The lumpfish
this one is stumpy and green
very beautiful
very powerful
Keni
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Misplaced Lens Cap
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

⁂
noise dept.
art blog(derogatory)
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

ellievsbear

blake kathryn

Janaina Medeiros
Not today Justin

#extradirty

Origami Around
$LAYYYTER

oozey mess

PR's Tumblrdome
Three Goblin Art
DEAR READER

seen from Australia
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
seen from Austria
seen from Philippines

seen from Australia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from North Macedonia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Austria

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye
@76ello
The lumpfish
this one is stumpy and green
very beautiful
very powerful

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
we’ve gone from the yee haw agenda to the ye olde thot programme
Ah yes, those slutty slutty Landsknecht shorts:
The bare-legged / hot-pants look was fairly common, since the whole point about being a Landsknecht (or Reislaufer, their Swiss equivalent) was to look outrageous.
Most period illustrations of Landsknechts are black-and-white woodcuts…
…though in 1905 a book called „Geschichte des Kostüms“ - History of Costume - assembled a bunch of black-and-whites and added colour.
If they look excessively gaudy, they’re not, because these next prints were coloured in-period by an artist called Erhard Schön, and it’s fair to assume he was representing what he saw.
In short - or in shorts - those reenactor costumes are spot on. :->
Something mentioned nowhere in this post that I have just learned from googling: these guys were not Ye Olde Medieval Dandies. They were 15th-16th century mercenaries. Pretty hardcore, too. They were exempt from sumptuary laws (ie the rules that said you couldn’t wear certain colours or cloth or styles) and apparently their response to that was technicolour thotpants.
I was complaining earlier about costuming in both “historical” settings and in fantasy/scifi. This is exactly what I mean when I say a knowledge of actual history would enrich the conceptual creative palette for things like “hardcore mercenary outfits.”
the slashing is also actually functional, since weapons would get caught in it. This is armour. And then absolutely everyone thought it was THE shit and adopted the style (and they were so right about that). Man? Woman? High nobility? Regular guy? Doesn’t fucking matter, you’re wearing an outrageous feathery hat and slashed garments.
Also I do want to add: “Pretty hardcore” in this case means “Responsible for a list of war crimes so long it would make the US army blush”. Like do not get me wrong. I reenact this era. I reenact these people. Their clothing fucking slapped. But my god they brought unspeakable violence basically everywhere they went, through the nature of being large mercenary armies. There is a reason we generally do not do wars like that anymore any haven’t for a long time. It’s just a pretty good way to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Also also: sumptuary laws were generally speaking quite a bit less strict and less ubiquitous than we like to think today. They were at this point in time mostly part of a long list of laws that cities had in order to ensure peace within them. Peace was extremely important to cities specifically because they were trade centres. And if your city was unsafe and had unrests it meant people didn’t want to go to trade their stuff there any more. So sumptuary laws were mainly there to ensure that jealousy within cities didn’t rise to the point where it starts to lead to behaviour that is offputting to outsiders. Outside of these cities, it was generally a non-issue, bc society just works differently in those closer-knit communities. Also there it was mostly a question of being able to afford these things and people just couldn’t. You don’t have to ban someone who can barely feed and clothe themselves from wearing brocades. They weren’t going to. The special thing about the Landsknechte is more that they not only were exempt from sumptuary laws, most people at this point in time were not subject to sumptuary laws, but they actually had enough money to afford nice fabrics (and they also ransacked them. That too.). That is why their clothing was so outrageous.
I’m remembering an article about why late medieval large standing armies were Not A Thing. In general, soldiers were paid but not supplied - they were responsible for buying their own food. This meant armies stripped land like a swarm of locust, leading to a great many atrocities against civilians. So Landsknecht were acting in a fine old tradition, though they may have taken it up a notch or two.
One result of this was that armies had to keep moving along to greener pastures. Holding a long siege became a logistical nightmare. One strategic maneuver was to sweep your army along one of your opponent’s possible routes, leaving it denuded and unusable. Which worked unless you found yourself needing that route later.
Back up your LJs!
I know this post is for a very small audience here on Tumblr but some of my oldest friends I met on LiveJournal are still here, so I'm making it anyway just in case.
But there have been some changes at LJ recently that do not bode well at all. Rahaeli made a thread about it on bsky with some more worrying details. For a bit of background on this, LJ is surprisingly big in Russia. Like way more than on the western side, and it's been owned by a Russian company for a long time now (it wasn't always - there was a big controversy when LJ got sold to the Russians back in the day).
The Russian side of LJ dropped a very big change on Dec 29th without warning on their users, essentially making it so they'd have to register their ID or bank info with LJ to post or comment. Any posts from people outside of Russia, or without Cyrillic services turned on, are invisible and can't be interacted with by people inside Russia. It's nearly impossible to turn Cyrillic services on if you're not in Russia either, so there's a big wall now between both sets of users. Rahaeli speculates that this could mean the Russian company that owns LJ could be considering selling off or just shutting down the western side of LJ soon, thus why they're sectioning it off. There's been no mention of this on the western LJ news comms or anything which is also worrying.
Fandom's moved on from LJ now, but that doesn't mean that a large chunk of old fandom didn't take place there before, and if LJ does go down then tons of fic, fanart, meta, communities, kinkmemes, discussions, rp, goes down with it. Everything up in smoke! I think people underestimate sometimes just how much stuff went on there. LJ being dead is much different than LJ being gone... the thought of it really disappearing after all this time breaks my heart. I've spent so much of my life there, even after everyone else left. ;_;
But how to do your backups? Dreamwidth is an easy answer as an LJ clone, with an automated importer that'll snag all your stuff and move it over for you. Another tool I've been using is ljArchive, specifically this fork of it which will also save comments and communities, although it won't get userpics. There's also LJ Archivr, although that one costs money, and I think some others are mentioned in the bsky thread. Whatever you pick, I'd do it sooner than later.
If you have fandom stuff that you loved on LJ and it's only on LJ, get it NOW.
I imported my LJ to DW.
Boosting the signal.
The original post is from back in January and LJ is still here, but given how fast things can change, backing up is good advice.
RIP, LJ as a center of fanact. You are missed.
A BEAR ATE MY BEST HUMMINGBIRD FEEDER.
Rude.
Someone tell that bear he's not supposed to eat that with the skin on.
I live in South Africa. And if you live in South Africa and you have any contact with people from the US or Canada you might have run into a question about wildlife like lions and elephants roaming our streets. Most South Africans get pretty offended by questions like this. We are a civilized country, our large and dangerous wildlife gets contained in properly fenced parks.
I use to get offended by this until I visited a few places in Canada and realized that the reason why you ask is that some of your large and dangerous wildlife does simply roam the countryside and sometimes make excursions into town.
This honestly blew my mind. What do you mean, you have bears just walking around? What the hell?
north americans don't all encounter deadly megafauna on our porches and front lawns but it happens often enough that we all think this is a reasonable amount of gigantic animal to happen to your house. so when we think of africa we kinda imagine it like this:
like. if we had elephants here. this is what we would be putting up with on the regular. what do you mean you guys are more sensible than us.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW AUSTRALIA IS THE DEATH COUNTRY We have two spiders and (apparently) 12 snakes but we don’t have lions, bears, wildcats, AND crocodiles. We sometimes have crocodiles and large boas in certain areas. We don’t have to worry about a bear attacking our halloween decor. Or moose deciding to joust on the front lawn. Maybe similar to Africa, America’s fear of Australia is because you all assume our wildlife is exactly as huge and space-invadey.
oh yeah i forgot about the gators
I live halfway between two large cities in a pretty damn suburban area and hearing the sentence “did you hear there was a bear* spotted on [road that is pretty built up and I don’t think of as wild at all]” only left me a little surprised. My mother once saw what she described as a coyote going to school- just walking around a university campus.
so.... yes I was absolutely picturing elephants reaching over your back yard fences for some tasty leaves.
* Ursus americanus for clarification not homosexual sapiens
Couple years ago we had a bear in the market of downtown Ottawa. Ottawa has a population of 1 million, and it made it to the largest market (byward), and had to be removed with sedatives.
When I was a kid I lived next to a cattle farm and also my neighbors had horses. One time we were driving home and they were just. In the road.
Saturn used to advertise moose-resistant doors for their cars in case a horny one took you for competition. Never mind that if you hit a moose in the road, your car would be totalled, Saturn or not.
Animals Getting Up To Shit is so normalized that when I first moved to a new town and the news announced an escaped tiger (from some zoo, I guess) spotted in my specific neighbourhood, I just went out anyway. I needed groceries and it's not like it was a horny moose or anything.
I used to get really miffed about Americans asking us the same question about kangaroos.
Anyway. I now live in regional Australia. Turns out the kangaroos are like hostile locals in an American Western film. I take walks every single evening and the bastards will just silently stare at me until I'm out of sight. I've seen an entire mob on the move just stop dead in their tracks to stare, their heads slowly turning to follow me down the path.
Perks of friends who work with bear tracking: I know of a black bear who has figured out the sewage systems (big pipes) under a local city and is teaching her cubs how to use them to navigate. They have to track her radio collar by driving around downtown. Nobody else driving above has any clue.
yeah. American wildlife is Just Here.
I went camping and got told how to survive different types of bears. Also, there was once one at my grandfathers house at his porch where there were often time moose that would go in and out of the lake in the back of his property.
If you’re out alone, remember that any kind of bear can run faster than you, so that’s not a survival option.
However, if you’re in a group, you don’t have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the slowest person in your group.
(Advice may not apply to aggressive pack/herd animals.)
rule #1 of tumblr polls is NEVER include a joke option if you don't want it to win by a landslide because tumblr users have one committed relationship in their lives and it's to the bit
"I have one committed relationship in my life and it's to the bit" is something I may have to put on a cross-stitch/t-shirt.
I need this on a coffee mug
I need this on a coffee mug in calligraphy font.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
US Fish and Wildlife Service Plans to Allow Hunting on 95% of Its Land
The proposed changes would make over 92 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge System lands available for hunting.
They are looking for public comments!
Read the proposal and share your comments here! You have until June 26th to make public comments!
Comments backed up by data and studies hold more weight than simply saying "I oppose this." Feel free to talk about what the parks mean to you and how important they are for wildlife.
Here’s a thoughtful article from the hunting side. It says that on the one hand, the red tape is awful, but on the other hand, maintaining a healthy population of the game species over the long term is the highest priority.
Send your thoughtful comments to the regulations.gov before June 26.
The DOI is proposing a massive 92-million-acre public land hunting expansion. We unpack the access wins and policy risks.
can anyone find me that mesopotamian clay tablet telling you to marry a party girl because she'll bring you joy
It's from the "Maxims of Ptahhotep", purportedly written by a 96-year-old vizier to pass on his wisdom to his son:
If you marry a good-time girl
A joyful woman known to her town,
If she is wayward,
and revels in the moment,
do not reject her, but instead let her enjoy;
joyfulness is what marks calm water.
yay ty. Between the above and the links in the mentions we have 3 translations total
Happy Wife Happy Life is 4.5k years old
Other sites also have the "Does anyone have this image?" posts, but only on tumblr you'll find "Does anyone have that mesopotamien clay tablet?" posts.
and only tumblr will also ask, “which translation?”
happy glorious 25th of may
Lego's Q3 2025 earnings announcement, October 2025
So Lego just posted another monster quarter and everyone's doing the usual "timeless appeal of analog play in the digital age" garbage and like, no, the actual story is that Lego is a privately-held Danish family company that spent the 2000s nearly going bankrupt and came out of it having figured something out that almost nobody in consumer products has figured out, which is that your core IP is the manufacturing tolerance.
Here's what I mean. A Lego brick made in 1958 still clicks perfectly onto a Lego brick made last week. That is not a marketing claim, it's a manufacturing fact, and it's enforced by tolerances measured in like two thousandths of a millimeter — the stud diameter variance on a standard 2x4 brick is famously smaller than most medical device manufacturers hit on parts going inside human bodies. Which sounds like trivia until you realize it's the entire business model: every brick ever made is compatible with every brick that will ever be made, which means the installed base isn't a depreciating asset, it's an appreciating one, because every new set expands what you can do with the bricks already in your kid's bin (and your bin, and your dad's bin in the attic).
Now compare this to basically every other toy category. Hot Wheels from 1972 don't interface with Hot Wheels from 2024 in any meaningful way — they're both little cars, sure, but the track systems have changed, the scales have drifted, the accessories are incompatible. Barbie has gone through probably a dozen body molds. American Girl dolls from the 90s have different proportions than the current ones. The entire video game industry is structured around planned incompatibility — your Switch games don't work on Switch 2, your Xbox 360 discs mostly don't work on Series X. Incompatibility is the business model, it's how you get people to rebuy.
Lego said no. Lego said the brick from 1958 will fit the brick from 2058. And this is insane, if you think about it, because it means they have voluntarily foreclosed on the single most powerful lever in consumer products, which is forcing obsolescence. Every company that sells a durable good spends enormous amounts of R&D figuring out how to make this year's product not work with last year's product without pissing the customer off too much. Apple is a master at this, Microsoft is slightly worse at it, car companies have built entire industries on it (proprietary charging connectors, OBD-II access, right-to-repair fights). Lego just... doesn't do it.
What they get in return — and this is the thing the "timeless analog charm" people miss — is that the brick becomes infrastructure. A Lego brick is not really a toy. It's a piece of durable manufacturing infrastructure that gets distributed into hundreds of millions of homes worldwide, and every new set is basically an expansion pack for an operating system that already has universal install. Which means the network effects are doing most of the work. When a grandparent buys a Lego set for a kid, they're not buying "a toy" in the sense that a Mattel product is a toy — they're depositing compatible substrate into an accumulating household stockpile, and every deposit raises the marginal utility of the next deposit.
This is also why the IP licensing deals (Star Wars, Harry Potter, the recent Nintendo stuff) work for them in a way they work for basically nobody else. When Hasbro does a Star Wars license, they're making Star Wars figures that sit on a shelf. When Lego does a Star Wars license, they're making bricks in Star Wars configurations, which means even if the kid loses interest in Star Wars in six months, the bricks get absorbed into the general pool and keep producing value. The license is temporary, the substrate is permanent, and the substrate was already the valuable part.
The near-death experience in the early 2000s is the instructive piece here, because Lego almost lost this. They went on a diversification binge — theme parks, video games, clothing, Galidor (look it up, it's hilarious) — and they started loosening the tolerances on the actual bricks because the bricks were seen as a commodity and the "brand" was seen as the valuable part. Which is exactly backwards. Jørgen Vig Knudstorp comes in in 2004, basically says the bricks are the company, tightens tolerances back up, narrows the product line, and the company starts printing money again. The takeaway the business press drew was "focus on your core competency" which is such a domesticated reading of what actually happened — the actual lesson is "the boring manufacturing discipline IS the moat, and when you think the brand is the moat, you are about to destroy the company."
Which is interesting because right now there's a huge knockoff market — Mega Bloks, Chinese brands like Lepin (which got sued into oblivion), various others — and they make bricks that are almost compatible with Lego. Almost. And it turns out almost-compatible is actually worse than incompatible, because when a kid tries to fit a knockoff into a real Lego build and the stud is 0.03mm off, the whole structure gets wobbly, and the kid learns not to mix them. The tolerance is a credential. You can counterfeit the shape but you can't counterfeit sub-thousandth precision at scale without becoming, essentially, Lego.
Anyway, the Q3 number is like 13% up year-over-year in a consumer products environment where basically nothing is growing, and the analyst takes are all about "emotional connection" and "intergenerational brand equity" which — sure, fine, those are downstream effects. The upstream cause is that a Danish family spent fifty years obsessing over whether their plastic rectangles were within two thousandths of a millimeter of spec, and it turned out that was the whole game.
This is well-written for an AI post and makes an interesting argument, but the core claim doesn't really make sense.
If the company's rebound was driven by restoring the piece tolerances, how does that work? Were kids of the late 90s and early 2000s turning away from Lego because they noticed subtle incompatibilities in piece tolerances? And if so, how and why did they un-notice this in 2004?
In fact, 2004 is probably the single worst year the essay could have picked to illustrate its point. In 2004, Lego changed the color of many of its brick colors, including ubiquitous colors like light gray, dark gray, and brown (along with rarer colors like orange and purple). This had the immediate and obvious effect of making models built with a combination old and new parts look disjointed and messy. By this essay's logic, this should have been the death knell for Lego, but they never backtracked on the decision and as time went on fans more or less got over it.
Hey, two things.
One: the Lego rebound is a business story you can look up. Not a political argument, not a contested historiography, not even particularly recent — there are like four books and a Harvard Business School case study on this. The default posture for "I think this person got the chain of causation wrong about a Danish toy company" should only be tumblr-posturing if you can't look up those questions yourself. Nothing in this is so high-stakes it needs to open with gotchas. We are talking about plastic bricks.
Two: on the actual content. I compressed the causal chain because the post was already 3000 words and the compression was doing real work for the rhetorical move I was making, which I'll grant was the move of someone who'd rather make a clean point than a complete one. So fair, sort of. But the timeline is roughly:
2000-2004 is the diversification spiral. They're making less money while doing more stuff. Theme parks, video games, the Galidor line, clothing, all of it. The unique mold count balloons up toward 13,000 active parts because every themed set is getting bespoke pieces instead of being designed out of existing inventory. They start outsourcing significant production to Flextronics in Mexico and the Czech Republic, and they close their Swiss factory in Baar (which had been making 30% of world production) by 2004. Cash flow collapses. The 2004 annual report shows a 1.9 billion kroner loss, about $320 million, which is the largest in company history and roughly double the 2003 loss of 1.1 billion kroner.
2004-2008 is Knudstorp coming in and basically reversing all of it. Diversifications get killed or sold (Legoland goes to Merlin Entertainments in 2005 for the cash). Mold count gets cut roughly in half. Production largely comes back in-house to Billund and Kladno. The SKU rationalization is the actual operational fix — inventory turns, supply chain, the boring stuff. Tolerance consistency is part of bringing manufacturing back home but it's not the lever, it's a downstream effect. Lego flips from a 1.9 billion kroner loss in 2004 to a 0.5 billion kroner profit in 2005, with revenue up 12%. Real recovery starts essentially immediately once the operations get fixed.
Then 2008 onward is when the revenue actually goes vertical, and the reasons for that are mostly external. Here's where I think your reply misses the more interesting story, actually.
Lego had the Star Wars license since 1999 — they got it for the Phantom Menace tie-in, kept extending it, and were sitting on it through the bad years. The Clone Wars TV series launches in 2008 and runs essentially nonstop for the next decade-plus, which means there's a continuous content engine generating new ships, new characters, new battles every season for a kid demographic that doesn't care about the original trilogy's nostalgia weight. Harry Potter Lego had been around since 2001. Marvel arrives in 2012. The Lego Movie hits in 2014, grosses $469 million worldwide on a $60 million budget, and Lego sales jump 25% the following year. Adult fan sets at $300-800 price points get systematically cultivated. China opens up.
The thing your reply doesn't quite reckon with is that the IP boom Lego rode was timed almost perfectly for them, and that timing was partly luck. Consider the counterfactual where Lord of the Rings is the first big franchise tentpole instead of Star Wars. The LOTR films come out 2001-2003. Lego doesn't actually get the Lord of the Rings license until 2012, ten years after Fellowship. If the early-2000s IP boom had been Tolkien-anchored instead of Lucas-anchored, Lego would have spent its worst operational years watching a genre-defining property get exploited by competitors while having no infrastructure to compete, then arrived to the LOTR table a decade late after the cultural moment had passed. Instead the franchise that mattered most in the 2000s was one Lego had already wired in 1999, and the operational fixes finished just in time for The Clone Wars to start flooding the kid market with new content from a franchise Lego already controlled the building-set rights to.
So there are really two stories. One is internal — the operations turnaround that took losses to profits between 2004 and 2008 and stabilized the company. The other is external — a decade of IP licensing windfalls that converted that stable platform into the dominant toy company in the world. The post collapsed both into one story and used "tolerances" to do the explanatory work, which was wrong. The right version is closer to: Lego fixed its operations in time to be the only company positioned to capitalize on a fifteen-year licensing boom they happened to already be wired into, and the structural moat that made them the obvious licensing partner — backward compatibility, the brick-as-substrate property — is what let them turn temporary IP rights into permanent revenue from the bricks the licenses introduced.
On the 2004 color shift — yeah, that's a real point and a good one. They changed light gray to "medium stone gray," dark gray to "dark stone gray," brown to "reddish brown," and a handful of others. Builders complained, AFOLs complained louder (they got nicknamed the "bluish grays" or just "bley" by fans who were openly hoping Lego would reverse the decision), and Lego held the line. People got over it. Which actually does cut against the strong version of "compatibility is the entire game," because color compatibility is part of compatibility-in-use even if it's not part of compatibility-in-the-stud-and-tube-coupling-sense. A 1985 light gray and a 2005 light gray will click together fine and look terrible together in the same wall.
Which tells us the actual nuance here: the dimensional tolerance is doing irreplaceable work because it's what makes the physical interface function at all, and the physical interface is what makes the brick infrastructure rather than product. The color palette is more like a soft compatibility, a stylistic continuity that Lego maintains where it can but is willing to break for legitimate reasons (Jake McKee, Lego's community liaison at the time, eventually explained the change as a future-proofing move because the color palette had been proliferating uncontrolledly through the 90s and they wanted to stabilize it before it got worse, which is the same disease the part count had — diversification rot showing up in the color system). They held the dimensional line because dimensional drift is irrecoverable: once you've got two incompatible standards in the wild, you have two product lines forever. They let the color line move because color drift is annoying but doesn't fragment the install base.
But I should have said that in the post instead of letting one word do all the work. The cleaner version of the argument is something like: Lego maintains the compatibility properties that have network-effect consequences and lets the others drift, and the discipline of knowing which is which is the actual managerial competency. Same as it ever was.
What's funny is, the 2000's aren't even the most interesting time for the Lego company, which had very specific beginnings that could only have come about in a specific time and place - part of which were three massive fires.
--
Billund had 249 people in 1930.
That's the number that explains the whole thing, honestly, because every retelling of the Lego origin story is structured around the genius-carpenter version — Ole Kirk Christiansen, a master craftsman with a vision for play, founds a toy company in his workshop and the rest is the Danish miracle. The genius-carpenter framing requires you to ignore the fact that the guy was operating out of a barely-incorporated cluster of farms on the Jutland heath. The kind of place where you could plausibly know every adult in town by name and probably had to, because there were maybe a hundred and fifty of them once you took out children and the very old.
Filskov, where Ole Kirk was born, was twenty kilometers up the road and even smaller.
This is the deep periphery of a peripheral country.
There is no carpentry market here. There's no furniture market. The local economy is rye, peat, and however many sheep you can keep on the heather, and the heather isn't even native — it's what grew back after a thousand years of farmers cutting down the original oak forests to plant crops that didn't really work in that soil.
So when the carpenter goes into the toy business in 1932, the story is somebody in a 249-person village in the middle of a moor trying to find something to make that people will actually buy.
The thing about Jutland is that it had been the bad part of Denmark for at least a thousand years. The fertile soil is on the islands — Zealand, Funen, the smaller ones — and on the eastern strip of Jutland facing the Baltic, where you get the good loam and the lakes and the lush forests, and that's where Aarhus and Vejle and the historic agricultural wealth are concentrated. Western and central Jutland, where Billund sits, is heath. Sand. Bogs. Heather.
The kind of land that 19th-century travelers described as "almost black and waste" and "the most distressing part of Denmark." That second quote is from Enrico Mylius Dalgas, the founder of the Heath Society, whose whole nationalist project after 1864 was basically about turning the Jutland moors into farmland because Denmark had just lost Schleswig and Holstein to the Prussians and needed to manufacture some new agricultural acreage out of nothing to compensate.
(The slogan was "What is lost outwardly must be won inwardly." Internal colonization as compensation for external defeat.)
The Heath Society spent fifty years draining bogs, planting windbreaks, and breaking up the hardpan with steam plows. By the 1920s Billund parish had been substantially transformed from waste into marginal cropland. Marginal being the operative word.
The farmers who lived there were heath farmers, which meant they were operating on the bottom rung of Danish agriculture, on land that produced just enough rye and oats and milk to keep going during good years and barely enough during bad ones. And when the global agricultural prices collapsed in 1929 and 1930 — which they did everywhere, simultaneously, because the Argentine pampas and the Australian wheat belt and the Great Plains had all been put under the plow at roughly the same historical moment, all producing into a global market that suddenly had no demand — the Jutland heath farmers were the first ones hit and the worst ones hit. They had no margin.
This is the customer base for Ole Kirk Christiansen's carpentry business. People who can't pay for new houses. People who can't pay for new furniture. People who, by 1931, can barely afford the small household items — stepladders, ironing boards, milking stools — that he pivots to making after the orders for buildings dry up.
Three fires structure the entire Lego origin story.
The first one happens in 1924, before any of the toy-making. Ole Kirk's two young sons are playing in the workshop, light a fire in the glue heater for whatever reason kids do these things, and the wood shavings on the floor catch. The workshop burns to the ground. The family home next door also burns. Godtfred Kirk Christiansen, who's four years old at the time, will later joke that his first major achievement was burning the workshop down. The insurance covers enough that Ole Kirk rebuilds — bigger this time, because once you're rebuilding from zero you might as well plan for growth — and the new building has more floor space than the carpentry business strictly needs.
Which is the structural piece. The 1924 fire forces a rebuild with capacity slack. Eight years later, when Ole Kirk needs somewhere to make wooden ducks and pull-along buses and yo-yos because his furniture orders have evaporated, the floor space exists because the fire forced him to build it. The toy-factory infrastructure is sitting there as a side effect of an insurance claim from when his kids set the place on fire.
(This is the kind of thing the official history flattens into "Ole Kirk's tireless work ethic" but is actually closer to a contingent capital-expansion event triggered by a household accident. The capacity for toy manufacturing was already paid for. The toys came along to fill it.)
The yo-yo helped, briefly.
There was a yo-yo craze in Denmark in 1932, the way there were yo-yo crazes in lots of places in the early thirties — it's one of those weird viral cultural moments that propagates through the international toy trade and then vanishes — and Ole Kirk's shop started making yo-yos by the thousands. The wholesaler who'd placed the order then went bankrupt before he could pay for them, and the yo-yo craze ended at about the same time, and Ole Kirk was left with a warehouse full of yo-yo disks he couldn't sell.
He cut the disks in half and used them as wheels for wooden toy cars and buses.
The first generation of Lego toys was built out of the literal scrap from a failed contract for a different toy entirely. The pull-along duck that becomes the company's signature wooden toy in the late thirties rolled on wheels that had been planned for a fad that died in 1932.
The 1932 price list shows 28 different toy designs in production.
Buses, ferries, airplanes, the 6 Hjul Rutebil — a six-wheeled bus, the biggest of the early models. Birch wood, mostly, brought in from the local forests and air-dried for two years before it was kiln-dried for another three weeks. Then sealed, sanded, primed, and finished with three coats of paint. This is furniture-maker craftsmanship applied to children's toys at a price point that subsistence farmers can theoretically afford, which is part of the reason the business kept losing money. The unit economics were structured for a higher-income customer base than actually existed in Billund or anywhere within wagon distance of it.
The wood ages on the lot for two years before it goes into a toy. The toy gets sold to a farm family whose wheat crop just collapsed on the global market. The pricing arithmetic does not work.
And then, in September 1932, his wife died.
Kirstine Sørensen, daughter of a local cheese-maker, mother of four, miscarriage of a fifth that produced the phlebitis that killed her. Four boys aged six to fifteen, and the carpenter alone in the workshop with them, in a village of 249 people, on the wrong end of the wrong economy at the wrong moment in the global business cycle. This is the bottom of a long slide where somebody is trying anything that might keep the operation moving for another quarter.
The brothers and sisters he hit up for a loan of 3,000 kroner that year asked him, on the record, "Can't you find something more useful to do?"
The Inner Mission piece is also worth pulling out here, because Ole Kirk was a devout member, which is the pietist evangelical wing of the Danish Lutheran church — culturally Jutlandic, suspicious of Copenhagen, theologically focused on personal salvation and community discipline. Inner Mission was concentrated specifically in the same Jutland heath districts that the Heath Society was trying to make agriculturally viable, and the two projects were ideologically intertwined in ways that the Heath Society's official histories mostly elide. Cultivating the heath was a religious project as much as a national one — you were redeeming bad land the way you redeemed a bad life, through discipline and labor and the conviction that work itself was a form of grace.
The "Only the best is good enough" motto that Ole Kirk eventually hangs on the factory wall is a piece of Inner Mission moral language as much as it is a quality-control directive. The famous story about Godtfred saving money by giving the wooden ducks two coats of varnish instead of three, and being made to retrieve them from the railway station and finish them properly even if it took all night — that's a parable about commercial integrity, but it's also a Mission story, the kind of thing you'd hear at a revival meeting in the 1890s.
The work ethic is the theology.
The name itself — Lego, from leg godt, "play well" — doesn't get coined until 1934. The internal company contest where Ole Kirk submits his own entry and chooses it is sometimes treated as the foundational mythological moment, but the company had been making toys for two years at that point. The name was, functionally, a branding upgrade for a business that was already running.
The branding mattered because Danish toy buyers in 1934 had a lot of options — German wooden toys flooded the market, Czech ones too, and the depression had collapsed enough of the local competition that what remained needed to differentiate itself somehow. "Play well" is a slogan that works for a small Jutland workshop trying to compete with Erzgebirge production runs. It performs a Danish identity, against a German one, in a market where that distinction was about to become very politically loaded very quickly.
The second fire is March 20, 1942.
Denmark has been under German occupation for almost two years at this point. The factory employs 26 people and is the largest single employer in Billund parish, which has maybe 350 residents by then. The fire starts in the night, destroys the entire woodworking factory and almost every wooden toy model, pattern, and drawing the company has accumulated over a decade of production. The family home next door is narrowly saved. Insurance doesn't cover the losses. Ole Kirk almost gives up, gets multiple offers to rebuild somewhere else in Denmark with better infrastructure, and chooses to stay in Billund specifically because he doesn't want to leave his 26 employees without work.
(This is the moment that makes Billund a company town. Without it, Ole Kirk could plausibly have moved the operation to Vejle or Kolding, where there were rail connections and a labor market and capital. He stayed because Inner Mission ethics and the social weight of being the only employer in a 350-person village left him no acceptable way to leave. The 1942 fire is what locks the company into the heath for the next eighty years.)
The 1942 rebuild is the moment the company shifts from artisanal workshop to industrial operation. Every pattern and template has to be redrawn from memory or rebuilt from first principles. Ole Kirk takes out a loan from Vejle Bank and builds a modernized factory by 1943, planned for higher-volume production than what they'd been doing pre-fire. The wartime context actually helps here, weirdly — the German occupation banned the import of foreign toys and prohibited the use of metal and rubber in domestic toy production, which meant Danish wooden toymakers had the domestic market to themselves for the duration. Lego's wartime sales doubled in the first two years of occupation.
What the 1942 fire really does is force a reset that wipes out the accumulated furniture-shop pattern library and replaces it with a purpose-built toy-factory pattern library, redrawn by people who now know they're making toys and only toys. Pre-1942, the factory was a furniture shop that also made toys. Post-1942, it's a toy factory that occasionally still makes household items because old habits die slow.
What's interesting structurally is that the company spent its entire first decade and a half as one of dozens of small Danish wooden-toy makers. The thing that would eventually distinguish it — the plastic interlocking brick — wasn't a product of carpentry tradition at all.
The plastic injection-molding machine that Ole Kirk bought in 1947 cost him a substantial fraction of the company's annual profits, and the family was reportedly furious about it because plastic was understood at the time as a cheap wartime ersatz material, the stuff you made when you couldn't get good metal or proper wood. He was buying it from an English supplier — postwar British plastics manufacturers were trying to find civilian markets for capacity that had been built up during the war, and they were selling these injection machines to anybody who could come up with the deposit. The Danish government had actually banned non-essential plastic manufacturing until 1947 due to material shortages; Ole Kirk's purchase essentially coincides with the ban lifting.
The brick itself, the Automatic Binding Brick of 1949 that becomes the modern Lego brick in 1958, was a direct copy of the Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Brick, which had been patented in 1939 by a British psychologist named Hilary Page. Ole Kirk had been sent a sample brick along with the molding machine — this was apparently routine, the English manufacturer included a sample product to demonstrate what the machine could do — and the Lego version was, for the first decade or so, almost identical to the Kiddicraft original, studs on top and all. The stud-and-tube interlocking system that Godtfred would patent in 1958 was a real innovation. The brick before then was a copy.
(Kiddicraft went out of business eventually. Lego reached an out-of-court settlement with the estate in 1981 to acquire the residual rights to Hilary Page's patents, in what was either a generous gesture or a quiet acknowledgement that the foundational IP had been somewhat dubious for thirty years. Page himself had killed himself in 1957, having never made significant money from his invention, which was being scaled up into a global product by a Danish company he had never heard of.)
The third fire is February 4, 1960.
By this point Ole Kirk has died (heart attack, March 1958, two months before the patented stud-and-tube brick goes into production), Godtfred is running the company, and the factory employs around 450 people. The plastic operation is the company's growth engine — System of Play has launched, exports are expanding through Europe, the brick is the future. But Lego is still making wooden toys at substantial volume because that's what the business has always done, and because Godtfred's brothers Karl and Gerhardt are the technical directors of, respectively, plastic and wooden production, and the wooden side has institutional momentum and family politics behind it.
The 1960 fire burns down the wooden toy warehouse and destroys the entire wooden-toy inventory.
Godtfred uses this as the occasion to discontinue wooden-toy production entirely. The official argument is that the insurance won't cover restocking, the wooden line is barely profitable anyway, and the plastic operation can absorb the displaced labor. All of which is true. The fire also conveniently gives him cover to make a decision he probably wanted to make for years but couldn't push past the family without an external catalyst. Karl and Gerhardt both resign in 1961, in what the official history describes as an amicable transition but which was a serious internal fight, because Karl had been the heir apparent for the wooden side and now had no wooden side to be heir of.
So the three fires don't just destroy property. They each force a categorical shift the company couldn't have engineered on its own.
The 1924 fire builds the floor space that enables the 1932 pivot to toys.
The 1942 fire wipes out the furniture-shop pattern library and forces the rebuild as a dedicated toy factory.
The 1960 fire ends wooden-toy production and resolves the internal family fight about plastic versus wood in favor of plastic.
Same story each time. An accident creates a state-change the institutional inertia would otherwise have prevented, and the resulting reset gets retconned into the heroic narrative as "we adapted, we persevered, we kept the faith." The actual mechanism is that the company kept getting forced into corners where the next move was obvious because every other option had just literally burned down.
So the Lego story, told the way the company tells it, is about visionary craftsmanship, the Danish pedagogical tradition of "good play," and the genius of the interlocking brick.
The actual sequence is more like this. A heath-village carpenter loses his market in the agricultural depression. He makes toys out of leftover scrap from a yo-yo bankruptcy. His kids burn the workshop down in 1924 and the rebuild is bigger than it needs to be, which is the floor space the toy operation will eventually occupy. He loses his wife. He scrapes together loans from skeptical siblings. He brands the operation in 1934. He survives the war under occupation, the factory burns down in 1942 and gets rebuilt as a modernized toy factory because there's nothing else to do. He buys a plastic machine in 1947 because British wartime production capacity had to go somewhere. He copies a British patent. He dies in 1958. The warehouse burns down in 1960, ending wooden production. And his son ends up with a product that will eventually turn the 249-person village into Denmark's second-largest airport.
The 249 people is the detail everything else hangs on. Billund had no infrastructure of its own when Ole Kirk arrived. No bank branch, no real hotel, no industry. The reason Lego's later expansion in the 1960s produces the bizarre situation of a Fortune 500 toy company headquartered in a town that had to be built up around it from a parish hamlet is that there was nothing already in Billund competing for the land or the labor — the company could just keep accreting onto an empty landscape, and did.
Billund Airport in 1964 was originally the company's private airstrip. Legoland in 1968 was built on Lego land. The town of Billund as it exists today is a corporate town in the same sense that Hershey, Pennsylvania is a corporate town, except the corporation showed up before there was really anything else there, and grew along with it for sixty years.
Same as it ever was — the Danish miracle is downstream of the Danish heath, which is downstream of a thousand years of bad agricultural geography, which is also why you'd buy a yo-yo machine in 1932 in the first place, and why three accidental fires would each turn out to be the most important strategic decisions the company never actually made.
GBBO: “A s’more is basically just an Italian merengue sandwiched between two ganache-covered digestives”
Americans:
in case anyone in wondering, this is Paul Hollywood's idea of a s'more
You know what, their absolute inability to grasp Mexican foods makes more sense every day
Nodding my head in support of the Americans despite having no clue what a s’more is.
Okay, American immigrant to the UK here to explain all the mistakes from Paul Hollywood happening here: there is one fundamentally American ingredient required to make a s'more correctly but which is basically not available anywhere at all in the UK, and that is graham crackers. A plain digestive biscuit close-ish, but still a very different beast.
From Wikipedia: A graham cracker is a sweet flavored cracker made with graham flour.
The next ingredient (which is also extremely traditionally American but slightly more variable) is typically Hershey's chocolate, but you could probably swap this out in the UK with any plain chocolate bar.
Last ingredient is big marshmallows, the kind you do the chubby bunny challenge with, like the size of your thumb and twice as thick.
A proper s'more, the most traditional possible variety, involves to graham cracker squares, two slab segments of Hershey's chocolate, and one to two marshmallows depending on your preference for filling and gooeyness. You put a slab of chocolate on one of the graham cracker squares. Your marshmallows should be toasted, usually over a campfire but if you're doing them at home over a gas stove burner is fine, but the fire part is critical. You can toast them to whatever degree you like, some people like them nice and golden brown but still kind of firm in the middle, me personally? I want that bitch to CATCH ON FIRE, I want it gooey and sticky as hell in the middle, crispy and burnt on the outside. Slap that motherfucker on your graham cracker and chocolate square, top with the other one so your marshmallow and chocolate are sandwiched together by graham cracker on the outside. You do this with your freshly toasted marshmallow because ideally it will be hot enough to start to melt the chocolate so it sticks to the marshmallow and the graham cracker and, combined with the gooey marshmallow, it keeps the whole thing together, and for that reason some people will let them sit for a hot second to let the melting process happen (especially if like me you have chocolate on BOTH graham cracker squares, not just one, because you're a sugar fiend), but if you are a young child you do not have that degree of patience and you eat that shit immediately, unmelted chocolate and all. Consume your summer camp delight like a tiny club sandwich, get gooey sticky marshmallow and chocolate all over your hands, and enjoy.
Important note: this is a kids treat. It is a traditional summer camping trip dessert. It should be something any ten year old with adult supervision and access to the ingredients can make (and make a mess of). They're called s'mores because kids always "want s'more". If you are using a blowtorch, chocolate biscuits, and merengue, you are so far beyond the bounds of s'more-hood that you have thoroughly lost the plot. If you offered Paul Hollywood's concoction to an American child and called it a s'more, they'd tell you flat out that not only is it not a s'more, it looks dumb and you didn't do it right because it's not gooey.
the point is the mess. the point is getting to make a food, at age seven, whose two basic food groups are 'sugar' and 'fire'. the other point is that this food item is so crumbly, chaotic, sticky, on fire, and prone to being dropped (outside, in the dark, while you are surrounded by other children who are also sticky and on fire) that your supervisors cannot accurately monitor how many smores you personally have consumed. the point is also that you may get away with a smore that is five blocks of chocolate and two marshmallows if you move fast and let nothing stop you.
if you haven't accidentally yet unrepentantly eaten a chunk of twigs or dirt or a bug that got enmeshed in the creative process around smore number 3st, you are too old to have any legitimate input into what makes a smore.
There's 2 other points that I think are important.
The first is that you don't pull the marshmallow off the roasting stick and somehow put it on the chocolate. Your staging area will look something like this, with the graham crackers and chocolate already set out (though not usually on the fire like this, for us it was always someone's lap or a picnic table or something)
And when your marshmallow has reached appropriate roasting perfection, you use the graham crackers to slide it off the stick.
and ideally, as a CHILD you are using a literal stick. Like you walked around and spent time looking for The Perfect Stick off the ground while the adults set up the fire. It has to be thin enough the marshmallow will fit, sturdy enough that it won't bow, long enough that you won't burn yourself roasting your marshmallow. And preferably doesn't have a lot of bark that's sloughing off, OR so much bar sloughing off you can peel it all back and get to the clean stick under it. If you're smart, you might stick the tip into the fire first to "wash" it/burn off anything that was still lingering, but. well, most kids don't.
When you bite in, the marshmallow and chocolate SHOULD ooze out all over you. If you don't kinda look like this eating it, you've probably done it wrong:
The description of the marshmallows as being either brown on the outside but still firm on the inside or fully melted but burned on the outside is missing the true art: fully molten in the middle, without the black burns. Not to say OP is wrong for preferring the burn! But there is a technique for perfection and it goes like this:
You find a spot, not above all the logs where everyone sticks their marshmallows by default, but at the heart of the fire. Ideally between a couple logs already glowing gold. Something like here:
Below the leaping flame. Near the logs. There's probably only one or two spots good enough for this on any given fire, but that's okay because everyone else is up above. They will get their marshmallows faster. They will be either firm or burned or both. That's not your goal.
Rotate the marshmallow slowly. Ideally come in at an angle so the part closest to the flame is the side, not the tip. The spot closest to the fire is the spot that turns a crispy golden brown, and you want that everywhere, on the tip and around the circle.
You keep going, slowly turning, for several minutes. Several people will rotate in and out of the higher sections, getting their fast delight. Eventually, your marshmallow will start sagging badly, risking falling. Maybe it does fall and got start over. But eventually it will be golden brown all over, and so liquid it no longer clings to the stick. It is ready, finally.
You say "who hasn't gotten one yet?" And deposit it onto their waiting graham crackers and chocolate. You've made an excellent marshmallow. It isn't for you. Get another while you're over by the bags and go back to the heart of the fire.
That's your evening. One, slow, perfect marshmallow at a time, given to whomever still wants s'more. You're making art for children to stuff into their mouths cheerfully. You're watching the movement of the fire and the heat of the logs, like you would if you were maintaining it — maybe you would be, maybe you were the one who built it — but right now that's not the goal. Let someone else put more logs on, while you take only the one stick and find the best spot for it to live.
You will, eventually, finish a marshmallow and find that nobody moves to accept it. Maybe they're all eating right now, or maybe they've gone through so many they're hesitating. Eat your masterpiece then. Enjoy it, the hardest and most perfect result from a fun and beautiful moment. Go back in for another, until you've run out of marshmallows and the fire is too low or until even you are done with s'mores, until you have made enough.
"We don't want a gooey mess" pfft even the artistry studied at the feet of my father is inherently a gooey mess. That's the whole point!
Every word of every addition to this post is both 100% true and Pulitzer Prize winning writing.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
“lookit this guy here Trev.”
“yeah Jase”
“Nice camera, innit”
“very nice camera, indeed Jase. That lens - a gib? two? ”
“be a shame if someone shat all over it. Such a nice camera.”
“if two someones shat on it. Big shame.”
You'll always have a seat on the train.
I love rebloging. It’s the adult equivalent of showing everyone the cool rock I just found.
Gentle reminder, there may be some grammatical misunderstandings with this post. It is acceptable, and in fact encouraged, to reblog shiny rocks.
Labradorite! One of my favorite rocks! It’s the plagioclase that got dressed up for a big night out on the town.
(Also, reblog FTW, you guys. Find a treasure and share with the class.)
Things cats were right about all along:
Fuck staying hydrated by drinking enough water - eat! more! wet! food! (watermelon, cucumbers, SOUP!)
Feels great to be really high up in your house where you can see the whole place (loft bed loft bed loft bed loft bed!)
Express yourself as clearly as possible when people are touching you and you don't want them to.
Optional, but you can also express yourself clearly when your people are not touching you and you want them to.
Sometimes it's important to just go "hmm. actually, I don't care" and wander off.
You don't have to be the strongest or toughest to defend yourself, it's enough to just be difficult enough to not be worth the trouble.
Ghosts will eventually leave if you stare at them for long enough.
8. Staring outside the window is peaceful and meditative
9. Smacking the shit out of things you don't understand is a good way to deal with your problems
Smacking the shit out of things you don't understand may not be a good way to deal with your problems, but it’s very satisfying. Small victories.
you'll get the urge as an artist or a writer to say out loud the things you're worried about "the proportions are off" "kind of out of character" "i'm not good at summaries" "didn't get as much detail as i wanted" "i made a mistake and here's how" and that's the self-conscious part of your brain telling you "it's bad and if you don't tell them you know it's bad then they'll think you're stupid" but you've got to ignore that little voice and pretend you think it's good or else that little voice is going to ruin your life
Some of the best advice I have ever gotten was from a creative writing professor. She said never apologize for your work. Never critic it before someone else does.
Her reasoning was you are the creator. You made your work from nothing and can see all the flaws and seems and holes. But your audience may not see any of it. Maybe they will; maybe they won't. But if you TELL them about the holes and the mistakes and the problems....they will 100% see them. So don't tell them. Don't sabotage yourself just because you think you're not good enough.
When I was ten, my dad gave me the advice of "Never tell people your stuff is bad before they've had a chance to decide for themselves. Telling people what they should think about something before they've even seen it is rude. (Also, if they can't tell that it's bad, then you've played a trick on them. Which is a much better trick to play on people than hiding your brother's shoes before school.)
So yeah. Don't preemptively tell people your stuff sucks. Just throw it at them and see if you're good enough to trick them into thinking it's good. The gullible rubes.
Applies to any work of art. Applies to most stuff at work, too.
If it’s good, you don’t want to sabotage yourself.
If it’s not good, you don’t want to spill the beans.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
People have always been people. There has never been the mythical golden age of the "good old days."
So whatever people say about you or your generation, has been said a million times before.
Constants throughout history - death, taxes, and old folk clutching their pearls about kids these days.