Poetry Of Graffiti By Chairspoetry

Triangle Tuesday 2: The circumcenter, pedal triangles, degeneracy, and what even is a triangle anyway?

The circumcenter is almost as simple an idea as the centroid, which we looked at before. To define it, you start the same way. Take triangle ABC, find the midpoints of the sides Ma, Mb, and Mc. Then instead of drawing lines to the midpoints from the vertices, draw perpendicular lines through the midpoints. These lines all coincide at a point O, which is the center of a circle that you can draw through the vertices. The circle is called the circumcircle, and that's why the point is called the circumcenter.

I say almost as simple, but in a sense the circumcenter is simpler than the centroid, because you could easily discover it by accident in the process of simply finding the midpoints. Drawing that perpendicular line, the perpendicular bisector, is the standard way of finding the midpoint of a line segment. It's covered all the way back in Book 1, Proposition 10 of Euclid's Elements, and it's simply this:

So if you find the midpoint of all three sides of a triangle with this method, you've already identified the circumcenter. But that doesn't prove that the perpendicular bisectors always coincide, nor that their point of crossing is the center of the circumcircle. For that, let's return to Euclid (Elements, book 4, proposition 5). Euclid's proof is very straightforward, and leads nicely into something interesting, so we'll follow that, but I will state the theorem differently.

Theorem: the perpendicular bisectors of a triangle coincide and their point of intersection is the center of a circle that meets all three vertices.

Let ABC be a triangle with midpoints of the sides Ma opposite A, similarly for Mb and Mc. Draw perpendiculars to sides AC and BC from their midpoints to meet at point O. Connect three segments from O to A, B, and C.

Consider the two blue triangles. Their sies AMb and CMb are equal, since Mb is the midpoint of AC. They also have OMb in common. Their angles at Mb are right angles, and therefore equal. So they have two sides and one angle the same, making them congruent, and therefore OA = OC.

The same argument applied to the green triangles shows that OB and OC are equal. By transitivity, OA = OB and O is equidistant from the three vertices. The radii of a circle are all equal, so a circle centered at O passing through A also passes through B and C.

Finally, draw a line from O perpendicular to AB. This creates two white triangles with sides OA and OB equal, side OZ in common, and equal right angles at Z. The two triangles are then congruent and the two sides AZ and BZ are equal. So Z is the midpoint Mc, showing that the perpendicular bisectors all meet.

And the same argument works when ABC is obtuse. The circumcenter lands outside the triangle, and in this coloring the white triangles are no longer white, but all the relationships between the segments are the same.

(What Euclid didn't prove is that the perpendicular bisectors of AC and BC do in fact meet somewhere, that is, that they aren't parallel. It's not difficult, but I'm not going to prove that either, at least not yet, for reasons.)

Let's develop another idea. We located the circumcenter by drawing the perpendicular bisectors, but now consider doing this construction in reverse. That is, pick a point, and then draw perpendiculars to the three sides. The intersection of the perpendicular and the side is called the foot of that point with respect to that side. If you do that with with the circumcenter, the feet are of course the midpoints, but you can find the feet for any point.

And if we connect those three feet, we get a triangle. In this case, the medial triangle, which we have seen before. For a point in general, the triangle formed by its feet is called the pedal triangle of that point. ("Pedal" meaning "related to feet," and yes, that is why a lever operated with your foot is also called a pedal.)

So let's draw the pedal triangle for an arbitrary point, move it around, and see what happens. The point is going to sometimes be outside the triangle, but that's all right. With extended sides (dashed lines) we will still be able to draw a perpendicular to find a foot, no matter where the point is.

So there's something interesting -- the three feet become colinear and the pedal triangle flattens out into a straight line when the point is on the circumcircle. Does that always happen?

Looks like it does! So let's prove that. Below is a drawing of the flattened-out pedal triangle of a point on the circumcircle, all labeled up. I've also added a couple dashed lines to make following the proof easier. What we would like to show is that ∠JKP + ∠PKL = 180°.

