unrelated to the vaccine but on my drive home i passed a lot for sale on one of those handwritten real estate boards and it had a website: OnlyLands.com
i haven't had the courage to find out if it's real but i am having a sensible chuckle
When you're not looking for sea men
Check out Only Lands.
Because ocean dwellers just don't understand
or
Thanks for subscribing to my Only Lands
Here are some hot sexy pictures of the Gobi Desert
I love this scientific article. But first, a small brain teaser. Consider the following Lego structure:
The goal: modify this lego structure such that you can place a heavy weight on top without crushing the figurine.
What is the simplest way you can do that? How about the safest way?
Most respondents (around 86%) provide solutions that add one or more additional bricks to the structure, usually in the form of extra support pillars on top.
However, the simplest solution doesn't require any new bricks it at all. Just remove the existing pillar support in the upper corner so that the load is balanced on the 3x3x3 cube in the middle.
Only about 12% of respondents provide solutions that involve removing bricks from the structure.
When the task is modified with other similar structures using the same general goal, the number who suggest removing (rather than adding) bricks is reduced to 5%.
The article is: Adams, G.S., Converse, B.A., Hales, A.H. et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y
From the abstract:
Improving objects, ideas or situations—whether a designer seeks to advance technology, a writer seeks to strengthen an argument or a manager seeks to encourage desired behaviour—requires a mental search for possible changes1,2,3. We investigated whether people are as likely to consider changes that subtract components from an object, idea or situation as they are to consider changes that add new components. People typically consider a limited number of promising ideas in order to manage the cognitive burden of searching through all possible ideas, but this can lead them to accept adequate solutions without considering potentially superior alternatives4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations. Across eight experiments, participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (versus did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (versus several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (versus lower) cognitive load. Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
For example, Adams and colleagues analysed archival data and observed that, when an incoming university president requested suggestions for changes that would allow the university to better serve its students and community, only 11% of the responses involved removing an existing regulation, practice or programme. Similarly, when the authors asked study participants to make a 10 × 10 grid of green and white boxes symmetrical, participants often added green boxes to the emptier half of the grid rather than removing them from the fuller half, even when doing the latter would have been more efficient.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I love this scientific article. But first, a small brain teaser. Consider the following Lego structure:
The goal: modify this lego structure such that you can place a heavy weight on top without crushing the figurine.
What is the simplest way you can do that? How about the safest way?
Most respondents (around 86%) provide solutions that add one or more additional bricks to the structure, usually in the form of extra support pillars on top.
However, the simplest solution doesn't require any new bricks it at all. Just remove the existing pillar support in the upper corner so that the load is balanced on the 3x3x3 cube in the middle.
Only about 12% of respondents provide solutions that involve removing bricks from the structure.
When the task is modified with other similar structures using the same general goal, the number who suggest removing (rather than adding) bricks is reduced to 5%.
The article is: Adams, G.S., Converse, B.A., Hales, A.H. et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y
From the abstract:
Improving objects, ideas or situations—whether a designer seeks to advance technology, a writer seeks to strengthen an argument or a manager seeks to encourage desired behaviour—requires a mental search for possible changes1,2,3. We investigated whether people are as likely to consider changes that subtract components from an object, idea or situation as they are to consider changes that add new components. People typically consider a limited number of promising ideas in order to manage the cognitive burden of searching through all possible ideas, but this can lead them to accept adequate solutions without considering potentially superior alternatives4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations. Across eight experiments, participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (versus did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (versus several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (versus lower) cognitive load. Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
For example, Adams and colleagues analysed archival data and observed that, when an incoming university president requested suggestions for changes that would allow the university to better serve its students and community, only 11% of the responses involved removing an existing regulation, practice or programme. Similarly, when the authors asked study participants to make a 10 × 10 grid of green and white boxes symmetrical, participants often added green boxes to the emptier half of the grid rather than removing them from the fuller half, even when doing the latter would have been more efficient.
I wonder what would happen
if the tested cohort were, say, audio engineers (who often use subtractive EQ to make a whole mix sound better) or other professions where cutting away things is the norm (like editors of newspapers).
My first thought was to remove the block and put it on the bottom, hanging off by one row, and then put the fig on the hanging row there, so it's not actually under the overhanging piece anymore
I love this scientific article. But first, a small brain teaser. Consider the following Lego structure:
The goal: modify this lego structure such that you can place a heavy weight on top without crushing the figurine.
What is the simplest way you can do that? How about the safest way?
Most respondents (around 86%) provide solutions that add one or more additional bricks to the structure, usually in the form of extra support pillars on top.
However, the simplest solution doesn't require any new bricks it at all. Just remove the existing pillar support in the upper corner so that the load is balanced on the 3x3x3 cube in the middle.
Only about 12% of respondents provide solutions that involve removing bricks from the structure.
When the task is modified with other similar structures using the same general goal, the number who suggest removing (rather than adding) bricks is reduced to 5%.
The article is: Adams, G.S., Converse, B.A., Hales, A.H. et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y
From the abstract:
Improving objects, ideas or situations—whether a designer seeks to advance technology, a writer seeks to strengthen an argument or a manager seeks to encourage desired behaviour—requires a mental search for possible changes1,2,3. We investigated whether people are as likely to consider changes that subtract components from an object, idea or situation as they are to consider changes that add new components. People typically consider a limited number of promising ideas in order to manage the cognitive burden of searching through all possible ideas, but this can lead them to accept adequate solutions without considering potentially superior alternatives4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations. Across eight experiments, participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (versus did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (versus several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (versus lower) cognitive load. Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
For example, Adams and colleagues analysed archival data and observed that, when an incoming university president requested suggestions for changes that would allow the university to better serve its students and community, only 11% of the responses involved removing an existing regulation, practice or programme. Similarly, when the authors asked study participants to make a 10 × 10 grid of green and white boxes symmetrical, participants often added green boxes to the emptier half of the grid rather than removing them from the fuller half, even when doing the latter would have been more efficient.
I love this scientific article. But first, a small brain teaser. Consider the following Lego structure:
The goal: modify this lego structure such that you can place a heavy weight on top without crushing the figurine.
What is the simplest way you can do that? How about the safest way?
Most respondents (around 86%) provide solutions that add one or more additional bricks to the structure, usually in the form of extra support pillars on top.
However, the simplest solution doesn't require any new bricks it at all. Just remove the existing pillar support in the upper corner so that the load is balanced on the 3x3x3 cube in the middle.
Only about 12% of respondents provide solutions that involve removing bricks from the structure.
When the task is modified with other similar structures using the same general goal, the number who suggest removing (rather than adding) bricks is reduced to 5%.
The article is: Adams, G.S., Converse, B.A., Hales, A.H. et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y
From the abstract:
Improving objects, ideas or situations—whether a designer seeks to advance technology, a writer seeks to strengthen an argument or a manager seeks to encourage desired behaviour—requires a mental search for possible changes1,2,3. We investigated whether people are as likely to consider changes that subtract components from an object, idea or situation as they are to consider changes that add new components. People typically consider a limited number of promising ideas in order to manage the cognitive burden of searching through all possible ideas, but this can lead them to accept adequate solutions without considering potentially superior alternatives4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations. Across eight experiments, participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (versus did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (versus several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (versus lower) cognitive load. Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
For example, Adams and colleagues analysed archival data and observed that, when an incoming university president requested suggestions for changes that would allow the university to better serve its students and community, only 11% of the responses involved removing an existing regulation, practice or programme. Similarly, when the authors asked study participants to make a 10 × 10 grid of green and white boxes symmetrical, participants often added green boxes to the emptier half of the grid rather than removing them from the fuller half, even when doing the latter would have been more efficient.
Is removing the figure also a valid answer, then?
I think so. I'm not sure if that was explicitly forbidden. I'm going to say "yes."
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Even just with modern technology and existing global resources, if we really wanted it and we all worked together, we could easily launch every single person on Earth into space within our lifetimes
With the minor caveat that they probably wouldn't be alive by the time they left the atmosphere
Ok I read this whole thing aloud to Poppy last night and at first he was playing hades while listening but then he just like put it down and laid perfectly still until I finished reading and then we were both just like
Our cats only watch TV when we put birds/small mammals on
My cat is completely oblivious to the action going on when displayed on a computer screen or TV. Like, he'll scent-mark laptops and phones, but he pays no attention to the sound or content of what's on there.
