This... sure is a blog. Fuck if I even know what's on it anymore. Let me know if you want anything tagged, and feel free to talk to me about anything if you want. Icon by vehementmoth/scryptix
I love this part of the Glass Onion because you can look at them and instantly know (even if this was the starting scene of the movie without the puzzles and whatnot) *exactly* what kind of people they are
You place the piece of wood that you want to bend in a chamber (usually just a long pipe with lots of room) and once it has completely heated up to temperature of the steam you take it out and bend it into a jig that holds the shape while it cools. Usually this requires âover-bendingâ by about 10% because it will spring back some even after it has completely cooled.
There is quite a bit of skill in getting the wood hot enough (without cooking it) and (without burning yourself) bending it to a shape that will spring back into the shape you really wanted.
I also think that the strength gap is at least partially manufactured women would in fact be stronger overall if little girls were encouraged to do physically taxing games and activities and eat their fill while theyâre growing vs having to constantly diet and be sedentary indoors (or god forbid do intense cardio while under-eating). The amount of adult women honestly afraid to lift weights bc they think theyâll get bulky as though bulking isnât a full time job that athletes have to spend all their time on and anyone on earth gets shredded from just using their adult muscles for their intended purpose, girl your bone density đĽ
if you say women are intentionally nerfed from birth in 2026 people look at you like youâre insane and start condescendingly telling you about how women are just better at different things (but not during their periods haha) but this was a completely basic feminist talking point I grew up with like âgirls can do it too! [shot of little girls climbing and running with boys]â nickelodeon commercial tier base level I hate it how is everyone suddenly dumber than the average 7 year old
One of the most common ways you preserve pork without refrigeration is keeping it in really salty water. This makes the pork borderline inedible because itâs so salty. What you donât see in medieval fantasy is people soaking their meat in water for a bit before they cook it.
Thatâs also a reason to boil your meat though. Like yeah meat tastes better if you sear it first but sometimes youâve gotta get that salt out.
Also medieval peasants had more meat than youâd think because of these preservation methods. You can feed a pig scraps for the whole year and then butcher it at the start of winter and preserve the meat. Because of this they also often had access to lard.
Medieval peasants also didnât eat chicken very often. Thatâs a source of eggs. If youâre lucky enough to own a cow itâs also unlikely youâd eat it unless itâs on its way out anyways. Thatâs a good source of milk. Itâs more advantageous to keep a cow or chicken alive than to eat them.
These days chicken is usually the cheapest form of meat available. If someone is eating a chicken in a medieval setting though itâs either because they didnât need that chicken anymore or because theyâre rich enough to have chickens for eating.
If weâre talking mutton, European sheep are more often kept for wool or milk while middle eastern or African sheep are more often kept for eating. Europeans would of course eat sheep sometimes but itâs another one of those cases where it makes more sense to keep the animal alive rather than eating it.
Fat from a fat tailed sheep makes for good cooking fat if your setting is more middle eastern or North African inspired. European settings would prefer butter, lard, or olive oil depending on where exactly they are.
Goats werenât super popular in Europe during medieval and ancient times. Very common in the Middle East and North Africa though both for milk and for meat.
A cow or ewe must have a calf or lamb every year to produce milk. Half of those offspring will be male, and thus will not produce milk. Ergo they were eaten, because you only need one bull or ram for a much larger number of breeding females.
The limiting factor for livestock keeping in the medieval period was winter fodder--there was enough summer grazing for the spring births in fallow fields that they fertilized with their manure , but not enough hay and grazing to get them through the winter. So the lambs--all the males and some of the females--would be butchered in the fall. A bull calf might be butchered as veal (or "baby beef", depending on timing) its first fall or might be over-wintered and butchered as beef the following fall. A few of the older ewes would be butchered as mutton, replaced with female lambs from the spring births. A female calf would be traded, sold, or kept as a replacement.
Similarly, half of the chicks born would be male, destined for spring/early summer butchering. (Or caponed, castrated, though that's much more difficult with a bird.) Chicken is a lean meat, though, and rather tough in a free-range bird, so it was usually stewed rather than roasted. Capon was a bit of a luxury food due to the difficulty of castrating them. Geese were much more popular due to the fattier meat.
Pork was plentiful due in part to the large size of a sow's litter. Over-winter one sow, and you get eight piglets or so, much more than a cow's single calf or a ewe's one to four lambs. Even if you didn't keep your own sow, buying piglets to raise and fatten was common. Most medieval pigs would forage rather than being fed scraps--hence the ubiquity of swineherd as a humble occupation.
