they are sexually mature at ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OLD.
their (live!) young gestate for. wait for it. eight to eighteen (??) YEARS. can have up to 10 at a time. good grief.
longest lifespan of any vertebrate, up to five hundred years
toxic flesh
has giant eyes but is usually blind because of a weird little crustacean that's evolved to live on and eat their eyes. this doesn't seem to bother them much.
lives in deep cold water and has the lowest swim speed and tail-beat frequency for its size across all fish species. just generally lives life in extreme slow motion
largest genome of any shark
eats everything including moose and polar bears
ma'am you are delightfully strange and I'm privileged to share a planet with you
Rewatched S2 in its entirety AND reread the book for the first time since S2 aired, and I am more convinced than ever that
The Book of Life has been in the bookshop this whole time
Therefore it burned along with the shop in S1
Adam "reset" the world with the beautiful innocence of a semi-omnipotent, 100% mischievous child, and everything in S2 is being viewed through a child's lens
(Hence the absolutely bonkers minisodes, missing characters, and overall unreliable narrator vibe of S2, which I'm sure will not actually get explained in 90 minutes, unfortunately)
Adam didn't quite fix that one extremely important, very specific book properly, and the butterfly effect is only now being seen/felt
(The butterfly effect is actually mentioned in the book as something Adam is aware of)
Rambling Reasons, in no particular order, under the cut:
The minisodes are great fun, but definitely on the absurd side, which would track with a child who wrote a book about detective pirates and dinosaurs and spaceships. The minisodes read as though they're stories in a book, and as though someone is trying to "fix" things
The book emphasizes Adam being really unhappy about both sides "messing about" with people's lives and in the process making the world worse
Something that was blatantly done by Aziraphale in S2 (and which Nina and Maggie called out)
The book mentions Crowley having the ability to see people's desires in their heads, and the book also mentions that Adam basically mind-read the entire saga in Crowley's head on the tarmac at the air base
Which would explain the "married" vibe from Aziracrow in S2, because Adam read their minds and was like "yeah that tracks"
Might also explain the completely random Gabriel/Beelzebub storyline too, because Adam looked at Aziracrow and was like "10/10 solution, let's make this an institutional problem with the only other occult/ethereal entities I've ever met in person"
Maggie and Nina were both cast as nuns in that convent in S1, but if Adam willed himself to no longer be the antichrist, is that convent even still there? Did he recast them into other fates than being a nun? I know we got fourth-wall explanations for the recasting but I don't buy it, not with the weird things like Maggie being immune to angelic suggestion
It's oddly coincidental to me that Nina owns a coffee shop with the name "death" in it, and Maggie's nun character died in S1 (and also asked Mr. Young if he wouldn't prefer coffee to tea)
While Maggie owns a record shop and one of the lines Nina's actress says in S1 emphasizes "There were lots of records, we were very good at keeping records" and also asks if the infant antichrist will remember her
Because a child might equate that to vinyls and be like "oh, records. cool." *adds record shop alongside the restored bookshop*
Anyway, there's more but that's the gist. S2 was even more uncanny valley than I remembered and the book was even better.
It's a shame we probably aren't going to get most of the questions I have about S2 answered in an abbreviated S3, but it's fun to speculate.
The Good Omens Prime account posted a new poster today, and Peter Anderson Studio decided to give us a ring.
Of course we had to answer the call... Would be rude not to.
Translation and explanation for the poster is below the cut.
So first off for those that are curious, this is nowhere near the Angelic trial script found in season 2. On closer inspection, the symbols seemed to be some sort of repeating flourish font. So we had to find the font.
I spent 3 whole US dollars on this terrible decorative filigree.
Now all that's left is to type out every single letter by hand one by one, and presto change-o
So what mysteeeeeerious secrets have we revealed?
"dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."Â
If that quote looks familiar to you, you're probably a graphic designer. This text is a mixture of standard placeholder Latin, corrupted fragments, and keyboard-mashing, a literal translation is impossible. However, we can translate the source phrases from which these rings were built.
In professional typesetting, Lorem Ipsum text is meant to simulate the "look" of a document without the "distraction" of meaning. If we translate the intended meaning of the recognizable Latin roots, the inscription reads like a fragmented philosophical treatise on pain and duty.