Charlie is funny about noises and stuff though. We took him to a 4th of July party when he was 6 months old and he just sat on my wife's lap watching the fireworks tilting his head. Absolutely nothing phases him.
0
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
hello, please consider illustrating my magical patron/dark god for your prompt. I wrote it up for the DCC/DnD campaign I'm running
The Dark Stars are an ancient constellation of malevolent, cold-burning suns. They lurk along the furthest edge of our universe, silently observing - and guiding - the events of the cosmic and mortal realms. Among their powers are the gifts of prophecy and the manipulation of fate. Their understanding of ancient cosmic magic is unmatched, and they are willing to share their dark secrets with promising mortal agents - for a terrible price.
Billions of years ago, The Dark Stars were like any other countless stars in the great cosmic cycle. They birthed in stellar nurseries, and Mother Gaia herself entrusted them with watching over the life developing on millions of worlds throughout the universe. They cast their light on planets, and witnessed the rise and fall of countless civilizations. As with all things, though, they began to die after billions of years. The sacred fuel that kept their blazing cores burning ran dry, and they collapsed into the final stage of their life cycle. While most of the stars were content to pass into stellar death, a select few quietly raged against this injustice, and sought ways to extend their lives indefinitely.
To do this, they needed an alternate source of fuel, and eventually came to realize the energy of the life around them could suffice. Using their vast knowledge and power, they attracted agents on worlds harboring intelligent life, and manipulated them into building vast and terrible machines, known as forges, that could harvest the lifeforce of every being on the planet. Using souls to power their burning cores instead of the sacred fuel corrupted the stars. Their cold and brilliant light shone on their dead, harvested worlds, and they quickly turned their attention to distant worlds still teeming with life.
Agents:
The Dark Stars prefer ambitious and powerful agents that are willing to dedicate decades and even centuries to their sprawling and nefarious plans. Because of the enormous resources required to construct the forges, Dark Star agents often form cabals and cults to steer entire civilizations and empires into building the engines of their own destruction. To entice the best and brightest, they offer powerful magic that is able to manipulate fate and summon the terrible light and destructive power that The Dark Stars wield. In return, their agents supply The Stars with as many souls as possible. Agents are often granted magical implements or spells that are able to store and harvest souls, and serve as a marker of the agent’s covenant with the constellation.
Where these souls come from is irrelevant - The Stars see mortal life as little more than a distant fuel source. Mortals themselves and their flicker-length lives are oblivious to the cosmic cycle, and so are beneath their consideration. Only the agents that are able to ignite the awful engines that devour entire worlds - the forges - and deliver millions of souls are worthy of peership with The Stars. Those select few are granted a portion of souls they collect when they harvest a world, elevating them in power and knowledge.
Eddy, do your Stars ponder small pathrtic plabets and minds with or without respect to lightspeed? Were I to look at one from many light years away would it turn to look back?
0
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Feral thank you for including some statistics in your post to make me feel smart and special.
Eddy, do your Stars ponder small pathrtic plabets and minds with or without respect to lightspeed? Were I to look at one from many light years away would it turn to look back?
You’re like a bacterium on the back of an ant
They are always watching, but they are watching the scale of a world and seeing if it is ripe for harvest
Scifi idea: A planet that on first glance appears to have been home to an extinct civilization with a terrible case of Kessler syndrome. On closer inspection, however, it is discovered that most of the debris are generations upon generations of corpses, members of their species who were launched live into orbit in a religious ritual. Eventually religious fervor took over and they launched so many people into orbit that their civilization died out.
I feel like the regular physical energy of a million planets would barely sate the hunger of a star for very long
Obviously this means souls are an extremely efficient energy source, and a few souls would probably power a planet for almost forever, which has some concerning implications
Anyway I love this and I will 100% draw it, probably with some Mignola vibes
The Dark Stars allow their most promising servants a tantalizing shred of their gift of prophecy.
Upon a successful casting, the wizard is able to “see” the results of a certain number of actions by rolling these actions and noting the result. The wizard knows if the action causes unintended consequences, such as activating a trap, or failing due to unknown circumstances (such as flipping a switch that causes a cave in, or a casting of magic missile failing due to magical resistance of the target).
If multiple actions are explored, each action must be substantially different, per judge’s discretion. If a spell roll results in a critical failure, the spell may succeed if the wizard chooses to spellburn a significant amount and see the results, or choose a different target. At higher levels, the wizard can also extend these benefits to their allies, as long as the wizard can communicate to them the action to take (“Hans, shoot an arrow at the goblin that’s chanting!”)
Once a desirable outcome has been noted, the wizard can ‘choose’ that action as their next action.
1-11: Failure. Spell is lost.
12-15: Failure, spell is not lost.
16-17: Wizard may see the outcome of one of their actions, including spells, physical actions, free actions (such as shouting), and attacks. It must be able to occur in the next 10 seconds.
18-21: Same as above, but wizard can choose 2 of their own actions.
22-23: Same as above, with up to 3 actions.
24-26: Wizard can view up to 4 actions, including the actions of their allies.
27-31: Same as above, up to 6 actions.
32-33: Each party member can view up to 2 of their own actions each. Additionally, if one of these actions is chosen as the party member’s next action, it gains a +2 bonus to all rolls associated with the action, to represent the advantage of future knowledge.
34-35: Same as above, OR the wizard can view all enemies’ next actions. Players gain the ability to react to change the outcome of particularly devastating actions (such as taking shelter before a dragon breathes fire)
36+: The wizard is suffused with knowledge of the infinite possible futures available to them. All party members may view unlimited future actions until they find one that’s acceptable. Additionally, the wizard may peer far into possible futures, and can ask the judge what the outcome of future decisions or actions may be - the judge must answer truthfully to the best of their ability.
I quite like the idea of a patron operating on cosmic time scales, so that you can rationalise working for them pretty easily — you gain power and advantage at the cost of helping along a force that will destroy your planet, but only so far in the future that your far-flung descendants will have forgotten you
I feel like the regular physical energy of a million planets would barely sate the hunger of a star for very long
Obviously this means souls are an extremely efficient energy source, and a few souls would probably power a planet for almost forever, which has some concerning implications
Anyway I love this and I will 100% draw it, probably with some Mignola vibes
yesssss awesome!
I think souls are handwavey a potent source of energy, even to a star
+1
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Hm, That actually makes me think that a great magic item would be an amulet or something that a player can use once a day to 'pre-roll' an action, and then be able to choose that action (Accepting the roll) or choosing a different action as normal.
I quite like the idea of a patron operating on cosmic time scales, so that you can rationalise working for them pretty easily — you gain power and advantage at the cost of helping along a force that will destroy your planet, but only so far in the future that your far-flung descendants will have forgotten you
yes! in my campaign a vast empire has labored for centuries to build this engine, all because a cabal of star-mad cultists seized control of the empire long ago. now it's time to switch it on, and various factions (including one of the PCs, who is an agent of the stars) are jostling to be able to flip the switch. It of course has to be 'primed' with a substantial number of souls or brilliant souls, the life energy of people with levels, basically, before it can be turned on.
in the meantime the agent is expected to provide 'snacks' to the stars in the form of dozens of souls. brilliant souls are a rare, delectable treat (I stole this idea from sunless sea)
hello, please consider illustrating my magical patron/dark god for your prompt. I wrote it up for the DCC/DnD campaign I'm running
The Dark Stars are an ancient constellation of malevolent, cold-burning suns. They lurk along the furthest edge of our universe, silently observing - and guiding - the events of the cosmic and mortal realms. Among their powers are the gifts of prophecy and the manipulation of fate. Their understanding of ancient cosmic magic is unmatched, and they are willing to share their dark secrets with promising mortal agents - for a terrible price.
Billions of years ago, The Dark Stars were like any other countless stars in the great cosmic cycle. They birthed in stellar nurseries, and Mother Gaia herself entrusted them with watching over the life developing on millions of worlds throughout the universe. They cast their light on planets, and witnessed the rise and fall of countless civilizations. As with all things, though, they began to die after billions of years. The sacred fuel that kept their blazing cores burning ran dry, and they collapsed into the final stage of their life cycle. While most of the stars were content to pass into stellar death, a select few quietly raged against this injustice, and sought ways to extend their lives indefinitely.
