Love the idea of Luo Binghe being like, yeah Shang Qinghua's relationship with Shen Qingqiu is weirdly intimate at times but no way is Shang Qinghua actually on the list of possible romantic rivals. For one thing, Shang Qinghua has Mobei Jun. For another thing, he's the least impressive peak lord, and even if he actually has some of the most useful skills they're not sexy skills. He isn't as objectively hot as Liu Qingge or Yue Qingyuan, and he is also very often deeply pathetic and weird.
Then one night he sits up in a cold sweat with memories of overheard conversations between Shizun and Shang Qinghua about how weird monogamy is, and he's suddenly remembered that Shang Qinghua gave him the advice about acting pathetic and weird to win over Shen Qingqiu, and it worked, and Shang Qinghua is one of the most competent cultivators alive and while cool sword moves and six pack abs are sexy, Luo Binghe knows his husband has -- specifically -- a thing for competency above all else, and oh god. Oh fuck.
This is what Mobei Jun means when he says that Shang Qinghua sneaks up on his targets in plain sight, isn't it?
Little-known fact: although most people believe trains to be herbivores, they are actually opportunistic omnivores and will consume meat should it be made readily available.
Itâs Friday (time to blast Franz Ferdinand because Iâm so so tired but canât stop now because I have five midterms next week and havenât studied nearly enough)
Itâs Sunday (time to blast Franz Ferdinand because Iâm so so tired but canât stop now because I have my murder trial next week and havenât studied nearly enough)
The dev's are on record saying they used the school as reference for understanding what an American school looks like. This isnât a theory, it's fact
Why playing with algebraic and calculus concepts—rather than doing arithmetic drills—may be a better way to introduce children t
The familiar, hierarchical sequence of math instruction starts with counting, followed by addition and subtraction, then multiplication and division. The computational set expands to include bigger and bigger numbers, and at some point, fractions enter the picture, too. Then in early adolescence, students are introduced to patterns of numbers and letters, in the entirely new subject of algebra. A minority of students then wend their way through geometry, trigonometry and, finally, calculus, which is considered the pinnacle of high-school-level math.
But this progression actually âhas nothing to do with how people think, how children grow and learn, or how mathematics is built,â says pioneering math educator and curriculum designer Maria Droujkova. She echoes a number of voices from around the world that want to revolutionize the way math is taught, bringing it more in line with these principles.
The current sequence is merely an entrenched historical accident that strips much of the fun out of what she describes as the âplayful universeâ of mathematics, with its more than 60 top-level disciplines, and its manifestations in everything from weaving to building, nature, music and art. Worse, the standard curriculum starts with arithmetic, which Droujkova says is much harder for young children than playful activities based on supposedly more advanced fields of mathematics.
âCalculations kids are forced to do are often so developmentally inappropriate, the experience amounts to torture,â she says. They also miss the essential pointâthat mathematics is fundamentally about patterns and structures, rather than âlittle manipulations of numbers,â as she puts it. Itâs akin to budding filmmakers learning first about costumes, lighting and other technical aspects, rather than about crafting meaningful stories.
These politicians understand the power of what Grandi terms âgastronationalismâ. Who cares if the traditional food culture they promote is partly based on lies, recipes dreamt up by conglomerates or food imported from America? Few things are more reassuring and agreeable than an old lady making tortellini.
It wasnât always like this. âThe grandparents knew it was a lie,â Grandi tells me, finishing the last of his prosecco. âThe philologic concern with ingredient provenance is a very recent phenomenon.â Indeed itâs hard to imagine that people who survived the second world war eating chestnuts, as my grandfather did, would be concerned about using pork jowl instead of pork belly in a pasta recipe. Or as Grandi puts it, âTheir âtraditionâ was trying not to starve.â
Very few things-that-don't-matter bother me like the concept of 'zero-waste sewing', especially when it's also touted as 'beginner-friendly'.
Using your fabric efficiently? Makes total sense. No objection to that.
But specifically designing patterns such that every single part of a length of fabric is consumed by it? You're setting people up to fail. For one, you can really only do this with patterns made mostly of rectangles and right triangles, which can only make a very narrow range of garments that simply do not play nice with many people's bodies (especially bodies with lots of curvature). For another, a zero-waste pattern is also a zero-error-tolerance pattern. One wrong cut or measurement and the whole thing's toast. The wiggle-room that a more standard pattern allows also allows you to fix problems when they occur.
If you make a zero-waste garment and never wear it because it looks bad on you? That's not actually zero-waste. If you start a zero-waste garment and can't complete it because you made one little mistake? That's not actually zero-waste.
But more importantly, the whole idea of 'zero-waste' as a desireable outcome is antithetical to the methods and traditions of sewing. It's a form of functionless, guilt-driven, aesthetics-first minimalism that has no place in actual sewing practice. The scraps of fabric left over from cutting a pattern are incredibly useful. Larger pieces can become parts of new projects. Smaller pieces can become patchwork. Even really tiny scraps can become stuffing or batting or kindling or any number of other things. Home sewing has always been about not wasting things, but the way to not waste things is not by piously making only garments that suck, it's by repurposing, reusing, and recycling everything you buy. Once that fabric reaches your house, 98% of its environmental impact has already happened.
germansingergirl
gummygunk
origamiaround
blakekathryn
areudirty
