Lemon in Play

i think this is one of the most beautiful songs i've ever heard and i would really like to know what the words mean

Didn’t realise phone was connected to speaker in kitchen

Door to kitchen was shut

Didn’t realise why music didn’t appear to be playing, so turned it up quite loud.

Was called away to do 18 different things at once for children and slipped phone into pocket

Husband, entering kitchen while thinking about something else, walked into a passage around 1:14 and was blasted, without consent or context, with whatever the music is doing at 1:14

To his credit, he rallied quickly

“Hi. Why is there a Mongolian throat singer in the kitchen?”

I was assisting a child in getting a toddler into a very tight handmade Dalmatian costume, made by a neighbour’s grandmother in a rather unconventional way, while providing sympathy to a third child with a complex emotional problem, and received this question with blank bewilderment, having forgotten what I had been on tumblr for and having not actually heard the music

Only thing I could think of was “and you just LEFT him there?!”

This happened last night at the rescheduled White House Correspondents Dinner. I’m not using this post to talk about the clarity of the 22nd Amendment, but instead to point out that these same sack of shit journalists who screamed at Biden’s press secretary and demanded answers for if he had Parkinson’s (which he doesn’t—a Parkinson’s expert visited the White House to weigh in on legislation relating to the disease) and helped drive Biden out of the White House “cuz old” were clapping like seals over this insane old fuck openly declaring he wants to violate the Constitution and illegally hold onto power. Biden’s presidency would’ve ended that night if he’d said anything similar, with claims that this was evidence he had dementia and that he was a threat to democracy. But their special boi gets an adoring audience. 10 fucking years of the press enabling American society’s abuser because he makes them money and they think he’s soooo funnee and based and libs are Cringe

Mexican Street Corn Salad (Esquites)

Follow for recipes

It's just so fucking stupid.

And while Homer (or, you know, whatever collection of scribes wrote down the Epic Cycle whom we collectively call Homer) may have had a general concept of the Bronze Age Collapse (kind of. Archaic Greeks would know about palace ruins, and may have had a concept that many great civilizations had been lost in the recent past. Theres really only 1 mention of *writing* in the Iliad, and its...pretty amiguous. So its not even super clear is Homer realized that people in the Mycenean period had written language), the character of Odysseus definitely did not.

The homeric Odyssey isn't about the Bronze Age Collapse and its themes do not represent an anxiety about the degeneracy and decline of Greek Culture, and if we are going to assess Nolan's film on the rubric of "are concepts, themes, and terminology something that Homer would have used or recognized", we would be here all day. (Theres not even really an Archaic Greek word for "Veteran" in the same way we do, or in the same way its used in the film. Odysseus, a man still fit for battle, would never apply the term to himself) But I don't think thats a particularly fair way to assess the film.

As for my comparison to De Vinci, who died before Vasaris book- Vasari used the term "rebirth" to describe the shift in art styles, and it wouldn't be used to describe the entire cultural era until the 1850s. So, Michelangelo likely wouldn't have thought he was having a great day in the Italian Renaissance either, honestly. Though he might have felt like his art was part of the artistic revival at the time.

Yes, WE, modern people with modern concepts about history, talk about living in the Information Age. We are very used to dividing up history into discreet eras, often to the point of oversimplification, to compare eras to each other, to try to find cause and effect in our progression from one to the next. It's a concept clearly, Nolan finds very interesting.

It also nearly sent me into a fit in the movie because it's just Nolan breaking the forth wall and saying to the camera "This movie is actually about the decline of the American empire because of the loss of traditional values".

a lot of the current rhetoric around gender reminds me of that anecdote. a lot of people are willing to go "transgender people are oppressed for their gender presentation, therefore if you're not oppressed for your gender presentation, you're not trans." but i don't think we should be defining ourselves by our suffering and oppression. what will we do, in a few years, in a few decades, as there start to be, say, adults who were supported in their transition as children? what will we do when a stereotypical trans person can genuinely say they didn't suffer hardship for being trans?

i'm afraid i know the answer. i'm afraid that people are going to close ranks as they've already started closing ranks against intersex people, against nonbinary people, against double binary people, against closeted people. as some people have started closing ranks against people who transitioned in the opposite direction from them. as many people have closed ranks against people with edge case gender experiences. "i don't consider you to be oppressed, therefore you are not welcome to share in this community you might otherwise belong in."

Also, the kiss was a big deal not just because it was gay but because the trans actress was HIV positive. They wanted to show the world that you can't contract HIV just from kissing someone. Bear in mind, the AIDS crisis was still fresh on people's minds in the 90s.

go to About:config find media.mediasource.enabled and toggle it to false find media.cache_readahead_limit and change it to 9999 find media.cache_resume_threshold and change it to 9999

additionally if you'd prefer mp4 to webm

also in about:config, find: media.encoder.webm.enabled media.mediasource.webm.audio.enabled media.mediasource.webm.enabled media.webm.enabled and toggle them all to false

note! this will limit video to 1080p

Funny you should mention that

Wanna know who said that? Who mentored johnny depp’s lead attorney?

So, on the one hand I agree – attorneys often get shit for doing their job. But what this kind of fails to acknoledge is that in America we're operating within the jury system. The similarities to the OJ simpson case lay in that emotional manipulation of the jury. I think it's naïve to say twelve legal amateurs would make decisions like these rationally rather than emotionally. Even trained judges – in countries where they're actually the ones making the decisions – will be infuenced by their emotions. When you don't even have those years of legal training emotion is all you have. A good lawyer in such a system knows how to exploit that.

The outcome of the OJ Simpson trial was the result of soddy police work. But the turning points of that trial were things like OJ attempting to put on a glove that wouldn't fit (because it had dried and shrunken) and most importantly when it was revealed that one of the investitators who found the glove was a racist (notably they didn't prove he planted evidence because they didn't have to, that alone blew a big enough hole in his believability) – all of which appealed the jury's emotions. Add to that the fact that all happened to the backdrop of countless murders of black citizens by the LAPD that went unpunished. The narrative at the time was that OJs legal team abused and manipulated the system by using all of these things in their advantage. The reality is that the jury system invites appeal to emotions over appeals to logic because the end goal is, to put iy crassly, to emotionally manipulate twelve random people. Emotional manipulation isn't "hacking the system," it's just the system.

The reason Vasque's shoutout to her mentor feels so distasteful to me in spite of that is that nowadays it is pretty much accepted that Simpson did murder his wife and a young man coming to her aid. So for her to appeal to him is to be proud of having her client also "get away with murder," or rather domestic abuse. It's simply distasteful and shows her callousness on the subject.

The fact that the jury system invites emotional manipulation also doesn't mean defense attorneys are immune to criticism when it comes to their methods. In the case of Depp v Heard Vasques talked about spraying Depp's perfume in the bathroom so as to trigger Heard's PTSD. Vasques then got a friend of hers on the stand and testify that Heard supposedly showed no signs of PTSD after only one consultation, and then diagnose her with histrionic personality disorder on the stand. If there was ever a line to cross, she crossed it here.

It's also important to mention that Adam Waldman, the man behind Depp's team, is the one who leaked the clipped audios to the press – he admitted to it on the stand so this isn't speculation. The smear campaign was at least partly organized by Waldman and it's very unlikely that Vasques didn't know about it. So when we're hating the smear campaign we are hating his legal team. It wasn't "the press" – most bigger news papers were on Heard's side throughout the trial. The smear campaign happened online through bots and clipped audios, and Depps legal team was involved in both of these.

I think saying that Depp's lawyers were just "doing their job" is extremely disingenuous.