To do this, they needed an alternate source of fuel, and eventually came to realize the energy of the life around them could suffice. Using their vast knowledge and power, they attracted agents on worlds harboring intelligent life, and manipulated them into building vast and terrible machines, known as forges, that could harvest the lifeforce of every being on the planet. Using souls to power their burning cores instead of the sacred fuel corrupted the stars. Their cold and brilliant light shone on their dead, harvested worlds, and they quickly turned their attention to distant worlds still teeming with life.
Agents:
The Dark Stars prefer ambitious and powerful agents that are willing to dedicate decades and even centuries to their sprawling and nefarious plans. Because of the enormous resources required to construct the forges, Dark Star agents often form cabals and cults to steer entire civilizations and empires into building the engines of their own destruction. To entice the best and brightest, they offer powerful magic that is able to manipulate fate and summon the terrible light and destructive power that The Dark Stars wield. In return, their agents supply The Stars with as many souls as possible. Agents are often granted magical implements or spells that are able to store and harvest souls, and serve as a marker of the agent’s covenant with the constellation.
Where these souls come from is irrelevant - The Stars see mortal life as little more than a distant fuel source. Mortals themselves and their flicker-length lives are oblivious to the cosmic cycle, and so are beneath their consideration. Only the agents that are able to ignite the awful engines that devour entire worlds - the forges - and deliver millions of souls are worthy of peership with The Stars. Those select few are granted a portion of souls they collect when they harvest a world, elevating them in power and knowledge.
Are they taking applications for supplicants who have been driven to madness by the contemplation of the cold infinitude and sheer weight of age? Because I might know a guy.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
+2
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I did not see The Birdcage as a youth but I definitely saw My Beautiful Laundrette and young Daniel Day Lewis making out with a Pakistani boy in punk rock London
edit: lol accidentally replied to last night's conversation but FUCK IT
@MrMister since you awesomed this perhaps the movie would be up your alley
it's a Romeo and Romeo story about a Pakistani lad growing up in economically depressed South London in the early 80s with an overbearing yet loving family trying to marry him off in the traditional way etc etc, and his childhood best friend Daniel Day Lewis, a poor white boy who has joined a skinhead gang and has had to keep their friendship a secret from the rest of the gang.
Idk if I can recommend it as a "queer movie" because that element doesn't come into focus until over halfway through the film when, surprise, it turns out they're both gay (and, iirc, have been all along; the movie has kept it a secret from us), but it's a good comedy and a good social-document movie. Their gayness is the last element to be folded into the mix after the first half of the film has been about race, class, unemployment, Thatcherism etc. So I would feel misleading calling it a great gay romance but it's a great film with gay characters, if that makes sense.
The director, Stephen Frears is a kind of emotionally detached filmmaker - not misanthropic or shitty, but definitely a bit distanced - who makes movies that are a bit like nature documentaries about people, with an eye for factual detail, and there's a lot of focus on the community, with long digressions about various family members, neighborhood characters etc to kind of build out the world. All of his films have a really strong sense of place; instead of feeling stagey, setbound, or artificial, it very much feels like he takes his camera into real places and builds real moods. I always come away from one of his movies with a strong sense of the place and time it depicts. That's a big part of the appeal for me as growing up broke in the Midwest made me very hungry for windows into other places and times (this also probably explains why I'm a lot fonder of, say, Grand Theft Auto games than most of chat).
Posts
Maybe this would be cheating, but I'd like to see a version of this including some of the double-sided lands from Rise of Zendikar too
I also haven't built a moon pool, which was always my first progress milestone I pursued in the first game.
The tech progression and vehicle progression is probably the biggest difference between the two games.
Wait, no, the biggest difference is probably that the player character is a fully realized and voiced character.
But the approach to vehicles is a big change, for sure.
God bless.
*not the dril one
The first one I'm doing is "star"
Obviously I have to do some kind of cosmic horror but if anyone has an idea I'm open to it
The goal: modify this lego structure such that you can place a heavy weight on top without crushing the figurine.
What is the simplest way you can do that? How about the safest way?
However, the simplest solution doesn't require any new bricks it at all. Just remove the existing pillar support in the upper corner so that the load is balanced on the 3x3x3 cube in the middle.
Only about 12% of respondents provide solutions that involve removing bricks from the structure.
When the task is modified with other similar structures using the same general goal, the number who suggest removing (rather than adding) bricks is reduced to 5%.
The article is: Adams, G.S., Converse, B.A., Hales, A.H. et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y
From the abstract:
And from a Nature magazine article on the study (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0):
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
EDIT: Added spoiler tags
I think so. I'm not sure if that was explicitly forbidden. I'm going to say "yes."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
With the minor caveat that they probably wouldn't be alive by the time they left the atmosphere
Ok I read this whole thing aloud to Poppy last night and at first he was playing hades while listening but then he just like put it down and laid perfectly still until I finished reading and then we were both just like
That is. So much.
I'd love it if you took a look at my art and my PATREON!
My cat is completely oblivious to the action going on when displayed on a computer screen or TV. Like, he'll scent-mark laptops and phones, but he pays no attention to the sound or content of what's on there.
My scotty loves TV time with us on the couch. And if there is a dog or some sort of animal he runs up and tries to sniff it.
Well, it looks like I'll be trying to install the 120 soon, and may god have mercy on my butthole.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
And Apple claims they invented active slur cancellation
hello, please consider illustrating my magical patron/dark god for your prompt. I wrote it up for the DCC/DnD campaign I'm running
Nice
You’re like a bacterium on the back of an ant
They are always watching, but they are watching the scale of a world and seeing if it is ripe for harvest
Obviously this means souls are an extremely efficient energy source, and a few souls would probably power a planet for almost forever, which has some concerning implications
Anyway I love this and I will 100% draw it, probably with some Mignola vibes
yesssss awesome!
I think souls are handwavey a potent source of energy, even to a star
yes! in my campaign a vast empire has labored for centuries to build this engine, all because a cabal of star-mad cultists seized control of the empire long ago. now it's time to switch it on, and various factions (including one of the PCs, who is an agent of the stars) are jostling to be able to flip the switch. It of course has to be 'primed' with a substantial number of souls or brilliant souls, the life energy of people with levels, basically, before it can be turned on.
in the meantime the agent is expected to provide 'snacks' to the stars in the form of dozens of souls. brilliant souls are a rare, delectable treat (I stole this idea from sunless sea)
Are they taking applications for supplicants who have been driven to madness by the contemplation of the cold infinitude and sheer weight of age? Because I might know a guy.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
@MrMister since you awesomed this perhaps the movie would be up your alley
it's a Romeo and Romeo story about a Pakistani lad growing up in economically depressed South London in the early 80s with an overbearing yet loving family trying to marry him off in the traditional way etc etc, and his childhood best friend Daniel Day Lewis, a poor white boy who has joined a skinhead gang and has had to keep their friendship a secret from the rest of the gang.
Idk if I can recommend it as a "queer movie" because that element doesn't come into focus until over halfway through the film when, surprise, it turns out they're both gay (and, iirc, have been all along; the movie has kept it a secret from us), but it's a good comedy and a good social-document movie. Their gayness is the last element to be folded into the mix after the first half of the film has been about race, class, unemployment, Thatcherism etc. So I would feel misleading calling it a great gay romance but it's a great film with gay characters, if that makes sense.
The director, Stephen Frears is a kind of emotionally detached filmmaker - not misanthropic or shitty, but definitely a bit distanced - who makes movies that are a bit like nature documentaries about people, with an eye for factual detail, and there's a lot of focus on the community, with long digressions about various family members, neighborhood characters etc to kind of build out the world. All of his films have a really strong sense of place; instead of feeling stagey, setbound, or artificial, it very much feels like he takes his camera into real places and builds real moods. I always come away from one of his movies with a strong sense of the place and time it depicts. That's a big part of the appeal for me as growing up broke in the Midwest made me very hungry for windows into other places and times (this also probably explains why I'm a lot fonder of, say, Grand Theft Auto games than most of chat).