#walker: independence theory

[walker-extended-universe]

Okay here's a thought:

Relating back to Tom thinking him "taking Abby in" and "giving her purpose" after her life fell apart meant she should be loyal to him despite the fact that he was the one who caused her life to fall apart-

Tom was shunted off to an asylum by his family after he killed a man to save Shane. We know the Davidsons have no real qualms about killing so this was more of a public image thing. BUT- We also know that Tom wasn't working with the family before his stay in the asylum and wanted nothing to do with the business.

What if that was all a setup? An attempt to tear him down, break him, so that they could mold him into what they needed him to be?

[laf-outloud]

Lawrence's IG takeover

New WIndy theory!!!

(There are a lot more Q&A videos from Lawrence over in theCWWalkerIndependence's IG stories if you want to check them out! - Sounds like episode 9 is a good one for Kai!)

[mysticstronomy]

DOES THE UNIVERSE EXPAND BY STRETCHING OR CREATING SPACE??

Blog#401

Wednesday, May 15th, 2024.

Welcome back,

The evidence that the Universe is expanding is overwhelming. But how? By stretching the existing space, or by creating new space itself?

Raisin bread expanding Universe

Just as raisins within a leavening ball of dough will appear to recede from one another as the dough expands, so too will galaxies within the Universe expand away from one another as the fabric of space itself expands. In this analogy, the expanding Universe is described by space that "stretches," but that analogy doesn't work for every aspect of our expanding Universe.

The farther away we look in the Universe, the greater the amount that light, gravitational waves, and all signals are lengthened and dilated (or “redshifted”) by the expansion of space. This effect applies to all observations of objects beyond our own Local Group, but how, exactly, does space itself actually expand: by stretching, or by the creation of new space in the “gaps” opened up by cosmic expansion? The surprising answer is that both interpretations have their usefulness, but both analogies are fundamentally limited and will fail if you use them incorrectly. The expansion of the Universe is real, but no one analogy is perfect.

It’s been almost 100 years since humanity first reached a revolutionary conclusion about the nature of our Universe: space itself cannot and does not remain static, but rather evolves with the passage of time. One of the most unsettling predictions of Einstein’s general relativity is that any Universe — so long as it’s uniformly (or almost uniformly) filled with one or more species of matter, radiation, or energy — cannot remain the same over time. Instead, it must either expand or contract, something initially derived independently by three separate people: Alexander Friedmann (1922), Georges Lemaitre (1927), and Howard Robertson (1929), and was later generalized by Arthur Walker (1936).

Right at around the same time, starting in 1923, observations began to show that the spirals and ellipticals in our sky were actually galaxies: “island universes” that were well outside of our own Milky Way. With new, more powerful measurements, we could determine that the farther away a galaxy was from us, the greater the arriving light in our instruments was redshifted, or observed at longer wavelengths, compared to the light that was initially emitted. It was as though the very act of journeying through space altered the wavelength of that traveling light.

But what, exactly, happens to the fabric of space itself while this process occurs? Is the space itself stretching, as though it’s getting thinner and stretched out? Is more space constantly being created, as though it were “filling in the gaps” that the expansion creates? This is one of the toughest things to conceive of in modern astrophysics. If we think hard about it, however, we’re capable of wrapping our heads around it. Let’s explore what’s going on.

The starting point of our conversation has to be general relativity: our modern theory of gravity first put forth by Einstein. General relativity, at its core, is a framework that relates two things that might not obviously be related:

the amount, distribution, and types of energy — including matter, antimatter, dark matter, radiation, neutrinos, and anything else you can imagine — that are present all throughout the Universe,

and the geometry of the underlying spacetime, including whether and how it’s curved and whether and how spacetime itself will evolve.

If we inhabited a completely empty Universe, or a Universe that contains nothing within it at all — no matter, radiation, or energy of any form — you’d get the flat, Newtonian-like space you’re intuitively used to: something that’s static, uncurved, and unchanging.

But what if we then considered the absolute simplest case of a non-empty Universe? If, instead, we were to put down a point mass in the Universe, we’d find out that space was curved in a particular way: Schwarzschild space. Any “test particle” that we’d put down onto our Universe would be compelled to flow toward that mass, following a particular trajectory.

And if we were to then make our physical situation just a little bit more complicated, by putting down a point mass that also rotates, we’d get space that’s curved in a more complex way: according to the rules of the Kerr metric. It will have an event horizon, but instead of a point-like singularity, the singularity will get stretched out into a circular, one-dimensional ring. Again, any “test particle” you put down will follow the trajectory laid out by the underlying curvature of space.

These spacetimes are clearly much more complicated than a spacetime that’s simply flat. However, they are still “static” in the sense that any distance scales you might include or measure — like the size of the event horizon or the distance between two arbitrary points within this spacetime — don’t change over time. If we could somehow “exit” a Universe with this spacetime and return to it later, whether a second, an hour, or a billion years later, the structure of this spacetime would be identical, irrespective of when we returned to it.

In spacetimes like these, there’s no cosmic expansion that’s present. There’s no change in the distance or the light-travel-time between any points within this spacetime. With just one (or fewer) sources of matter inside, and no other forms of energy, these “model Universes” really can be static.

But it’s a very different game when you choose not to put down isolated sources of mass or energy, but instead to fill your Universe, uniformly, with “stuff” everywhere. In fact, the two criteria we normally assume about our Universe, and which are strongly validated by large-scale observations, are called isotropy and homogeneity.

Isotropy tells us that the Universe is the same in all directions: everywhere we look on cosmic scales, no “direction” looks particularly different or preferred from any other.

