Earhartsplane - Hello

according to time period, arthur lester and bertram wilberforce wooster could meet. they could very much interact.

there is a wasp’s nest in my attic

I have a theory on that, and it handily also explains why Nina notices the whole Jane Austen thing as well as making the ball a little less eldritch-horrory. The idea is that this mass hypnosis thing works better (at least when Aziraphale is doing it) when it's for something that people want or are not opposed to, but it falls apart if someone has a reason to nitpick.

When Nina enters the ball, she goes to very upset to not upset at all, and she notices. From that, she's on alert and notices other things, like everyone talking like they're in a Jane Austen novel and the dancing. The other shopkeepers who didn't have such a jarring experience when entering just went with the flow. The fact that Maggie didn't notice anything at first works against the theories that she has any sort of supernatural powers in my opinion. Nina points out the weirdness to Maggie, which raises her awareness, and she's a sweet person who likes Aziraphale and doesn't want to leave him in danger, so his miracle doesn't work. I also think that he *could* make her forget (like Crowley hypnotizing Sister Loquacious in season 1), but that he's avoiding being too heavy-handed.

And as a bonus, it means that there's a bit of a build-in safeguard if you're invited by local ethereal entity trying to set-up humans couple by altering their behavior, state of mind and mode of expression: anything too jarring would snap you out of it.

Hello! Do you happen to know why Aziraphale's miracles don't work on Maggie in ep6? He tries to make her forget and leave and she just answers: "Are you trying to hypnotise me?" We don't see any miracle blockers though.

Hiya! :) I'm afraid I have no idea! :) <3

So while we wait to see how low we've slid on this slippery slope, I thought I'd give a primer on how legislative elections work in France.

The first thing to know is that it's more like 577 local elections. In order to be elected, a candidate has to win in the circonscription in which they were campaigning.

The second thing to know is that in order to win on the first round of the election, a candidate must have at least 50% of the votes AND 25% of those registered. This means that if, as has happened in La Martinique, a candidate has 63% of the votes but the turn-out was low (estimated around 25%, which is low but higher than it was in the last election), they still get a second round.

Now, for the second round. Are qualified 1. The candidate who had the most votes and 2. Any candidate that had 12,5% of those registered to vote. Once again, this means that the turn-out is a factor in who gets to participate in the second round. It also means that it is possible for a second round to have a "triangulaire", that is to say 3 candidates in the second round (technically, it means that it's possible to have four candidates).

At time of writing, it is estimated that between 65 and 85 representatives have been elected on the first round, and that there will be between 285 and 315 triangulaires (based on the data given by Le Monde, which is based on Ipsos data). Out of 577 seats. This means that in a lot of circonscriptions, there will most probably be one RN candidate, one NFP candidate and one candidate from the presidential party.

On the left, several political leaders have already announced that if their candidates arrived third and a RN candidate was qualified for the second round, they would give up the election and encourage people to vote for whoever else was qualified.

And now the big question: will the presidential party do the same? Gabriel Attal, the Prime Minister, is expected to talk to the press tonight. I, personally, will be drinking and obsessively refreshing the news page.

@oloreandil et moi étions sur la même longueur d'onde, @sometimes-gloriousstudent a confirmé, j'étais donc obligée :

the relationship between Vetinari and Vimes is sooo funny, because it is extremely aggravating for literally everyone involved. Like at some point they have this kind of companionship, and neither of them are really happy about it ?? they have mutual respect for each other and for both of them it's the most annoying, head-ache inducing thing in the entire world. they are besties and both of them are mad about it. it's " help my weird boss keeps promoting me against my will and teaching me the ways of Evil" and " help my commander that I employed to annoy the rich is making my city better and teaching me the ways of Good". their lives are so entangled with one another they literally couldn't be any closer. their mutual dislike is so important actually because it helps them to hold one another accountable. that little bit of mutual distrust is CRUCIAL. they are actually the epitome of love, and wow do they hate it. they absolutely loathe it. my favourite relationship to be portrayed anywhere ever.

This is uncanny

My Reading Year.

(My last @guardian Books cartoon for 2023)

Clean version of a comic I drew in history class

Just watched the last philosophy tube. It is excellent, but there is a minor point that bugged me a little, so I thought I'd exorcised it by making a post. (Yes, I know, random tumblr user has notes for extremely successful youtuber, more at 6)

So around minute 9, she talks bout how a strict legal definition is not necessary in order to protect women. The example given is the one of hate crimes: If an applicant for a job is rejected on the grounds that they are perceived as a woman, it does not matter whether or not they are a woman. The employer is still guilty of illegal discrimination. Good point. A bit later in the video, she brings up the fact that in the UK, trans women are jailed in men's prisons. The point made is that trans women are labelled as dangerous to other inmates without any evidence of this danger. Also a good point.

But this is an example of when one does need a working definition of women, since prison are segregated by gender. Moreover, a definition is needed in order to protect women, since as she puts it "this policy makes prison significantly worse for a segment of the population".

I started typing about how we use categories as shorthands for the diversity of humans experience for practical reasons, even though no strict definition will work 100% of the time, and about the consequence of this, which is that any defnition used should be chosen while keeping in mind why this gender segregation exists, what does it seek to accomplish, and whether or not gender is the most appropriate criteria.Then I remembered that Mia Mulder has an excellent video on this about women's sport, so I'll just put it there.

I find it hard to write about this subject without getting sucked into tangents (which perhaps explains why it is glossed over in the video). Just writing this, I looked up how the gender segregation in prison worked in my country, then the overpopulation in women's facilities, then the overpopulation in general (114% occupancy rate, third worse in the EU), then the rise in the carceral population and its de-correlation with the crime rate, then the expeditive measures being adopted which will without a doubt make things worse as the Olympics Games loom ever closer (no prizes for guessing which country that is).

I also know that I am getting a bit internet-poisoned because I fought the urge to pre-emptively answer every bad faith argument that could possibly be made, so I'll cut it short. Let me reiterate. I fully agree with the points that are made in the video. I understand that time is a factor in what is and is not included in a video. I just wish this particular point was made a little better.

WIP of Jayce and Viktor levitation