1362 stories
·
22 followers

noknightinarmor: goys2men: awhiffofcavendish: biggest-gaudiest...

1 Comment




noknightinarmor:

goys2men:

awhiffofcavendish:

biggest-gaudiest-patronuses:

fightthemane:

hostagesandsnacks:

childrentalking:

itwashotwestayedinthewater:

fabledquill:

killerchickadee:

intheheatherbright:

intheheatherbright:

Costume. Chitons.

Marjorie & C. H. B.Quennell, Everyday Things in Archaic Greece (London: B. T. Batsford, 1931).

Wait, wait…. Is that seriously it? How their clothes go?

that genuinely is it

yeah hey whats up bout to put some fucking giant sheets on my body

lets bring back sheetwares

also chlamys:

and exomis:

trust the ancients to make a fashion statement out of straight cloth and nothing but pins

Wrap Yourself In Blankets, Call It a Day

Wear blanket. Conquer world.

That last one looks dope

the chlamys is more of a dick-almost-out look

Read the whole story
rclatterbuck
2 days ago
reply
So like the columns and architectural orders, there is Dorian and Ionian. Is there a Corinthian chitin as well?
Share this story
Delete

Eowyn Kills the Witch King

2 Comments and 4 Shares
Description: The Witch King, from Lord of the Rings, in the battle of pelennor fields.

Witch King: \
Read the whole story
rclatterbuck
12 days ago
reply
Why can't both be true?
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
zwol
12 days ago
reply
Quoting from memory a snarky conversation about this on rec.arts.sf.written lo these many years ago:

WITCH-KING: No man can kill me.
EOWYN: I am no man!
WITCH-KING: Bah, this Westron is so imprecise. I did not mean _vir_, I meant _homo_.
EOWYN: In that case, permit me to point out that Meriadoc, who is not _homo_ but _pygmaeus_, has just introduced a blade of Gondolin to your knee.
Pittsburgh, PA
luizirber
5 days ago
Is it this one? https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.sf.written/QPMaNxBZ_RQ/j8mRbQ3jxvEJ
zwol
5 days ago
I think you may be right. It's dated later than I would have guessed -- I stopped reading Usenet circa 2002 -- but it's a close textual match and it makes sense that it's Dorothy Heydt posting.

The Higher States of Bromine

1 Comment

Chemists have a familiarity with many elements and many compounds, from having worked with them or studied them in the literature. You get a feel for what’s “normal” and for what’s unusual, and there are quite a few degrees of the latter. Take compounds of bromine, for example. Most any working chemist will immediately recognize bromine (there are exceptions) because we don’t commonly encounter too many opaque red liquids with a fog of corrosive orange fumes above them in the container. Which is good. That’s bromine in oxidation state zero, elemental, and then you have bromide (oxidation state -1), one of the most common anions around. “Chlorides are rabble”, said Primo Levi in one of my favorite lines from The Periodic Table, and he was right about that, but bromides are not of much higher social standing. Every cation has a bromide salt, and it’s usually one of the cheaper ones in the catalog.

So far, so good. But bromine can also go up to +3 and +5 oxidation states, and there things start to get interesting. You can have various mixed-halogen things, all of which are reactive and toxic and are distinguished by their various degrees of vileness. And you can get all sorts of bromine-oxygen species, ranging from the pretty well-known ones like bromate ion (BrO3) all the way up to. . .well, to the stuff described in this new paper., from Konrad Seppelt at the Freie Universität Berlin. It contains a whole list of new compounds that send my chemical intuition completely off the rails.

I have no “feel” for them whatsoever except a strong desire never to prepare any of them. Prepare any of them? I don’t even want to make the starting material. You know you’re in for a bumpy ride when your work needs something like bromine fluorine dioxide (bromyl fluoride, BrO2F); no one can claim that they weren’t warned. There hasn’t even been a reliable synthesis of that stuff until now – Seppelt describes a new one, from the aforementioned sodium bromate, which is fine, and bromine pentafluoride, which is not fine, because it’s a hideous oxidizing and fluorinating agent fit to fluorinate you right into the afterlife and whose attempted use in liquid rocket propellent mixtures was abandoned because it was too foul to work with, and, oh yeah, redistilled pure hydrogen fluoride, which is also about as far from “fine” as you can get. The SI of the paper casually mentions that you can use double vacuum distillation in a metal line to get your HF sufficiently anhydrous for the reaction, and you can go ahead and get cranking on that without waiting for me to show up.

You condense the latter two reagents onto a solid charge of the bromate at liquid nitrogen temperatures, and then let it warm all the way up to -78C, at which point a “vigorous” reaction sets in. Imagine running these things for the first time, waiting for said reaction and wondering if it’s going to stay inside your apparatus or invigorate itself all over the ceiling. Once you have made your bromyl fluoride, you raise the temperature a bit more to -40 and pump off the excess HF and pentafluoride, and you will want an extremely capable trap on the other end of that process, which according to the paper can take several hours, and probably had better. Finally, you sublime off the product from the solid residue in the tropical warmth of -10 or so and seal off that part of the tube.