The main reason people claim "Amber is the real abuser" is because of the edited clips that Adam Waldman spread online with the help of "internet journalists" (aka YouTubers), which like you said, it's something he said on the stand (x)

And I don't have the screenshots right now, but Waldman also made it a habit to harass Amber on Twitter (such as posting pictures of photoshoots she did to "prove" she wasn't abused), as well as Amber's UK lawyer, Jennifer Robinson.

Camille Vasquez also went on to do multiple interviews post-trial, very much feeding the TikTok crowd that labeled her a girlboss feminist and the real-life Elle Woods, reminiscing about her cross-examination of Amber like it was a holiday vacation and how much a "woman's perspective" was needed for Depp's team (x)

She even made a TikTok alongside Mario Lopez (who has his own SA allegations) mocking Amber's testimony (x) The caption of the video even said "Now we can see Aquaman 2". There's no way Vasquez didn't know what she was doing here.

Here's the clip of her giggling about Robert Shapiro being her mentor, talking about how much she admired him, and how she watched the OJ Simpson trial when she was a kid. Now this is just tactless, and you pretty much already said why.

She even said that Amber needs to "grow up and stop being a baby" in one of the documentaries that was made after the trial. (x)

Here's Vasquez happily reacting to a TikTok a woman made imitating her while she was cross-examining Amber (x). On what planet is this considered professional?

He did a wonderful job, but as he was returning my plant to my custody, he explained "I watered her every other day, I gave her new dirt, moved her into the sunshine, prayed the rosary-"

"What?"

He looked at me, confused. "Isn't she a plant you pray with?"

"No," I said slowly. "She's a prayer plant. That's the... colloquial name of the plant."

Upon seeing his stricken face, I realized something went wrong. Turns out, this entire time, he's been including my plant in on his prayers and leaving her near icons.

Executive dysfunction comes from a lack of available dopamine. Common advice is wrong. You need to provide your own dopamine before you can start. Otherwise you're trying to run your car on empty.

"But what if I still don't do it" well you already weren't getting it done anyway. Now you have a little treat. Try again later.

You deserve kindness and care even when you aren't being productive.

I usually suggest this technique as a "Reverse Pomodoro." In the original Pomodoro, you work for 25 minutes and then take a break for 5 minutes (the times vary, but that's the essential ratio). People with executive dysfunction often find this insurmountable, and they get even more frustrated, and then the task seems even more difficult. So instead, flip those times.

FIRST, spend 25 minutes doing something energizing and engaging that you like to do. Not scrolling social media passively, not watching tv, not napping. Try something like colouring, doing yoga, running/walking around the block, talking about your favourite tv show with someone in real time, playing with the dog or cat, making and eating a lovely sandwich, hula hooping, something active. Having a little treat absolutely falls in this category!

(on the subject of little treats: refusing yourself food until you do work is for fucking Puritans and you can be kinder to yourself)

Then, after 25 minutes (or however long it takes to eat the sandwich or finish the yoga routine, it doesn't have to be exact), spend 5 minutes writing (or doing whatever you're struggling to start). Most people can coax themselves into doing something they find difficult for five minutes, if they have already filled up the joy/energy/engagement bucket. You can put a timer on for the 5 minutes if you want, or if you find that annoying, just work for as long as you like.

The other key is: don't push yourself to keep going when you're frustrated or tired—that will just reinforce the negative belief that you already have, which tells you that this task is painful to do, and needs to be avoided. If you've commonly had to force yourself to do this kind of task, that's likely part of why you think of it as painful and have trouble starting it now. Also, you should just, at a basic level, try not to put yourself in pain for the sake of productivity. So just do it till the good feelings run out. Then start hula hooping or colouring again for another 25 minutes. When the tank's refilled, try another 5 minutes of work, if you can. Adjust times to taste.

I work in an obstetrician and gynaecologist’s office. we have to tell patients on a regular basis that they are binge drinking weekly when they think they are simply consuming a normal amount of alcohol on the weekends.

having more than 3 drinks in a single sitting if you have an estrogen based endocrine system is a binge that is medically significant.

having more than 5 in a sitting is a medically significant binge for someone with a testosterone based endocrine system.

every time you do this, it significantly impacts your risk of getting breast cancer, and damages your liver. it takes time to recover from that liver damage. if you’re having a 3-5 or more drink binge on a weekly basis, you are an alcoholic, medically speaking, and your liver is not recovering.

again: the bar for what binge drinking is, medically, is so much lower than what you think it is.

alcohol is a really toxic substance and not something you should fuck around with.

again: if you have an estrogenized hormone system (common for most women), then 3 drinks is a binge. if you have a testosteronized hormone system (common for most men), then 5 drinks is a binge.

anything above that number, consumed as frequently as weekly or more, and you’re medically a binge drinking alcoholic.

also, if you’re drinking any quantity of alcohol 6 days a week or more, that’s another threshold at which, medically speaking, you meet the definition of alcoholism. your liver needs more days without alcohol in your system than just one a week to recover and be healthy.

I don’t say any of this to shame anyone—to me, alcoholism or substance use disorders aren’t a sign of weakness or moral failing. and most of us genuinely don’t know this stuff.

information is key. you don’t have to stop drinking, but the utter lack of education on alcohol + the normalization of binge drinking in current society leads to many people drinking without any idea of what it’s doing to their bodies.

Because a vodka shot is not the same as (idk, some low alcohol percentage alcohol.)

do we have evidence of this being hormone related? Like in trans individuals or maybe people with PCOS or intersex people or is this purely body size?

I would like to be wrong but this sounds like a thing where “hormones” are a stand in for “sex at birth” and where the real issue lies is in body size and composition. Estrogen OS = overall shorter with more fat. Testosterone OS = overall taller with more muscle. Fat/muscle affects how things are broken down and used, and how much of those things someone needs. Meds, alcohol, food.

Not trying to be an asshole, fully believe that there are variations in how much people can tolerate and that body size and composition do tend to align with how the medical industry sorts people into two sexes. Just…I don’t trust research to look that deeply into things like this, once they start getting quoted.

Also just a smidge of “LADIES are delicate and too much of the demon rum will overwhelm their uteruses and they will swoon.” The way women are told they should eat less than a man their height and weight just because they are women, and women should eat less (delicate flowers, must not be seen to swallow meals like a snake, must not be allowed to get fat). No. You are feeding a body. If you aren’t feeding muscle, you are telling it to store fat.

This just sounds like science that is broadly right, for really stupid reasons.

For example, your liver screens excess estrogen from your body but will not do so efficiently if it is dealing with a damaging poison like alcohol. Having estrogen levels higher than your body would normally self regulate to is a major factor in breast cancer. Studies indicate that for people with estrogenized endocrine system alcohol consumption can increase the risk of breast cancer by as much as 35%

This also means that for anyone on HRT involving estrogen (common for a variety of situations, from menopause to transitioning) the risk of cancer goes up significantly when you are drinking. For example, post-menopausal women who are taking HRT and drink one or two alcoholic drinks per day have a breast cancer risk that is three times higher than women who don’t drink and don’t take HRT.

Alcohol also increases the risk of many types of cancer in people regardless of sex or hormonal system. Heavy drinking can increase the risk of stomach, prostate, and pancreas cancer (among others).

Light drinking, even a single drink each day, can increase the risk of several other types of cancer in any person (for instance liver cancer and colon cancer)

Of these, one notable and significant risk increase is for breast cancer in a person with high levels of estrogen.

Sexism and especially misogyny in medicine is a real issue but the information in this post is good and should not be dismissed on the assumption that medicine is probably wrong and sexist when it says things are “different for women than men”, even tho we may wish they would use other language to describe that situation (i do like estrogenized endocrine system here, because that is the relevant part of the biology).