Have fun! :)
Hey remember when uquiz was a thing everyone was doing. I thought of taking this down but I think I’m gonna leave this here forever actually. Take my quiz boy

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club

#extradirty
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

Origami Around

if i look back, i am lost

izzy's playlists!
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Sade Olutola
Stranger Things
YOU ARE THE REASON

Love Begins
hello vonnie

No title available
art blog(derogatory)
Game of Thrones Daily
official daine visual archive
Mike Driver
almost home
Not today Justin
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from Mexico

seen from Malaysia

seen from India
seen from Canada
seen from Italy
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@ratboi24601
Have fun! :)
Hey remember when uquiz was a thing everyone was doing. I thought of taking this down but I think I’m gonna leave this here forever actually. Take my quiz boy
you're so right hen
Who Gets Out Of The Death Arena Alive?
Hannibal Lecter (NBC's Hannibal)
Steven Universe (Steven Universe)
get mad. get rageful. debate all you like because im sending them to the death arena and you can't stop me
I love how all the notes are like "one of these is Just A Guy and the other one is a monster-fighting superhero with alien magic powers"
I think Steven would kill him but like. on accident. He’s not very used to fighting enemies that can’t recover from almost any wound. After, he would be left with the moral dilemma of whether he should bring him back to life though.
Also, please do not listen to how people talk about cover letters on this site. Cover letters are important, and in many industries you can be damn sure they'll be read. And no, they're not 'fanfic about working in your office', or just re-stating the resume contents in a fancier guise. If you treat them like that, then of course they're not doing much for you. That makes you sound like a syncophantic windbag, and it's not doing anything else to help.
I was trained in the dark arts of the cover letter by my mother, who is a hiring manager. And her training has paid off: I've been consistently told my cover letters are excellent. Let me pass on the wisdom.
The job of a cover letter is to give a prospective employer strictly more information than is on the resume. This is where you take the resume contents and put them into context. You look at the job requirements (you are looking at the job requirements before applying, right?) and look at your resume and ask the question (in your head) "why would a person think this candidate would be good for this job?" and your cover letter is the answer to that question. If you don't answer that question, the hiring manager is going to have to do it themselves, and you have way more information to work with than they do.
This is especially important if you're moving from one industry to another, because then the relevant connections aren't obvious. It's also very important if you're overqualified, because then you can use the letter to say "I know it looks like this job would be too entry-level for me, but I'm interested to pursue it for reasons x, y, and z". You can also use this space to explain away something that might otherwise be disqualifying, like job-hopping or a long break in employment. The tone to strike here is always matter-of-fact and constrained to topic - don't go into detail about health stuff or personal tragedy, just tell them what they need to hear: that this period of your resume was affected by [bad thing] but that it's now in the past and you're looking forward to the next chapter. Remember, one of the things they're trying to learn is whether you'd be content in this role, or whether you'd be miserable and leave after 2 months, which would force them to do all the work of hiring again. You're trying to establish that you will fit right in and not cause problems. Knowing what drew you to this job in particular (and don't just say 'money', that's true for everyone) helps with that.
And the other mistake? Everyone writes cover letters that are too long. One page is fine. Two is the absolute maximum, and that's if you have a lot of specific things to say. It's a waste of your time and theirs to pad it out with fluff. Of my two most recent successful cover letters (i.e. jobs for which I was interviewed) one was 390 words and the other was 550. That's the length of this post. How long did it take me to write this post? About 15 minutes to write, 5 to proof and edit. That's how long you should be spending on a cover letter, maximum.
Cover letters are the first thing I look at. Poorly written cover letters are an instant rejection - how can I trust someone to communicate well or take the job seriously if they can’t write a couple paragraphs about their background and why they want the job? Strong cover letters, on the other hand, can earn someone with a so-so resume an interview.
Off topic for this blog but an important skill I think we teach people so little about!
Cover letters are your elevator pitch. Why you, over anyone else with the same qualifications? What things can you advertise yourself with that can’t go on a resume? It’s literally self-advertising. Tell an employer a persuasive narrative about yourself that will make them want to interview you.
For a quick example: this blog led to me getting my first fact-checking gig, which has become my Real JobTM.
My resume shows the blog, that first client (which I still work for, eight years in!), and subsequent professional advancement. It’s not a bad resume these days.
Every cover letter I send tells the story of how I tried to do education on the internet and got so frustrated by incorrect/contradictory/unsourced information that I taught myself how to fact-check to find some dang correct facts. That I’ve dug so deep looking for accurate answers that my work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, cited in law articles and other academic literature, and influenced the trajectory of legislation. And that I still love it! A decade later, it is a joy every single day to dig my teeth into the newest topic and make sure everything is right. This, I say, is what I will do for them.