Homogeneity, on the other hand, tells us that the Universe is the same in all locations: the same density, temperature, and expansion rate exist to better than 99.99% precision on the largest scales.

As far as we can tell, our Universe, on large cosmic scales, is indeed both isotropic and homogeneous.

Originally published on https://bigthink.com

COMING UP!!

(Saturday, May 18th, 2024)

"WHAT IS THE DARK UNIVERSE??"

[hellsbellschime]

Hello! :)

I’ve had some difficulty understanding a few things I’ve read in the anti-Dany tag. These are some points(?) I’ve seen Dany stans make that I feel might address my concerns, and I’d like to ask you about them, if that’s okay with you?

Why isn’t it reasonable of her to demand that the North kneel? She isn’t going to fight for a land that’s going to kick her out without any sworn oath of fealty. Wouldn’t this just be a typical occurrence?

The white walkers might be a threat to everyone but couldn’t Dany take her people back to Essos and wait for them (since they can’t cross the Narrow Sea)?

And in Season 7, after Dany found out Cersei had taken food from the Reach, didn’t she only burn Lannister resources instead of all the food? And even if she did, why is that wrong if she was only burning her enemies’ food? I don’t think she even knew about the upcoming war or what kind of problems would arise.

Well yes you're exactly right, Dany CAN do all of these things, she just can't claim to be a benevolent ruler while she does them.

If we're going by GoT's canon, then she can demand that the North kneel to her, but the only reason they are in immediate danger is because of her dragon, and she has repeatedly claimed to be the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. If she's making that claim, then she is also claiming responsibility for their safety. Similarly, even if the North is independent, she is claiming that the other kingdoms are hers to rule AND protect, so if that's the case then she still needs to be involved with the White Walker issue because it will inevitably become a problem for some of "her" kingdoms even if she doesn't intervene on behalf of the North.

And similarly, Dany can't take "her people" to Essos to wait out the threat because she has spent her entire character arc saying that the people of Westeros ARE her people. So yes, in theory she could just stay in Essos with the Dothraki and Unsullied and leave Westeros to be destroyed, but she can't call herself the rightful heir to the Iron Throne if she chooses to do that.

Game of Thrones also did a piss poor job of making this clear, but the issue with Dany burning the food is multifaceted, but is fundamentally driven by the fact that it's food. She had already clearly defeated the Lannister army, so there is no reason to be burning precious resources that the people of Westeros or HER MASSIVE ARMY could use. Again, this is something that she CAN choose to do, but she can't call herself benevolent or claim that she is looking out for the best interests of the people of Westeros when she does it. This is really the major sticking point between Dany stans and her critics, it's not about whether or not Dany is ABLE to do what she does, it's that she can't say that she is acting for the good of Westeros when these are the choices that she makes.

[iheartguyswithmachetes]

more twdg season 2 headcanons and baseless accusations (mostly luke)

- The first bit of the apocalypse Nick, Pete and Nick’s mom stayed with Luke and his family until it got overrun by walkers (twd season 2 esque) and then they hit the road and met Carver, so between being isolated on the farm and Carver’s camp they never *really* knew how bad things had gotten until they left (hence why eleven year old Clem who’s been out in the open with Christa so long is more fucking competent than half of them)

- Luke’s machete is actually a family heirloom/was gifted to him, might have his initials or a family name or something engraved on the handle

- Luke moved back home to his small town after college but def did an internship or at least tried to break into something related to his degree- I like to think he might have gone into Art Restoration or Curation

- Nick never had any siblings or cousins really, Pete might have been married once but kids never came of it, he might have gotten divorced when Nick was young and having to step up and be Nick’s father figure didn’t leave him a lot of time for his own family.

- On that note: Nick was always super close to Luke’s parents (and siblings?), having a mom who was probably a working mother he would spend a lot of dinners and sleepovers at Luke’s.

- If Luke does have siblings I can only picture him having sisters- maybe Nick just takes up that brother spot in my mind. If I had to be delulu about it Luke’s probably the middle child, high sense of independence, strong social skills, sharing behaviours etc. But I also think being the only boy in his family and growing up in what was probably a small southern town cultivated his whole leadership skills, even if he doesn’t like confrontation

- Sarah had a horse girl phase- or maybe was one when we meet her in the apocalypse. She also definitely did Kumon.

- Sarah’s mom died pre-apocalypse or in the earlier days, meaning Carlos was always very protective of her from early on and her having anxiety or PTSD as we see in the game clearly lead to him sheltering her but I think the death of her mom either pre or early apocalypse would also add to that

- I like to think that Carver pre apocalypse had a pretty shitty life where maybe he didn’t have a lot of power OR he had jobs where he had a bit of power and it kind of got to his head, like the teacher from The Breakfast Club for example. I think he saw the apocalypse as, obviously a bad thing, but also a way out of his menial life and an opportunity to have powers over others

- I don’t believe the Carver being Luke’s dad theory HOWEVER I do think that Luke’s dad was probably also a gruff n tuff older man, I don’t think he was on Carver’s level but I definitely think that Luke’s dad was a hard-ass southern man (hence “minor in agriculture to make the old man happy”) and I think that would also explain why Luke doesn’t like confrontation despite liking control and a leadership role, I don’t think his dad was abusive or anything and I think Luke probably had a good homelife but I also think that maybe there was a seed of resentment there and some ways that his dad was that was part of the reason why Luke, despite being shown to be conflict avoidant and a mediator “butted heads” with Carver so much and why they seemed to have such a weird beef going on

anyway these are baseless accusations to twdg season 2 characters

[lean-mean-demon-genevieve]

It so upsetting knowing she won the rebound girl lottery and she still act like this and promotes like this. Like I just don’t get what her point is with all of this why keep at something that isn’t anything and then put a storefront up? What business model is she following? who is advising? Why does she look like a news guest from 1978 in that video what is with those books? what is that shine? Why can’t she put words together? When did she get stupid? Like she wasn’t a bright bulb but since her turn on Walker she has lost like 30 IQ points! What is this woman’s point at the point why can’t she just spend money maybe do reality show if she need her own cash at least that would be honest why does she keep trying to pretend she has substance? Townn is literally nothing and I had to fight auto correct to even spell it here so it’s less than nothing. Do Jared’s fans really like her this much that she has to pretend to be doing a thing? Wouldn’t they like her if she just went to the spa everyday?

I have a lot of jumbled thoughts. My theory is that Gen thought her life was going to be more full of notoriety that was INDEPENDENT of Jared. And that is what Towwn represents to her and why she will not let it go. It feels important to pursue, but not for the reasons she is claiming. Gen comes from generational wealth and a land of nepotism opportunity. Add to that the signature Middle Aged White Feminist urge to be seen as Mom of the Year, but also not “just a mom,” while centering yourself in every cause…and you’ve got our gal.

If you’ve taken note of how many times she has straight up copied bits and jokes from Jared’s social media that he did with Jensen, how many times she has referenced being a perfectionist and Type A, mentioned that she went to Tisch, or has to constantly be improving her health, then it should be clear that Gen is competitive as all holy f**k. She doesn’t just want to be seen, she wants to be recognized. And she wants you to recognize what a great job she’s doing. AKA, somebody’s mom was a frosty ice queen who didn’t praise her enough and now she is making it everyone’s problem.

The sick part is that since she’s attached to Jared, she never has to do anything very well in order to be liked. She is well protected in this fandom by the full spectrum of casual onlooker to rabid stan. She can stutter and ramble and fidget until the organic cows come home. She is always going to have the “Jared’s Wife” pass to fall back on because fans want to be her. A lot of fans see her “awkward book nerd” shtick as relatable, endearing, and goofy. But that only gets her as far a fandom and that’s not good enough for Gen.

She does not care about the Spn fandom. She cares about building a brand because her acting career was a flop and she has been unable to get out of Jared’s shadow since they got married. I actually think she resents him a whole, whole lot but that’s maybe another post.

Gen is too competitive to just give up and too starved for attention and accolades, so she needs a platform to showcase herself while “doing it all” and then some. I mean, what do you think the (also flopped) Now and Gen blog was for? Don’t you get it? She’s a supportive wife, a mom of 3 young children, has dogs and a great big garden, exercises obsessively regularly, travels across the map, and makes time for the photo shoots and other public appearances ALL WHILE LITERALLY TRYING TO SAVE THE PLANET!!

I mean, wow…I could never. How does she do it?? She’s a superhero…the BEST. 🏆

[art-of-manliness]

The 10 Most Popular AoM Podcast Episodes of 2024 (So Far)

If you’re new to the AoM podcast, or maybe have missed a few episodes in the last six months, here’s a look at the 10 most popular episodes we’ve published so far this year. Hope you find some you really enjoy. Be sure to subscribe to the show to never miss a new episode; we’ve got some great guests coming in the second half of the year! #955: The Power of NEAT — Move a Little to Lose a Lot People often dismiss the efficacy of physical activity in losing weight, or think you have to do tons of exercise to get its effects. But Dr. James Levine explains that activity, even small movements, can, in fact, have a big impact on your health. #959: Come Alive Again by Having More Fun When was the last time you had fun? If it’s been a while, listen to my conversation with Catherine Price about why you need to put more fun in your life and what you can do to make that happen.  #968: The Secrets of Supercommunicators Looking to up your communication skills? Charles Duhigg provides some research-backed advice on how to become a “supercommunicator” so you can handle even the most difficult of conversations with ease.  #973: A Butler’s Guide to Managing Your Household Former professional butler Charles MacPherson offers lessons for regular joes on how to manage your household like it’s Downton Abbey, white gloves not required. One of my favorite bits of advice was creating a Butler’s Book for your home (here’s how to do it!). #972: Down With Pseudo-Productivity — Why We Need to Transform the Way We Work Regular guest Cal Newport always has some good thoughts to share, and in this episode, he discusses why you need to ditch mindless pseudo-productivity and embrace a more sustainable, humane, and fruitful way of working. #978: Want to Be Happy? Give Yourself Reasons to Admire Yourself Ryan Bush explains his theory that to heighten happiness and reduce depression, you have to give yourself reasons to admire yourself. #993: The Shadows Over Men’s Hearts and How to Fight Them Jon Tyson walks us through the sources of malaise in the lives of modern men, including despair, loneliness, unhealthy ambition, futility, and lust, and offers suggestions on how to fight them. #1,000: Rules for the Modern Man To commemorate the 1,000th episode of the AoM podcast, I brought back Walker Lamond of Rules for My Unborn Son fame to wax nostalgic about the internet back in the 2000s and discuss the rules we think every man should live by. This episode was a lot of fun! Highly recommend. #1,002: The Fascinating Differences Between Male and Female Friendships Evolutionary psychologist Jaimie Krems shares research on the differences between male and female friendships, including how men and women differ in friendship formation, friendship jealousy, and managing conflict within a friendship. #1,003: Books, Routines, and Habits: The Founders’ Guide to Self-Improvement Constitutional historian Jeffery Rosen shares the books and routines the Founding Fathers used for their personal development. Lots of inspiring takeaways from this episode.  Help support independent publishing. Make a donation to The Art of Manliness! Thanks for the support! http://dlvr.it/T9mkcV

[forsakenwitchery]

So since the synopsis for 1x13 has a lot of people worried (me included) I wanted to point out some things that hopefully indicate they aren't backtracking with Tom?.. Tagging @walker-extended-universe and @laf-outloud ‘cause I’m quietly reading you guys and I don’t think I’ve seen people mention this.

