oursin: Grumpy looking hedgehog (Grumpy hedgehog)
[personal profile] oursin

How is it the end of June already? Where did it go?

And tomorrow I have to travel to Birmingham for a conference.

I am telling myself that I survived the Hot Summer of 76 in an un-airconditioned office where, if one opened a window in came the noise and fumes of a heavily traffic-polluted thoroughfare.

Of course, I was Much Younger in those days.

I see that it is supposed to get somewhat cooler (and wetter) on Weds.

duckprintspress: (Default)
[personal profile] duckprintspress
Graphic 1 of 2. Text over a violet blot and four book covers over the 8-striped 1978 Gilbert Baker Rainbow Flag. The text reads: Violet Books for Pride. The books are: Commit to the Kick by Tris Lawrence; Promises Stronger Than Darkness by Charlie Jane Anders; The Witch Roads by Kate Elliott; Spinning by Tillie Walden.

Graphic 2 of 2. 12 book covers over the 8-striped 1978 Gilbert Baker Rainbow Flag. The books are: Rules For Ghosting by Shelly Jay Shore; The Glass Scientists by S.H. Cotugno; Stormsong by C.L. Polk; The Diablo's Curse by Gabe Cole Novoa; Love at Second Sight by F.T. Lukens; The Many Half-Lived Lives of Sam Sylvester by Maya MacGregor; Sweet & Bitter Magic by Adrienne Tooley; Victories Greater Than Death by Charlie Jane Anders; These Witches Don't Burn by Isabel Sterling; The Witch Boy by Molly Knox Ostertag; How to Be a Werewolf by Shawn Lenore; Don't Want You Like a Best Friend by Emma R. Alban.

HAPPY PRIDE 2025! For Pride this year, we’re changing up our usual rec lists. Instead of doing books with specific identities or themes, we’re focused this time on cover color! Throughout the month of June, we’ll be doing 8 rec lists, each with covers inspired by one of the colors of the original Gilbert Baker Pride Flag. We drew a little additional inspiration from the meaning behind the color and why it was included in the original LGBTQIA+ flag (in this case, violet = spirit), but we prioritized color over meaning. The contributors to this list are: Nina Waters, Dei Walker, Shannon, and Tris Lawrence.

Find these and many other queer books on our Goodreads book shelf or buy them through the Duck Prints Press Bookshop.org affiliate page.

Join Book Lover’s Discord server to chat with us about books, fandom, and more!


rydra_wong: Lee Miller photo showing two women wearing metal fire masks in England during WWII. (Default)
[personal profile] rydra_wong
* SAVE OFTEN, especially in the early game when you may be very fragile and the game's auto-save is infrequent.

BUT -- don't reload from a save unless you actually die or otherwise hit a "game over."

This game is about failing, and it rewards you for playing forwards through failure. Some of the best moments in the game come from failed checks. There are always alternative routes and ways forwards. If you tried to savescum it, you would miss most of the game and all of the point. Embrace failure.

Okay there are those two specific checks where failing is so emotionally devastating I would not judge anyone for savescumming. But apart from those.

* You can just pick one of the Archetypes for a starter build, and leave messing around with custom character creation until you've seen the stats in action and understand how the system works. Don't stress about it. Or, if you want, you can throw yourself into custom character creation despite not having a clue how it works, and you will also have a fun time. Your initial build and your later choices about what you put points into will radically change your experience of the game, but you can't do it "wrong"; there are no optimal builds which are "better".

* Press tab to highlight objects you can interact with, or activate "detective mode" in the settings to do it automatically. Yes I know this is the sort of thing that is probably obvious to people who have played video games before.

* If your Health or Morale (displayed on the lower left of the screen) fall to zero, you have about 5 seconds to apply a healing item (if you have one) by clicking the cross above that stat.

This is the one timed element in the game, and also the one mechanic that some of us initially have trouble grasping.

With all the other mechanics in the game, you can not only learn them by flinging yourself in and floundering about, this is IMHO the best and most enjoyable way to learn them. No idea what the Thought Cabinet is or what Internalizing A Thought means? Try it and find out!

* Perhaps the most important tip of all:

If you feel you are flailing around and failing on most of the checks you try and you've just been informed you have acquired a Thought you can internalize in your Thought Cabinet and you have no clue what that means or maybe you just had a heart attack and died before you even got out of your hotel room or you had a nervous breakdown because a child insulted you and you have no idea what you're doing and it's been three days and you still haven't got the body down from the tree --

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE PLAYING THE GAME "BADLY". THIS IS IN FACT THE UNIVERSAL DISCO ELYSIUM EXPERIENCE AND MEANS YOU ARE PLAYING THE GAME CORRECTLY. WELL DONE.
larryhammer: floral print origami penguin, facing left (Default)
[personal profile] larryhammer
For Poetry Monday, after an influencer of Pound, Pound himself—at least in part:


The Sole Survivor, Rai San’yō, tr. Ezra Pound

A force cut off
Fighting hard,
Shut around.

I burst the bonds,
I alone,
I returned,

Fleeing by night
Through the crags of the border.

My sword is broken,
My horse fallen.
The hero drags his corpse to his native mountains.

Rai (1780-1832) was an Edo-period historian and poet. In November 1915, Pound attended a London performance of sword dances by Itō Michio (1892-1961), some of which were accompanied by songs sung by Uchiyama Masami (I can’t find good dates on this guy), one of them being this. This translation (made with Uchiyama’s assistance, credited as “from notes by”) was first published in the Dec 1916 issue of Future without naming the author. The original title was “Kogun Funto,” which more literally means “exhausted warrior,” and the original form was a single four-line stanza.

—L.

Subject quote from Anti-Hero, Taylor Swift.
[syndicated profile] bruce_schneier_feed

Posted by Bruce Schneier

American democracy runs on trust, and that trust is cracking.

Nearly half of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, question whether elections are conducted fairly. Some voters accept election results only when their side wins. The problem isn’t just political polarization—it’s a creeping erosion of trust in the machinery of democracy itself.

Commentators blame ideological tribalism, misinformation campaigns and partisan echo chambers for this crisis of trust. But these explanations miss a critical piece of the puzzle: a growing unease with the digital infrastructure that now underpins nearly every aspect of how Americans vote.

The digital transformation of American elections has been swift and sweeping. Just two decades ago, most people voted using mechanical levers or punch cards. Today, over 95% of ballots are counted electronically. Digital systems have replaced poll books, taken over voter identity verification processes and are integrated into registration, counting, auditing and voting systems.

This technological leap has made voting more accessible and efficient, and sometimes more secure. But these new systems are also more complex. And that complexity plays into the hands of those looking to undermine democracy.

In recent years, authoritarian regimes have refined a chillingly effective strategy to chip away at Americans’ faith in democracy by relentlessly sowing doubt about the tools U.S. states use to conduct elections. It’s a sustained campaign to fracture civic faith and make Americans believe that democracy is rigged, especially when their side loses.