That’s the story my resume could never convey.
You don’t want to make things up or exaggerate, but everyone has some sort of narrative to build around their history. Even if it’s not conventionally “impressive” it will still give potential employers a sense of who you are, where you’re coming from, and if you’d be a good fit.
We have got to stop framing our oppression in ways that promote the idea that other people cannot relate to our struggles. Not only does it isolate comrades in the struggle, it actively diminishes recognition of other struggles--often including those even more horrific than what we are at risk of. And this happens especially between Gay and Black struggles.
"when have straight people ever had to check what states were safe for them?" Sundown towns are still a thing. Starlight tours. What states have abortion access? What states have open carry? What states have stand your ground? What states have 3-strike rules? Women, people of color, disabled people, immigrants, and more have had to be abundantly cautious where they travel to. Straight trans people have much more travel risk right now than gay cis people.
It's a new iteration of the same tired question: "imagine if straight people weren't allowed to marry" interracial marriage in the US is younger than my parents. We disgrace people of color by forgetting their history and contemporary struggles, and we abandon queer people of color, Black queer people, by segmenting their overlapping fights.
As lovelyshananigans says, "intersectionality, babes"
Once you've learned the spot the historical signposts, it's interesting how many "generically medieval" fantasy settings manage to miss the actual medieval period on both ends. They've got the Roman Empire rubbing shoulders with the German Renaissance, skipping directly from the year 500 to the year 1500 with nothing in between!
(The one consistent exception is, of course, the obligatory Vikings-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off culture, who legitimately are medieval, but nobody they interact with is, so you've effectively got Vikings with time-travelling boats raiding both Roman-occupied England and Renaissance Italy.)
"Oh, they skip the actual middle ages because it's too Christian" listen. If fantasy authors are willing to hold their noses and elide the explicitly Christian dimensions of both the latter Roman Empire and the fucking Reformation, they can deal with Christianity in the middle ages just fine.
@snuggly-eve
Okay, let me try to take a stab at it:
Firstly, one thing I'd want to quickly go over as reference is what it actually means to say that a "stock fantasy setting" is more rooted in the late middle ages/renaissance than in earlier periods. Generally, the traits of these settings that are characteristic of this time are:
Aesthetics generally. Like, castles in a "stock fantasy setting" are usually these big ornamented things covered in towers and turrets (consider, say, Neuschwanstein Castle, which was itself an early modern nostalgia piece rather than a genuine Renaissance fortress), while armor leans more towards full heavy plate (like these 16th-17th century pieces, for instance). These are all classically late styles.
Likewise, your classic fantasy merchant city -- you know, your Ankh-Morporks, your Lankhmars, that sort of thing, with tangled crime-filled alleys, probably a network of scummy canals, a huge bustling port, a guild of thieves, all of it ruled over by dynastic merchants in fine brocade and velvet and heavy jewels -- that's very heavily inspired by the merchant cities of the Italian Renaissance like Venice or Genoa, or North Sea merchant cities like Amsterdam around that time or a little later, or, frankly, even early modern London.
Also, generally, urbanization. Roman civilization was very urban. Renaissance-era European civilization was very urban also, especially in places like Italy, the North Sea, and other areas rich in commerce. In fantasy, too, the notion that cities are major centers of life and politics remains -- merchant cities bustling with commerce, capital cities with the king's fancy castle, fortified cities with huge bloody walls, these are all recurring archetypes. Crack open, say, a D&D setting sourcebook, and that assumption that major cities or city-states are major focuses of culture and economy while rural areas are clearly in their orbits is fairly evident, I think.
Also, in my experience, medieval fantasy monarchies tend to be fairly centralized affairs, with powerful monarchic kings, the royal seat in the capital or the king's castle as the bustling focus of governance, and a tendency for the edicts from the king's person and the intrigues of court to be the driving focuses of political life. Also, a lot of intrigues in a classically corrupt court. This tracks fairly well for the late period, historically, where European kings put a lot of effort into centralizing and strengthening their authority, some more successfully (the Iberian kingdoms at the end of the Reconquista), some less so (Charles I of England). Absolute monarchy was less of a factor in earlier medieval Europe, which operate chiefly under a network of looser, less centralized feudal ties.
By contrast, what would these things equivalents in the earlier Middle Ages be like?
Castle-wise, the really early periods were the time of the motte-and-bailey, aka wooden palisades on top of earthen mounds. Later, you'd tend to see squatter, more fortified constructions for defensive purposes (take the Krak des Chevaliers as an example). Even well into the later middle ages, though, a typical rural keep or castle was often a fortified house or manor more than what we'd picture as a castle today.
