Honestly, if my grandma was ever put in charge of something as inherently useful as a machine gun she'd just hang onto it. We'd find it carefully broken down and oiled and stored in a dozen Royal Dansk tins in the sewing room.
Did we have the same granny?
There was enough thread and fabric swatches stored in butter cookie tins to make about a half dozen quilts in my grandma's little work room. Can certainly understand the appeal though, those things were built like tiny Danish tanks.
Quetzi on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Honestly the idea of walking through a dense forest and suddenly feeling a vibration in your stomach and then hearing a deep bass rumble through the trees from every direction at once is somehow more terrifying than the iconic Jurassic Park T-Rex roar.
Recreating Dino sounds with science will always been fascinating to me. We can see the bones and 3d model what we think they looked like but getting close to recreating what they sounded like somehow makes them so much more real.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited February 7
IN the crypto thread, I talked about the Albanian civil war. If you don't follow the insanity that is crypto and don't want to get involved, that's good, because here's a podcast episode that details what happened when a set of pyramid schemes took over a country. If you don't have an hour and a half to listen, here's a short version:
Albania had just a few years ago been shocked into a market economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union and specifically Hoxhaism, it's own very special hyper-isolationist system. The population was very naive about such things as "banks" and "investments" as they had spent much of their time previously building 170,000+ concrete bunkers.
These things are all over the place, because there are over 170,000 in a very small country.
At any rate, these people who don't know any better are suddenly sold this bill of goods that a market economy will make them as prosperous as Americans, even as all their factories shut down because they couldn't compete with outside goods. Enter: a whole bunch of scumbags, many of whom were literally the Mafia. They set up obvious pyramid schemes, promising increasingly grandiose guaranteed rates of return on people's "investments." 10%, 50%, 100%, 800%, sky was the limit. People put their money in, and then the numbers just kept getting bigger, so they'd talk everybody else into doing this. After all, this was perfectly legal, since the political system had never dealt with any of it. It's not illegal and it seems to work, so that must mean it's fine, right? Number printer apparently went brrr, and it went on for years, so even early skeptics got suckered in too.
The schemes went on for seven years, and eventually two thirds of the entire national population were "invested" in these pyramid schemes, and half the nominal GDP was locked up in them. At this point, having run out of suckers (the way all pyramid/Ponzi/etc schemes end), the whole thing was starting to come apart, so the mobsters etc. in charge cut and ran with all the money. All the half the GDP of the country. The entire nation of Albania was instantly made destitute. The government essentially collapsed, and though what occurred next is called a civil war, it's more like total lawlessness. Thousands dead, a refugee crisis, and the effects of the Albanian civil war ended up help set off the even worse conflict in Kosovo a year later.
I wrote about it in the cryptocurrency thread originally since it's there's a frightening analogy to what's happening now. No value is being created. Numbers are apparently going up, so more and more people are getting sucked in, including the country of El Salvador. It will eventually, though it might take years, come down. The longer it takes, and the more people that get drawn in, the worse it will be.
Remember, with a little luck you, too, can go down in history as some kind of legendary scholar through the simple means of destroying the very thing you're claiming to have discovered!
The Lycurgus Cup is a 4th-century Roman glass cage cup made of a dichroic glass, which shows a different colour depending on whether or not light is passing through it: red when lit from behind and green when lit from in front. It is the only complete Roman glass object made from this type of glass, and the one exhibiting the most impressive change in colour; it has been described as "the most spectacular glass of the period, fittingly decorated, which we know to have existed".
The cup is also a very rare example of a complete Roman cage-cup, or diatretum, where the glass has been painstakingly cut and ground back to leave only a decorative "cage" at the original surface-level. Many parts of the cage have been completely undercut. Most cage-cups have a cage with a geometric abstract design, but here there is a composition with figures, showing the mythical King Lycurgus, who (depending on the version) tried to kill Ambrosia, a follower of the god Dionysus. She was transformed into a vine that twined around the enraged king and restrained him, eventually killing him. Dionysus and two followers are shown taunting the king. The cup is the "only well-preserved figural example" of a cage cup.