Pic 1: I've spent the last week editing a vid with guys of WIndy and I've started paying A LOT of attention to their hats since I had to combine scenes, and I've noticed that in the flashbacks when Abby starts suspecting Shane, the killer wears a pretty specific hat with a textured/braided band (I believe it’s called band, not ribbon?). Know who else wears it? Shane when Abby first sees him in Independence. Granted, in all the scenes after that he wears a different one with a plain smooth one. But still, he IS the owner of the killer's hat. :D And by this time, I've spent enough time editing WIndy to know I've never seen such a hat on Tom (he appears to own one hat with like a smooth two-layered band of sorts). Plus, the killer as of 1x09 has those mimic wrinkles near the lips that Shane has and Tom doesn't (unless he's smiling, and the killer wasn't smiling).

Pic 2: Another interesting thing that I've noticed is that they've reshot this scene because the angle and the face under the hat look a bit different in the pilot and in 1x09. Notice how in the pilot we got more of a closeup shot where you can’t see much of the hat and the killer doesn’t look like Shane + in 1x09 there’s more blood on the hand (and I think the blood pattern on the sleeve is a bit different as well?). It’s a bit of a prof deformation as a cosplayer, but I just tend to look very closely at makeup, costumes, all that. I think this means two things:

1) When they were shooting the pilot, they didn't know if the show would be picked up and haven't cast anyone as Shane. 2) For them to go and reshoot part of that scene with Timothy to show it for all but 2 seconds seems like a hell of a lot of extra hassle if they planned on going back to "yeah, Tom did it, Shane is a red herring". What seems more likely to you guys, that they had spent all that extra time recreating the killing scene because they had nothing better to do or because they maaaaaybe plan on showing it with the killer’s face fully visible, so they had to reshoot it with the actual culprit’s face? I’m betting on the second one.

And now my two cents on some theories and discussions I’ve already seen flying around, putting them under the cut.

Someone left a comment on my latest Tabby vid the other day saying they think that even if Shane killed Liam, Tom should have still known Shane did it from the start, and ummmm no, that's easily debunked by Tom being surprised when he sees Shane has a gun now and literally asking him, “what is this, you carry a gun now?”. In a room with just the two of them, so there was no potential audience for him to play to & it makes no sense for Tom to know Shane is a killer before Abby came to tell him.

The thing I've also noticed with WIndy is how the writers love to plant small details early on and then building upon them later on. I was genuinely surprised by the sheer amount of those small details while editing, almost nothing in WIndy comes out of nowhere just because the plot suddenly demands it. Like for example when Kate jokingly guessed that Hoyt bunked at the undertaker, and then when they needed a Jane Doe, Hoyt knew the undertaker always had an unknown body to sell. Or how Kai saw Kate receive a telegram early on, and many more things like that. With that in mind, they've told us at least twice this season that Tom repeatedly got blamed for things Shane did, so to me that seems like a setup for something similar with Gus' attack/Liam's murder.

Plus at this point... it would make zero sense for Tom to end up being this big bad. He was willing to get beaten up to "make something" of the town, he stopped Calian's execution, he went into the dust storm to save a stranger etc etc. Those are all acts of someone who CARES. Like who's capable of caring, not a cold-blooded killer. Not some sociopathic mastermind, and Tom would freaking have to be a total sociopath to kill Liam, shoot Abby and all of the sudden hurt Gus. Time and time again he tried to help others and was reluctant to hurt others (even indirectly with forbidding the opium den) unless they hurt him (then straight to the torture barn they go). Still, in no universe him ending up as THE antagonist makes sense. He's not the good guy, he's got a long way to go, but THE bad guy? Doesn't sit well with me. I hope they don’t ruin all the amazing buildup they’ve done.

The episode title also bothers me a lot, idkkkk hopefully they're aware Tom is a fan favorite, so killing him off would be like shooting themselves in the foot. Even with fanvids I see how much people are interested in content with Tom specifically, so he's really THE character that can potentially get more people interested in watching the show. I love the whole cast and all the characters dearly, but Tom and Kate became my two absolute favorites, with Tom specifically we got this amazing morally grey character and I just can't imagine WIndy without him, pretty sure I'm not the only one. Backtracking with him at this point for pure shock value would just ruin... well, not everything, but a lot.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. :D

[pinkhutia]

You know the other post the one you just avoided commenting on because you dipped into white power terf theory and recycled homophobia. I was very, very fucking clear on what you did and said as you tried to justify your hatred. So what wasn't clear?

i didnt intend to “avoid” commenting on it because i was focused on your original ask. your reply to the post on woc came across as an appeal to authority and dogma, and didn’t seem to make an independent argument on the theory itself. it didnt really go through my individual points, i dont think. i also still havent found alice walker’s retraction that you mentioned (again, i do not point this out facetiously)

approximating “terfism” with white power merely in plain words does not make the idea clear to me. how exactly is the reality of sex tied to white supremacy, to you? yes, i’ve read much on the “coloniality of gender” but those theorists (incl. the originator lugones) recognize sexual divisons among pre-colonial societies, too. their assessment of the european-centricity of modern gender roles resultant of colonialism does not negate sex-based oppression. the packaging of gender roles does not alter the underlying premise

feminism does indeed have horrible problems with racism—all strains of feminism do. this alone does not make a particular feminist ideology inherently racist, as virtually all ideological frameworks retain implicit bigotries which are being challenged daily from both followers and dissenters

[lol-jackles]

twitter /CWshows/status/1657127106545942532> So if all shows on CW are capped at 13 episodes, which Jared seemed ok with, does that mean the actors are exclusive during their time off or can they do other television projects? I wonder why they didn't run Walker and Independence end to end to make a traditional year's length? And, in your opinion, will it still be possible to reach syndication? Sorry. I just miss your opinions and voice in the conversations that are swirling around now.

