ignore me putting down all my wips lmao
explicit challenge that has to be at least 2k words (not sure which ship yet, hmm o:)
lamp breakup/re-relationship angst
intruality conversation story
uhhh maybe more of my encanto mirabel has a gift fic idk yet
intruality kitten story
logan healing from head injury hurt/comfort (next chapter)
remy and virgil's first date story
explicit anxmile
explicit remile
explicit anxremile maybe?
roceit angst
rene aftermath story
1 note
·
View note
OK SO THE TRAILER FOR THE NEW GARF MOVIE CAME OUT (and of course youtube didnt tell me about it until now) AND!!! ITS SO CUTE!!!!!! so here's me yelling and screaming and fanboying about how much i love how this movie looks so far :D
ok first off, BABY GARF!!! HE IS A TINY BALL!!! LITTOL GUY!!!! :D
he's so miniscule! so microscopic! an atom! he's tiny!!! but he's just living in a box who would abandon such a little guy :( (his dad probably. yeah he's in this movie and i hope Garfield's mum is also in here because she appeared in a classic Garfield special and she's so lovely)
after this scene we see our first look at Jon (my beloved) eating alone at an Italian restaurant, and like, this means so much to me. look at these shots:
i'm not sure if they're in order or not but like. look at the way he watches the family! he has a look of bittersweet love and sadness in his eyes and i'm just,,, 🥺 he just wants to be a dad.... i love how Jon has always kinda been portrayed as a father figure to his pets, in classic shows and specials he calls Garf and Odie his boys, in Garfield Gets Real he calls them his kids and now here, he wants to be a father so bad i'm going to burst into tears i love this man
the garf appears!! the littol baby has arrived!! the tiny little miniscule microscopic molecule atom of a cat has approached the window!!!
the way Jon puts his finger to the window, the way he cuddles baby Garf with so much tender loving care and adoration..... he's so sweet i love him!! how can people hate this man?? look at him!!! look this sweet and loving father figure in the eyes and tell him you hate him. you cannot. he's too pure for this world
also i haven't mentioned this yet, but it's commonly accepted in the Garfield fandom that Garfield was born in a pizza shop and then was transferred to a pet shop where Jon then adopted Garfield in 1978, but to be honest, i didn't really like the pet shop part of that backstory. the pizza place part was great but i dunno, Jon just going to a pet shop and buying Garfield isn't as heartfelt to me. this backstory though? i LOVE. two lonely creatures meeting each other and forming a family is so adorable and sweet, especially for modern Garfield. i feel like we need less cynicism in modern Garfield and more stuff like this i love it so much,,, also this movie looks fucking beautiful holy shit
i really like this part because like, Garfield didn't develop his bizarrely huge diet over time. dude was BORN with it. and like look at that look on Jon's face, he looks like he hasn't even finished processing what just happened yet and is just staring into the mist wondering what and how and why that happened. beautiful. also that second image is really funny to me it should have a silly ominous text post caption on it
also this shot, i didn't notice it the first time but holy shit the look of absolute HORROR on Jon's face!! he is witnessing the TRUE extent of Garfield's powers and he is NOT ready for it man i love this shot so much
okok so what i REALLY LOVE about this specific shot is that it reminds me of a classic Garfield strip where Jon is attempting to give Garfield a bath!! here's the strip it reminds me of:
Jon doesn't actually wear anything but like. the fact that he has to go through so much preparation to give Garfield a bath so he doesn't claw him up in the movie, it just has to be a reference to this strip it's gotta be man i'm betting money on it. also hiii Lyman :)
this scene is so fucking pretty!!! look at the warm colours! it feels so homely and it's exactly how i feel reading my dad's old Garfield comic books! all the warm bright colours and gentle lighting, all the freshly baked lasagna that i really wanna eat because it's so delicious looking.... how can people say that Jon doesn't feed Garfield when he is RIGHT THERE grating extra cheese for him because he knows Garfield likes extra everything in his lasagna. such a sweet adorable man :') i'd like to see ihatejonarbuckle make a good rebuttal to THIS
there's some other neat little references in this movie too, like the Stuck On You plushies made by Dakin being referenced with Garfield smacking into a car after his dad throws him out of a train,
and a reference to the giant Garfield balloon at a Macy's Thanksgiving parade that makes me think that 'Garfield' the comic is canon in this movie, it's created by Jon (cause y'know he's supposed to be a cartoonist) and it's based off his own stories with Garfield and it is now an international phenomenon like in our world. neat!
