I am trying to be better.

It's very good, and was prescient for a lot of the early days of the covid pandemic. I found myself returning to it often in the first couple of years because of how steadfast it was in its hopefulness.

Last year she wrote a novelette, "The Year Without Sunshine," which attacks a similar problem in a similar way; instead of pandemic, this one is about the aftereffects of a distant nuke or a massive volcano explosion (it doesn't say), which has churned a great deal of dust into the air, causing massive damage to society and agriculture. The story covers one neighborhood, pulling together to keep each other alive--not through violence, but through lawn potatoes and message pinboards and bicycle-powered oxygen concentrators.

By definition you can't accidentally queerbait. Queerbaiting is specifically using a same sex pair from the show to market the show to queer audiences with no intention of ever following through on a romantic relationship.

There is officially licensed Destiel merch signed off on by Kripke. Teen Wolf had a commercial with the actors for Derek and Stiles draped over each other talking about being "on a ship." Both shows actively used scenes between them as marketing while actively mocking fans for wanting them together. Sherlock has multiple characters refer to Johnlock as a couple, including characters we're supposed to believe are never wrong about human behavior and pushed those scenes in marketing. Then they acted insulted when fans saw them as a couple.

That's queerbaiting.

Done on accident it would just be queer subtext. Done because they had no other choice due to censorship is queer coding.

The specific meaning of the word is really starting to get lost and it's a pretty important one to keep accurate. It describes a very specific phenomenon that was done repeatedly and maliciously for decades and is meant to examine that specifically.

Someone I have worked with for a decade is retiring. He and I have been close- we’ve traveled together, shared meals, talked about our families and our hobbies, spent time. We text. We talk. We’ve know each other for ten years.

I went looking for a gift for his retirement, and found a watch that relates to the specific kind of car that he works on as a hobby. I bought it, and then invited people to chip in if they wanted.

My coworkers are acting like this is miraculous?

“How did you think of that?” I knew he had a hobby and I googled it?

“How did you know he works on those?” I listen to people when they talk.

“How do you always buy such good gifts?” I listen when people talk to me. Most people are dying to talk about their interests. You just have to give them an in. If your memory sucks, start a note in your phone and write down what people express interest in. Look at it every so often before you hang out to refresh your memory.

“I never would have thought of that.” I didn’t, really. I just spent 20 minutes looking at eBay and Etsy and a few subreddits. It’s easy if you try.

works on those?” I listen to

people when they talk.

There has been a growing trend in permaculture called "food forests," where you plant a bunch of native edible plants (and plants that shelter essential wildlife to keep the edible plants healthy) in layered ways that increase productivity and protect each other from extremes in weather as climate change ramps up. There was a study in Japan that produced the Miyazaki Method for planning a food forest. It seems now that, while this is extremely effective in the temperate parts of Japan and ecosystems similar to the one the test was done in, this may not be universally true, especially in places that don't naturally sustain forests.

Still, I think the concept can be expanded to produce things like "food scrublands," "food prairies," "food marshes," etc. The biggest hurdle in my opinion is that many colonial settlers are unfamiliar with the native food that grows or once grew in their area, making the idea of a native food ecosystem daunting to those who hold the power to actually implement these ideas.

FIRST LAW: This character must be a woman.

SECOND LAW: This character must be a loser, but not in a way that can be pinned on her gender. Misogynistic response from the audience does not disqualify the character.

THIRD LAW: If the audience does not enjoy this character, then it becomes impossible to enjoy the show/film/book/game altogether. It is not possible to ignore this character, for better or for worse.