Actors can work on other projects as long as it doesn't interfere with their OG shows. If actors started working on another project but gets a call that OG shows have additional filming like reshoots, then they are obligated to drop the new project and return to the OG show for those additional filming. It's where term "scheduling conflict" come from.

Yes it's still possible to reach syndication. We've seen 13 episodes before, on cable networks, it just took them 7 years instead of 4 years to reach syndication. Under the old model, getting a series solidly into syndication hinged on getting at least 88 so that local TV stations and cable networks can air the episodes daily from Monday to Friday.  If you don’t have enough episodes, you’ll start repeating too quickly.  Four or more seasons gives you at least five months of airtime.   When cable network changed the formula to 13-episode seasons, then it took 7 years to get enough episodes to land in syndication heaven. 

Streaming services changed the formula because it was more about offering bulk lists of titles.  So shows with 13 episodes per season is part of the new trend where streaming services are looking to increase their subscription count.  Having more shows means more opportunities to reach different sets of potential subscribers.  Networks will order 4 shows with 13 episodes instead of 2 shows with 22 episodes because, in theory, when the 4 shows are sold to the streaming service they have four times higher chance to attract somebody to subscribe to their service.  In theory.  And once streaming have fully integrated Advertisers in their business model, then networks and studios can now count on digital second-run syndication money for shows of almost any episodic total.

[walker-extended-universe]

What do you think of this? https://www.nerdsandbeyond.com/2023/02/22/walker-independence-season-1-episode-13-season-finale-let-him-hang-photos-released/ Do you think they’ll kill off Tom and if they did would it make sense? Ok Tom’s gone, Abby and the rest of the gang are going to stay to fight every Davidson that comes to town?

(link)

Gosh these photos are pretty. They tell us nothing but they sure are pretty.

To answer your question: I don't think they will kill Tom and I think it would be a big mistake if they did.

If they did kill Tom, I think that would be the writers assuming they wouldn't get a second season. They've given Tom too much development and care just to end his story here. I think he's on the verge of breaking away from his family and joining the good fight and the only way I would accept it is if a member of his family kills him for being too rebellious. Because, as you said, the only course of action from there is for Abby and the gang to fight the rest of the Davidsons forever.

I think they're going to suspect Tom is the bad guy as long as Gus is in danger and then, once Gus wakes up and clears up the misunderstanding, there's going to be a rush to help Tom fight Shane and bring him to justice. After that, Tom joins the gang and works as an inside man for them, subtly working against his family and decreasing their hold on Independence.

At least, that's what I would like to see.

[autisticlenaluthor]

I feel like every single ✨️ romantic ✨️ relationship in The Girls on the Bus is on Thin Ice. So...which relationship(s) do you think will make it to the end of the season?

a) Lola x Josie (aka multi-tasking organizer)

b) Sadie x Malcolm (aka Loafers)

c) Kimberlyn x Eric (aka boyfriend, now fiancé, wait no-- husband)

c) Grace x Charlie (aka retired husband)

*Bonus*

d) Sadie x Walker

i fully agree, every single episode has me stressed

lola and josie i don’t think will make it. my prediction is that once josie finds out lola slept with someone else, she’s going to be hurt and end things. in the last episode josie seemed to be more into the genuine relationship side of things rather than the situationship they’d had going on previously. so the fact that as far as we know, lola hasn’t even told josie about the hook up?? i don’t see that working out.

sadie and malcom i feel like will end up together. personally i don’t ship them. i’m rooting so hard for sadie to be queer even though im not sure melissa would ever willingly play a queer character. but my own feelings aside, sadie is the main girl, and she has history with them. given the formula the show is following with the whole ‘will they won’t they’ slowburn and ‘forbidden love’ tropes, i think that’s going to be what the writers have gone with.

kimberlyn and eric i feel like are kind of doomed. especially with how things started going after they got married. they just never seem to be on the same page. i think it was grace (or lola??) who pointed out that eric always makes kimberlyn’s big moments about him, which doesn’t make for a good dynamic. especially since in the marriage ep, kimberlyn was already getting kinda fed up with it. in this past episode, we’ve seen kimberlyn really start to grow into herself and fully stand up for what she believes in and what she wants for herself. like she’s putting herself and her career goals in front of her loyalty to Liberty Direct News and she isn’t standing for anyone’s racist bullshit. like the growth from “at least liberty is honest about their racism” to fully wanting to leave the network is incredible. anyways, my theory (and hope) is she’ll realize that in other elements, she deserves better. i think it would be really interesting if she met someone on the campaign trail or went through this period fully independently. if we get a s2, i think showcasing her on her own this season would be really interesting before diving into another relationship after she’s done some healing and growing on her own.

as for grace and charlie im not sure. i’d assumed they were already divorced tbh, their dynamic had confused me??? so i dont really know what i think for them.

ANYWAY the short answer is i think sadie and malcom will make it to the end, even if it doesn’t happen this season (and even though it’s not what i want lol)

and UGH sadie and walker would be such an interesting relationship. sadie’s whole thing with walker is so fascinating because sadie seems completely in love with her but she’s also doing all this work with grace to essentially expose her, and it seems like that would bring her down (?)

i think a sadie/walker relationship storyline would be so insanely fun and interesting to watch for so many reasons. unfortunately i don’t think it’ll happen, but god i wish

[brightlotusmoon]

From Nick Walker on Facebook:

"The Neurodiversity Concept Was Developed Collectively: An Overdue Correction on the Origins of Neurodiversity Theory."

New brief article by me and fellow neurodiversity scholars Monique Botha, Robert Chapman, Morénike Giwa Onaiwu, Steven Kapp, and Abs Stannard Ashley, published in the academic journal Autism.

Now the growing number of scholars who are aware that the concept of neurodiversity was developed collectively, and that Judy Singer's claims to have invented it herself are false, finally have a peer-reviewed source to cite.

So, yes, you can stop citing Singer as the originator of the concept of neurodiversity (she wasn't even the first to publicly publish the actual term neurodiversity; that was Harvey Blume). Increasingly important, not only in the interest of scholarly and historical accuracy, but also in light of Singer's history of ableism, plagiarism, abusive treatment of fellow scholars, and very public transphobia.

Let's get the truth out there and recognize the concept of neurodiversity as a product of collective creativity rather than continuing to falsely attribute it to a single unethical scholar.

_

[ausetkmt]

29 Physical And Emotional Ways Childhood Trauma Can Show Up In Adults, From Those Who Have Lived It

If you or someone you know grew up in a difficult home environment, it can be common for people to develop certain personality traits or "survival techniques" during this time — which can impact their adult lives in the long run.

So when I saw that Reddit user u/ThatRamKid recently asked, "What's a sign of childhood trauma?" I thought it would be helpful to share some of the answers to see if others might resonate. Here's what some respondents had to say:

1."Hyper independence. You can’t be let down if you never ask for anything in the first place."

—u/caseofgrapes

"This is me. A huge stress of mine. People always try to compliment it and say, 'Oh, you're so independent.' It has some positives for sure — but everything is always on me. Everything is on my shoulders and nobody else's. If I fuck up, I have no one to help. It's exhausting."

–u/rippedloser Coroimage / Getty Images

2."Difficulty trusting, low self-esteem, and fears of being judged."

—u/ReynaAllman

3."Completely shutting down when criticized or corrected. It took me years to get past this."

—u/Ambiguity_Aspect

"Yes! I always feel like I have to explain myself because I think people wouldn’t criticize or correct me if they knew what I was thinking."

—u/notthebestusername12

4."In some cases, excessive people-pleasing tendencies."

—u/paul_rudds_drag_race

"Yep, if anyone is interested in this, google fawning. It’s an alternative to fight/flight/freeze. Not an expert, just a survivor, but from what I understand/experienced, it manifests when a victim can’t get out of an unsafe situation and ends up people-pleasing as an attempt to avoid setting off their abuser or minimize the extent of the abuse."

—u/kriscrossroads

"From Pete Walker's Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving:

'Traumatized children often over-gravitate to one of these response patterns to survive, and as time passes these four modes become elaborated into entrenched defensive structures ...

RESPONSE (MECHANISM) Defense (mechanism)

FIGHT (RAGE to be safe) Narcissistic (control to connect)

FLIGHT (PERFECT to be safe) Obsessive/Compulsive (perfect to connect)

FREEZE (HIDE to be safe) Dissociative (no way I'll connect)

FAWN (GROVEL to be safe) Codependent (merge to connect)'

"I'm also not an expert, just a survivor. My personal theory is that each response mechanism maps onto the big emotions (anger, disgust/fear, sadness, and joy deferred).

"A quick lesson from years of therapy: If you don't learn how to respect and honor your emotions by letting them speak in healthy ways internally, then they are bound to morph into pathologies that end up popping out sideways or backward socially."

—u/UberSeoul Morsa Images / Getty Images

5."I am always scared that people are mad at me. Always."

—u/goaskalexdotcom

6."Trouble forming relationships."

—u/CavalloScuro

7."Getting disproportionately frustrated at themselves for small accidents such as spilling things and accidentally breaking something. What happens is a lot of these people were abused as kids for doing these things, so as adults, when these things happen, their brains overload their systems with fear and anxiety, and frustration can be a secondary emotion to that. This is basically a conditioned response because your brain associates these accidents with imminent danger. This is why therapy is so important for people who had shit childhoods, especially during their developing years. I had no idea this was a thing until I went to therapy, but when my therapist explained this to me, it made so much sense. And now when these things happen, I tend to laugh it off."

—u/Mirraco323

"Yep, as a kid, I was never allowed to make mistakes. Received bad grades? I was grounded until the next report card. Dropped a glass? I was berated for being sloppy and careless (exact words). Lost something? I'm also sloppy and careless.

"I went through this my entire childhood and lived with my parents off and on through college. In my first two jobs after college, I had managers who did the same thing, so I just assumed I was the fuckup. I started my current job right about a year ago, and I found a mistake I had made a few months back. I went straight to my boss (it could potentially be a costly mistake) and his response was, 'Thank you for letting me know, and thank you for tracking everything down for me.' I kind of pushed to make sure he understood that I fucked up, and he said, 'Yeah, it's OK. We're all human, and as your boss, it was my job to make sure you understood what was asked. I didn't, and you made an understandable mistake. And now you've done everything in your power to help fix it. I'm proud of you.'

"I held it together for the remaining three hours of my shift, but I burst into tears the second I got in the car to go home. I have never had someone treat me with such kindness and actually recognize that I didn't make that mistake on purpose. And he also recognized that I tried my hardest to make things easier for him and that I wanted to work together to fix things."

