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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
This is definitely because it’s a major facet of the book I’m drafting at the moment, but I think so incredibly much about how Stanley and Xeno are both prodigies, and what that means about the intense and immediate way they bonded.
A lot of fan stuff I see seems to treat Xeno as remarkable and odd and Stanley as if he’s kind of an average kid.
But he wasn’t. He’s not an average adult, either (come on. Everyone trusts him impeccably in his unit and the wider military at large, the fanbook gave him the youngest promotion to his position in history, he literally got woken up because he’s the best in the world at what he does, etc., etc.), but it definitely started when he was a child.
Per the fanbook, again, he was winning shooting competitions at ten. Especially given how old you should really be to handle a gun, that’s so insanely young.
Per the anime, at eleven, he could evaluate a wrong shot from a glance at a distance and calculate in fractions of a second what the issue was and how to fix it.
Per his character bio, he was already winning massive amounts of cash based on a trick shot people so completely didn’t think was possible only Xeno bet on him, completely unaided by anything other than his own skill.
If Xeno was isolated from his peer group for being too far ahead of them in his field of specialty (which is conjecture, since we never see any of that)...well, Stanley is in the same position.
And if Xeno was resented by adults for being ahead of them (again, conjecture)...I don’t think you’ll ever be able to convince me that adults who enter shooting competitions would be all that happy about a young kid beating them handedly. Like. Hrmmmmm. No, I don’t think you can do it.
Stanley has been freakishly, unnervingly good at what he does since he was a very young child, the same way Xeno was. This is a thing that can easily cause isolation if you’re not lucky and your family and environment is not well-equipped to handle the issues (such as with Senku).
Stanley meets Xeno and carefully observes and realizes Xeno is brilliant beyond anything he’s seen, and says he’s weird with sheer delight. And sure, he has weird taste.
But Stanley is just as weird as Xeno is, and he’s finally found someone his age who can understand. This kid—this kid gets it. No one around him before would have been able to get it.
Xeno is weird just like Stanley is! Finally!
So...yeah. Of course they liked each other immediately. Of course they’ve stayed close for so long. Of course they understand each other on a level no one else does. That is their person who understands.
Hello. I'd like to ask, do you think Sherlock and Bond had romantic feelings for eachother at some point? Were the feelings Mycroft talked about romantic (like stated in the eng translation)? I don't know if ch. 60 was something (the cigarette falling, the empty eyes and Sherlock's kind of dodging the question "did your heart skip a beat?") but I can't wrap my head around it. There's been an argument on twt on a one year old interview with Miyoshi sensei (1/2)
in which she said that Sherlock and Irene's relationship was "like a first love, bittersweet and special." ( 初恋のようでもありどこか湿っぽくて特別なふたりの ).People mentioned that in the japanese phrasing it sounds like a metaphor but I only read the translation so I have no idea. I was surprised, since Sherlock said more than once that he isn't attracted to women. Someone said the manga stated it to affirm the difference of him before Bond vs after Bond but I don't believe that at all. Thank you.
It's definitely a comparison. It's more like "Something kind of puppy love-ish in some ways." Miyoshi didn't say it is puppy love at all. It's more like me saying, "It's kinda like that feeling you get when your favorite soda gets discontinued and you realize you can't ever have it again and that last can in your fridge is the last one you'll ever have" to describe something.
I haven't really read most of Viz's translations much, or the scanlations, so I don't know what you're actually talking about RE: Mycroft.
I think it's like...Bond is happily a man, and likely genderfluid based on his portrayal thus far. But it's also true that Adler lost a lot by becoming Bond, and Sherlock is a strong memory of a different time with different possibilities. Bond lost their friendship and connection to Sherlock in a lot of ways after transitioning. They lost their previous identity and everything that was built around it.
So...yeah, that sounds to me like puppy love that never went anywhere and you can't get back, but you think back about wistfully. In a deeply unromantic sense. Sherlock is a reminder of a different time for Bond, and Bond is a reminder of very important moment in time for Sherlock.
I have gone on record repeatedly, even after chapter 60, about how I don't think their relationship was remotely romantic. And I still don't think it was or is.
Sherlock and Irene/Bond's relationship has always been built on affection and teasing. And he didn't remotely dodge the question of if his heart went "Doki doki." He flat out said, "What?! Nothing like that happened!" And Bond responded with, "Aw, you're so cold." And then Sherlock is basically like "Will you stop fucking with me already?"
The question about Sherlock getting mushy about it was also after a very brief and vulnerable moment between the two of them, so it was basically Bond immediately going, "Well enough of that gross shit, let's lighten the mood by screwing with you."
Basically the scene was as follows: Sherlock nearly called Bond Irene, and Irene/Bond, in the character profiles, mentions that they get "shy" when Sherlock or John calls them that because it's an embarrassing little fluster of a former self and a vulnerable place and they don't really like that they get Like That about something so silly. Sherlock said they didn't need to, and Bond went, "Can't we just stand here like this for a second?" and got all quiet and sad again before literally changing the subject to something easier: that is, the concept of them being romantically entangled.
Also, as an aro person, there were definitely times growing up where I thought I had a crush on someone or was "in love" with someone that was just. Not actually what was happening (it was usually squishes or kinning something way too hard). So I also think it could also have been something a bit like that.
This is just something people are never going to let die.
How do you recognize if the IP you want to develop is too fanfiction-ish? Like, waking up in a tv show or traveling through AUs
I got to admit, I find this question just as baffling as it is fascinating. I could point to dozens of recently published works that could be described as fanfic-y. I could point out a couple that used to be fanfic and were marketed as such (controversially, but that is besides the point).
However, your question is if something can feel too fanfiction-ish, and I'd say no. The romance genre is filled with what could be called coffeeshop AUs. Traveling through AUs is Waking up on a TV show or traveling through AUs are just interesting Sci-Fi ideas. You can turn any idea that feels like a fanfic to you into an original series that feels fresh and fun to a new audience. Naomi Novak's first series was just that!
Ultimately, what makes something feel like fanfiction versus original fiction is how you write the story. Fanfiction operates on the assumption that you know and love these characters even if you are writing an AU. Stories that feel like fanfiction to me are ones that don't put enough effort into making my care about the characters or their wants, because when you are writing a fanfiction everyone knows what that is already (no matter how AU it is).
That can be the struggle with writing original fiction, and it's something you have to be careful about if you've mainly written fanfiction before. But the basis of your plot can truly be anything, be it Sherlock Holmes versus Cthulhu (a series by Lois H Gresh) or Doctor Who But Magical (Diana Wynne Jones' Chrestomanci books). The idea will develop and evolve - it's your spin on it that will sell it. Write away!
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
loveeee characters who think they're likable but not lovable. characters who know they have surface-level admirable or alluring traits and so make sure to highlight those traits so that nobody looks closer to see what's underneath. characters who know they're hot or clever or cool and use that as a suit of armor so that no one ever gets close to them, because when they strip bare and show their vulnerability they're not any of those things, which means they have nothing left to make up for who they inherently are
Got to have a whole conversation with my work trainer/new coworker about how Death Note got terrible after L died and what anime we're watching and what our favorites are and co-writing with friends and querying and majoring in creative writing in college.
i agree so much about making your blorbos pathetic but i do fear that many take this to mean 'make them more traditionally feminine/submissive' which genuinely hurts my soul. make your blorbos pathetic in interesting character-oriented ways. understand their neuroses and turn the dials up to eleven. juxtapose the parts of life they handle extremely well with the parts of their lives that make them eat shit. make them angry. make them cold. make them pave their own way to hell while building walls preventing them from seeing any other way. please i'm begging you no more pathetic as an euphemism for bottoming im gonna mclose it.
...We weren't all understanding that as making the blorbo akin to a wet cat someone pulled out of a gutter drain and just generally bad at adulting properly?
Is that male character/person feminine, or are they actually just flamboyant in a fandom or culture who doesn't want to accept that those are not synonyms?
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
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!
In light of recent events, I have begun submitting bug reports when I see mature content labels applied inappropriately to posts, especially if an appeal has been rejected.
for what it's worth: after a few months of submitting help tickets as 'feedback' when i saw a post inappropriately flagged as mature, i tried following this suggestion instead. today i got my first-ever response from tumblr support on this issue, letting me know that a post i'd submitted a ticket before has had its mature content flag removed.
This is legitimately brilliant. Bug burndown reports (the rate at which your software team can close bugs) is a major metric for most software houses.
It takes an extra step in our part, but this is part of what makes it effective. It's not one click, one reblog activism and it hits them where they care: their damn KPIs.
I have been awake for approximately 22 hours straight.
I would like to speak to management.
(The weather is too nice. It's sunny and warm but cool and the air is nice and fresh because I had my windows/sliding doors open all day. I am Invigorated)
Every time you catch yourself going, "Fuck, are humans just inherently evil and naturally inclined to selfishness and harm???" you HAVE to remember that that's literally a core ideal of Christianity.
So if it feels inescapable and like evidence of it is everywhere, whether at times or always, that might just because you're in a Western country where you're surrounded by Christians who believe that, fundamentally, in their worldview. And also they talk and make art about it all the time and run the vast majority of news outlets. And spent over a thousand years burning any art or texts that disagreed with them. Etc. etc.
If you're gonna come to as drastic and painful a conclusion as that, at least take the time first to make sure you're not working with biased evidence (surrounded by too many people and cultural products that believe original sin is real)
And if it turns out the feeling WAS partly the result of cultural Christianity, then hey, that's great news, because it means there's that much (and it really is SO MUCH) less evidence that humans inherently suck. Which is good, because we don't
ignore that cultural trauma, ask an archeologist / paleontologist.
how often do we find human remains / burials attributable to a peaceful death of old age, or at least to disease / wild animals? and attributable to human violence, i.e. with traces of weapon impacts?
to use an old quote, the last ape became the first human not when he picked up a stick to reach some fruit, but when he used that stick to bash another ape over the head and take away his fruit.
I disagree with pretty much all of that, actually. Modern archeology is only just in the process of pulling itself out of hundreds of years of racism, bias, colonialism, disproven assumptions, widespread graverobbing, and massive, blatant pseudoscience; many ideas and publications in the field that older than about 20 years are of highly questionable provenance.
I personally am much more convinced and compelled by newer theories that, if any piece of technology made us human, it was not the weapon - it was the carrier bag, the story, and/or fire. (But not fire with the primary purpose of violence, mind you - fire with the primary purpose of heat and food and sanitation)
Here's a quote on this from one of my absolute favorite thinkers and writers, Ursula K. Le Guin:
If you haven't got something to put it in, food will escape you-
even something as uncombative and unresourceful as an oat. You
put as many as you can into your stomach while they are handy, that
being the primary container; but what about tomorrow morning
when you wake up and it's cold and raining and wouldn't it be good
to have just a few handfuls of oats to chew on and give little Oom to
make her shut up, but how do you get more than one stomachful
and one handful home? So you get up and go to the damned soggy
oat patch in the rain, and wouldn't it be a good thing if you had
something to put Baby Oo Oo in so that you could pick the oats with
both hands? A leaf a gourd a shell a net a bag a sling a sack a bottle a pot a box a container. A holder. A recipient.
The first cultural device was probably a recipient. . . . Many
theorizers feel that the earliest cultural inventions must have
been a container to hold gathered products and some kind of
sling or net carrier.
So says Elizabeth Fisher in Women's Creation (McGraw-Hill, 1975).
But no, this cannot be. Where is that wonderful, big, long, hard thing, a bone, I believe, that the Ape Man first bashed somebody
with in the movie and then, grunting with ecstasy at having
achieved the first proper murder, flung up into the sky...? I don't know. I don 't even care. I'm not telling that story. We've heard it, we've all heard all about all the sticks and spears and swords, the things to bash and poke and hit with, the long, hard things, but we have not heard about the thing to put things in, the container for the thing contained. That is a new story. That is news...
It sometimes seems that that story is approaching its end. Lest
there be no more telling of stories at all , some of us out here in the
wild oats, amid the alien corn, think we'd better start telling another
one, which maybe people can go on with when the old one's fin-
ished. Maybe. The trouble is , we've all let ourselves become part of
the killer story, and so we may get finished along with it. Hence it is
with a certain feeling of urgency that I seek the nature, subject,
words of the other story, the untold one, the life story.
-via Ursula K. Le Guin, The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction. Originally published 1986, new edition with forewords and commentaries published 2024.
Oh also if any technology did make us human, archeological evidence currently very strongly argues it was when we harnessed fire and invented cooking.
Fire is literally the reason our brains are larger than any other species of ape's, because harnessing fire meant we spent radically less energy spent on digestion - and those excess resources instead changed the evolution of the human brain.
Also fire is probably the reason we're not fully covered in hair anymore, evolutionarily - because we evolved in equatorial Africa, where not wearing a fur coat everywhere was an evolutionary advantage due to, you know, the temperature of it all. Once we could make our own heat to survive the cold nights and winters, less insulation was a huge evolutionary advance in equatorial regions especially
Cooking may be more than just a part of your daily routine, it may be what made your brain as powerful as it is
Wherever humans have gone in the world, they have carried with them two things, language and fire. As they traveled through tropical forests they hoarded the precious embers of old fires and sheltered them from downpours. When they settled the barren Arctic, they took with them the memory of fire, and recreated it in stoneware vessels filled with animal fat. Darwin himself considered these the two most significant achievements of humanity. It is, of course, impossible to imagine a human society that does not have language, but—given the right climate and an adequacy of raw wild food—could there be a primitive tribe that survives without cooking? In fact, no such people have ever been found. Nor will they be, according to a provocative theory by Harvard biologist Richard Wrangham, who believes that fire is needed to fuel the organ that makes possible all the other products of culture, language included: the human brain.
Every animal on earth is constrained by its energy budget; the calories obtained from food will stretch only so far. And for most human beings, most of the time, these calories are burned not at the gym, but invisibly, in powering the heart, the digestive system and especially the brain, in the silent work of moving molecules around within and among its 100 billion cells. A human body at rest devotes roughly one-fifth of its energy to the brain, regardless of whether it is thinking anything useful, or even thinking at all. Thus, the unprecedented increase in brain size that hominids embarked on around 1.8 million years ago had to be paid for with added calories either taken in or diverted from some other function in the body. Many anthropologists think the key breakthrough was adding meat to the diet. But Wrangham and his Harvard colleague Rachel Carmody think that’s only a part of what was going on in evolution at the time. What matters, they say, is not just how many calories you can put into your mouth, but what happens to the food once it gets there. How much useful energy does it provide, after subtracting the calories spent in chewing, swallowing and digesting? The real breakthrough, they argue, was cooking.
-via Smithsonian Magazine, June 2013. Emphasis mine. In the time since this article was published, what was considered a "provocative theory" in 2013 has become a matter of increasing scientific evidence and scientific consensus.
Richard Wrangham lays out his theory as a whole in his 2010 book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.
For more current summaries on the history of fire, and scientific and archeological evidence for its role in human evolution:
Evolutionary fire ecology: An historical account and future directions.
August 2023. BioScience, volume 73, issue 8, pages 602–608. Permalink: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad059, paywall-free.
The discovery of fire by humans: a long and convoluted process.
By J. A. J. Gowlett. June 2016. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, volume 371, issue 1696, epage 20150164.
Permalink: doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164, paywall free.
Or, less scholarly:
It takes a lot of calories to power a human brain. Find out how cooking and gut microbes help us make the most of our food.
Humans are not defined by our capacity for violence.
Current archeological evidence suggests that humans are, if anything, defined by the hearthfire.
By cooking. By our ability to keep ourselves warm. By our ability to provide for ourselves and each other. By humanity's millennia-long quest to beat back the ravages of starvation and hunger.
By our millennia-long quest to make our lives, and the lives of those we love, more and more into something we can live
I haven’t yet but one day I will just go through as much as your dr stone and stanxeno posts as I can in one committed go and probably mass like and reblog. So just a heads up x)
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
this conversation would be so much easier if we could hear each other 😭 or use the ipa. i'm gonna be honest your way of representing pronunciations in writing deeply confuses me. I have been DECIPHERING your additions. I think I just got that when you write "Z" you mean the sound "zee" and not the sound "z".
Anyway when I said that: "in english it can be either (although more commonly/standardly “zee”)" I totally meant to write "zeh" not "zee", sorry for the confusing typo, oops
Btw english isn't my native language lol so I have limited exposition to which way ppl tend to pronounce the "xen(o)" prefix in english. For "xenon" for example I've definitely heard "zee-non" more often than "zeh-non". but it doesn't matter. like senku would say 一ミリも興味ねえ (did senku ever actually say that or am I frankensteining his speech?). both are used and valid. (I personally tend to say "zeh")
No, "Z" can have other vowels attached to it, and it's really the same IPA symbol as the X, I believe. It's a voiced aveloar fricative; mechanically the same sound.
But English has frankly significantly more phonemes than letters, and both X and Z have multiple pronunciations that overlap. So "Z" sound and "X" sound don't...mean a lot.
Therefore, to me it becomes a "which way would you spell this with the surrounding vowels."
People often (incorrectly) pronounce Xeno's name like this, and to me, that is Xeno's name with a "Z" sound, because it's literally his name with a Z instead of an X. But it's the ジーノ situation, which was clearly not what the Japanese naming was going for. So "it doesn't have a Z sound" to me because when the Z is present, it's wrong.
There's really no way that the way Xeno's name should be pronounced in English would be spelled with a "Z."
Xeno would be pronounced like the first pronunciation here, or as a shorter version of this name. The second link in that sentence, and the second pronunciation, are what a lot of people use that comes out like "Zee" which is. A pronunciation? But it's not standard, and it's listed as the second pronunciation because it's not preferred (interestingly, MW does pop up zee-non over zen-on for xenon specifically). What people actually use probably depends a fair bit on their education and a fair bit on where they grew up. America's a big country.
Xeno as a name especially would come out with a short vowel, not a long one, which drastically changes how English spells it to favor the "X," and is thus to me, an American, an "X" sound.
(Also, well. We don't do "zed" in America. The letter Z is pronounced "zee" here, so when we're discussing what letter his name starts with it's probably getting mixed up easily)
Hopefully this was helpful and added context?
Thank you. Writing this up killed like a full hour of my shift. I can make it through this.
I am so not going to be able to sleep once I'm allowed, am I?