The dichroic effect is achieved by making the glass with tiny proportions of nanoparticles of gold and silver dispersed in colloidal form throughout the glass material. The process used remains unclear, and it is likely that it was not well understood or controlled by the makers, and was probably discovered by accidental "contamination" with minutely ground gold and silver dust. The glass-makers may not even have known that gold was involved, as the quantities involved are so tiny; they may have come from a small proportion of gold in any silver added (most Roman silver contains small proportions of gold), or from traces of gold or gold leaf left by accident in the workshop, as residue on tools, or from other work.
Nice cup
Quetzi on
Do you like my photos? The stupid things I say? The way I am alive? You can contribute to that staying the same through the following link
The Visby lenses are a collection of lens-shaped manufactured objects made of rock crystal (quartz) found in several Viking graves on the island of Gotland, Sweden, and dating from the 11th or 12th century. Some were in silver mounts with filigree, the mounting covering the back of the lens, and were probably used as jewellery; it has been suggested that the lenses themselves are much older than their mounts.
It was reported by Otto Ahlström in 1950 that most have aspheric surfaces. The best of the lenses have low spherical aberration, indicating that their surface profile was optimized to improve image quality.
Nice orb
Quetzi on
Do you like my photos? The stupid things I say? The way I am alive? You can contribute to that staying the same through the following link
I wouldn't recommend it as your first deep dive into the origins of civilization, as it's very much a response to mainstream academic history and assumes that you're already familiar with the ideas it's reacting against. As a result, it understandably glosses over some very important events and ideas that are well-covered elsewhere in favor of presenting counterexamples. And it's strongly arguing for anarchist political theories in a way that often seems to assume that it's already preaching to the choir.
With those minor caveats in mind, the book presents the development of various political and economic systems from a strongly indigenous and feminist perspective and spends a lot of time shitting on Jared Diamond, which is always welcome. Plus the narrator of the audiobook sounds a lot like the Kurzgesagt guy, so it all goes down real smooth.
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited February 7
I'm currently reading a book on the history of Roman religion. It's rather dense and academic and not something I'd generally recommend unless you're really interested in the subject and have a fair amount of background in Roman history to begin with.
That said, there was a passage that completely caught me off guard with how surprising and different it was from my conception:
Roman temples were not independent centres of power, influence or riches in the republican period; they did not, with rare exceptions, have priestly personnel attached to them and they did not therefore provide a power base for the priests as opposed to other groups of society. Priests and priestesses operated independently from particular temples and the temples did not represent a concentration of economic power; we do not know exactly how temples were funded, but there is no sign they were regularly thought of as major landowners. They were essentially houses for the cult-statues of the deities and the altars in front of them provided the location where victims were offered.
I've just always thought of ancient temples as... not too far off from modern churches (and I think this is a pattern I've frequently seen repeated in fiction). Which is something that I consciously recognized as wrong, but I don't think I'd fully conceptualized how wrong it was.
What's the name of the book because that's pretty succinct
Quetzi on
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited February 7
Religions of Rome Volume I: A History by Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price
It's quite good, just dense (especially, I think, in some of its recounting of the earlier periods where there's slim evidence and a lot of conjecture)
Volume 2 is a primary source reference, for the record - there are a bunch of footnotes directing you over that way for further detail but I don't think it's strictly necessary (I've not been reading it, personally)
Mary Beard is a very good author when it comes to Rome. I've read her SPQR book and seen her on several different history shows at times. It's pretty impressive she finds time to work when I think she spends most of her time arguing with dusty ass old misogynist professors who get their tweed in a twist whenever she says something while also being female.
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
edited February 7
Mary Beard came out with a great single-volume overview of Roman history a few years back. It's probably easier to track down than her older and more specialized books if you're looking for an entry point.
Quetzi on
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited February 7
Yeah, SPQR is definitely a better entry point and more suited to the casual reader - I'd wholeheartedly recommend that one (although I disagree with her on the 212 thing but that's fine)
It wasn't a civilization suffering gradual decline due to general misgovernence or climate shifts, and it wasn't torn apart by internal strife or colonists knocking on the door. They just pissed off everyone on their doorstep, had a big battle and basically imploded overnight.
Quetzi on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Yeah, SPQR is definitely a better entry point and more suited to the casual reader - I'd wholeheartedly recommend that one (although I disagree with her on the 212 thing but that's fine)
I was listening to a course on ancient religions a while back and there were some interesting bits on Greek religion.
What with population centers being more distinct and separated, it makes sense that there would be distinct thinking and traditions associated with the worship of the gods for different localities. But what if thinking was even MORE local? Like, for each house? What if each house had its own Zeus? What if it was even MORE local and each house had a couple of Zeuses?
Each house had, in fact, at least two Zeuses: a Zeus Ktesios (“Zeus the Acquisitive” or “Zeus the Property Owner”), who protected the household’s property, stores, and treasure; and a Zeus Herkeios (“Zeus of the Fenced-In Area”), who was the Zeus of the entire area occupied by the house.
Were these petty Zeuses the same Zeus described by Homer or Hesiod? Would the Zeus of the Iliad—the mighty tyrant of Olympus—have cared about some petty family’s yard? Some scholars argue that these Zeuses should not be conflated with Olympian Zeus. They argue that some petty household god has usurped the Olympian’s name.
In ancient Greek religion, one turned to different and specific deities for varying purposes. Epithets served to distinguish one Zeus from another. Olympian Zeus would not be confused with Zeus Ktesios. And one individual’s Zeus Ktesios was not the same Zeus Ktesios that looked over the neighbor’s treasure. They dwelled in different houses. Yet they were both Zeus Ktesios.
Where these regarded as many different facets of the same Zeus? Maybe.
Also, there were family specific gods with family specific traditions and worship passed down paternally. A lot of gods hanging around.
You have to break out the christian monotheistic mindset to even come close to grasping it, I think
christian theology prior to the ecumenical councils (particularly the first council of nicea), and then after thomas aquinas were WILDLY different that what it is now
Quetzi on
+3
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
I was listening to a course on ancient religions a while back and there were some interesting bits on Greek religion.
What with population centers being more distinct and separated, it makes sense that there would be distinct thinking and traditions associated with the worship of the gods for different localities. But what if thinking was even MORE local? Like, for each house? What if each house had its own Zeus? What if it was even MORE local and each house had a couple of Zeuses?
Each house had, in fact, at least two Zeuses: a Zeus Ktesios (“Zeus the Acquisitive” or “Zeus the Property Owner”), who protected the household’s property, stores, and treasure; and a Zeus Herkeios (“Zeus of the Fenced-In Area”), who was the Zeus of the entire area occupied by the house.
Were these petty Zeuses the same Zeus described by Homer or Hesiod? Would the Zeus of the Iliad—the mighty tyrant of Olympus—have cared about some petty family’s yard? Some scholars argue that these Zeuses should not be conflated with Olympian Zeus. They argue that some petty household god has usurped the Olympian’s name.
In ancient Greek religion, one turned to different and specific deities for varying purposes. Epithets served to distinguish one Zeus from another. Olympian Zeus would not be confused with Zeus Ktesios. And one individual’s Zeus Ktesios was not the same Zeus Ktesios that looked over the neighbor’s treasure. They dwelled in different houses. Yet they were both Zeus Ktesios.
Where these regarded as many different facets of the same Zeus? Maybe.
Also, there were family specific gods with family specific traditions and worship passed down paternally. A lot of gods hanging around.
That just makes me think of little cat-sized Zeuses prowling around the house and throwing little thunderbolts at the shins of intruders and getting into fights with the neighbor's Zeus in the middle of the night.
Quetzi on
+8
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
Yeah, SPQR is definitely a better entry point and more suited to the casual reader - I'd wholeheartedly recommend that one (although I disagree with her on the 212 thing but that's fine)
the 212 thing?
That's the year she ends it in, as the "end of the Empire," as it was the year that Caracalla made all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire officially Roman citizens
She acknowledges that it's an incredibly arbitrary date, for the record, and I do think it's an interesting and significant one, but it's an abrupt feeling ending
You have to break out the christian monotheistic mindset to even come close to grasping it, I think
christian theology prior to the ecumenical councils (particularly the first council of nicea), and then after thomas aquinas were WILDLY different that what it is now
I was listening to a course on ancient religions a while back and there were some interesting bits on Greek religion.