This is not cyberwar in the traditional sense. There’s no evidence that anyone has managed to break into voting machines and alter votes. But cyberattacks on election systems don’t need to succeed to have an effect. Even a single failed intrusion, magnified by sensational headlines and political echo chambers, is enough to shake public trust. By feeding into existing anxiety about the complexity and opacity of digital systems, adversaries create fertile ground for disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Testing cyber fears

To test this dynamic, we launched a study to uncover precisely how cyberattacks corroded trust in the vote during the 2024 U.S. presidential race. We surveyed more than 3,000 voters before and after election day, testing them using a series of fictional but highly realistic breaking news reports depicting cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. We randomly assigned participants to watch different types of news reports: some depicting cyberattacks on election systems, others on unrelated infrastructure such as the power grid, and a third, neutral control group.

The results, which are under peer review, were both striking and sobering. Mere exposure to reports of cyberattacks undermined trust in the electoral process—regardless of partisanship. Voters who supported the losing candidate experienced the greatest drop in trust, with two-thirds of Democratic voters showing heightened skepticism toward the election results.

But winners too showed diminished confidence. Even though most Republican voters, buoyed by their victory, accepted the overall security of the election, the majority of those who viewed news reports about cyberattacks remained suspicious.

The attacks didn’t even have to be related to the election. Even cyberattacks against critical infrastructure such as utilities had spillover effects. Voters seemed to extrapolate: “If the power grid can be hacked, why should I believe that voting machines are secure?”

Strikingly, voters who used digital machines to cast their ballots were the most rattled. For this group of people, belief in the accuracy of the vote count fell by nearly twice as much as that of voters who cast their ballots by mail and who didn’t use any technology. Their firsthand experience with the sorts of systems being portrayed as vulnerable personalized the threat.

It’s not hard to see why. When you’ve just used a touchscreen to vote, and then you see a news report about a digital system being breached, the leap in logic isn’t far.

Our data suggests that in a digital society, perceptions of trust—and distrust—are fluid, contagious and easily activated. The cyber domain isn’t just about networks and code. It’s also about emotions: fear, vulnerability and uncertainty.

Firewall of trust

Does this mean we should scrap electronic voting machines? Not necessarily.

Every election system, digital or analog, has flaws. And in many respects, today’s high-tech systems have solved the problems of the past with voter-verifiable paper ballots. Modern voting machines reduce human error, increase accessibility and speed up the vote count. No one misses the hanging chads of 2000.

But technology, no matter how advanced, cannot instill legitimacy on its own. It must be paired with something harder to code: public trust. In an environment where foreign adversaries amplify every flaw, cyberattacks can trigger spirals of suspicion. It is no longer enough for elections to be secure – voters must also perceive them to be secure.

That’s why public education surrounding elections is now as vital to election security as firewalls and encrypted networks. It’s vital that voters understand how elections are run, how they’re protected and how failures are caught and corrected. Election officials, civil society groups and researchers can teach how audits work, host open-source verification demonstrations and ensure that high-tech electoral processes are comprehensible to voters.

We believe this is an essential investment in democratic resilience. But it needs to be proactive, not reactive. By the time the doubt takes hold, it’s already too late.

Just as crucially, we are convinced that it’s time to rethink the very nature of cyber threats. People often imagine them in military terms. But that framework misses the true power of these threats. The danger of cyberattacks is not only that they can destroy infrastructure or steal classified secrets, but that they chip away at societal cohesion, sow anxiety and fray citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions. These attacks erode the very idea of truth itself by making people doubt that anything can be trusted.

If trust is the target, then we believe that elected officials should start to treat trust as a national asset: something to be built, renewed and defended. Because in the end, elections aren’t just about votes being counted—they’re about people believing that those votes count.

And in that belief lies the true firewall of democracy.

This essay was written with Ryan Shandler and Anthony J. DeMattee, and originally appeared in The Conversation.

Weekend... listening post?

Jun. 30th, 2025 08:30 pm
highlyeccentric: Slightly modified sign: all unFUCKed items will be cleared by friday afternoon. FUCK you. (All unfucked items will be discarded. Fu)
[personal profile] highlyeccentric
I spent most of this past weekend hyperfocusing on little pixelated men (Age of Empires). I have also contemplated my family-ish medical-logistics. I have considered where I might fit within this. I must now contemplate my own, after seeing specialist 1 and finding out he can't do much until I've dealt with the domain of specialist 2.

I do not have solutions.

I do have this recommendation, which I have seen aggregate-classiified as both country and punk:



I saw, somewhere deep in the #proofofcat or #caturday feed on Bluesky, someone recommend this in response to a "look at my asshole cat who just waltzed back in after I've been putting up Lost Cat posters for days". The recommender was a friend of one of the band members, and apparently the song is about a prodigal cat.

I bought the whole album and am enjoying it.
[syndicated profile] timotheeparrique_feed

Posted by tparrique

Good news, the Financial Times ran a piece on degrowth. It’s a 3-min video titled “Could the degrowth movement save our planet?” starring economics columnist Soumaya Keynes. Perfect opportunity to prolong the discussion by mobilising some of the academic literature on the topic.[1] Since this is not a direct critique of degrowth, I shall not write my usual response. Instead, I will run through the script of the video (the bolded citations in coloured squares) and make a number of nuances and additions. 

“It’s an economic movement that started around the 1970s, and it’s the idea that if we want to protect the planet, we’re going to have to consume less and produce less. We’re going to need less growth.” 

The term “décroissance” (degrowth) was born in France in the early 2000s.[2] It builds on various critical works from the 1970s which are now referred as “objections to growth.”[3] In Slow Down or Die. The Economics of Degrowth (2025), I define degrowth as a “downscaling of production and consumption to reduce ecological footprints planned democratically in a way that is equitable while securing wellbeing.” As I explain in more details in Defining degrowth (2025), degrowth as an idea cannot be properly captured with minimal definitions like “consume less and produce less,” which makes it indifferentiable from a regular recession.[4]

Degrowth is not exactly the same as “less growth.” If economic growth slows down, let’s say from 2% to 1%, there is indeed less growth but GDP is still getting bigger. The term degrowth is used to describe an actual reduction of the size of an economy. If we were to measure it in terms of GDP, it would imply negative rates of growth. But let’s be careful. Equating a chaotic recession with controlled degrowth just because it provokes a decline in GDP is as absurd as comparing an amputation to a diet just because it results in weight loss (for more on the difference between degrowth and recession, see Hickel, 2021 and Parrique, 2019: pp. 322-330). 

“According to degrowthers the problem with growth is that a relentless drive of consumption and production is killing the planet. It’s leading to things like deforestation, overfishing and rising carbon emissions.”