—u/Totally_Not_Anna Westend61 / Getty Images/Westend61

8."Always saying sorry. Feeling guilty for speaking up."

—u/Clear-Penalty339

9."Choosing partners who don't support, cherish, or value you. Choosing jobs and relationships that reflect the lack of empathy and neglect that you grew up with."

—u/strawman_11

10."Unable to forgive themselves for small mistakes."

11."Oversharing when you haven’t known the person long. Or the opposite, where you don’t open up to anybody. Two extremes."

—u/agbellamae

"What about both? Oversharing with total strangers but not opening up to friends/family."

—u/Imnotpoopingrn

"That’s me, but not with in-person strangers — only online strangers, where I can be anonymous."

—u/I-love-rainbows

12."Having a hard time showing emotion."

—u/-LavenderFlower-

"This, and sometimes having a hard time even describing how or why you feel the way you do."

—u/jillyszabo

"This is a big one. A side effect of emotionally numbing yourself, or depersonalization."

—u/Randomn355

13."Hypervigilance."

—u/StuEdin

"Survival technique. The kind where you know a parent is going to fly off the handle by the sound the floor makes when they walk."

—u/Ambiguity_Aspect

"Not just parents — I have it from severe school bullying. My parents are great.

"When I eat, I naturally end up facing the entrance of whatever room I'm in; I stand with my back to the wall on the metro; I really, really don't like people standing directly behind me, etc. This probably manifests differently from family abuse stuff, but it's definitely a thing. Mine is because kids would sneak up behind me and stab pencil lead into my back and stuff, or staples, while at lunch or whatever, so I ended up getting horse brain and freaking out when someone's directly behind me."

—u/BlatantConservative Maki Nakamura / Getty Images

14."Scared of conflict to the point where you avoid it at all costs, because you're certain that if it happens, the other person will hate you or it will end horribly. You’ve never seen people calmly sit down and discuss their emotions in a loving way, so that world doesn’t exist for you."

—u/blushbell

15."The ability to stay calm in emergencies or chaotic situations."

—u/Glass_Command_5432

"Ahh, that last one got me. When shit hits the fan, I am almost always calm, but when things are just fine...crippling anxiety about what could go wrong, LOL."

—u/twitchytortoise

16."Peacekeeping. A kid doesn't realize that their parent (mom, in my case) is an emotionally abusive asshole. All I knew is, I didn't want people to be so mad at each other. I think my life would have been better if I hadn't talked them out of divorce."

—u/BridgetteBane

"My parents fought constantly. Verbal abuse at its finest. As the oldest, I was the peacekeeper. Then I became an unwilling 'counselor' for my mom in my early teens and a whipping boy for my stepdad. These two should never have been together, and our lives would have been better had they divorced."

—u/Tiny_Teach_5466 Photoalto / Getty Images/PhotoAlto

17."Feeling bad just for existing."

—u/thatdrunkbetch

18."Perfectionism. This has been a hard lesson for me to learn. I just always thought I was bad at everything or 'lazy,' when, in fact, I deal with a crippling level of perfectionism."

—u/still_hate_pancakes

19."Extreme self-cringe. Doubting if what you said was the right thing. Doubting if you acted the right way, or behaved the right way in a social setting. Asking someone several times if you did something correctly. Zoning out because you randomly remembered a traumatic childhood memory, low self-esteem, lack of confidence."

20."No or few good memories."

—u/HypnoticBurden

"I feel amazed when someone remembers every detail of their childhood, all their schoolteachers' names from grades 1 through 12. My early years are mostly haze."

—u/GREASYROOFTOP

21."An adult acting childlike. People think it's cringe, but age regression is a trauma response. You can especially see this if you've ever been to a psych ward. People are clinging to blankets and stuffed animals. Childhood was probably the last time they existed without being traumatized."

—u/dinosanddais1

22."Childish activities become almost like treats. People can just enjoy watching things from their childhood or playing games independent of trauma, but it is incredibly common for people with trauma to want to relive the childhood they lost when they are in a safer environment."

23."Being an 'empath.' You actually have conditioned yourself to be highly attuned to micro changes that indicate negativity you need to look out for."

—u/OkJellyfish6400

24."Constant dark humor or self-deprecating humor. People might think you're really funny and forgiving, but sometimes they are both just coping mechanisms."

—u/IKickedASmurf

25."Being insecurely attached to friends and romantic partners."

26."Overexplaining."

—u/veronicagh

"Justifying your thoughts and actions in your head as if preparing for someone to pop in and demand an explanation."

—u/Anonymous7056

27."Constantly feeling that you need approval from other people."

—u/StriveForGreat1017

28."No eye contact. I know because even at the age of 45, I always struggle with this."

29."Someone once told me, 'Your parents shouldn't be your first bullies,' and holy FUCK, that rocked me. One sign you can notice in yourself that I didn't realize until I started therapy: You don't have physical sensations when feeling. Everything is just like...mental? It's hard to explain, but happiness is supposed to exist somewhere physically. Not every emotion is supposed to be represented by your permanent vague chest tension. Wild!"

"Another sign: You rarely, if ever, talk about yourself socially. I ask a shit ton of questions of people, and I am happy to listen to them and hear their problems, but I don't share much of myself with anyone. It makes it hard for me to deepen relationships because I don't practice vulnerability. I don't think people want to hear from me."

—u/AmbienWalrusTime

Are there other signs of childhood trauma that weren't mentioned above? If so, tell us what they are in the comments below.

Note: Some responses have been edited for length and/or clarity.

If you or someone you know is struggling with substance abuse, you can call SAMHSA’s National Helpline at 1-800-662-HELP (4357) and find more resources here.

Dial 988 in the US to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. The Trevor Project, which provides help and suicide-prevention resources for LGBTQ youth, is 1-866-488-7386. Find other international suicide helplines at Befrienders Worldwide (befrienders.org).

The National Alliance on Mental Illness helpline is 1-888-950-6264 (NAMI) and provides information and referral services; GoodTherapy.org is an association of mental health professionals from more than 25 countries who support efforts to reduce harm in therapy.

[90363462]

Kanye West Reportedly Blamed Rihanna For Domestic Abuse During Letterman Interview

Walker

November 06, 2022 12:52 PM PST

More controversial comments from Kanye West are coming to light.

via: The Wrap

Netflix and David Letterman’s production company edited out comments by Kanye “Ye” West that referenced Nazis and blamed Rihanna for her own domestic abuse during a 2019 interview with the comedian for his talk show, multiple audience members at the taping told TheWrap.

The comments were made during a wide-ranging interview taped before a live audience for Season 2 of the comedian’s Netflix talk show “My Next Guest Needs No Introduction With David Letterman.”

Audience members Noah Reich and David Maldonado of Los Angeles told TheWrap they were sitting in the center front row of a local theater in January 2019 when West, who has since legally changed his name to Ye, repeated right-wing conspiracy theories, observed that liberals treated anyone wearing a red pro-Trump cap “like they were Nazis” and noted that Rihanna, a former victim of domestic abuse, must have done something to deserve what happened to her.

These comments were largely not included in the version that has streamed on Netflix, according to audience members at the taping.

“It was shocking to see that Kanye West could share harmful alt-right beliefs, conspiracy theory after conspiracy and misogynistic beliefs about women for the majority of the interview and end up with an edit that removed all those items in favor of celebrity fluff content,” Reich told TheWrap.

Some of the aired episode was devoted to Letterman discussing and trying on the rapper’s Yeezy clothes and shoes and the rapper’s Sunday Service song-and-prayer gatherings. The show did include one comment about liberals bullying then-President Donald Trump supporters as well as some #MeToo discussion.

Other Ye comments that were edited out included a rant about how an unnamed music executive friend – whom Reich and Maldonado suspected was R. Kelly – got “MeToo-ed” and how West himself could be “MeToo-ed,” they said. The rapper also repeatedly referenced a Hollywood power structure that he suggested was behind the #MeToo movement, which Reich said struck him as a reference to Jewish people. 

Reich and Maldonado said they heard Ye complain that the media always seemed to support women over men when misconduct allegations surfaced. As one example, Maldonado recalled that Ye complained that “Chris Brown’s career is basically over and you have Rihanna and everyone took her side. She must have done something to merit what happened to her.” In 2009, singer Chris Brown pleaded guilty to a felony assault charge after a brutal attack on his then-girlfriend, Rihanna.

The fact that some of Ye’s comments didn’t make the cut first surfaced in late October in a newsletter service by writer Elad Nehorai.

The Wrap could not independently verify Ye’s words at the Jan. 14, 2019 taping at the Nate Holden Performing Arts Center. Netflix did not provide a copy of the tape or a transcript of the entire interview when asked. Audience members were prohibited from recording the live taping, attendees said. Representatives listed for West on IMDb and elsewhere did not respond to requests for comment.

Letterman’s Worldwide Pants, Inc., producer of “My Next Guest,” told TheWrap in a written statement that the series was “an edited conversation show” and shot for more than five hours over two days with West and then edited down to a 55-minute episode.

Sponsored Content

[evoldir]

Fwd: Postdoc: UExeter.PopulationGenomics

Begin forwarded message: > From: evoldir@evol.biology.mcmaster.ca > Subject: Postdoc: UExeter.PopulationGenomics > Date: 12 August 2024 at 05:26:02 BST > To: rdmpage@gmail.com > > > > Population genomics postdoc at the University of Exeter: ‘Solving the > Pangenome Paradox’ > > The post > > We seek a Postdoctoral Research Associate or Postdoctoral Research Fellow > to participate in the project ‘Solving the Pangenome Paradox’ which > will use cutting-edge methods in population genetics and genomics > to estimate the selective effects of accessory genes in bacterial > pangenomes. This Leverhulme funded post involves collaboration with > Michiel Vos (Penryn) and three project partners: Adam Eyre-Walker > (Sussex), Ed Feil (Bath) and Sion Bayliss (Bristol). The successful > applicant will make use of available whole genome data to quantify > the presence and diversity of accessory genes in an existing set of > bacterial whole genome sequences and co-develop population genetics > models to estimate their selective effects. This role could involve > travel across the UK between the teams. It will be a hybrid role based > in Penryn (Cornwall) , although there may be the possibility for remote > working based anywhere in the UK. > > About you > > Applicants will possess a relevant PhD or equivalent, or MSc or equivalent > (please view the job descriptions) and possess specialist knowledge, > specifically related to statistical modelling, bioinformatics, population > genetics and evolutionary theory. The successful applicant is expected > to both be able to work independently and to collaborate with the PI > and three project partners. You are able to take initiative, critically > evaluate data and research questions and answers and to disseminate work > both verbally (in group meetings and scientific meetings) and written > (in manuscripts and for outreach activities). > > Further information > > Please see the full job advert at: > > https://ift.tt/C9NmgQ3 > > Michiel Vos, m.vos@exeter.ac.uk. > > The closing date for completed applications is 21st August > 2024. Interviews are expected to take place on or shortly after the > 2nd September. > > Michiel Vos > Senior Lecturer in Evolutionary Microbiology > European Centre for Environment and Human Health > Environment and Sustainability Institute > University of Exeter > Penryn, U.K. > > "Vos, Michiel"