We're going to extract some information from this drawing based on two facts: a) in a cyclic quadrilateral (meaning it has all vertices on the same circle), opposite angles sum to 180° and b) if two right triangles have the same hypotenuse, the triangles have the same circumcircle. I'm not going to prove either of those here because this post is long enough already, but both of these results follow straightforwardly from the inscribed angle theorem.

Theorem: For a point P on the circumcircle of a triangle ABC, the feet J, K, and L with respect to ABC are colinear.

Okay. PCBA is a cyclic quadrilateral, so

1) ∠BAP + ∠PCB = 180°.

And ∠BAP is the same as ∠LAP, so

2) ∠LAP + ∠PCB = 180°.

The two triangles AKP and ALP are right triangles with the same hypotenuse (the dashed segment AP), so all four points are on the same circle and ALKP is a cyclic quadrilateral. Therefore,

3) ∠LAP + ∠PKL = 180°,

4) ∠PKL = ∠PCB.

Quadrilateral PKCJ is also cyclic (again because of right triangles sharing the same hypotenuse), so

5) ∠JKP = ∠JCP

by the inscribed angle theorem. ∠PCB is supplemental to ∠JCP, so

6) ∠JKP = 180° - ∠PCB

and then combining 4) and 6),

7) ∠JKP + ∠PKL = ∠PCB + (180° - ∠PCB) = 180°,

which means that the pedal triangle of a point on the circumference of a circle is flattened to a line segment. Can we consider such a figure to be a triangle?

Now we can return to Euclid's omission in the existence proof of the circumcircle. Proving that the perpendicular bisectors aren't parallel is equivalent to proving that no two sides of a triangle are parallel, or that the three vertices of a triangle aren't colinear. Euclid didn't do that, but it's pretty simple, so he could have. And then he would simply have said that such an arrangement of line segments isn't a triangle. Modern geometers working with projective geometry can answer differently, and might say that this is a degenerate triangle, but we haven't gotten into that yet.

Let's do one more thing. We can extend the flattened line segment into a line, called the Simson line, after Robert Simson, who never wrote anything about it. It was actually discovered by William Wallace, but not named for him, because that's how things work in math.

The set of all Simson lines from all points on the circumcircle form an envelope in the shape of a deltoid, the Steiner deltoid, named for Jakob Steiner, who for all I can tell was its actual discoverer.

The deltoid is tangent to the sides of the triangle at three points where the Simson line coincides with the sides. I'll have more to say about this lovely deltoid later, but for now, please just enjoy this gif. It took me several hours to figure out how to make it, so if people reading this could spend a collective several hours staring at it, that would be great.

If you found this interesting, please try drawing some of this stuff for yourself! You can use a compass and straightedge, or software such as Geogebra, which I used to make all my drawings. You can try it on the web here or download apps to run on your own computer here.

wheres seasons greasons

Ender's Game (novel)

Is Ender Wiggin (pictured above as the little brother from Malcolm in the Middle) guilty of xenocide?

Actually, let's first answer a different, but related, question:

What game does the title "Ender's Game" refer to?

It's not as simple a question as it seems. There are three games that have a prominent role in the plot, all very different from one another.

The obvious answer is the Battle School zero-gravity game, where teams of competitors play glorified laser tag in a big empty cube. In terms of page count, most of the book is dedicated to this game. It's also the game depicted on the cover of the edition above.

Yet this game vanishes during the story's climax, when Ender is given a new game to play, a game he is told is a simulator of spaceship warfare. This "game" turns out to not be a game at all, though; after annihilating the alien homeworld in the final stage, Ender learns that he was actually commanding real ships against real enemies the whole time, and that he just singlehandedly ended the Human-Bugger war forever via total xenocide of the aliens. This is both the final game and the most consequential to the plot, despite the short amount of time it appears.