Most of these rings are derived from the same sentence:
"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velitâŚ"
"There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is painâŚ"
Ring 1 (outside)
elit sed do adipiscin do eius modg elit exe adipiscing elit adipiscing elit rcit- tion ind of orem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing
Ring 2
orem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit sed do eiusmod ugimt sit vo(vd)luptatem nda dbc iueq sunt in culpa qui dolor incia
These rings focus on dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod.
"âŚpursuing excellence, but also through the work and pain of the moment. [Corrupted gibberish: dugimt, dbc] âŚthey are in fault who [fail in their] duty through a weakness of mind."
Ring 3
ipsum mnnv dnmvn dfgnkda iem io sum dolor sit amet consecti dolor ea mc vemo cillu volu m dolor eenia i voluus m âHeart broken World Broken Whatâs the point of anything?â di
This ring contains the most corruption
Recognizable Roots: veniam, illum, voluptas.
"âŚ[Gibberish]⌠pain itself⌠[Gibberish]⌠that piece of pleasure⌠[Gibberish]⌠Heart broken World Broken Whatâs the point of anything?"
Ring 4
Amet consectetur adipiscing elit sed do eius ____lee dolor in reprmin i fmm ve n iekjd eo ore voluptate sum dolor sit
Ring 5
adipiscing elit sed do eiusmod tempor cu quip ex ea comms ltmn jrew t r t e f nb ai nima veniam esi ea commor
These rings use fragments of the section discussing "the effort required to achieve results."
reprehenderit, voluptate, eiusmod tempor, ex ea commodo.
"âŚto find fault in [reprehenderit] pleasure⌠[Gibberish]⌠through the effort of work⌠[Gibberish]⌠unless they result in some convenience or advantage."
Ring 6
corporis suscipit laeorios am ev a dkd wr scing elit sed mque laudante totam rem aper iam ullam
This ring pulls from the "laborious" section of the text.
corporis suscipit laboriosam, laudantium, rem aperiam, ullam.
"âŚundertakes laborious physical exercise⌠[Gibberish]⌠praising⌠I will open the whole matter⌠[Gibberish]⌠no one."
Ring 7 (left side) Ring 7 (right side)
um dolor sit ame i consese __ur adipiscing orem ipsum dolor sit
Ring 8 (left side) Ring 8 (right side)
eiusmoddbc iue qwkl Orem ipsum dolor sit
Ring 9 (left side) Ring 9 (right side)
mec at sua dolor i dolor ee mn neu
These outer/inner fragments are repetitions of the same opening phrases.
"Pain itself⌠consectetur⌠eiusmod⌠their own pain."
Conclusion:
Peter Anderson studios are giant trolls and deserve
to be put in a corner to think about what theyâve done.
On behalf of everyone in the @ineffable-detective-agency who worked on this rush job:
You can also check out our instagram where we posted it first. You can ping Peter Anderson while you're at it and tell them to try harder next time.
There are times when I think 'yeah I have a PhD, but it's only in the study of Ancient Egypt' and then the little bitch voice who screamed at me to get up during the depression I experienced during writing it re-emerges and just sticks something like this in the forefront of my mind:
It forces me to remember that, no, it wasn't 'just about Ancient Egypt'. My ass can read that with no issue. Not many people can do that. It's a skill, and one many people with a lot less skill in it will try to square up on. It feels egotistical, but at the end of the day, no, I do know more about this than most people.
Downside of this is that as soon as you learn the sentence structure for the Egyptian language, most people's attempts at faux hieroglyphs on things become so laughably fake it's kinda painful. Also people who use hieroglyphs in usernames to mean something else. Best one I saw was a guy using the 'enemy with axe embedded in their skull' hieroglyph as 'guys getting down at the club'. I mean they were at the club, but like the receiving end.