I saw a comment on your blog that says 'the way you eat does not cause diabetes'...are you able to expand on that or provide a source I could read? I've been told by doctors that my pre-diabetes was due to weight gain because I get more hungry on my anti psychotics and I'd like to fact check what they've told me! Thank you so much!
There are a lot more factors at play in diabetes â more complicated than âI had a cupcake at lunch.â
Pre-diabetes was rejected as a diagnosis by the World Health Organization (although it is used by the US and UK) - the correct term for the condition is impaired glucose tolerance. Approximately 2% of people with "pre-diabetes" go on to develop diabetes per year. You heard that right - TWO PERCENT. Most diabetics actually skip the pre-diabetic phase.
There are currently no treatments for pre-diabetes besides intentional weight loss. (Hmm, that's convenient, right?) There has yet to be evidence that losing weight prevents progression from pre-diabetes to T2DM beyond a year. Interestingly, drug companies are trying to persuade the medical world to start treating patients earlier and earlier. They are using the term âpre-diabetesâ to sell their drugs (including Wegovy, a weight-loss drug). Surgeons are using it to sell weight loss surgery. Everyoneâs a winner, right? Not patients. Especially fat patients.
Check out these articles:
Prediabetes: The epidemic that never was, and shouldnât be
The war on âprediabetes' could be a boon for pharmaâbut is it good medicine?
Also - I love what Dr. Asher Larmie @fatdoctorUK has to say about T2DM and insulin resistance, so here's one of their threads I pulled from Twitter:
1ď¸âŁ You can't prevent insulin resistance. It's coded in your DNA. It may be impacted by your environment. Studies have shown it has nothing to do with your BMI.
2ď¸âŁ The term "pre-diabetes" is a PR stunt. The correct term is impaired glucose tolerance (or impaired fasting glucose) which is sometimes referred to as intermittent hyperglycemia. It does not predict T2DM. It is best ignored and tested for every 3-5yrs.
3ď¸âŁ there is no evidence that losing weight prevents diabetes. That's because you can't reverse insulin resistance. You can possibly postpone it by 2yrs? Furthermore there is evidence that those who are fat at the time of diagnosis fair much better than those who are thin.
4ď¸âŁ Weight loss does not reverse diabetes in the VAST majority of people. Those that do reverse it are usually thinner with recent onset T2DM and a low A1c. Only a tiny minority can sustain that over 2yrs. Weight loss does not improve A1c levels beyond 2 yrs either.
5ď¸âŁ Weight loss in T2DM does not improve macrovascular or microvascular health outcomes beyond 2 years. In fact, weight loss in diabetics is associated with increased mortality and morbidity (although it is not clear why). Weight cycling is known to impacts A1c levels.
6ď¸âŁ Weight GAIN does NOT increase the risk of cardiovascular OR all causes mortality in diabetics. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that it's better to be fat and diabetic than to be thin and diabetic.
Dr. Larmie cites 18 peer reviewed journal articles (most from the last decade) that are included in their webinar on the subject, linked below.
He is absolutely copying you, and cuddling, and doing the slow close of eyes that is a cat kiss! #this is one very happy cat #i hope the two of you have many years of harmony and happiness
A new study published online today, April 25, in the scientific journal Science provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is nat
From the article:
âIf you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that weâre failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture,â said Penny Langhammer, lead author of the study and Executive Vice President of Re:wild. âWhat we show with this paper is that conservation is, in fact, working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It is clear that conservation must be prioritized and receive significant additional resources and political support globally, while we simultaneously address the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, such as unsustainable consumption and production.â
This massive meta analysis (for those not familiar, a study analyzing the results of many studies on similar topics) found that the vast majority of conservation efforts show much much better results than doing nothing. In many cases, biodiversity loss was not only stopped but reversed.
This shows that conservation efforts really work and money invested is put to very good use. Legally protecting endangered species really works, restoring habitat really works, removing invasive species really works, returning land to Indigenous communities works. All of the blood, sweat, and tears being poured into protecting the natural world has been making a real, big, tangible, difference on a global scale.
We fixed it. We did fix it and we can fix it and we are fixing it and we WILL fix it!!!
Forty years ago there were zero condors in the wild.
There are over 300 condors now, free and wild and breeding by themselves without our help.
We did that. We did. Lots of people said "that's stupid, you won't succeed" but people made condor puppets and they said "fuck you we're gonna try anyway" and they fed the babies and raised them up wild and did their best with their big human brains and human cooperation and WE FIXED IT!!!!
YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST GENERATION TO CARE.
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO CARES.
IT IS NOT HOPELESS.
WE CAN FIX IT!!!!
*sigh* Yeah, the big xylophone @marimbistchick - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
areudirty
gummygunk
jbbartram-illu
prguitarman