What with population centers being more distinct and separated, it makes sense that there would be distinct thinking and traditions associated with the worship of the gods for different localities. But what if thinking was even MORE local? Like, for each house? What if each house had its own Zeus? What if it was even MORE local and each house had a couple of Zeuses?
Each house had, in fact, at least two Zeuses: a Zeus Ktesios (“Zeus the Acquisitive” or “Zeus the Property Owner”), who protected the household’s property, stores, and treasure; and a Zeus Herkeios (“Zeus of the Fenced-In Area”), who was the Zeus of the entire area occupied by the house.
Were these petty Zeuses the same Zeus described by Homer or Hesiod? Would the Zeus of the Iliad—the mighty tyrant of Olympus—have cared about some petty family’s yard? Some scholars argue that these Zeuses should not be conflated with Olympian Zeus. They argue that some petty household god has usurped the Olympian’s name.
In ancient Greek religion, one turned to different and specific deities for varying purposes. Epithets served to distinguish one Zeus from another. Olympian Zeus would not be confused with Zeus Ktesios. And one individual’s Zeus Ktesios was not the same Zeus Ktesios that looked over the neighbor’s treasure. They dwelled in different houses. Yet they were both Zeus Ktesios.
Where these regarded as many different facets of the same Zeus? Maybe.
Also, there were family specific gods with family specific traditions and worship passed down paternally. A lot of gods hanging around.
That just makes me think of little cat-sized Zeuses prowling around the house and throwing little thunderbolts at the shins of intruders and getting into fights with the neighbor's Zeus in the middle of the night.
Caracalla's Decree can indeed be considered a contributing factor to the empire's decline. Citizenship for service was a popular way to encourage joining the legions, which is now gone and encouraging folks to have serve for 20 years got a lot harder, and more expensive.
Quetzi on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Yeah, SPQR is definitely a better entry point and more suited to the casual reader - I'd wholeheartedly recommend that one (although I disagree with her on the 212 thing but that's fine)
the 212 thing?
That's the year she ends it in, as the "end of the Empire," as it was the year that Caracalla made all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire officially Roman citizens
She acknowledges that it's an incredibly arbitrary date, for the record, and I do think it's an interesting and significant one, but it's an abrupt feeling ending
You have to break out the christian monotheistic mindset to even come close to grasping it, I think
christian theology prior to the ecumenical councils (particularly the first council of nicea), and then after thomas aquinas were WILDLY different that what it is now
Well don't stop
it was so massively varied it's not really possible to quantify in a single post, especially by me an idiot
I was listening to a course on ancient religions a while back and there were some interesting bits on Greek religion.
What with population centers being more distinct and separated, it makes sense that there would be distinct thinking and traditions associated with the worship of the gods for different localities. But what if thinking was even MORE local? Like, for each house? What if each house had its own Zeus? What if it was even MORE local and each house had a couple of Zeuses?
Each house had, in fact, at least two Zeuses: a Zeus Ktesios (“Zeus the Acquisitive” or “Zeus the Property Owner”), who protected the household’s property, stores, and treasure; and a Zeus Herkeios (“Zeus of the Fenced-In Area”), who was the Zeus of the entire area occupied by the house.
Were these petty Zeuses the same Zeus described by Homer or Hesiod? Would the Zeus of the Iliad—the mighty tyrant of Olympus—have cared about some petty family’s yard? Some scholars argue that these Zeuses should not be conflated with Olympian Zeus. They argue that some petty household god has usurped the Olympian’s name.
In ancient Greek religion, one turned to different and specific deities for varying purposes. Epithets served to distinguish one Zeus from another. Olympian Zeus would not be confused with Zeus Ktesios. And one individual’s Zeus Ktesios was not the same Zeus Ktesios that looked over the neighbor’s treasure. They dwelled in different houses. Yet they were both Zeus Ktesios.