#Being able to read hieroglyphics is such a flex #I got a BS in history and all I got was a 60 page paper on pharma bankruptcy in the 80s so. Wish had left academia with something useful
I can flex harder? I can read Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian, which is like reading Old, Middle, and Modern English. I can also read Hieratic, which is the shorthand form of the Hieroglyphic script, and I can do that in all those three languages too. On top of that, I can read Coptic. On top of that again, I am familiar with (academic) French, German (when brain is in gear), Spanish, and Italian. I have other languages, but those are the ones I'm most competent in.
I learned Hieratic at university as part of my MA degree. It required me knowing Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian before I even started to learn it because you have to know what it is you're looking at. I don't know of anywhere you can learn it properly outside of an academic institution.
No, it's not a one to one conversion. I said it's like shorthand, and I meant that. Each sign has its own form, but it's not necessarily anything like the sign it represents. They're quick forms of the signs, designed to be written in ink rather than carved in stone (because they really didn't write in full glyphs in ink unless they were doing something special like a Book of the Dead, and even then that's called Cursive Hieroglyphs) and often they're just lines because there's an assumption that the reader is familiar with what *should* be there.
This is the difference:
The second image here is the *original* text, whereas the first image is the transcribed version into hieroglyphs which is easier for most Egyptologists to parse than the Hieratic original.
Some signs *might* look like their hieroglyphic counterpart, but the majority of them have a different form all together, and you have to be able to parse that. For instance, you have to know what you're looking at to understand that:
is
The full section is easier, but you still have to know some things:
You've really got to know what you're looking at to understand that the edge of the cartouche, the sun symbol, and the wsr (jackal head on a stick) symbol are all rolled into that sign that looks like a 13.
It ain't easy.
It's one for one on the number of marks on the page but not for what it looks like, and it all depends on the handwriting too. Some are better at writing than others, and some had more time to write. The text above is a legal text recorded at the time the trials were happening, so it's quick and messy. Something like P.Ebers, a medical papyrus, is much neater because it was copied up cleanly.
ask and ye shall receive:
When I write in Japanese I usually also throw it in google translate to double check that I'm not using the wrong kanji by mistake, and two years ago it gave me very dry and literal translations.
I was doing it today and noticed it had a pretty strong voice added to the output
For reference, to give a dry translation I would put:
Lately I'm into in Hanafuda. Nobody seems to know anything about it here, so they probably wouldn't understand my brilliant jokes. I guess you guys will never be able to understand "Mister November and the Scary Cave".
I have a fluent friend who is able to check my work for me and give me tips on hitting the correct tone (I was going for a comically casual feeling), so I'm confident that I'm expressing the feeling I'm intending. While Google is also hitting the same emotion, I really don't like knowing that it's assigning tone in the first place.
To check if it was editorializing based on informal grammatical choices, I formal'd up the writing to be more polite and remove any non-standard vocabulary.
I'm just like... what is anyone who is translating what I'm thinking into their own language going to think when a translation app decides that it knows my intended tone? When online communication is already so complicated and nuanced? I'm a non-native so I'm spending ages agonizing over 117 characters, but when I'm chatting in English I'm not being so deliberate. How likely is it that tools that 'naturalize' are going to make choices that don't reflect reality and lead to insulting misunderstandings?
I spoke with an English learner just yesterday who thought they were being bullied (they were not, the commenter in question was just excitedly infodumping about sociology) because something was lost in translation, and I wonder if it's because of tools making choices like this.
I'm just a luddite I don't trust stuff like this. stinks of ai asking me if it can rerwrite my email in a more quirky style.
As requested (albeit several months late) I have finally put together a video on my gauffering process!
Please take this video with a grain of saltâ I am a complete beginner, and this method is far from traditional. It is simply what I was able to accomplish at my current skill level with the materials I had on hand.
For more in depth videos on sanding and edge painting, please check out @duran-binding and @copticcowgirl . They taught me everything I know!
There is so little instructional information about gauffering available online, particularly with budget materials. The amount of trial and error it took to establish a method that yielded fairly consistent results was frankly maddening, so I sincerely hope that this look into my process is useful to someone.
Starting a new sketchbook. This was drawn with fountain pen and watercolor, I was trying to channel vintage picture books and old New Yorker cartoons with this one
discoholicmusic
jacobvanloon
baratheonpilled
janainaart
blakekathryn