There's also a third game, a single-player video game Ender plays throughout the story. The game is procedurally generated by an AI to respond to the player's emotional state, and is used as a psychiatric diagnostic for the players. Of the three games, this is the one that probes deepest into Ender's psyche, that most defines him as a person; it's also the final image of the story, as the aliens build a facsimile of its world in reality after psychically reading Ender's mind while he xenocides them.

Because all three games are important, the easiest answer might be that the question doesn't matter, that the story is called Ender's Game not to propose this question at all but simply because the technically more accurate "Ender's Games" would improperly suggest a story about a serial prankster.

Fine. But why does the title use the possessive "Ender's" at all?

He does not own any of these games. He did not create them. He does not facilitate them. All of these games, even the simulator game, predate his use of them as a player, were not designed with him in mind, were intended to train and assess potential commanders for, ostensibly, the hundred years since the last Human-Bugger war.

It's in this question that we get to the crux of what defines Gamer literature.

These games are Ender's games because he dominates them into being about him. He enters a rigidly-defined, rules-based system, and excels so completely that the games warp around his presence. In the Battle School game, the administrators stack the odds against Ender, thereby rendering every other player's presence in the game irrelevant except in their function as challenges for Ender to overcome. The administrators acknowledge this in an argument among themselves:

"The game will be compromised. The comparative standings will become meaningless." [...] "You're getting too close to the game, Anderson. You're forgetting that it is merely a training exercise." "It's also status, identity, purpose, name; all that makes these children who they are comes out of this game. When it becomes known that the game can be manipulated, weighted, cheated, it will undo this whole school. I'm not exaggerating." "I know." "So I hope Ender Wiggin truly is the one, because you'll have degraded the effectiveness of our training method for a long time to come."

In this argument, Anderson views the game the way games have been viewed since antiquity: exercises in acquiring honor and status. This honor is based on the innate fairness inherent to games as rule-based systems, which is why in ancient depictions of sport the chief character is often not a competitor but the host, who acts as referee. In Virgil's Aeneid, for instance, the hero Aeneas hosts a series of funeral games (the games themselves intended as an honor for his dead father). Despite being the principal character of the epic, Aeneas does not compete in these games. Instead, he doles out prizes to each competitor based on the worthiness they display; his fairness marks him symbolically as a wise ruler. The Arthurian tournament is another example, where Arthur as host is the principal character, and the knights (Lancelot, Tristan, etc.) who compete do so primarily to receive honors from him or his queen.

In Ender's Game, it is the antagonistic figure Bonzo Madrid who embodies this classical concept of honor; the word defines him, is repeated constantly ("his Spanish honor"), drives his blistering hatred of Ender, who receives both unfair boons and unfair banes from the game's administrators, who skirts the rules of what is allowed to secure victory. Bonzo is depicted as a stupid, bull-like figure; his honor is ultimately worthless, trivially manipulated by Ender in their final fight.

Meanwhile, it's Ender's disregard for honor, his focus solely on his namesake -- ending, finishing the game, the ends before the means -- that makes him so valuable within the scope of the story. He is "the one," as Anderson puts it, the solipsistically important Gamer, the Only I Play the Game-r, because the game now matters in and of itself, rather than as a social activity. In the Aeneid and in Arthur, the competitors are soldiers, for whom there is a world outside the game. Their games are not a substitute for war but a reprieve from it, and as such they are an activity meant to hold together the unifying fabric of society. The values Anderson espouses (status, identity, purpose, name) are fundamentally more important in this social framework than winning (ending) is.

Ender's game, as the Goosebumps-style blurb on my 20-year-old book fair edition's cover proclaims, is not just a game anymore. Its competitors are also soldiers, but the game is meant to prepare them for war; the spaceship video game is actual war. And as this is a war for the survival of the human race, as Ender is told, there is no need for honor. The othered enemy must be annihilated, without remorse or mercy.

This ethos of the game as fundamentally important for its own sake pervades Gamer literature beyond Ender's Game. In Sword Art Online (which I wrote an essay on here), dying in the game is dying in real life, and as such, only Kirito's ability to beat the game matters. Like Ender, Kirito is immediately disdained by his fellow players as a "cheater" (oh sorry, I mean a "beater") because he possesses inherent advantages due to being a beta player. In an actual game, a game that is only a game, Kirito's cheat powers would render the game pointless. What purpose does Kirito winning serve if he does it with Dual Wielding, an overpowered skill that only he is allowed to have? But when a game has real stakes, when only ability to win matters, it is possible to disregard fairness and see the cheater as heroic.

This notion of the "cheat power," a unique and overpowered ability only the protagonist has, is pervasive in post-SAO Gamer literature. To those for whom games are simply games, such powers can only be infuriating and obnoxious betrayals of the purpose of games; to those for whom games mean more than just games, for whom games have a primacy of importance, these powers are all that matter.

That's the core conceit of Gamer literature: the idea that the Game is life, that winning is, in fact, everything.

What sets Ender's Game apart from Sword Art Online is that it creates the inverted world where the Game matters above all, but then draws back the curtain to reveal the inversion. The Buggers are, in fact, no longer hostile. They are not planning to invade Earth again, as Ender has been told his entire life. The war, for them, is entirely defensive, and Ender is the aggressor. And due to Ender's singleminded focus on Ending, on winning, on disregarding honor and fairness, he ultimately commits the xenocide, erases an entire sentient species from existence. He wins a game he should never have been playing.

The obvious counterargument, the one I imagine everyone who has read this book thought up the moment I posed the question at the beginning of this essay, is that Ender did not know he was committing xenocide. The fact that the combat simulator game was not a game was withheld from him until afterward. Plus, he was a child.

Salient arguments all. Ones the book itself makes, via Ender's commander, Graff, to absolve him of sin at the end. They're probably even correct, in a legal sense (I'm not a legal scholar, don't quote me), and in a moral sense. In real life, it would be difficult to blame a 10-year-old in those circumstances for what he did. But in the thematic framework of Ender's Game the book, these arguments are completely inadequate.

Ender has been playing a fourth game the entire story. And this is the only game he doesn't win.

A game is defined by its system of control and limitation over the behavior of the players. A game has rules. His whole life, Ender has been playing within the rules of the system of control his military commanders place upon him.

Their control extends even before he was born; as a third child in a draconian two-child-only world, his existence is at the behest of the government. Graff confirms this to Ender's parents when he recruits him to Battle School: "Of course we already have your consent, granted in writing at the time conception was confirmed, or he could not have been born. He has been ours since then, if he qualified." Graff frames this control utterly, in terms of possession: "he has been ours." He does not exaggerate. Since Ender was young, he has had a "monitor" implanted in his body so the army could observe him at all times, assess whether he "qualifies"; even the brief moment the monitor is removed is a test. "The final step in your testing was to see what would happen when the monitor came off," Graff explains after Ender passes the test by murdering a 6-year-old. Conditions are set up for Ender, similar to the unfair challenges established in the Battle School game; he is isolated from his peers, denied practice sessions, held in solitary confinement on a remote planetoid. It's all in service of assessing Ender as "the one."

Ender wins this game in the sense that he does, ultimately, become "the one" -- the one Graff and the other military men want, the xenocider of the Buggers. He fails this game in the sense that he does not break it.

The other three games Ender plays, he breaks. Usually by cheating. In the single-player psychiatry game, when presented with a deliberately impossible challenge where a giant gives him two glasses to pick between, Ender cheats and kills the giant. "Cheater, cheater!" the dying giant shouts. In the Battle School game, Ender is ultimately confronted by insurmountable odds: 2 armies against his 1. He cannot outgun his opponent, so he cheats by using most of his troops as a distraction so five soldiers can sneak through the enemy's gate, ending the game. At the school, going through the gate is traditionally seen as a mere formality, something done ceremonially once the enemy team is wiped out (there's that honor again, that ceremony), but it technically causes a win. Even Anderson, the game's administrator, sees this as a breach of the rules when Ender confronts him afterward.