the question is though, does Garfield know he's a worldwide sensation or does he have absolutely no idea? it'd be funny if it was the latter option honestly cause he'd be extremely confused yet flattered as to why there's a random giant balloon dedicated to him in the city
so the big dude on the left is Garfield's dad, but also, this reminds me of this other Garfield comic where Garfield meets his former self from 1978 and they proceed to eat all the food in the fridge together. thought that was cool :D
(it'd be really funny if this was Garfield's dad and he was messing with Garfield by telling him they are one in the same haha)
oh yeah and here's the two of them eating everything in Jon's fridge from the movie:
see what i mean? there's a similarity there and i think it's really funny. also Jon's probably thinking "wtf there's two of them now???" like Garfield got so fat that he just split into two cats or something lol
so! does it look like a good movie? abso-fucking-lutely yes!!! i am SO excited to go see this one! i think this is the best Garfield media we've gotten in YEARS! i love the colours and the shots, i love the slight modern redesign they gave Jon, Odie looks a little weird but he's still super fun and adorable, and while i do find it odd that the Garfield balloon looks more like Garfield than he does, i do like how expressive the characters' eyes are and it's miles better than the previous 3D Garfs we got! i really wanna see this movie and boy am i going to be RAVING about it for WEEKS this blog will be FILLED with Garfield for the next few weeks when this goes digital!! super jazzed to see it!!
and with that, here's one more comparison that i think is extremely funny:
40 notes
·
View notes
You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying.
I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead?
Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government!
So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"
Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :("
You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter.
I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers.
This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold.
Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.
Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.
Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?
Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.
Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?
No.
Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?
Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you. I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.
"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age." -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.
Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?
Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.
Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!
Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?
Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?
Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?
No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.
Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?
Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.
Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?
Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.
Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.
There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.
Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?
This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.
Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?
Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.
Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.
No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.
Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.
No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.
16K notes
·
View notes
2 hour session of pq today!!! went from 38% -> 89% done with the third floor of the 2nd labryinth! (i just need to open the door that was locked...)
today was a short session but i really enjoyed it! (some screenshots of transcriptions of my related favorite events under the cut)
i think the highlight of what i saw today was aigis :) the way she responds to things is very humorous to me. she doesn't always realize how her words come across but thats ok i still love her regardless. i just think the way that aigis has a continual work in progress of her understanding of the world is nice :3
there was also a thing about a love potion and rei goes:
Rei: Wait, they don't exist!? But it comes up in so many stories!
and i am!! once again!! reiterating my tags from my previous pq posting.
like all of the stuff i said here still stands... i think her line about the love potion just cements to me that rei is.. so very young. she's like a twelve year old to me. maybe younger. i don't know how old she is and i don't want to know until the game tells me what's bonking with zen and rei's identity...
i think in a previous pq post i had... some kind of spitballing about zen and rei with respect to the mechanics of persona q and subpersonas... it was mostly me wondering if their skillsets alluded to anything, but... lately i've been thinking about how rei takes up the bottom part of the 3ds screen in the same manner a subpersona does... and i'm like... trying to look at that and think about what that implies.
so you have me asking questions to myself, including, but not limited to: would this make rei a persona? how is she in that state? what caused that to happen? and if so where/how did she acquire abilities that are reminiscent of a subpersona? is it tied to whatever zen is?
there's definitely a part of me that leans into zen specifically being an entity of sorts, in the same vein of ryoji and marie- idk something about his skillset just makes me lean into this idea of him being a fragment of a powerful deity. god knows who what that deity's name is. but anyway. maybe if we operate under the assumption that zen is in an amnesiac state of an deity/entity whatever, this could mean that rei having abilities like a subpersona is because of him??
i dont fucking know man!! i'm spitballing based on what the game has offered and similar threads/themes i've seen from the persona games i've played/watched. groans. i'm fucking insane and it's going to take me forever to get answers because i'm a small little worm who's inching through this game and probably won't finish it until next year.
anyway. good game session. zen and rei make me crazy with conjecture (i would like to say that i can reach the boss of the group date cafe soon bc i want to see what zen and rei have to say about it post-boss fight so that i can spitball even more nonsense. but it'll probably take at least two sessions...? these floors sometimes take awhile). and i really enjoy how certain characters are highlighted through this game's interactions (aigis for today specifically). i love persona :D
0 notes