Let’s start elsewhere. The problem is that high-income economies use too much ressources and emit too much pollution (see Fanning et al., 2022). In ecological economics, we say that their biophysical metabolism is overshooting planetary boundaries, which means that their ecological footprint exceeds the biocapacity of ecosystems. Today, no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use (O’Neill et al., 2018) – that’s the core issue. Even without any further economic growth, all high-income nations would still be ecologically in the red.  

“Killing the planet” may sound dramatic but there is solid science to back it up. Emit too much greenhouse gases and the climate will start malfunctioning; artificialise too much land and you will destroy some species’ habitat; offload too much novel entities and you will endanger certain living organisms. What we know from ecology is that every natural system has a red line. If we cross it, we take the risk of degrading ecosystems and losing the valuable services they provide. Saying that an economy is ecologically unsustainable means that it exerts too much pressure on nature, therefore creating a risk of ecosystem collapse, the environmental version of a recession. 

When discussing this problem, degrowthers argue that producing and consuming more further complicates the challenge of bringing environmental pressures down to sustainable levels, which would be easier in a non-growing economy (and much easier in a degrowing economy). Additionally, growth-critical scholars also criticise what German historian Matthias Schmelzer calls “the hegemony of growth,” the fact that countries and companies tend to put GDP and profits before ecological sustainability, which, again, makes the ecological transition more complicated than it would be in a growth agnostic society where growth is not actively pursued. 

“[Degrowthers] believe that we need to cut emissions. Rich countries should focus on pulling emissions down to zero by curbing economic activity.”

Pulling emissions down to zero is not enough. The goal of an ecological transition is not only carbon neutrality but environmental neutrality. To prosper sustainably, an economy should not degrade its supporting ecosystems, which means it should respect a number of interdependent limits having to do with material extraction, land-use, water pollution, biodiversity loss, chemical pollution, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, etc (the nine planetary or Earth system boundaries is the most popular concept to bring different environmental dimensions into one single framework). Think of it as a Rubik’s Cube; to achieve sustainability, all colours must be solved together. 

Lowering the total footprint of an economy is much more difficult than only reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is perhaps why ecological economists resort to more radical strategies than people who only focus on climate mitigation. What makes degrowth unique in the current intellectual landscape is that it brands itself as an intentional slowdown of economic activities. This is what sets it apart from other concepts like green growthsustainable developmentgreen new dealscircular economywellbeing economyecosocialism, and socialism, which either assume that the transition will not imply an economic contraction, or fail to specify whether it will or not. 

Even though degrowth mobilises elements that one finds in other discourses (e.g., plant-based diets, agroecology, not-for-profit cooperatives, slow mobility), its defining trait is to illuminate practices that should be abandoned (e.g., extraction of fossil fuels, planned obsolescence, advertising, useless megaprojects). The focal point of degrowth is mainly – although not exclusively – to phase down or phase out socially unessential and ecologically unsustainable goods and services. Degrowth scholars assume that the magnitude of this drawdown will be so significant that it will lead to a decrease in overall levels of economic activity.[5]

“Degrowthers aren’t saying that poor countries have to remain poor. They can grow, up to a point, but rich countries should drop down to that level and then stop.”

Let’s begin with what should be obvious: one should not ask someone who is struggling to feed themselves to go on a diet. Degrowth should only apply to those who already have enough, starting with the most privileged. It makes ecological sense because “affluence is the main global driver of environmental impacts,” as one can read in the latest Global Resource Outlook (2024: p. 63). When it comes to climate change, for example, the richest 10% (680 million people) generate 48% of all emissions while the poorest half of humanity – almost 4 billion people – accounts for only 12% of the global carbon footprint (Chancel et al. 2023: p. 86). Materials are split even more unequally than carbon. In 2022, 7 gigatonnes of materials were extracted globally with higher-income nations accounting for 31% of world material consumption (Circle Economy 2023: p. 40). The 1 billion richest individuals consume 72% of global resources, while the 1.2 billion poorest accounts for just 1%. Low-income countries only have a steady access to less than 3% of global material extraction (IRP 2019: pp. 7–8).

In a finite world, the too-much of a minority of affluent people quickly becomes the not-enough of everyone else down the line. The countries aspiring to higher living standards cannot properly achieve prosperity if their resources are being squandered by others.[6] This is why I consider degrowth to be “a strategy for global justice” (Parrique, 2025: Chapter 3). Downsizing high-footprint, low-wellbeing activities in already-rich economies would reduce global rates of extraction and pollution for the benefit of poorer countries whose ecosystems and communities feel most of the burn. This would also preserve as much of the remaining ecological budget as possible for those who have used it the least and who need it the most.

“Degrowthers have ideas about what they want people to be consuming less of. Ecologically damaging products, like SUVs, or weapons, or private jets, or industrial meat.”

It’s not as ideological as it sounds. Doctors also have ideas about what they want people to be consuming less of (tobacco, sugary drinks, alcohol, etc.). But this is not ideology, it’s science. If the consumption of these products degrades health (as science shows), then doctors should recommend consuming less of them for the sake of health. Same situation for the ecological transition. If you want to reduce the ecological footprint of a territory, you need to focus on the goods and services that are most ecologically intensive, which is why SUVs, flights, and meat are often given as examples.[7]

But this is not enough. A socially acceptable slowdown should also consider the wellbeing footprints of different goods and services. At equal ecological intensity, a mayor would most likely prefer to shut down a mall than a hospital. When forced to ration, it makes sense to give up on the things that are considered least essential. We make similar decisions every day when we work and spend, except it is money and time and not natural ressources that we allocate. The challenge of degrowth requires us to include biophysical budgets in these daily decisions in order to achieve specific environmental targets. 

Someone might prefer turning vegetarian rather than giving up their car and it might be the opposite for someone else; companies will readjust their production following different mentalities and priorities; an Alpine village will not make the same decisions as a Basque coastal town. Degrowth is a macroeconomic consequence that reflects a myriad of smaller behavioural changes for households, companies, and governments. What’s important for us ecological macroeconomists is that the grand total of these multi-level actions should lead to a sufficient drop in resource use and environmental impacts, enough to get an economy back within planetary boundaries. 

“Now, they don’t think that this has to come at the cost of human well-being. This is where their other policy proposals come in. They think we need radical economic change, like a shorter work week or a universal basic income.”

It’s easy to imagine catastrophic ways of slowing down and past recessions are perfect examples of that. But unlike a recession which takes an economy by surprise, a degrowth transition could be implemented willingly – in Managing without growth (2019), the Canadian macroeconomist Peter Victor makes the difference between a transition “by design” and “by disaster. To continue the eating analogy, a recession would be starvation due to an unexpected lack of food whereas degrowth is closer to a proactive switch of diet. 