Ender was smiling. "I beat you again, sir," he said. "Nonsense, Ender," Anderson said softly. "Your battle was with Griffin and Tiger." "How stupid do you think I am?" Ender said. Loudly, Anderson said, "After that little maneuver, the rules are being revised to require that all of the enemy's soldiers must be frozen or disabled before the gate can be reversed."

(I include the first part of that quote to indicate that Ender all along knows who he is really playing this game against -- the administrators, the military men who control every facet of his life.)

Ender beats the war simulator game in a similar fashion. Outnumbered this time 1000-to-1, he uses his soldiers as sacrifices to sneak a single bomb onto the alien's homeworld, destroying it and committing his xenocide. Ender himself sees this maneuver as breaking the rules, and in fact falsely believes that if he breaks the rules he will be disqualified, set free from the fourth game: "If I break this rule, they'll never let me be a commander. It would be too dangerous. I'll never have to play a game again. And that is victory." The flaw in his logic comes not from whether he's breaking the rules of the game, but which game he is breaking the rules of. It's not the fourth game, Ender's game, but the war simulator game, simply a sub-game within the confines of the fourth game, a sub-game the fourth game's administrators want him to break, a sub-game that gives Ender the illusion of control by breaking. When Ender tells his administrators about his plan, the response he receives almost taunts him to do it:

"Does the Little Doctor work against a planet?" Mazer's face went rigid. "Ender, the buggers never deliberately attacked a civilian population in either invasion. You decide whether it would be wise to adopt a strategy that would invite reprisals."

(And if it wasn't clear how much the administrators wanted him to do this all along, the moment he does it, they flood the room with cheers.)

Ender wins his games by cheating -- by fighting the rules of the game itself -- and yet he never cheats at the fourth game, the game of his life.

In this fourth game, he always plays by the rules.

In the inverted world of Gamer lit, where games define everything, including life and death, it's a common, even natural progression for the Gamer to finally confront the game's administrator. Sword Art Online ends when Kirito defeats Akihiko Kayaba, the developer. In doing so, Kirito exceeds the confines of the game, not simply by ignoring its rules and coming back to life after he's killed, but by demonstrating mastery against the game's God. Afterward, Sword Art Online truly becomes Kirito's Game, with nobody else able to lay claim to the possessive. Kirito demonstrates this control at the end of the anime by recreating Sword Art Online's world using its source code, completing the transition into a player-administrator.

(Though I wonder, how much of a class reading could one give to this new brand of Gamer lit? If classical games were told from the perspective of the one who controlled them, then is there not something innately anti-establishment in Kirito overcoming the controller? This is the gist of many other death game stories, like The Hunger Games, though none of them may be the most sophisticated takes on the subject, more empty fantasy than anything else.)

Ender never fights or defeats his administrators. He never even tries, other than rare periods of depressive inactivity. He doesn't try even though the option is proposed to him by Dink Meeker, an older student whom Ender respects:

"I'm not going to let the bastards run me, Ender. They've got you pegged, too, and they don't plan to treat you kindly. Look what they've done to you so far." "They haven't done anything except promote me." "And she make you life so easy, neh?" Ender laughed and shook his head. "So maybe you're right." "They think they got you on ice. Don't let them." "But that's what I came for," Ender said. "For them to make me into a tool."

Instead, Ender finds comfort in the control exerted on his life. When sent to Earth on leave, he seeks out a lake that reminds him of living in Battle School.

"I spend a lot of time on the water. When I'm swimming, it's like being weightless. I miss being weightless. Also, when I'm here on the lake, the land slopes up in every direction." "Like living in a bowl." "I've lived in a bowl for four years."

Because of this, Ender never cheats against Graff. He could; Graff states several times that Ender is smarter than him, and the fact that they have Ender fighting the war instead of Graff is proof he believes it. But Ender never considers it. He never considers gaming the system of his life.

If Gamer literature emphasizes the inversion of the world order, where games supersede reality in importance (and, as in Sword Art Online, only through this inverted order is one able to claim real power by being a Gamer), then Ender's Game acknowledges both sides of the inversion. For Ender, the games he plays are not simply games anymore. The psychology game, the Battle School game, the war simulator game; all of these he must win at all costs, even if it requires disrespecting the foundational purpose of these games. But his real life? Ender wants that to be a game, craves it to be a game, can't live unless the walls slope up around him like a bowl, can't stand it unless there is a system of control around him. He does what Graff tells him, even though he recognizes immediately that Graff is not his friend, that Graff is the one isolating him from others, rigging things against him. He does what Graff tells him all the way up to and including xenocide, because Ender cannot tell game from real life. That's the core deception at the end: Ender is playing a game that's actually real and he doesn't know it -- or refuses to acknowledge it, since nobody has ever tricked the genius Ender before this point.

Actually, that's not true. They tricked him twice before. Ender twice attacks his peers physically, with brutal violence. The administrators conceal from him that he murdered both his foes; he simply thinks he hurt them. The only way to trick Ender is to do so in a way that insulates him from the consequences of his actions. The only way he will allow himself to be tricked.

So, is Ender guilty of xenocide?

Under it all, Ender believes he is.

The dying Buggers, after reading Ender's mind, recreate the psychology game in the real world. The story ends when Ender finds this recreation, yet another blurring of the lines between game and reality.

The psychology game is different from the other games Ender plays, because nobody expects him to win it. Its purpose is not to be won, simply to assess his mental health. Yet Ender approaches it like the other games, cheats at it and systematically kills all his enemies until he reaches a place called The End of the World. (Another End for Ender.) His drive to win, to dominate, does not come solely from the pressures of the system around him, but from deep within himself, which is what Ender fears the most. But it is here, at The End of the World, where Ender finds atonement, both in the game and in the game-made-real. In the game, he kisses his opponent instead of killing them, and reaches a resolution he is happy with. He stops playing the game after doing this, though the game seems to continue (when an administrator asks him why he stopped playing it, he says "I beat it"; the administrator tells him the game cannot be beaten). It is through this act of love that Ender can escape the game-like system of control that puppeteers him no matter how smart and clever he is or thinks he is.

In the game-made-real, Ender finds his atonement in the same place, The End of the World. The Buggers left for him here, in this place that they (reading his mind) understood as the location of his mercy and compassion, an egg that can repopulate their species. Through this egg, Ender is given the chance to undo his xenocide. But that chance is also contingent on what The End of the World means to Ender, an end to the game, not simply the games he plays but the fourth game, the game of his life. Ender's Game.

I agree that the phrase "being normal about [group]" can be used to mean "behaving like a typical person (which is good) with respect to [group]", which I dislike. In fact, while writing the above reply, I was thinking of another common usage of the phrase as meaning "having the correct opinions about [group]", which bothers me even more.

If "normal" is being used to mean "correct, popular among people I respect, typical, admirable, common sense", that is a bad way to use words, because it conflates concepts which are important to distinguish.

However, in this particular context, "normal" can also be read as "everyday, chill, neutral, default, forgettable", which does not strike me as a pernicious usage. If you read it this way, then "being normal about [group]" points at an important aspect of tolerating and respecting the group in question.

This concept of "capable of neutral, casual interactions" is particularly useful when assessing a potential friend (or someone you might invite to a groupchat, or someone whose party you might attend, etc.). In that circumstance, it's usually less relevant what their political beliefs are, how much they know about [group], or how much they care about the welfare of [group] -- what you want to know is whether they can treat you like any other person in the friend group. It is awkward and uncomfortable when the prospective acquaintance has very strong positive feelings about your demographic group, or when they are very concerned about interacting with you respectfully, even though those things are probably good in an abstract sense.

To inquire about this by asking "are they normal about [group]?" is suboptimal because of the ambiguity with other meanings of "being normal about", but it is a way to express something that needs to be expressed, and as such I am sympathetic to it.

Hate how people talk about “being normal” about something. That only applies to like, being weirdly obsessed with something unusual. You can tell me to please be normal about riding a train, or watching an Anne Hathaway movie. Things that I KNOW I’m weird about.

If you’re using it to describe whether someone is a bigot or not, it’s completely incoherent. Bigotry is normal to bigots. When I hear someone say “I’m normal about X group” I don’t assume that means they share my beliefs. I assume that means they’re uncritical about their own.

Is there something I’m missing here??

set of all sets that do contain themselves

Urza’s Strangle Submission by KrazyGuy75

it should be "works" both bc the French "oeuvres" has pretty much all of the same meanings, and bc the point of the chapter is faith and works (the question of whether a Christian is justified by right belief or by good actions) and "deeds" is simply not the word we use in English for that concept

I.i.4 Les Œuvres Semblables Aux Paroles

Works Answering Words: Wilbour

Works Resembling Words: Wraxall, Walton

Works Corresponding To Words: Hapgood

Works Matching Words: Denny

Works to Match Words: FMA

He Put His Money Where His Mouth Is: Rose

Deeds to Match Words: Donougher

i really like internet roadtrip

listen up chucklefucks, i just gotta say. I'm not defending zir, but I'm sad zie deactivated. Like, i get that trauma lasts a long time and the good stuff is maybe easy to forget?? so maybe it's just like that. And my beloved mutual @/pompeyspuppygirl made a post about zir clout chasing behavior, which is pretty shitty behavior if it's true (and if we're canceling someone it had better be pretty severe). anyways now that zie's gone pompeyspuppygirl said it was okay to make this post (again, thanks ppg everyone go follow her --really everyone in this whole drama is worth a follow)

ANYways yeah zie was my mutual and like, reblogged a lot my smaller posts. (that isn't to discredit what my mutual pompeyspuppygirl is saying about zie clout chasing ofc). AND idk zie was always reblogging art from new and undiscovered artists and reblogging donation posts (which if you don't know is really bad if you're trying to clout chase...) (again, though, ppg is my mutual i believe her.) and like, remember on valentines day i tried to blaze zir posts and zie told me to stop because zie didn't want the posts to go viral? (but again ppg is my mutual and has a lot of proof in the Google doc I'm not trying to disprove that I'm just saying what else I know)

Idk, like i feel like a lot of people loved zir's blog a while back, bc like zie DID make some good posts?? So idk why everybody's acting like they aren't even a little bit sad.,. like ngl this feels like maybe all the reasonable people left to Twitter and all the Twitter refugees who love drama came here??? shdfhhdhdhdhdh haha but idk...look idk, i just, julie i do miss you. idk. more thoughts later sorry I'm getting worked up shshs

sygol framed poll (handle with care), 2024 mixed media on tumblr post

That's Danish; IKEA is Swedish.

the bluetooth chip in my beloved ikea eneby speaker (with the gay pride front cover) decided abruptly to stop connecting to devices today TT__TT i cracked the thing open of course and had a look but unplugging and replugging various cables had no effect; next course of action is probably to try to resolder the bluetooth daughter board (which i HAVE identified, thank you ifixit) except i still haven't unpacked my soldering iron post move and now it's buried in the shed in one of several boxes all of which are behind the woodworking bench and like three bikes. fortunately the 3.5mm jack still works so i THINK my strat is going to be to just fucking plug in one of those bluetooth 3.5mm adapters until i can get my tools unfucked enough to hopefully fix it properly. and of course i can't just get a replacement because ikea has discontinued the eneby because fuck you that's why