You have now prepared the colorless solid bromine fluorine dioxide. What to do with it? Well, what you don’t do is let it warm up too far past +10C, because it’s almost certainly going to explode. Keep that phrase in mind, it’s going to come in handy in this sort of work. Prof. Seppelt, as the first person with a reliable supply of the pure stuff, set forth to react it with a whole list of things and has produced a whole string of weird compounds with brow-furrowing crystal structures. I don’t even know what to call these beasts: how, for example, do you refer to the cation in Br3O6+ triflate? What’s the name for the compound shown at right? Very few of us will have the need to name it, though – you make that one by condensing trifluoroacetic anhydride onto the bromyl fluoride at -196C, then warming and recrystallizing the solid from liquified freon to give yellow crystals. Those melt at -12C, and according to the paper and its SI, “The molten red liquid starts to gas slowly” and “inevitably explodes upon further warming“. Further experimentation runs a risk of exposure to further inevitabilities, and I’m glad that Prof. Seppelt’s expertise in the lab got him through all this.

The SI strongly warns readers that the preparations therein must not under any circumstances be scaled up, and that is clearly the advice of someone who has has your best interests at heart. Even at the amounts described, you will want an excellent and well-maintained vacuum line, access to noncommon nonhousehold reagents like the aforementioned bromine pentafluoride, a willingness to do things like redistill anhydrous HF, and you will at all times want to be suited up like you’re going to going to spay a velociraptor. Ah, the halogen chemist’s life for me, me hearties, yo-ho-ho and a barrel of. . .well, we still don’t know what to name it. Dang.

Read the whole story
rclatterbuck
23 days ago
reply
Another amusing entry in the series, Things I Won't Work With
Share this story
Delete

leftist-daily-reminders: blue-author: projectivepenteract: theuppitynegras: projectivepenteract: ...

1 Share

leftist-daily-reminders:

blue-author:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve” 

this is capitalism in it’s final form

this is it honey 

except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell

that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism

lmao

Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.

It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

“Charity” is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. “Charity” is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.

This is one of the best anti-capitalist posts on the entire site.

Read the whole story
rclatterbuck
62 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

caffeinewitchcraft: hamelin-born: thestuffedalligator: writing-prompt-s: When you learned of the...

1 Share

caffeinewitchcraft:

hamelin-born:

thestuffedalligator:

writing-prompt-s:

When you learned of the god of war, you thought he’d be tall and muscular and angry. When you were about to meet him, you braced yourself for the worst.

You weren’t quite expecting the short, scrawny, shy kid you ended up getting instead.

Olive skin, black hair, skinny, dirty face with pale lines where tears had sliced through the ash and dust. A white chiton dress and a threadbare shawl draped over her shoulders.

A pair of wings - huge, black vulture wings, far too large on her tiny body - were the only things that suggested she was divine.

The general shifted his weight from foot to foot. Obviously respect had to be given to gods, but… “Er - I’m sorry, I was invoking Ares? The god of war?”

The child god shrunk in on herself, and pulled the shawl over her shoulders. She muttered something. “Sorry?” the general asked.

“Ares is the god of slaughter,” the child god said in a slightly louder voice. “Not war.”

The general looked at the priest. The priest shrugged, clearly lost at sea. “Well,” the general said, “then maybe Athena? Goddess of tactics in war?”

“Tactics,” the child god repeated. “Not war.”

There was a long, ugly silence, as the huge vulture wings shifted with the whisper of brushing feathers. “My name is - was - Iphigenia. Daughter of Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, commander of the Greeks who stormed the walls of Troy. When my father disgraced Artemis, and the winds of Greece would not blow her battleships to Troy, I was brought to Aulis. For my wedding, I was told. I was-”

She sobbed. Teardrops dribbled off her chin and fell to the temple floor. “I was fourteen. And then I was brought to the highest altar in Aulis, and - and then - and-”

Another sob. “I was fourteen,” she said.

The vulture wings draped over her, and she disappeared under the cloak of black feathers. When they parted, and when the child god looked up at the general, he fell backwards. Those eyes. Eyes he’d seen a thousand times in battle -

“I am the true spirit of war, general,” the child god said. “I am the goddess of bloodshed, of sacrifice, of the slaughter of innocents. I am invoked when men ravage, burn and pillage. I am invoked when mothers cry out, when sons die, when daughters are stolen. I hear it all, general. I have heard it all since the fall of Troy.”

The terrible wings opened up. The child god loomed over the fallen man, twenty, thirty feet tall. Somewhere, the priest was screaming. “How dare you call upon my name.”

@lectorel @darthrevaan

I literally teared up, wow, this did so much in so few words. The last italic dialogue? Amazing.

Read the whole story
rclatterbuck
62 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

dresdencodak: Looking back, I was a teenager with Very Specific...

1 Share








dresdencodak:

Looking back, I was a teenager with Very Specific Robot Feelings.

Looking back again, it’s clear I just wanted to be a lady robot.

Read the whole story
rclatterbuck
67 days ago
reply
ojiikun
67 days ago
+1000 for the Outlaw Star
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories