"Left it in the ground, alongside with that chest"

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".

This is a modern approximation to the average Anglo-Saxon’s hlaef (loaf)

“. . . the Anglo-Saxons held their own feast of the opening of the harvest upon 1 August, the hlaef-mass, or loaf mass, from which derived its Medieval English and Scottish name of Lammas. As such it appears regularly in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, explicitly (in 923) as the feast of first fruits. The same name and title are echoed in another early English text, the Red Book of Derby. It was clearly by then the custom to reap the first of the ripe cereals and bake them into bread which was consecrated in church upon that day: a book of Anglo-Saxon charms advised the division of this holy bread into four pieces and the crumbling of each one in the corner of a barn in order to make it a safe repository for the grain about to arrive there. The festival was also known in medieval times as the Gule of August, a term which has vexed linguists, who have only been able to suggest that it signifies the Yule of August, a period of rejoicing similar to that of December. The difficulty evaporates if it is simply an Anglicization of the Welsh gwyl meaning feast, the Welsh name for 1 August being gwyl aust, the feast of August. Certainly the arrival of the time when the first of the harvest could be gathered would have been a natural point of celebration in an agrarian society, and the importance of the first day of August was already so well established by 673 that the Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus decreed that the annual synod of the newly established church in England should be held then. It would seem very likely therefore, that a pre-Christian festival had existed among the Anglo-Saxons upon that date . . .”

—Ronald Hutton Stations of the Sun

This is my favorite part of the recipe for cooking the “bread” that an average Anglo-Saxon (aka a poor one) would have eaten: “each side will probably take as long as it takes to say nine or ten Lord’s Prayers. This is how they measured cooking time in the medieval period.”

The Lord’s Prayer in Old English (I do actually recognize some of the words!):

‘Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum: si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice. Gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg. And forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele soþlice.’

I used 130 grams of all-purpose flour (not at all authentic but what I had) and added enough water to make a dough. Then kneaded it for 5 minutes and shaped it into two rounds.

“When the Anglo-Saxons were rich enough to own metal objects, they made brooches, not measuring spoons.”—The Early English Bread Project

I then went ahead and measured the time by chanting the Lord’s Prayer as mentioned above because this didn’t seem like simply a practical element to keep time, but you know, magic! Incantation! And since I planned on eating one of these to test it, and saving the other for Lammas rituals, the magic seemed like an essential ingredient.

Eight repetitions was plenty.

And I can’t help myself, a little syncretism with my Slavic Děduška blessing the bread for me.

Did I like this hlaef? No, I did not. I’m a spoiled lady of modern times, I guess. 🤷‍♀️

The Early English Bread Project said that traditionally the butter and cheese that would have been eaten with it was very salty which is why it was made without, but our modern butter and cheese probably didn’t make up for the lack. If I make it again to eat, and not just for ritual, I will probably add salt.

Do visit The Early English Bread Project for the types of flour thatwould have been used depending upon your degrees of poorness. And for such pithy comments as:

If you want to have an authentic stomach ache, you could add cockle, a troublesome weed that grew among the grain. Excavations in York showed that tenth-century bread had enough cockle to have given the eaters digestive discomfort.

Next I made the leavened rich person version based on the recipe at the bottom of this post.

I cut the recipe in half as I knew no one else in the house would be interested in experimenting. I divided it into two loaves (hlaefs?). One to taste test and one for Lammas rituals.

Maybe I should have adjusted cooking times since I made smaller loaves. The outside was quite crusty.

This was much more to my refined tastes, however! 😜 I had it for second breakfast with butter and honey.

If anybody actually reads this and experiments, I’d love to hear your results/opinions.

Two rare medieval coins minted to seek divine protection against Viking raids have been found in Denmark, where Vikings once wore them as jewellery.

Please imagine me gently holding your hands, I am not reprimanding you, I say this with nothing but love and respect, but

If you give a character with no access to antibiotics a wound infection, they are going to die.

If a character is delirious with fever, they are going to die.

Make them lose a substantial amount of blood. For reference: For an adult human, about 8% of their body weight is blood. They can lose around 10% of that without much trouble, 20% will cause serious symptoms, more than 50-60% is generally incompatible with life. These numbers are estimations. The slower this blood loss, the better the body can compensate for it. Losing a significant amount of blood will affect the character's consciousness and take days or weeks to recover from.

Fever and malaise. Injuries are stressful. Inflammation is a natural response to that. Destroyed cells release proteins which can cause moderate fever (too much of that can cause kidney failure which is why excessive beatings can kill people, even when they don't initially sustain any life-threatening injuries). The character will be in pain, they'll feel like shit, they'll need plenty of rest and tender caretaking without their limb rotting off.

If you have to infect them, give them an abscess. That way, the pus and bacteria are walled off and can be drained out (by cutting the abscess open), with lower risk of it getting into the blood stream. It's also risky but much more survivable than phlegmone (diffuse infection of soft tissue).

Drugs. Just drug 'em. Ye Olde Opium/Laudanum will put them in a scarily deep sleep while Love Interest can sit there and hold vigil. Now this might also kill them so use with caution.

When I asked why, a student answered honestly: It was too long, and she kept losing track of what the paper was about. This was not a remedial class: These were students who had cleared the admissions process and written essays good enough to get them here. Yet a routine academic reading assignment had defeated them.

Every generation of professors has complained that their students cannot read. The lament is usually overblown, but data have caught up to anecdote, and what I am seeing in my classroom is no longer a hunch. There is a measurable, generational collapse in sustained reading and writing, and the academy is responding to it with improvisation and exhaustion rather than the structural overhaul it requires.

In February 2024, Adam Kotsko, who teaches in the Shimer Great Books School at North Central College, wrote in Slate that students who once handled 30 pages of reading per class meeting now seem “intimidated by anything over 10 pages and seem to walk away from readings of as little as 20 pages with no real understanding.” Crucially, he added that this is “not a matter of laziness on the part of the students” but of underlying skills they were never given a chance to build.

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s 2024 investigation found the same pattern across institutions as different as the Stevens Institute of Technology and Wellesley College, where the average SAT exceeds 1400. Nicholaus Gutierrez, an assistant professor at Wellesley, told The Chronicle that the baseline for what students consider a reasonable amount of work has dropped so noticeably that he has cut his readings accordingly; a 750-word essay now strikes many students as long. At Stevens, the science and technology studies associate professor Theresa MacPhail described following the mantra of “meet your students where they are” for so long that she has begun to feel “like a cruise director organizing games of shuffleboard.”

Worse, the national data tell the same story in colder language. On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment, which is the most recent comprehensive writing benchmark, only 24 percent of 12th graders reached the Proficient level, and just 3 percent reached Advanced; another 21 percent scored below Basic. The reading side of the ledger is worse, and getting worse fast: The 2024 NAEP results released in September 2025 show 12th-grade reading scores at the lowest level recorded since the assessment began in 1992. Thirty-two percent of 12th graders now score below NAEP Basic in reading, meaning that, in the assessment’s own language, they likely “cannot draw general conclusions based on concepts presented explicitly in a text.” And yet more than half of these same seniors reported being accepted to a four-year college. That last sentence is the whole problem in one line: We are admitting a cohort that cannot read at a college level and are pretending otherwise.

Why is this happening? One reason, of course, is smartphones.

I came into teaching as a skeptic of the anti-smartphone argument: I had a phone in my pocket throughout high school and college in the 2010s, and I read long books anyway. I now think I was wrong, because the neuroscience has caught up. In a 2017 paper, Adrian F. Ward and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business showed that the mere presence of a participant’s smartphone — whether that be face down, powered off, untouched, or across the desk out of vision — measurably reduces available working memory and fluid intelligence on cognitive tests, with the largest effects on the most phone-dependent users. A 2022 study by Motoyasu Honma and colleagues at Japan’s Showa University used near-infrared spectroscopy to compare reading on a smartphone with reading the same passage on paper, and found that smartphone reading produced overactivity in the prefrontal cortex, suppressed sigh generation, and led to general lower comprehension scores; the authors argued that the sigh inhibition and prefrontal overload were causally linked to the comprehension decline.

So when a student tells me they “kept losing track” of a 20-page article, I have to acknowledge that they may be describing a measurable neurological condition. The neural pathways that support sustained attention are built by use, and they atrophy without it. Your body is a use-it-or-lose-it system, and the brain is no exception.

Another reason for the decline in student reading capability is increasing reliance on generative AI. In June 2025, Nataliya Kosmyna and colleagues at the MIT Media Lab released a preprint titled “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” They divided 54 participants into three groups writing SAT-style essays — one using ChatGPT, the second group using a search engine, the last group using nothing — and monitored brain activity with a 32-channel EEG. The ChatGPT group showed the lowest neural connectivity of the three, with up to 55 percent reduced connectivity compared with the brain-only group, and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.” Eighty-three percent of LLM users could not quote a single line from essays they had written minutes earlier. When the LLM group was forced to write without AI in a follow-up session, their brain activity did not bounce back to baseline; the researchers coined the term “cognitive debt” for the lingering deficit.

This is the first neurophysiological evidence that early reliance on LLMs measurably alters the brain’s engagement with writing tasks, and it is consistent with what those of us in front of classrooms are watching happen in real time. When I assign analysis, I am not trying to extract a polished product; I am trying to put the student’s mind through resistance in order to make it stronger. Offloading the struggle to a chatbot does not “free students up for higher-order work.” It deprives them of building the strength to do any substantial cognitive work at all.

There is a final factor that is contributing to this decline in reading skills, and that is that the students arriving in my classroom today are the first cohort to have experienced Common Core-influenced reading instruction across the entirety of their K–12 schooling. Whatever the standards’ original intent, the on-the-ground implementation in many districts replaced sustained reading with the practice of pulling “evidence” from disconnected short passages, the same format used on the standardized tests that increasingly determine school funding. The education scholar Natalie Wexler, among others, has documented this pivot in detail: Students drilled on “finding the main idea” in two-paragraph excerpts never build the stamina or background knowledge that longform reading requires. The pandemic then added fuel to a fire that was already burning. NAEP scores for 13-year-olds dropped sharply in 2022 and have not recovered. A 2023 EdWeek survey found that 24 percent of secondary-school administrators described pandemic learning loss in English and language arts as “severe or very severe.”

In July 2025, the journalist Mary Harrington argued in The New York Times that “thinking is becoming a luxury good.” The ability to read deeply and reason at length is fragmenting along class lines as ultra-processed digital media replaces text in everyday life, much as ultra-processed food has replaced cooking. Her longer treatment of the subject in First Things makes the more provocative case that we are witnessing the end of print culture itself, and with it the end of the cognitive substrate on which modern liberal democracy was built.

I see this stratification in the classroom and on the page every week. My students from districts that protected sustained reading through small class sizes, strict phone policies, and faculty who refused to teach to the test all arrive with their attention relatively intact. My students from districts that surrendered to devices and standardized testing arrive cognitively winded. A democracy that requires a literate electorate is now training one fraction of that electorate out of literacy while marketing to the other a “deep work” lifestyle as a luxury good. The students who cannot read a 20-page article today are the voters who will not be able to read a bill, or the jurors who cannot follow a closing argument, tomorrow.

I do what I can in my own classroom to address the problems. I break 20-page articles into two halves and assign the first half with explicit analytical tasks. I require exploratory writing before formal drafts. I model (visibly, on the board) how to track an argument across pages or distinguish a source’s claim from my own analysis. I make structured peer review explicit, because the workshop format I used to take for granted now collapses into “this is good” and “maybe add more details” the moment I step back.

But I want to be plain about the limits of what an individual instructor can do, and all of these solutions have costs. Scaffolding a 20-page article into halves compromises the integrity of the argument I am asking students to engage, just as modeling note-taking in a credit-bearing rhetoric course is using a college slot to teach a middle-school skill. None of the syllabi I teach are designed to deliver this type of cognitive rehabilitation, and pretending otherwise has produced credential inflation. We cannot keep conferring degrees on students who cannot do what the degree is supposed to certify.

I’m afraid I don’t have answers. I do, however, have some questions that may point us in the right direction. If higher education is going to respond to the reading crisis as a structural problem rather than a private burden carried by composition instructors and adjuncts, it has to stop avoiding the following questions: If a majority of incoming students cannot read at a level the curriculum requires, are we admitting students we cannot serve, or offering a curriculum we cannot provide?

Why are first-year writing and reading-intensive general-education courses still the most adjunctified, lowest-paid, highest-load corner of the university, at the precise moment when their work has become the most important work the institution does? What is the responsible institutional response for AI usage: Is it a syllabus statement, or a sequencing principle that requires students to demonstrate the cognitive work themselves before AI assistance is permitted?

Why are most college classrooms still phone-permissive by default? K–12 districts from Florida to California are now banning phones bell to bell; higher education has somehow lagged behind the public schools. Universities benefit from a pipeline they did not build and refuse to repair. What would it mean for a university system to invest seriously in the reading instruction happening in the high schools that feed it, rather than treating remediation as something to be quietly outsourced to first-year composition instructors?

The thing I am no longer willing to do is pretend this is a temporary adjustment period, or that “students will adapt.” They will not adapt on their own. The conditions that produced this collapse are still in place: the phones, the algorithmic feeds, the test-prep excerpts, staffing models that load the reading-intensive work onto the most precarious faculty, and now the chatbots that finish students’ sentences before they’ve even begun to think of them. If we want literate citizens, we will have to rebuild the conditions for literacy deliberately, against the grain of every incentive currently pointed the other way. I know the academy has the will to do that. It also has the obligation."

— Tyler Jagt, 1 June 2026, "My Students Can’t Read"

thats what we call neo nazis and shitty conservative bros? or at least its what we used to call them? why are ppl calling themselves "chuds" affectionately now

what is happening

when you call yourself and your friends "chuds"

YOU

ARE

CALLING

YOURSELF

A

my issue isn't women creating un-deep fiction, or even making mistakenly offensive/"problematic" content. the issue arises when they refuse to listen to criticism about it and hide behind "misogyny" to claim that they should be allowed to make anything they want without repercussions.

the same way that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "say what you want all the time with no consequences", being a woman doesn't mean you can be racist or perpetuate stereotypes without being called out. "but i'm just a girl" mentality is so so lame and is both born from and feeds into patriarchal values.

and yes, men make bad and harmful content all the time, too. they've been doing that. i'm specifically talking about rich white women who benefit from their wealth and whiteness, and hide behind their womanhood to claim impunity. who would rather align themselves with rich white men than poor and/or non-white women, because they profit from that hierarchy.

you've seen the jokes. india is "dirty", indians are "everywhere", why don't they fix their own country. ok. let me tell you why, and what's happening right now while nobody's watching.

first, the history you skipped: britain ruled india for two centuries and drained it. economist utsa patnaik's research estimates around $45 trillion in today's money was taken. the india that got independence in 1947 was one of the poorest countries on earth. every "why is india like this" question starts there. you don't get to profit off a robbery and then mock the crime scene.

now, what's happening RIGHT NOW:

in may the question paper for NEET leaked. that's the national medical entrance exam. over 2.2 million students took it. cancelled. years of studying, families' savings poured into coaching, gone overnight because someone sold the paper. students died by suicide after. these were kids who wanted to be doctors.

and out of that came a protest movement. a gen z group called the cockroach janta party, started by a 30 year old named abhijeet dipke, got 22 million instagram followers within DAYS. they've been doing a sit-in at jantar mantar in delhi demanding education minister dharmendra pradhan resign.

and then there's sonam wangchuk. if you've watched 3 idiots, he's the real engineer the character was based on. built solar schools in ladakh. invented ice stupas so himalayan villages have water. spent his whole life on education. he's 59 and he's been on hunger strike for 17+ days now. reporters went to see him this week and he was too weak to talk. and the troll armies are calling him "anti national" and "foreign funded". a man starving himself for other people's children. that's the thing here, anyone who asks a question is suddenly a traitor.

it's not one incident, it's everywhere you look:

• infrastructure worth thousands of crores failing within months of the ribbon cutting. tunnels collapsing in regions where heavy rain is a guarantee, not a surprise.

• youth unemployment near 10% for ages 15 to 29, 13.6% in cities. in a country of 1.42 billion where more than half the population is young.

• only about the top 3% of indians earn above 10 lakh a year. meanwhile billionaire wealth keeps ballooning and the headlines celebrate it.

• manipur burned for over two years. an ethnic conflict, tens of thousands displaced, and the prime minister barely said the word manipur while it happened.

• journalists raided. critics' houses bulldozed. activists sitting in jail for years without trial under laws like UAPA. our press freedom ranking has cratered.

• even the petrol is a fight now, ethanol blending pushed through while drivers complain about their engines and get no straight answers.

and through all of it, the PM, who came to power on religious polarisation (americans, sound familiar?), travels abroad for photo ops and has not held one single open press conference in over a decade. not one.

what i'm asking:

if you're not indian: share this. our media mostly won't cover any of it because the big outlets are owned by the same billionaires the government serves. the only reason wangchuk's fast is getting any coverage is people refusing to look away.

if you ARE indian: speak up even if you're comfortable. especially if you're comfortable. join the protests. add to this, correct me, translate it. staying quiet is a choice when nothing in this post touches your life.

india is not "dirty". india was robbed, and it's being robbed again, from the inside this time. but it's also the country where a 59 year old will starve for strangers' kids and 22 million young people will rally behind a party literally named after cockroaches, because cockroaches survive everything.

we can still save her. but only loudly.

Women have always been at the forefront of literature, the first novel (what we would consider a novel in modern terms) was written by a woman (Lady Muraskai’s the Tale of Genji in the early 1000s) take your snide “Isaac Asimov” reblogs and stick it

even in terms of male scifi authors, asimov was predated by Jules Verne, HG Wells, George Orwell, you could have even cited Poe or Jonathan Swift has a case but Asimov?

And they agree that yes, they do know how to eat, in theory. The problem is the watermelon. Surely, if they figured out where to start, they'd figure out how to do it, but they have no clue how to get started with it.

This goes back and forth. No, it's not an emotional issue, they're not afraid of the watermelon. They can eat any other fruit, other sweet things, and other watery things ("it's watery?" they ask you). Is it the colour? Do they have a problem eating things that are green on the outside and red on the inside?

"It's red on the inside?"

Wait, they've never seen the inside? At this point you have to ask them how, exactly, they eat the watermelon. So to demonstrate, they take a whole, round, uncut watermelon, and try to bite straight into it. Even if they could bite through the crust, there's no way to get human jaws around it.

"Oh, you're supposed to cut it first. You cut the crust open and only chew through the insides."

And they had no idea. All their life this person has had no idea how to eat a watermelon, despite of being told again and again and again that it's easy, it's ridiculous to struggle with something so simple, there's no way that someone just can't eat a watermelon, how can you even mange to be bad at something as fucking simple as eating watermelon.

https://drmaciver.substack.com/p/how-to-do-everything had a nice list of additional examples like this, with (non-)obvious major insights with regard to opening stitched bags, cleaning your bathroom floor, using a search engine, catching a ball, pinging somebody, proving a theorem, playing sudoku, passing as “normal”, improving your writing, generating novel ideas, and solving your problem.

If you’d asked me six months ago how to get better at something, I’d probably have pointed you to how to do hard things. I still think this is a good approach and you should do it, but I now think it’s the wrong starting point and I’ve been undervaluing small insights. [...]

Every time he tells me this story, his frustration by this point in the story, years later, is evident. He still sounds frustrated by it, despite all the time that passed. Teachers had been giving him crap for years because he hadn't been making much progress with the instrument.

When he got to the private instructor, she acknowledged his frustration, and asked him to try to play for her. He did, and she saw all he was doing. She then did something no one else had done before. She asked him to put his mouthpiece on a different clarinet and try to play the same notes. Like magic, it worked. She looked at the clarinet he had been using and found that the school's clarinet needed it's pads replaced.

He went from last chair to first chair nearly overnight, having been taught far more techniques than typically taught at that age just to overcome the broken instrument preventing him from making noise.

Screenshot via Alejandra Caraballo @esqueer.net on bluesky

Tldr Amnesty International, global human rights organisation, published a report called 'A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK'. In it is detailed, amongst others, a whole bunch of transphobic groups and organisations, including Beira's Place, JK Rowling's trans exclusionary sexual violence support service. JK Rowling threw a shit fit and got Amnesty to take the report down by threatening libel. This was obviously not enough, because you can't appease a fascist, so now she's going to bankroll a bunch of lawsuits anyway through the JK Rowling Women's Fund.*

You can read an archived version of the report here, please save it and share it.