The eagles are coming!

I realised today that frog feet are kind of ideal for wearing heels and well then I accidentally

Get the look:

So one of the things that can apparently contribute to kidney issues in cats is if they eat too much dry food and don't drink enough water; cats are adapted to get a lot of their water from their food since they're originally desert animals, and might not get enough water if they don't eat wet food. Unfortunately, Dozy won't eat wet food no matter what; she categorically refuses to touch the stuff. So a few months ago, we were looking for ways to get Dozy more fluids, and my wife noticed at the pet store a cat drink--basically meat broth with some floaty bits in--that was low-protein and meant for cats with kidney issues. So we figured, worth a try, right?

I love those "asking cosplayers at a con what their day job is" videos because it's always like

or it's like

*guy in fully operational digitigrade mechsuit* I uh bag groceries.

what really fucks me up about watching the truman show in 2025 is how it's not fictional. truman is fictional, but the truman show isn't.

people always go "Instead of spending all that time on a study they could have just listened to us when we said these thing happen"

Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.

My grandmother confessed on her death bed that:

Ship is copy editing a novel that was originally written in Japanese, and one line they had to edit for clarity in English was "the river was so big it could be considered a large river," which was so clearly the result of there being a specific term for "a river that's huge" in the original language and not in English that I was like why the fuck DON'T we have a word for that though ???

I grew up on the Columbia River in eastern Washington State and I was aware that small rivers (like the Yakima River, also a major feature of my childhood landscape) existed, I just didn’t consider them real rivers. Anything that you can walk across or lazily float down is more of a, I don’t know, recreational waterway. They’re nice or whatever, but they’re not really real rivers.