Armor was usually dominated by chainmail, scale armor, and non-face-covering helmets (a knight of the Carolongian Empire, for example, might have worn something like a scale or mail shirt and a helm with earguards or a noseguard, but certainly not the "classic" knightly set of plate you usually see in fiction). In terms of helmet styles, for instance, compare this 11th-century nasal helm or these illustrations of 12th-century styles with later forms such as the classic "bucket helm" that was popular during and after the Crusades period. Helmets with more articulated shapes and visors came later. What's called a close or closed helm, for instance, like these ones, was mostly a 16th-17th century style, although antecedent forms were already common in the 15th. Even the barbute with its distinctive T- or Y-shaped visor slit was a distinctly Renaissance Italian thing.
(Like, as a practical example in terms of helmets, this reminded me of a passage in the first Dunk & Egg story where Duncan buys a great helm/bucket helmet, and it's described as coming across as a goofy-looking and antiquated choice when other knights all use visored and often very ornate close helmets. And this makes sense! Westeros is very explicitly based on England during the Wars of the Roses period, in the 15th century, by which point medieval armor and helmet styles had gone out of use and most armored troops wore jointed plate armor and visored helms.)
Religiously, monasteries were often the center of religious life and, for rural communities, often more important than distant bishopric seats. They were also centers of, among other things, record-keeping, writing, and brewing.
Cities. The middle ages proper were a very rural time -- cities existed, and exerted political and economic influence, but took a significant dip in both size and importance for a time. For a good few centuries the center of life for most people was the manorial system, where you had a local knight or lordling living in a fortified house or a small keep and providing protection to a town or two around this in exchange for material support. Self-sustaining religious communities like monasteries were also important. All of these, for a long time, would have basically self-supporting.
(Well, alright, that's also an oversimplification. In rural France-England-Germany, that'd be about right, sure. In northern Italy and in Flanders-Saxony, though, you start to see... not urbanization as such, but, let's say, townization early on in the system of the medieval communes, where farming and trading towns left isolated by the collapse of Roman-era state systems formed confederations for mutual defense. So the main form of urban culture in this timeframe isn't really centralized around a single big city but more along the lines of fifty towns who formed a loose alliance because they're afraid of bandits and robber knights.)
Government. Centralized states and nations weren't... really things for a long time. Feudal governance was based much more strictly on the notion of personal debts and obligation between rulers and those who administered portions of land for them. A feudal noble had obligations towards his king, but he also had a tremendous amount of freedom in running his own affairs and could have gone for the majority of his life without every showing up in the vicinity of his lord's castle -- the idea of, like, the royal court as the focus and center of political life wouldn't really crystallize for some time, and this degree of independence meant that negotiation and re-negotiation (read:testing how much you could ignore the king or going into outright revolt) were very common.
Also, the notion of national identity -- of saying "I am French, I am English, I am Italian" -- also didn't really exist (I'd recommend Liah Greenfield's Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity for a discussion of how this mode of thinking about group-and-land identity formed in the 16th-17th centuries). Before then, concepts of identity were either strictly local ("I am from this village"), based on loyalty systems ("I am from a village defended by Knight Whatshisname, who gives his tithe to Lord Whatshisface, who gives his tithe to King Whatshisproblem"), or based on religion ("I am Christian", "I am Jewish", "I am Muslim").
So, broadly, there weren't really "countries" the way that we think of them today, with clearly delineated cultures and borders and directed from a central capital. The most granular political units were the rural manorial keep and the free town, which gave their fealty to a larger lord or a grouping of peers, and the span and size of a kingdom or an empire was determined in large part by how many of these tiny units or groupings of tiny units you could claim tithe-right and allegiance from. And that's feudalism!
Event-wise, the Big Things in the medieval period proper were the Crusades, a series of primarily religion-motivated wars (or, well, religion-land-and-luchre-motivated wars, granted) and the Black Death. It really cannot be overemphasized how the terror of being struck by this mysterious dying dominated medieval thought for large spans of time.
One book I read recently which I'd recommend for a having a good look at how medieval people thought and lived might be Michael Flynn's Eifelheim... with the caveat that it's also a science fiction novel about first contact with aliens, but the medieval side of things is really well-researched and -written.
I dont think art is for escapism. I dont think art should exist solely to comfort or entertain. And I don't think I should have eaten this party size bag of jalapeno chips.
This is easily one of the CRAZIEST videos I've ever gotten. I was rafting down a river when a Yellow Jacket came, landed on my bright pink waterproof phone pouch, and started drinking from the water droplets that had gathered there.
The most amazing part is how the water droplet magnifies the Hornet's mouth parts, so you get to see them up-close!!!! It was FASCINATING to witness!
Here's some of my favorite still shots from that video:
What do you think? 🥰
@onenicebugperday
!!!
my mum asked me "when you have 20/20 vision what's that 20 of" and I got to be like "actually those numbers are meaningless!" which is always fun
it means that from 20 feet away you can see what a person with "normal vision" can see from 20 feet away. in metric it's 6/6 which means from 6 metres away you can see what a person with "normal vision" can see from 6 metres away. 20/40 means from 20 feet away you can only see what a typical person can see from 40 feet away. why don't we reduce the fractions?? 20/40 could just as easily be 1/2. you have 50% vision. you can see half. half of what? yes
I GUESS we don't reduce the fractions because if you're 1 foot/metre away you're into presbyopia territory which complicates what's supposed to be a measure of refractive vision but you could say 1/1 and it's 1 decametre which is a unit we should use more often anyway
I guess that doesn't make the numbers "meaningless" but what I mean by that is they're just a reference to a standard we made up. 20/20 isn't "perfect" vision, there are people who have 20/10 or even better. so it's not a quantifiable measure of what you can see it's literally just "how much of normal eyes are you" and this is a pet peeve of mine for reasons I'm sure are not at all related to that autism diagnosis people keep saying I should pursue
it's so crazy too bc i'll be like "this phrase/practice is being touted as ancient knowledge with a secret unbroken lineage, but it was quite literally made up in the 20th century. like we can trace it back to its very inception in like 1961." and someone will be like "that can't be true because my grandmother taught it to me." and i'm like yes your grandmother was 20 in 1961.
idk man sometimes i like it when video game writers are allowed to plan a series of events that happen in a specific order and affect each other in turn to become an overarching narrative, and i don’t mind trusting those writers to take me through those events in the order that is emotionally effective. i don’t really care if a game forces me to go through the forest area first before i can attempt the icy area because maybe there’s things that happen in the forest area that inform later scenes in the icy area. maybe we don't need more superficial player choice open world concepts if it comes at the cost of the ability to write a story with actual significant plot events and character development in each section
i never really got it when people made posts about light pollution and seeing all the stars for the first time and crying. i always assumed that everyone has gone on a road trip to a bortle 1.0 place and seen stars like that, and it's fantastic, but not like life changing. and then i went to europe last month and was in a mountaintop village of like 300 people and could see about 5 stars in the sky. like fewer than i can see from my home in a big metropolitan city.
my apologies to the non-africans, i did not realise how fucked your sky is
The odyssey poem: mostly an epic operating on vibes. Made up of stories, narrative themes, and aesthetics stolen/borrowed/wildly out of place from other civilizations the Ancient Greeks were obsessed with (mostly the *hand wave * even more ancient Mediterranean tribes and nations). Not historically accurate in the slightest but very telling about the anxieties of the culture that created it.
The odyssey movie: mostly a film operating on vibes. Made up of stories, narrative themes, and aesthetics stolen/borrowed/wildly out of place from other civilizations that western cultures are obsessed with (mostly the *hand wave * ancient Europeans). Not historically accurate in the slightest but very telling about the anxieties of the culture that created it.
I love that we just create the same thing again and again with the same trappings of adaption. How delightfully human of us.
we are NOT bringing 4chan incel terminology to this site, take that "foid" out of your post and go wash your blog out with soap
the memeification of fascism is a proven method of perpetuating and instilling it in other people. Layers of irony will not protect you once you adopt racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic terminology into your lexicon. you'll be acknowledging and nursing the mindsets and connotations borne of those words.
we have to start running a massive PSA campaign to young gay people so everyone understands there is a difference between being a dom and being a top and between being a sub and being a bottom. and also that sometimes you are neither a sub nor a bottom and you're just like shy. we need to be handing out flyers we need ads at every train station spreading the word
While I sort of get the impulse, it does always get my back up when people talk about something like Animorphs with this attitude of 'omgggg remember these books, how on EARTH were we allowed to read these books, they're so grim and dark and violent and tragic, no adults could possibly have known what they actually contained or they'd have been banned.'
And like. Allowing for the fact that there absolutely are adults who think every distressing topic ever should be banned from children's literature - they're children's books. You were allowed to read them when you were a kid because they were written for kids. Bridge to Terabithia is also a children's book. So is Where the Red Fern Grows and Old Yeller and Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry and The Giver and loads of other books that deal with heavy, difficult topics. It is appropriate and good for children to have books about these things that are tailored to their reading levels and it genuinely really bugs me when people act like they're somehow not really for kids because bad things happen in them or they end tragically.