Here is a way for economists to think about it. The challenge is to manage to lower the ecological intensity of wellbeing or, said differently, to decouple needs satisfaction from environmental pressures. This is a goal shared among several neighbouring discourses such as the wellbeing economy, the foundational economy, the care economy, the doughnut economyeco-socialism, or post-growth. Current economic debates tend to confuse means and ends, but the fundamental purpose of an economy is quite simple: maximising quality of life while minimising resource use, including working time and energy/materials. 

Everyone agrees that a traditional recession is not going to do that, hence the need for a more sophisticated policy design. The shorter working week, for example, could be a way of sharing available hours of work in shrinking sectors as to minimise unemployment.[8] The idea of an ecological transition income is being discussed as a way of supporting regenerative activities that are not yet economically viable, a goal that could also be achieved via the implementation of a job guarantee. (For an inventory of degrowth policy proposals, see Fitzpatrick et al., 2022.) To these public policies, one should also add all the actions and initiatives led by civil society that, through resistance and social innovation, also lead to a managed slowdown, what Joan Martinez-Alier calls “degrowth practices.”

“Some say that the movement misses out some really important questions. Like, what are poorer countries supposed to do exactly? Reducing carbon emissions is as much of a job for them as it is for richer ones. In 2023, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil were all among the top six emitters of greenhouse gases.

These rankings can be misleading. Let’s not forget that Europe and North America are the source of half of cumulated emissions since 1850 (Chancel 2022). Looking at CO2 emissions in excess of the carbon budget that would limit global warming to 1.5°C as a measure of climate breakdown, the G8 nations – representing less than 15%  of world population – are responsible for 85% of the emission overshoot (Hickel 2020).[9] Likewise, the unequal split of access to materials goes back a long way. Looking at cumulative material use in excess of equitable and sustainable boundaries, high-income nations are responsible for 74% of global excess material use while the Global South is responsible for only 8%, including low-income countries who only caused 1% of global overshoot in material use (Hickel et al. 2022). 

Everyone knows that emissions should be cut as fast as possible, and this everywhere where they occur. Where degrowthers are a bit more precise is to argue is that it is easier to cut them in affluent countries that can afford the slowdown than to put that extra pressure on regions of the world where poverty remains. Countries with large GDPs have the option to produce and consume less (additionally to producing and consuming differently, of course).[10] Other, less privileged parts of the world cannot afford to shrink and therefore will have to do their best to produce and consume differently.  

Every country in the world should aim at being ecologically sustainable. To get there, the balance between less and different will not be the same everywhere. Countries in the global North must reduce their imports of natural ressources as much as possible while increasing their contribution to financing loss and damages abroad. Low-income countries must redirect their human and natural resources to the satisfaction of local needs while avoiding the materialist pitfalls of a model of development obsessed with growth (see the literature on post-development).  

“And in richer countries, how are we going to get less growth without some really nasty political consequences? People do not like their living conditions stagnating. They do not enjoy recessions.”

Everyone hates catastrophic recessions and everyone would hate to live in a world with dead ecosystems. The goal is to find a compromise between these two dystopian scenarios. What we know from the burgeoning scholarship on the topic is that, if planned intelligently, degrowth could remediate most of the nasty consequences you would expect from a recession (e.g., unemployment, price instability, poverty and inequality, public austerity). But let’s be lucid. The choice we really have is between a carefully planned degrowth today (a transition by design) or a dangerously unplanned collapse tomorrow (a transition by disaster). If we were to vote for the two, I don’t think many would favour the latter. 

A common problem is that we overestimate the benefits of economic growth. For instance, people think that a growing GDP will raise wages, reduce inequality, and even eradicate poverty. Most of the time it doesn’t. There is now a large literature showing that, in high-income economies, quality of life is not primarily determined by income.[11] One piece of evidence among many others: the UK sits at the 23rd position in the World Happiness Report ranking, far behind countries with significantly lower GDP per capita such as Costa-Rica (n°6), Mexico (n°10), or Slovenia (n°19).   

Overestimating the benefits of growth makes us overestimate the costs of degrowth. National income could well decline while the income of the poorest rises if effective redistribution mechanisms are in place. Since environmental degradation harm the poorest first and most, any action towards sustainability is likely to improve their living conditions. Worries about inflation, unemployment, and austerity, problems that are far from insurmountable, are too often used to justify ecological inaction. But let’s be sure of one thing. However difficult you think organising degrowth is, it is much easier than to make an economy function with nature going down. This is an old argument for which there is now plenty of empirical proof: the costs of transition are lower than the cost of inaction. 

“But degrowthers say, less growth doesn’t mean that we all have to live in caves. If we watched fewer ads and forced companies to make stuff that didn’t break all the time, we’d end up consuming less stuff and we’d be just as content.”

That’s a powerful point. Science shows that advertising incites consumption. According to a recent study for France, advertising expenses caused a 5.3% increase of consumption and a 6.6% increase in working time. It means that, without the yearly 34 billion euros spent in advertising by a very small number of brands[12], we could each work 2,5 hours less per week without any loss in quality of life. Since survey data tell us that people dislike ads,[13] this could be a double blessing: eliminating a daily annoyance while liberating time and ressources for other, more useful purposes.   

Planned obsolescence is another good example of social-ecological waste. No one likes to see their appliances break, especially not environmentalists who are painfully aware that replacing them is resource intensive. If we could keep our washing machine twice longer, everyone would benefit. One could also imagine sharing what we already have more effectively. While I suspect it is common for households to each have their own washing machine in the UK, most of them are shared at the level of the building in Sweden. Do Brits have cleaner clothes than Swedes? I doubt it. Is the ecological footprint of washing lower in Sweden than it is in the UK? Yes, it is. Again, this is a win-win situation: access to better appliances via financial pooling (especially for poorest households) and lower footprint. 

Some will say that this will generate unemployment but it’s red herring. There is no point wasting valuable natural resources to produce something that is not needed. Simplifying needs through minimalism and commoning enables us to decrease working hours. It’s not something to be feared, it’s a sign of economic progress – it means we can achieve the same quality of life while spending less time at work. The only hurdle, which is specific to today’s capitalist economy, is that most people cannot afford to work less. But that’s a problem of distribution, not of production, something that can easily be solved with policies like basic incomecare incomeUniversal Basic Services, and guaranteed minimum inheritance, along with more traditional policies to make sure workers are paid decent wages. 

“Perhaps the most important critique of degrowth is that it is possible to grow your economy and cut carbon emissions at the same time. It’s called decoupling. According to the Breakthrough Institute, since 2005, 32 countries have managed to do it, and that includes the US. Critics of degrowth say that given the right incentives, technological progress can save us and the planet. Degrowthers say that it is a complete fantasy, that there is no way that we will be able to cut emissions quickly enough.”

Any sentence starting with “according to the Breakthrough Institute” should be taken with a bag of salt (for an analysis of the organisation’s ideology, see Kallis and Bliss, 2019). To test the validity of the green growth hypothesis, we need to go beyond blog posts and back-of-the-envelope calculations and take stock of the actual science on the topic. The latest IPCC report includes a review of some of this literature (for a detail analysis of this section of the report, see Parrique, 2022) and Haberl et al. (2020) & Wiedenhofer et al. (2020) provide the most extensive systematic analysis of decoupling studies. 

I have discussed these findings many times before, so I won’t do it again here.[14] The decoupling debate is an interesting theoretical question for us economists, but certain actors mobilise the idea of “green growth” with problematic intentions. They use it as a form of macroeconomic greenwashing, a ‘don’t worry keep growing’ message built on cherry-picked data – basically, a discourse delaying action. This is precisely the same tactics used by some politicians with the “trickle-down hypothesis.” Don’t worry about redistribution because economic growth will make wealth trickle down to the pockets of those who need it the most. Except in reality, it doesn’t.[15]

Of course, not everyone partakes in this discursive scam. I know there are serious scholars actively working on concrete ways of greening the economy, working with concepts like circular economy, green growth, or sustainable development. To them, I say this: in terms of environmental policies, degrowth and green growth are not strictly incompatible (for more on this point, see my response to Hanah Ritchie). The benefits of producing and consuming less is that it directly reduces the use of natural resources on top of what can be achieved with eco-innovations. This would be like a diet where you cut down on fat and sugary products (degrowth) while also changing the way you eat, shifting from processed food to homemade meals (green growth).

I know it sounds paradoxical but slowing down an economy speeds up its greening. The strength of degrowth is that it impacts footprints in the here and now. Closing national flight routes means less planes in the air today, compared to technological improvements in fuel efficiency that unfolds over longer periods of time.[16] If the most sustainable resource is the ones we can afford not using, there is a real case for minimising production and consumption as much as possible, starting with goods and services that contribute little to overall wellbeing. Compared to uncertain efficiency gains dependant on the speed and composition of technological progress, a reduction in production and consumption directly reduces production and consumption. This is why degrowth is considered a precautionary approach, one that is less uncertain than other strategies relying on technological progress. 

“But one thing both sides can probably agree on is that when it comes to cutting emissions, if we want to avoid severe environmental repercussions in the future, we’re going to have to move much faster than we are now.”

Again, if there is one thing you need to remember from this, it is that reducing greenhouse gases is not enough. This monomania with carbon creates a false sense of possibility, assuming that the trends we observe for emissions in a handful of countries could be generalised to the world for all environmental pressures. It cannot. When we factor in all the relevant environmental indicators, we realise something unsurprisingly simple: when an economy grows, it gets bigger. Even if you disagree with this, it’s difficult to dispute the fact that a smaller economy is easier to green than a bigger one.

The second takeaway message is that, regardless of what side we find the most convincing on the decoupling debate, one should recognize that the depth and breadth of each idea differ. Green growth is a concept that mainly focus on ways of decarbonising today’s economy. Degrowth, on the other hand, not only dives deeper into the various environmental dimensions of today’s crisis, but also covers a wider pallet of concerns, from social limits to growth and critiques of indicators of progress to socio-environmental inequalities and post-capitalist imaginaries – for a good overview of the degrowth/post-growth literature, see Kallis et al. (2025) and Kallis et al. (2018)

***

It’s great to see the Financial Times discussing cutting-edge theories like degrowth. Unfortunately, such a short format doesn’t give justice to the depth and breadth of the idea. The degrowth literature is expanding at an unprecedented speed.[17] Problems that were thought to be unsolvable a decade ago now have a variety of solutions backed by serious research. The science is available and it is useful. As the ecological situation worsens, we don’t have the luxury of snubbing potential solutions. Let’s not be the ones who died of an illness because the name of the remedy sounded silly.   


[1] For synthetic reviews of the academic field see Kallis et al. (2018) and Kallis et al. (2025). For an extensive look at the degrowth literature, see The political economy of degrowth (2019) and The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism (2022)

[2] To read more about the history of the term “degrowth,” see Parrique (2019, Chapter 5: Origins and definitions, pp. 171-221) and Parrique (2025, Chapter 5: A brief history of degrowth, pp. 137-166).

[3] To only cite a few : The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971) by N. Georgescu-Roegen, Post-scarcity anarchism (1971) by M. Bookchin, Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered (1973) by E.F. Schumacher, Tools for conviviality (1973) by I. Illich, The Imaginary Institution of Society (1975) by C. Castoriadis, Ecology as politics (1975) by A. Gorz, The Joyless Economy (1976) by T. Scitovsky, The Social Limits to Growth (1976) by F. Hirsch, Steady-state economics (1977) by H. Daly, Écologie et féminisme (1978) by F. D’Eaubonne, or The Affluence Line (1978) by J. Drewnowski. 

[4] “Just like a mammal is defined by a specific set of features such as hair or fur, warm-blood, milk, and vertebrae, degrowth is indissociable from the four principles of sustainability, democracy, justice, and wellbeing. A cold-blooded cannot be called a mammal. Likewise, an undemocratic downscaling of production and consumption cannot properly be called degrowth” (Parrique, 2025: p. 16). 

[5] There are a few studies in ecological macroeconomics that estimate the magnitude of degrowth: -22% for Germany by 2033 in Gran (2017: p. 358), -50% for France by 2050 in Briens (2016: p. 277), -65% for France in Germain (2025), -5.3% per year for Australia in Kikstra et al. (2024), -2.3% per year for China in Li (2023), and between -1% and -2% per year for UE countries in Cuny and Parrique (2024) – for a more general review of post-growth macroeconomics models, see Lauer et al. (2025) and Hardt and O’Neill (2017)

[6] There are some empirical works that try to measure the “imperial mode of living” of high-income nations by looking at patterns of “ecologically unequal exchange.” In 2015, according to Hickel et al. (2022), for every unit of material that the global South imported from the global North, they had to export five units to pay for it (the ratio is 5:1 for land, 3:1 for energy, and 13:1 for labour). This resulted in a net appropriation of 12 billion tons of raw materials, 822 million hectares of land, 21 exajoules of energy (equivalent to 3.4 billion barrels of oil), and 188 million person-years equivalent of labour (equivalent to 392 billion hours of work), all in one year. In monetary terms, the global North has appropriated US$10.8 trillion from the South through this logic of unequal exchange. In other words, US$10.8 trillion worth of commodities were transferred gratis to high-income economies instead of being used to meet domestic needs.

[7] In France, transport is the most carbon-intensive sector, responsible for 32% of the country’s territorial emissions, followed by agriculture with 19% (Insee, 2023). Looking more closely, approximately half of transport and agriculture emissions come from cars and cattle, respectively. So, beef and automobiles alone generate 26% of territorial emissions, making them good candidates for degrowth strategies.

[8] For papers on degrowth and work time reduction, see Kallis et al. (2013)Pullinger (2014)Levy (2017)Fitzgerald and Schor (2023) – for an overview, see Parrique (2019: pp. 572-594)

[9] The picture gets even more unequal when we consider that the responsibility for emissions under colonial rule could be attributed to colonial rulers. For example, the proportionate French share of historical emissions rises by 51%, while it increases by 70% for the UK, 33% for Belgium, 181% for the Netherlands, and 234% for Portugal (Evans and Viisainen 2023).

[10] There are several ways of estimating whether a country could theoretically degrow without generating poverty. One option is to calculate a monetary macroeconomic surplus. To do so, one must compare the actual national income to the minimum level of national income necessary to satisfy basic needs. Using Minimum Income Standard (MIS) methodology, it is possible to calculate reference budgets, the minimum amount of money someone needs to live decently, and aggregate these to obtain a national threshold. For example, Concialdi (2018) finds that in 2013, 58% of total household income would be necessary to satisfy the minimum needs of all French households, which means that France has a macroeconomic surplus representing 42% of its national income. In theory, France could therefore degrow without generating any poverty, as long as it does not cross that threshold. Another method consists in looking at resources rather than money. For instance, Millward-Hopkins et al. (2025) calculate that the energy necessary for achieving Decent Living Standards in Switzerland only represent 13% of the country’s current energy footprint. This means that, in theory, Switzerland could decrease its energy use by 87% without generating any poverty, if and only if that remaining energy is equitably shared. 

[11] Starting with the seminal article of Richard A. Easterlin in 1974 (“Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence”), there is now a large academic literature that criticises the assumption that economic growth systematically raises quality of life (for a recent study, see, for example, Van der Slycken and Bleys, 2024).

[12] According to the report “La communication commerciale à l’ère de la sobriété,” in France, only 66 000 companies (1.6% of all businesses) paid for advertising in 2019. Of these, 10 000 companies accounted for 97% of all spendings. The 2 000 largest brands who advertise control more than 85% of the market; the 500 largest concentrate 2/3 of all money spent on ads; half the market is monopolised by only 200 brands; and 1/5 of the total budget is spent by only 31 companies.

[13] According to the French 2024 Baromètre Sobriétés et Modes de vie of Ademe (p. 45), 87% of respondents consider that “advertising is too present everywhere, all the time in our lives” and 80% of them think that ads “leads to excessive consumption.”  

[14] A few previous texts I wrote on decoupling: 1234567891011121314. For a synthetic summary of my views on the topic, see Parrique (2022, Chapitre 2 : L’impossible découplage) in French and Parrique (2025, Chapter 2: The impossible decoupling) in English. 

[15] The writings of French economist Thomas Piketty (Capital in the Twenty-First Century, 2014; Capital and Ideology, 2019) is perhaps the most convincing piece of academic work to falsify the belief that wealth organically trickles-down from the rich to the poor. For a more detailed work on growth and poverty, see Olivier De Schutter’s The poverty of growth (2024) as well as Jason Hickel’s Less is more (2021) and The Divide (2018).

[16] Additionally, as Jason Hickel argues, scaling down certain sectors and products could liberate factors of production which could then be remobilised in projects that accelerate the ecological transition. Think of the workers, factory lines, materials and energy being wasted manufacturing gas-guzzling SUVs when they could, if that category of product were to dwindle, focus on designing high-quality, low-emission buses and trains. Said differently, the more exnovation, the faster the innovation.

[17] For quantitative reviews of the degrowth literature, see Engler et al. (2024)Fitzpatrick et al. (2022), and Weiss and Cattaneo (2017). Be careful about the Savin and van den Bergh (2024) study, which is methodologically flawed – for a critical analysis, see Parrique (2024) and Haddaway and Fitzpatrick (2024).   

'Typo' of the day

Jun. 30th, 2025 03:48 pm
fred_mouse: Australian magpie on the handle of a hills hoist; text says 'swoopy chicken' (grumpy)
[personal profile] fred_mouse

Today's annoyance with YouTube auto-craption:

"Current university"

Locals, who know what the tiny set of options are, can possibly identify what 'Current' is relatively easily. In my case, given that I was watching this from within Curtin University, it was even easier, once I worked out that that was what is going on.

But oh! it annoys me that people don't review the captions for even that level of obvious mistake (I'm not calling that one egregious. The ones that mess up the name(s) of Country included in an Acknowledgement of Country are egregious. I've never seen the same error for a Welcome to Country, which I assume is because the Indigenous people associated with the production of such know too well how badly it can be messed up).

sovay: (Sydney Carton)
[personal profile] sovay
As I hollered after the inapposite license plate of the SUV that had blown through the crosswalk without even thinking about stopping while we were in it, "Psalm 23? With that driving?" I am informed by [personal profile] spatch that the driver who actually had stopped for us like a normal person let out one of those whoaaa sounds as at a game of the dozens, which was extremely good recompense for almost being run over by an SUV whose Lord may have been a shepherd, but obviously not a crossing guard.

(The rest of this weekend has been different temperatures of garbage; I take my victories where I can. We were in West Medford to eat tamales on the bleachers of Playstead Park.)

Write Every Day Day 30

Jun. 30th, 2025 12:21 am
cornerofmadness: (writing king1)
[personal profile] cornerofmadness

I believe I started with Stephen King, seems good to end with him too

How is this month over already? I’ll be back tomorrow with the final tally. And on July first we move to [personal profile] nafs’s blog for WED.

It was an editing day Got about 600 words and the penultimate chapter of Dandelions posted.

Let me know what day you’re reporting in for. If I've missed you on the tally let me know. Feel free to jump in at any time.

Day twenty -nine [personal profile] cornerofmadness, [personal profile] the_siobhan, [personal profile] sylvanwitch, [personal profile] badly_knitted, [personal profile] trobadora, [personal profile] ysilme, [personal profile] goddess47,



other days )
[syndicated profile] artofdoingstuff_feed

Posted by Karen

It started the way most discoveries do: by not doing something I was supposed to, which was cleaning my copper. Mine is not a make it shine kitchen. It's a laboratory of experiments, trials and - actual, daily cooking. This is an easy copper cleaning method for people who like a bit of patina and...

Read More

Writerly Ways

Jun. 29th, 2025 10:00 pm
cornerofmadness: (Default)
[personal profile] cornerofmadness
I almost went for links only but I started reading today a revised edition (I think it's moving from self pubbed to traditional) of a novel called Pantomine by L.R. Lam and the main character is intersexed (and apparently the series had been popular)

This seemed like the best thing to end Pride month on. Lam goes on to talk about what the series meant to fans and why it was being revamped and rereleased and they mentioned something I've been talking a lot to [personal profile] evil_little_dog and [personal profile] sysann recently. I've mentioned it here before. There is no ONE right way to be something.

Lam put it as 'no group is a monolith' and my works won't be for everyone. I feel that was most likely added to the author's preface because of the hate you can get on social media (someone eld and I both followed on YT/FB committed suicide in part over the pressures and the hate directed their way last week). I wish fans could understand that. All too often you get people tearing down someone because the experience they read in the book was not their experience and therefore not valid.

It's hard. You know you can't please everyone. You don't want to accidentally hurt a group of people. On the other hand, people do need to realize that their way isn't the only way either. For example (which I used before) several years back pre-Covid my local writers group had four trans members. Not one of them had the same path or level of acceptance from friends and family so when I see someone screaming 'that's not how it is to be trans' I think of this. By this hard stance, you're saying only one of those four people are right.

And it's not limited to that of course. You pretty much name a group or career and someone will be there to screaming that's not how it's done. So how, as an author, can you minimize that?

Do your research. Provide sources in the author's notes if you can. Get sensitivity readers if you can (which isn't always easy or affordable especially if you're a self pubber). Know you can't please everyone. Do your best.


Open Calls

Of Love & Dragons Love stories between dragons and humans (Dragon lords, princesses, etc)

Twisted Dreams Press is open to Horror Novels and Novellas

Horrorsmith Fear Forge Horror Novels


Bullet Points Volume 11 Dark military science fiction

Infested Publishing Is Open To Novels and Novellas from UK Authors

Ongoing Submissions: GRADEside Middle Grade & Young Adult Horror

A Breath of Time Love where time itself is conquered (time travel, time bending, etc)

Diabolical Plots 2025 Window Science fiction, fantasy, horror (everything must have a speculative element, even horror).

25 New Literary Magazines (Seeking Fiction, Nonfiction, and Poetry)


Flame Tree Publishing they have a couple of open calls


From Around the web


How Writers Can Stay Hopeful in a Tough Publishing Climate

Need a Good Book Editor? Top Up-to-Date Recommendations

The Power of Reddit: Reach Millions Through Ask Me Anything Events (I had never even thought of using Reddit)

The Secret to Avoiding the Sagging Story: What Makes a Good Middle

Notes from the Editor’s Desk: June 2025

4 Unique Writing Habits of Famous Writers

Ten Books in Ten Years: A Conversation with Indie Author Tank Gunner


6 Steps to Self-Publishing a Book.

Marketing Planning For First-Time Authors

From Betty

Six Common Problems in Short Stories

Eleven Signs Your Story Depicts Abuse

Do You Really Have to Use a 3-Act Structure in Fiction?
Reader Friday-That Stinky Mood

The 3 Components that Keep Your Story in Balance

Silence the Inner Critic

Series Words of Wisdom

Help! My Romance Draft Is a Mess (Now What?)

Writing 101: Semi-Colons & Other Tricky Punctuation Marks

Should You Write What You Know or Aim to Experiment?

How to decide if a writer’s retreat is right for you

Not Every Quirk Is a Flaw: How to Identify a True Character Flaw in Storytelling

Three Questions Writers Can Ask When Feeling Overwhelmed or Confused

it's an opera review

Jun. 29th, 2025 07:38 pm
calimac: (Haydn)
[personal profile] calimac
Encouraged by the blog post and review by Lisa of the Iron Tongue, I bought a ticket for today's matinee performance of the Pocket Opera production of the opera Tartuffe by Kirke Mechem, a contemporary American composer who's also written an opera of Pride and Prejudice which I've also seen. This was the last performance of Tartuffe, and the only one convenient to me geographically, and I wasn't the only person persuaded to go. The small theater in Mountain View's CPA was pretty well packed (the main stage was putting on a musical about James Dean, in whom I have no interest) and among the audience I counted five people I know, including the conductor who put on that Pride and Prejudice.

Like the original play, from which this is significantly simplified (there's no Cléante, for one thing, and the dénouement has a rather different way of arriving at the same ending), this opera is bright and funny. It's through-composed and through-sung, with only a couple set piece arias or duets, in an agreeable modern style. The orchestration (cut down to chamber size by the composer) varies strongly depending on which characters are singing, and there are a couple clever and funny references to well-known bits from the classical repertoire; not worth explaining to non-audience members, but effective at the time.

The title role was sung by the powerful-voiced baritone (he sounds more like a bass) Eugene Brancoveanu, who'd been Darcy in that Pride and Prejudice. Unusually, his voice was not the most distinctive part of his performance here, because there was an equally powerful-voiced bass, Isaiah Musik-Ayala, as the credulous Orgon. Brancoveanu most excelled, instead, in acting the part of the oily and mock-sanctimonious Tartuffe. The other cast member I was familiar with was the bright-voiced soprano Shawnette Sulker as the sly maid Dorine, but they were all good and worked out well in the small space.

I got to the theater after stopping in for the first set of the annual Stanford Chamber Music Seminar's marathon finale, in which all the attending student and amateur groups each play a movement from something. The best I heard here were string quartets, the finale from Mendelssohn's Op. 44/1 and a couple of bright Haydn pieces.

I'd also got to the showcase concert the previous evening, which featured the two best ensembles - again, both string quartets - playing a full work each. We had a highly sharp-nosed performance of Smetana's "In My Life" and a Mendelssohn Op. 80 with a particularly snappy finale. In between the two quartets, the stage crew disassembled and then reassembled the entire string quartet infrastructure - the chairs, the music stands, the little footpads for turning the pages on the tablets - so as to provide for an intermediary performance of a Schubert song. (There was no program, and I don't remember the title.) Was it performed by a soprano? No. A tenor? No. It was a clarinet. B. wasn't there, but she likes vocal music and would have been very disappointed.

Just one thing: 30 June 2025

Jun. 29th, 2025 10:01 pm
[personal profile] jazzyjj posting in [community profile] awesomeers
It's challenge time!

Comment with Just One Thing you've accomplished in the last 24 hours or so. It doesn't have to be a hard thing, or even a thing that you think is particularly awesome. Just a thing that you did.

Feel free to share more than one thing if you're feeling particularly accomplished!

Extra credit: find someone in the comments and give them props for what they achieved!

Nothing is too big, too small, too strange or too cryptic. And in case you'd rather do this in private, anonymous comments are screened. I will only unscreen if you ask me to.

Go!

Holy what the fuck

Jun. 30th, 2025 11:53 am
highlyeccentric: Sign on Little Queen St - One Way both directions (Default)
[personal profile] highlyeccentric

I don’t follow Jay Hulme. But I did see something a few years back about him scaling back online due to some kind of harassment.

Well, now the BBC’s religion editor has run a long story about it.

I also did my periodic check over Jay's social media, because while I do not follow because I might be an Anglican-watcher I don't need THAT much waxing lyrical about queer-affirming church in my regular feed, I do find some of his work and/or hot takes cool or interesting.