Where these regarded as many different facets of the same Zeus? Maybe.
Also, there were family specific gods with family specific traditions and worship passed down paternally. A lot of gods hanging around.
That just makes me think of little cat-sized Zeuses prowling around the house and throwing little thunderbolts at the shins of intruders and getting into fights with the neighbor's Zeus in the middle of the night.
Then one day you find out your stone garden gnome is pregnant.
I was listening to a course on ancient religions a while back and there were some interesting bits on Greek religion.
What with population centers being more distinct and separated, it makes sense that there would be distinct thinking and traditions associated with the worship of the gods for different localities. But what if thinking was even MORE local? Like, for each house? What if each house had its own Zeus? What if it was even MORE local and each house had a couple of Zeuses?
Each house had, in fact, at least two Zeuses: a Zeus Ktesios (“Zeus the Acquisitive” or “Zeus the Property Owner”), who protected the household’s property, stores, and treasure; and a Zeus Herkeios (“Zeus of the Fenced-In Area”), who was the Zeus of the entire area occupied by the house.
Were these petty Zeuses the same Zeus described by Homer or Hesiod? Would the Zeus of the Iliad—the mighty tyrant of Olympus—have cared about some petty family’s yard? Some scholars argue that these Zeuses should not be conflated with Olympian Zeus. They argue that some petty household god has usurped the Olympian’s name.
In ancient Greek religion, one turned to different and specific deities for varying purposes. Epithets served to distinguish one Zeus from another. Olympian Zeus would not be confused with Zeus Ktesios. And one individual’s Zeus Ktesios was not the same Zeus Ktesios that looked over the neighbor’s treasure. They dwelled in different houses. Yet they were both Zeus Ktesios.
Where these regarded as many different facets of the same Zeus? Maybe.
Also, there were family specific gods with family specific traditions and worship passed down paternally. A lot of gods hanging around.
That just makes me think of little cat-sized Zeuses prowling around the house and throwing little thunderbolts at the shins of intruders and getting into fights with the neighbor's Zeus in the middle of the night.
Then one day you find out your stone garden gnome is pregnant.
Can highly recommend Robert Gerwarth's The Vanquished If anyone is interested in learning about the political repercussions and ramifications in Eastern and Central Europe immediately post WWI. It very much pierces the myth that peace had come to Europe; quite the opposite was true as bloody civil conflicts, invasions, wars and so on continued for some time from Germany, the Baltics, the old Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian Empire and the Balkans. The transition between centuries old European Land Empires and modern nation states with some element of democratic representation was probably a more groundbreaking change in the political structure of Europe than the fall of the Roman Empire.
And Jesus said "Make a golden idol of me and just spizz jewels and huge pearls and fuckin lapis lazuli n shit all over it like overdo it like WAY overdo it like lay that shit on there so hard you cant even tell what you're looking at, make it look borderline sarcastic, amen"
Posts
E: Okay yeah on viewing it on desktop definitely, and vaguely remember her mentioning it. Will definitely have to ask about that next time I see her
Did we have the same granny?
There was enough thread and fabric swatches stored in butter cookie tins to make about a half dozen quilts in my grandma's little work room. Can certainly understand the appeal though, those things were built like tiny Danish tanks.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Recreating Dino sounds with science will always been fascinating to me. We can see the bones and 3d model what we think they looked like but getting close to recreating what they sounded like somehow makes them so much more real.
Lookin torn dude
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
Albania had just a few years ago been shocked into a market economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union and specifically Hoxhaism, it's own very special hyper-isolationist system. The population was very naive about such things as "banks" and "investments" as they had spent much of their time previously building 170,000+ concrete bunkers.
These things are all over the place, because there are over 170,000 in a very small country.
At any rate, these people who don't know any better are suddenly sold this bill of goods that a market economy will make them as prosperous as Americans, even as all their factories shut down because they couldn't compete with outside goods. Enter: a whole bunch of scumbags, many of whom were literally the Mafia. They set up obvious pyramid schemes, promising increasingly grandiose guaranteed rates of return on people's "investments." 10%, 50%, 100%, 800%, sky was the limit. People put their money in, and then the numbers just kept getting bigger, so they'd talk everybody else into doing this. After all, this was perfectly legal, since the political system had never dealt with any of it. It's not illegal and it seems to work, so that must mean it's fine, right? Number printer apparently went brrr, and it went on for years, so even early skeptics got suckered in too.
The schemes went on for seven years, and eventually two thirds of the entire national population were "invested" in these pyramid schemes, and half the nominal GDP was locked up in them. At this point, having run out of suckers (the way all pyramid/Ponzi/etc schemes end), the whole thing was starting to come apart, so the mobsters etc. in charge cut and ran with all the money. All the half the GDP of the country. The entire nation of Albania was instantly made destitute. The government essentially collapsed, and though what occurred next is called a civil war, it's more like total lawlessness. Thousands dead, a refugee crisis, and the effects of the Albanian civil war ended up help set off the even worse conflict in Kosovo a year later.
I wrote about it in the cryptocurrency thread originally since it's there's a frightening analogy to what's happening now. No value is being created. Numbers are apparently going up, so more and more people are getting sucked in, including the country of El Salvador. It will eventually, though it might take years, come down. The longer it takes, and the more people that get drawn in, the worse it will be.
Remember, with a little luck you, too, can go down in history as some kind of legendary scholar through the simple means of destroying the very thing you're claiming to have discovered!
Nice cup
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
Nice orb
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
I wouldn't recommend it as your first deep dive into the origins of civilization, as it's very much a response to mainstream academic history and assumes that you're already familiar with the ideas it's reacting against. As a result, it understandably glosses over some very important events and ideas that are well-covered elsewhere in favor of presenting counterexamples. And it's strongly arguing for anarchist political theories in a way that often seems to assume that it's already preaching to the choir.
With those minor caveats in mind, the book presents the development of various political and economic systems from a strongly indigenous and feminist perspective and spends a lot of time shitting on Jared Diamond, which is always welcome. Plus the narrator of the audiobook sounds a lot like the Kurzgesagt guy, so it all goes down real smooth.
Oh wow, that guy looks like Ephemeral Rift. I was surprised he took up History.
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
That said, there was a passage that completely caught me off guard with how surprising and different it was from my conception:
I've just always thought of ancient temples as... not too far off from modern churches (and I think this is a pattern I've frequently seen repeated in fiction). Which is something that I consciously recognized as wrong, but I don't think I'd fully conceptualized how wrong it was.
It's quite good, just dense (especially, I think, in some of its recounting of the earlier periods where there's slim evidence and a lot of conjecture)
Volume 2 is a primary source reference, for the record - there are a bunch of footnotes directing you over that way for further detail but I don't think it's strictly necessary (I've not been reading it, personally)
Oh, man - I had to read some of Beard's stuff back in college, and definitely kept the books. She's a great author.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
This one was interesting because
the 212 thing?
What with population centers being more distinct and separated, it makes sense that there would be distinct thinking and traditions associated with the worship of the gods for different localities. But what if thinking was even MORE local? Like, for each house? What if each house had its own Zeus? What if it was even MORE local and each house had a couple of Zeuses?
Where these regarded as many different facets of the same Zeus? Maybe.
Also, there were family specific gods with family specific traditions and worship passed down paternally. A lot of gods hanging around.
christian theology prior to the ecumenical councils (particularly the first council of nicea), and then after thomas aquinas were WILDLY different that what it is now
That just makes me think of little cat-sized Zeuses prowling around the house and throwing little thunderbolts at the shins of intruders and getting into fights with the neighbor's Zeus in the middle of the night.
That's the year she ends it in, as the "end of the Empire," as it was the year that Caracalla made all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire officially Roman citizens
She acknowledges that it's an incredibly arbitrary date, for the record, and I do think it's an interesting and significant one, but it's an abrupt feeling ending
Well don't stop
To the Pixarmobile!
that's an... interesting choice for an endpoint
it was so massively varied it's not really possible to quantify in a single post, especially by me an idiot
Then one day you find out your stone garden gnome is pregnant.
And a swan.
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor