amorphous structure, while magic on Earth is of a crystalline structure. This is what causes particular problems with apparition—wizards on earth apparate along these lines of magic. In Eä, there are no lines, and apparition of a physical body almost always results in fatal splinching.

Travelling between worlds for anyone causes a physical adjustment, a sort of magical jet lag. This could have symptoms similar to motion sickness and jet lag, and can cause emotional upset as well as magical upset.  

Wizards who travel to and from Middle Earth may end up getting a sort of high from the sheer amount of magic within Middle Earth, which can cause symptoms sort of like a withdrawal if they remain on earth, thus, it is wise to be very careful about these travels.

[adamantiiine-a]

* ✧ ∗ H E A D C A N O N ;; general

T H E   M U L T I V E R S E   A N D   T H E   O R I G I N S   O F   M A G I C   O N   E A R T H

Since there’s no official canon explanation for where magic comes from on Earth in HP, I’m gonna go ahead and make my own explanation. Because I love my random worldbuilding headcanons that don’t exactly have any real bearing on anything but just exist to exist.

ANYHOW, Magic on earth obviously comes from Eä. I talked more about the multiverse and the passageways between in this post so go ahead and take a look at that for further explanation, but a brief run-down is that the passages on Earth exist at prominent intersections of ley lines. In the Harry Potter universe, some of the earliest known wizards are Ancient Egyptians, Indians, and Greeks, which would line up with some of these intersections (One in Southeast Asia, one MAJOR one in Egypt, which was also at one point part of the Greek Empire). There are also other major intersections in North America, and also… guess where… Scotland, pretty close to most speculations of the location of Hogwarts.

Magic on Earth comes from the fragments of the Music of the Ainur that seeped into Earth’s reality, traveling and connecting the passageways along the ley lines. As it travels across Earth, this mystical energy is warped a bit by Earth’s energy, creating some differences between the way magic works in either universe.  

This inundation of Earth with fragments of the Music of the Ainur is what caused the introduction of plants with magical properties, and gave rise to many sorts of Magical Creatures that are similar to nonmagical creatures. Others (creatures and plants that exist in both worlds, for example), appeared as a result of seeds, and of the creatures themselves, crossing through the passageways.

T H E   O R I G I N   O F   W I Z A R D K I N D

As for the origins of wizardkind, and why some humans are wizards and others are not, this is due to interbreeding between people from Eä, who are fundamentally created by the Music, and who it flows through, and humans from Earth. This would create children who were capable of tapping into the residual energy of the Music that laced across and throughout Earth. This ability did not die out, and thus wizardkind as we know it continues to exist.

Important to note that most of this interbreeding was between early Men of Arda and humans. While Men do not have much innate magical ability in Middle Earth, they are still intrinsically connected to the Music, and it is possible for Men to become sorcerers. Thus, Men, or Atani/Edain, are slightly different species than the Humans of Earth, though in many measures there was little difference between them, and they did not often note any.

Because these mixed families tended to settle and live together not too far from the passageways and travel was limited in the ancient world, the distinction between wizardkind and non-magical people became more and more prevalent. Once many of the passageways became inaccessible, the humans of earth and the Atani of Eä no longer interbred, and the worlds were largely separated. Thus, the evolution of both beings and creatures on earth and Magic itself, differed from that of Eä, and the two worlds became much different.

D I F F E R E N T   M A G I C S

Time as a whole moves much more slowly in Eä, which contributes to the rapid development, evolution, and innovation on Earth. This shift in the motions of time-space is also how the traces of Music that cause Magic on Earth became warped to become more external, while mystic powers in Eä remain much more innate, even to the race of Men, well into the Third Age.

The major difference is that Magic, over time, went from extremely innate to becoming a force that must be manipulated. Magic inundated many ancient cultures, not only within people, but in the surrounding lands. Mystical phenomena were far more common-place and everyday. Wands were almost completely unheard of, with ancient wizards able to use and control magic easily without them.

Because of the discrepancy in the motion of time, many of the passageways became narrowed, or choked off, allowing less of a flow. This evolution caused magic to be much less innate, and far less predictable when it was so. Now, most wizards use wands, because the connection of the wand materials to Magic itself causes magical ability to be more easily-controlled, and wandless magic can be learned later. This isn’t always the case, though—it is possible to be taught wandless magic from childhood.

Magic on earth is much more chaotic and unstable than the Music is within Eä. This is because most of the passageways were formed in places where Melkor’s powers were most at use. This is why most uses of ‘magic’ within Eä, aside from the power of the Ainur, are rather passive, unless they are dark forms of magic. Magic on earth has a disproportionate amount of the chaotic, unstable power of Melkor’s influence. This is also why the Dark Arts often seem more powerful. This instability of Magic can also have a mutating effect—this is why there are so many more fantastic beasts on Earth than within Eä, and why conditions such as lycanthropy and blood malediction, as well as metamorphmagi, exist on Earth, but not within Eä. This evolution also had a neutralizing effect, magic on earth shifting from darker to more neutral as time went on.

T R A V E L L E R S   B E T W E E N   W O R L D S

Though most humans, whether Muggle or Wizard, would die shortly after entering Middle Earth due to the locations and surroundings of passageways, it is still possible to survive. If one does survive, a Muggle will feel little effect—they won’t be able to perform magic, because they have little to no connection to it. However, it is likely that a Squib could gain some magical ability, though not much. A wizard, however, will gain much power, in particular the ability to effortlessly perform wandless spells. Wands could still be used in Eä, but they are likely to be overloaded, and could potentially shatter. Most spells will likely function differently, so a wizard should be careful while using magic in Middle Earth until they’ve adapted to the different flow. It is also unwise to apparate within Middle Earth, as that will almost certainly result in splinching.

For those that travel from Eä to Earth, Atani will feel little additional effects. Elves and Maiar, however, will become significantly weaker, because they are intrinsically tied to the Music, and the fact that the Music is fainter and functions differently on Earth can cause problems.

The reason for these differences is that, in Eä, the Music flows through and around everything in a rather aimless pattern—the entire world is basically composed of Magic. On Earth, magic travels along ley lines in a fixed pattern. Thus, magic in Eä is of an amorphous structure, while magic on Earth is of a crystalline structure. This is what causes particular problems with apparition—wizards on earth apparate along these lines of magic. In Eä, there are no lines, and apparition of a physical body almost always results in fatal splinching.

Travelling between worlds for anyone causes a physical adjustment, a sort of magical jet lag. This could have symptoms similar to motion sickness and jet lag, and can cause emotional upset as well as magical upset.  

Wizards who travel to and from Middle Earth may end up getting a sort of high from the sheer amount of magic within Middle Earth, which can cause symptoms sort of like a withdrawal if they remain on earth, thus, it is wise to be very careful about these travels.

[wiresandstarlings]

you’re not boring anymore

I'm not sure how strongly I believe any of these ideas. At the same time, I feel like I have to get all this out of my head to move forward, in writing and in life. Please excuse the form.

Proposition 1. Life is a constrained optimization problem.

Definition 1. Resources are finite means. The most useful and most common resources are time, attention, and money. Resources can be defined in terms of a type and a quantity.

Definition 2. Characteristics are distinguishing traits, qualities, or properties. Similarly to resources, characteristics can be defined in terms of a dimension and a scalar weight. For example, beauty is a positive weight along the dimension of “attractiveness”. Ugliness is a negative weight along that same dimension.

Note. When I talk about subjective characteristics like “attractiveness”, I mean them in a “conventional” sense. That is, if everyone in the world scored two people on attractiveness, whoever had the higher average score would be “more attractive”. Becoming more attractive means increasing this average score.

Definition 3. Assuming there are a finite number of resource types and characteristic dimensions, we can think of individuals in time as a vector of characteristic weights and resources. Let's denote the space of individual states as S.

Lemma 1. Across a population of individuals, characteristics and resources are normally distributed.

Proof. The central limit theorem suggests that measures that are the net of many factors are normally distributed. Most human characteristics and circumstances, including height, intelligence, attractiveness, and wealth, are the sum of a myriad of genetic and environmental factors. It follows that human characteristics are normally distributed. This is consistent with empirical evidence for a number of natural phenomena.

Some characteristic measures, such as IQ, were balanced specifically so that a representative human population would be normally distributed with respect to them.

Note. This includes time and attention. Different people require different amounts of sleep, and are capable of differing levels of focus.

Observation. We can think of some diseases – dwarfism, autism, retardation – as individuals falling at the extremes of various characteristic distributions.

Note. Some characteristics, like height and weight and attractiveness, are correlated. We assume here the correlations all wash out on a characteristic level.  

Corollary. Along every dimension, most people are average (~68%), some are good or bad (~13.5%), and very few are great or terrible (~2.5%).

Definition 4. An action is a function from the space of individual states S to S x U, where U is a subset of the real line. U represents utility, which we can think of as happiness or pleasure. Actions typically expend some amount of resources and/or happiness to generate other resources, alter characteristics, and/or alter utility. We can even think of inaction as an action which consumes time, doesn't alter our characteristics (or slightly degrades them), and either creates or consumes utility. Denote A_i the space of action functions for an individual i. Note that only a subset of A_i will be viable from any particular state, and the exact outputs of any particular action will depend on the characteristics and resources in the state.

Observation. Some characteristics, such as race, are immutable. Most are not.

Proposition 2. The goal of every individual is to take actions to maximize their average utility through the course of their life.

Note. “Utility” is not entirely self-interested. It's most typically the byproduct of self-development or self-gratification, but people can (and often do) gain utility by following a moral code, helping others, or righting wrongs. Our characteristics determine how we gain utility and how much. The calculus isn't necessarily (and often isn't) rational.

(For example, I get a lot of pleasure out of maintaining this blog even though it mostly serves to embarrass me.)  

Lemma 2. Our constraints are functions of our characteristics.

Proof. Based on our preferences and abilities, we improve along particular dimensions more or less quickly and gain or lose utility doing so. For example, athletes will learn sports more quickly than they learn math. Some people think abstractly; some visually; some physically. People who are out of shape will have a harder time improving their physical condition than people who are healthier, and will likely have a less pleasant experience. (At least initially.)

Where we start also affects who and what we have access to. For example, people who show promise in a sport at an early age will have greater support from their parents, access to better coaching, and invitations to more competitive games than those who don't. People who are poor are often forced to accept underfunded and understaffed schools.

Based on our characteristics, we need to expend greater or lesser quantities of time, attention, and money to make the same kind and amount of progress. People have greater or lesser difficulty reaching the same benchmarks.  

However, our constraints change alongside our characteristics. Once we've learned the fundamentals of math, learning more gets easier. Once we're in shape, staying in shape is rewarding. Much of why life is difficult is that our constraints are constantly changing and that we can change our constraints.

Note. Some of why life is difficult are the constraints we can't change.

Observation. Age is one of the most significant factors here. As we get older, we get slower, weaker, and changing becomes harder. (Eg. fluid versus crystallized intelligence.) Our daily allotments of time and attention grow smaller.

Corollary. Life is unfair.

Proof. Individuals are assigned differing allotments of characteristics at birth. Thus they face different constraints.

Observation. As a society, how do we fairly distribute public resources given that people face different constraints?

Lemma 3. All actions carry diminishing returns.

Proof. There are natural limits to every characteristic, every resource, and to human improvement. Improvement is monotonically increasing by definition, so we must approach these limits asymptotically with respect to our expenditures of time, attention, and money.

Theorem 1. Anyone can be above-average at something.

Proof. By definition, we all have finite resources and in particular have roughly equal allotments of time and attention, the most valuable resources. So if we're naturally above-average in at least one dimension, we can likely remain above-average in that characteristic by devoting all of our resources to it. But even if we're below-average in every way, we can still become above-average in at least one dimension by allocating all of our resources in a dimension that nobody else allocates resources to. There are more dimensions than people, since there are several dimensions with regard to each specific person, so at least one such dimension must exist.

Note. In practice, people allocate their resources carelessly, so even valuable dimensions like attractiveness are easily accessible. Even though appearance is mostly genetic, the vast majority of people don't exercise enough, eat well, or take care of themselves. So even someone who's unattractive to start can become more attractive than average by just putting the work in.

Note. The real question behind taking any action or aiming at any goal is whether the time, attention, and money you'll need to expend are worth what you get. If you're unattractive to start, maybe you can become attractive by devoting all your resources to that goal. But is being attractive worth that commitment?

At the end of the day, utility is the only true objective.

Note. Standing out is essentially a resource allocation game.

Theorem 2. Unless you're at the top of at least one characteristic distribution to start, there is no guarantee that you will ever be the best at anything.

Proof. The people at the top of each characteristic distribution have the option of allocating all their time and resources to that characteristic. Because there are limits to human improvement, you will never surpass them if they do.

Theorem 3. To have a lasting impact on the world, you need to have been born at the top of several characteristic distributions.

Proof. To advance a field, you need to be at or neat the top of that field. To be at or near the top of a field, according to Theorem 2, you need to have been at or near the top of the characteristic distributions prerequisite for that field to start.

Corollary. To maximize your chances of having an impact on the world, you should devote your full resources to improving your natural gifts.

Note. Living a good and fulfilling life doesn't mean having a lasting impact on the world. The two are barely related.

Theorem 4. Nobody can have it all.

Proof. By lemma 1, the probability that anyone is at the top of every characteristic distribution is infinitesimally small. So everyone is almost certainly lacking in several areas. Time, attention, and money are finite, so nobody can't remedy every flaw they have.

Theorem 5. People have both more and less control over their lives than they think.

Proof. Theorems 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Note. Thinking about the world this way added a lot of clarity to my life. Five months ago, I was applying to jobs in tech but I wasn't entirely convinced I wanted one. I'd always preferred writing to math and programming, and trying streaming had been at the back of my mind for a while. On top of all that, I felt like I wasn't social enough, wasn't reading enough, needed to exercise more, needed to get my finances in order, etc.

But when I stepped back and asked myself what I really wanted out of life, it was clear that working in tech was by far my best play. The two things I want most at this stage in my life are to have an impact on the world and to have the financial freedom to pursue interesting ideas and opportunities. And although it's unlikely I have a real impact on the world no matter what I do, the massive force-multiplying power of computers makes improving the human condition on a global scale more accessible through tech than through any other field. Tech also pays more and more consistently than writing and streaming.

And like, I enjoy writing, but I'm decidedly unexceptional at it relative to math and programming. These days, writing professionally also requires personal branding, networking, and marketing, all of which I hate and am horrible at. Streaming has all those same demands, but also requires social skills.

I also felt more comfortable just working in tech for a while and reevaluating later. I wasn't trying to find my purpose anymore, I was just satisfying my objective function to the best of my ability given my immediate circumstances. Those circumstances will change and my solution will change with them – that's life.

Note. This perspective gave me a lot of comfort in my personal life. I realized that the reason why I don't have many friends is because I don't spent much effort trying to make friends, not because I have some deep-seated flaw. My relative isolation was a choice, even if I was unaware I had chosen it.

I also felt a much greater sense of purpose. Recognizing that my happiness was entirely a matter of how I allocated my time, money, and attention and that my reality was a function of my priorities forced me to reevaluate how I was distributing my resources. I stopped doing things that didn't make me happy and made more time for things that did. I started exercising more. I stopped worrying about money so much.

Note. Happy New Year, and best of luck. So it goes. 

[secret-diary-of-an-fa]

The Leading Ladies of Sci-Fi

I think it’s about time I ended the current cycle of me complaining about Doctor Who and how the casting of Jodie Whittaker isn’t genuine progress but a cheap gimmick designed to appeal to the gullible and the terminally stupid... like literally all gender-flipping nonsense since the dawn of sci-fi. And what better way to end a months-long stream of uninterrupted invective than by saying “fuck it” and ending on a positive note. People laud Whittaker because of how important female representation in sci-fi and fantasy is. So I thought I’d list some sci-fi and fantasy shows and films with female leads that are actually good, aren’t merely gender-flipped de-imaginings of properties that already existed and don’t merely exist to pander to the lowest common denominator of easily-pleased tosspots. So, without further ado, here are Secret-Diary’s Top Ten Woman-lead Sci-Fi and Fantasy Things.

1. Fringe I mention Fringe quite a lot and- guess what!- I intend to keep banging this particular drum until you all either listen or go deaf. Fringe is fucking great. It stars a competent, complex lady FBI agent who teams up with a mad, LSD-fueled scientist to solve crimes committed using fringe scientific phenomena (hence the title). As it develops, it turns into a drama about a cold war between parallel universes and then a not-so-called war with the future itself. It’s surreal, funny, dramatic, often-demented (there’s one episode with singing corpses) and the best part is that it’s over, which means that you know it’s not going to be completely fucking ruined by network interference at some point in the future.

2. The Aliens series One day, archeologists will look back on our era and assume that Sigourney Weaver was literally the Queen of All Nerds and ruled with an iron fist. That’s how firmly the original Alien films cemented her place in cultural history. Ellen Rippley (Weaver’s character) is a one-woman anti-xenomorph army with a heart of gold and a willingness to risk her life for cats. She’s a badarse and I will fight anyone who doesn’t think she’s awesome. The more recent films in the Alien universe have continued the tradition of having female lead protagonists, which isn’t just good representation but also thematically appropriate considering the subject matter that the franchise often wrestles with.

3. Lucy This is one of those films that came out, showed off the kind of ambitious storytelling that can be achieved with a mid-range budget, showcased a brilliant female lead, injected original ideas in the sci-fi genre and was then promptly forgotten about by everyone. It concerns a woman who develops super-intelligence and then gradually becomes a higher lifeform after taking a heroic quantity of drugs and that’s all I’m going to tell you because you deserve to experience it without spoilers. Go watch it, and you’re very fucking welcome.

4. The Cell No, stop right there. I fucking liked The Cell and I’m not listening to anyone’s moaning about it today. I know the plot makes no sense and the director’s understanding of the psychopathic mind is basically non-existent, but the characters are all likeable and it serves as a perfect visual meditation on the archetypes to be found lurking in the human psyche (even if the director didn’t understand them). And, of course, your guide through the oh-so-zany world of The Cell happens to be a lady-person, so have some free representation with your rambling quasi-arthouse nonsense.

5. Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lumbered with a title that has lead literally millions of non-nerds to assume that it’s nothing but wank-fodder for goth-geeks, Buffy is actually a breath of fresh air once it gets going. And yes, I’m aware it took three seasons to get going. But the point is, it’s charming, eccentric and endearing in a way that most people don’t realise. And yes, I realise it’s not sci-fi or fantasy but supernatural drama, but I’m including it anyway ‘cause it’s all part of the same family of genres.

6. Sapphire and Steel Technically a joint male-and-female lead, but I’m including it because it’s ridiculously obscure and you all deserve to know it exists. It concerns to entities who embody elements from the periodic table of elements who materialise at very points in Earth history to deal with spooky, unsettling space-time anomalies and creep everyone out with their not-quite-human affect. One of them is played by Joanna Lumley, because it’s a British thing from the seventies or eighties and she got basically everywhere on UK telly back then. It’s basically Doctor Who for grown-ups and it will fuck your brain into a puddle of existentially terrified goo and leave it on the roadside. It’s amazing. Go watch it.

7. Mirrormask An early effort from Neil Gaiman (yes, they occasionally let him make whole movies) starring a traumatised teenage girl, a whole lot of superbly creepy paper-and-ink creatures, and an evil queen. It defies all description and deserves to be viewed for that reason alone.

8. Labyrinth The eighties were a very, very weird time. This is one of the things they gave us. If you don’t know what it is or why it’s on this list, I’m not sure I can help you.

9. Wonder Woman Yes, I know I’m cheating with the genres again, but that Wonder Woman film was genuinely fucking great. Also, I still find it funny that they chose to cast Gal Gadot in the role.

10. Aeon Flux Weird as fuck live adaptation of a Japanese import. I can’t even begin to describe the premise of Aeon Flux or any of the things that happen in it, because I’d sound like I’d necked a bunch of hallucinogens and gone on a vision-quest. All I’ll tell you about it is that it’s absolutely jam-packed with ideas and stars a very woman with deadly, prehensile feet.

Right, that’s the main list. Honourable mentions go the film Ultraviolet (the one from the early 2000s, not the thing that showed up on Netflix recently), the Resident Evil films (which only didn’t make the final list because they’re very male gaze-y), season 4 of Black Mirror (which randomly decided to focus mainly on female leads, instead of the even mix that defined previous series- it’s not on the final list because it doesn’t center on one single character. And also it isn’t as good as previous series) and The X-Files (Agent Skully, ably played by Gillian Anderson was always given equal billing alongside Moulder- it just didn’t make the list because you’ve all already heard of it). Given time, I could probably think of more to add, because sci-fi and genre fiction are deep, complicated mineshafts filled with gems that most people overlook. But I’ve given you enough to get on with for now. Stop reading this, and go watch those.