I particularly enjoyed A post with five years of photos of Leicester Cathedral renovations in progress. As well as being cool because Jay got access to, eg, the internal scaffolding, so there's at-level photos of the clerestory and close ups of some delightful grotesques, it involves this sentence:

And so, unable to resist, I reached out my arm, and in that dusty room, hidden away above the Cathedral, I touched Sir Ian McKellen’s left nipple.

The Accusation

Jun. 29th, 2025 08:33 pm
clauderainsrm: (Default)
[personal profile] clauderainsrm posting in [community profile] therealljidol
In Traitors/Werewolf/Mafia/Your reference here - when people come together and make this sort of accusation, the person selected is exiled from the community.

I decided not to go that far with this. :)

But also decided to "out" them to the public. Because if they are in fact the Killer, people need to know!!!

I can give you the following information:

There were 13 different suspects receiving votes. 3 of them were 1 vote shy of tying. The rest were 2 votes shy of that mark. Which makes sense. People are gathering information and playing hunches, in hopes of stopping the murder spree in it's infancy.

The group has named [personal profile] roina_arwen  as the prime suspect!

***
We will have to wait and see if there are any more poisonings this week, or if the angry mob of Idolers got it right the first time!






Vote - Week 2

Jun. 29th, 2025 08:01 pm
clauderainsrm: (Default)
[personal profile] clauderainsrm posting in [community profile] therealljidol
A few words from [personal profile] clauderainsrm:

On one hand, there are quite a few “byes” this week, which is bad. But on the other, that means there is more time for you to read and enjoy those entries that DID make it in on time!

So make sure to read, comment and vote for your favorites, to keep encouraging them on this journey of sheer terror!

Speaking of sheer terror, [personal profile] erulissedances decided to leave the manor before the vote. Which - one, sad for me that I lose one more person to torture, and bad for the rest of you because I asked the wheel if it would count as one of the eliminated numbers. (Standard Idol policy is that it *would NOT*, however this time the Wheel rules. So I asked)

Which means there are also (spins the wheel, watches as it slows to its final destination) 2 contestants with the fewest votes leaving us this week as well! (Don’t forget, the contestant with the fewest votes WHO IS NOT ELIMINATED will be receiving the Nullifier!


The poll closes Thursday July 3rd at 8pm ET.

Good luck to everyone!



Poll #33302 ’WheelofChaos-Week2’
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: Just the Poll Creator, participants: 12

Vote For Your Favorites!

adoptedwriter's entry
2 (16.7%)

adore's entry
4 (33.3%)

alycewilson's entry
3 (25.0%)

autumn_wind's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

bleodswean's entry
4 (33.3%)

drippedonpaper's entry
2 (16.7%)

eeyore_grrl's entry
5 (41.7%)

fausts_dream's entry
4 (33.3%)

flipflop_diva's entry
7 (58.3%)

garnigal's entry
2 (16.7%)

gunwithoutmusic's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

hafnia's entry
4 (33.3%)

halfshellvenus's entry
4 (33.3%)

i0ne's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

impoetry's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

inkstainedfingertips's entry
3 (25.0%)

kizzy's entry
3 (25.0%)

krispykritter's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
1 (8.3%)

legalpad819's entry
3 (25.0%)

marjorica's entry
3 (25.0%)

matsushima's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

muchtooarrogant's entry
4 (33.3%)

murielle's entry
2 (16.7%)

oxymoron67's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

rayaso's entry
3 (25.0%)

roina_arwen's entry
4 (33.3%)

serpentinejacaranda's entry
2 (16.7%)

simplyn2deep's entry
6 (50.0%)

static_abyss's entry
4 (33.3%)

swirlsofpurple's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

talonkarrde's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

tonithegreat's entry
3 (25.0%)

used_songs's entry
3 (25.0%)

wolfden's entry
5 (41.7%)

xeena's BYE WEEK - Votes Do Not Count
2 (16.7%)

vital functions

Jun. 29th, 2025 08:16 pm
kaberett: Trans symbol with Swiss Army knife tools at other positions around the central circle. (Default)
[personal profile] kaberett

Reading. Scalzi, Wells, Gordon + Ziv, Burch + Penman, McMillan-Webster )

I have also done a bunch of variably directed online reading about models and theories of pain, and will happily recommend the British Psychological Society's Story of pain should this be relevant to your interests!

Writing. I am several thousand words and 18 (of 52) questions into the consultation on the EHRC Code of Practice consultation. The deadline is in a little under 24 hours. Approximately two thirds of the questions appear to be very simple and straightforward tickboxes. I am not super enjoying the free-text responses, and especially did not enjoy that despite the total lack of any indicator of a word limit there is in fact a word limit and it's 1000 words. I discovered this having written 2511 of the damn things.

More cheerfully I am also, as mentioned, enjoying playing with my pens for the purposes of notes about pain. I am increasingly convinced (cannot remember if I mentioned?) that I have Solved the Problem of one of my fancy pens having an unwelcome tendency to dry up when looked at funny, via the method of "giving the cap a bonus little wiggle once it's on". (It's the Visconti Homo Sapiens Bronze Age which, second hand, was a PhD completion present from A, because -- for those of you who aren't massive fountain pen nerds -- it's made out of a resin that's got crushed Etna basalt mixed in with it; I spent a while going "is it just because red-family inks are typically quite dry???" but nope, the effectiveness of the extra little wiggle suggests quite strongly that the spring for the inner cap isn't quiiite activating when I'd ideally like it to. This isn't necessarily a huge surprise given how sticky it was when I first got the pen, but it still took me... a while... to catch on.

Watching. Up to date with Murderbot. Remain grumbly about Decisions including "how little time the poor thing spends with its helmet up" and "how bad people are at poly" and also, fundamentally, the word "throuple" (I AM TOO OLD AND CRANKY FOR THIS NONSENSE, APPARENTLY), but am also mildly peeved that we've run out of episodes.

Listening. An Indelicates gig, which I almost could not make myself leave the house for but was very very glad I did. Not having yet managed to scrape together the brain to listen to Avenue QAnon significantly increased the proportion of new-to-me songs!

Cooking. Bread? Bread.

Eating. The branch of Tonkotsu a short way from the Indeligig venue turned out to have outside seating! And an updated menu since last time we made it to them, so we both delightedly consumed the chilli tofu ramen and also shared the cauliflower 'wings' and some edamame and the very pleasant yuzu lemonade and also also I tried A's Smoked Hibiscus Margarita and it was great. (I mildly regretted not being in fit state to actually want an entire cocktail of my own.)

Growing. I... harvested and processed 1.7 kg of redcurrants! And ate several handfuls of raspberries! Depending on how badly my neglect since Wednesday has damaged everything given The Heat there's at least as much again to come off the redcurrant bush, and the jostaberry and gooseberry were also both looking extremely promising. AND the second sowing of kohlrabi has started to come up.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags