from another perspective, they're in another triple romance involving two men and a woman, of which there are like four in the whole series? solit and salm are explicitly lovers, autr and sahaule im not sure about, and lindon and svir are too, if we are counting lindon/svir/lindon's wife as one of those. just as a matter of parallels, i think it makes sense to at least consider the possibility?
i don't seriously ship hesychast and itinerant but its genuinely undeniable that my personal reading is that the believability of their feud comes from how their proximity is bordering, if not outright an example of, homoeroticism. the thick seam of hatred comes from the fact they're both bound inextricably with each other by circumstance and ideology, both agents of empire differing only in perspective but alike in aim. they're complementary in their discordance and share this complete refusal to acknowledge this as reality, engage in this charade of opposition because its continuance is the only way they can meaningfully diverge from the masquerade. do you understand. they cannot admit their camaraderie because its the only way to remain discrete, they cannot take comfort in each other despite being bedfellows in secrecy because to do so would be to be swallowed by their own cause. they have to define each other, have to perform animosity, because it's the only way to define their self
abandoned space elevator
*you can change the desicions you make, gowever you do not retain the knowledge of it that you have
reblog for larger sample size!!
if there's one thing ive learned from my math education it's the ability to judge a textbook by it's cover:
fancy cover with actual picture, fewer than 15 years old, $300: absolute dogshit. time wasting exercises, poor exposition, that weird gloss they put on the pages probably makes it too toxic to use as kindling
title is just name of subject, referred to by author, 50 years old with like 3 editions: excellent. compact proofs, exercises good enough people refer to them by number in conversation. available for free by foraging somewhere they grow naturally
title is some shit like paul's notes, "cover" is just default latex titlepage, distributed as pdf to grad classes or by advisor: best coverage of whatever (usually niche) topic it's about in the world. crystal clear exposition. solutions to exercises available by emailing grad students working under author
From 'Dungeon Meshi'
some attempts at vintage pulp covers style
finally ready to speak about this, so- hello. my name is candy. i just had to put down my childhood dog right after losing my job. needless to say i am devastated, financially and otherwise. i am short on rent, and also owe nearly a thousand dollars for just euthanasia and cremation. i really, really need some help.
please consider throwing a couple bucks my way, it would mean the world to me and would help tremendously.
thank you all so much.
[“In his extended study, Viet Cong, published in 1966, Pike went to some length to show that the success of the Viet Cong came not so much from their use of violence and terror (as many Americans assumed) but from their organizational methods. By 1970 he had given the subject a new emphasis. “Terror,” he said, “is an essential ingredient of nearly all [the Viet Cong's] programs.” And he went ahead to show his own colors:
A frank word is required here about “terror” on the other side, by the Government and Allied forces fighting in Viet-Nam. No one with any experience in Vietnam denies that troops, police and others commanding physical power, have committed excesses that are, by our working definition, acts of terror.… But there is an essential difference in such acts between the two sides, one of outcome or result. To the communist, terror has a utility and is beneficial to his cause, while to the other side the identical act is self-defeating. This is not because one side is made up of heroes and the other of villains. It is because, as noted above, terror is integral in all the communist tactics and programs and communists could not rid themselves of it even if they wanted to. Meanwhile, the other side firmly believes, even though its members do not always behave accordingly, that there is a vested interest in abstaining from such acts.
Interestingly, Pike's “working definition” of terror was the “systematic use of death, pain, fear and anxiety among the population (either civilian or military) for the deliberate purpose of coercing, manipulating, intimidating, punishing or simply frightening the helpless into submission.” And by that definition the entire American bombing policy in Vietnam, North and South, was a strategy of terror. Even within the narrower definition of “terror” as an unconventional, clandestine act of violence — an assassination or a satchel-charge bombing — the Allies had been using terror deliberately for a number of years through professionally trained paramilitary units such as the Special Forces and the Provincial Reconnaissance Units.
As head of the Psychological Warfare section, Pike knew this as well as anyone in Vietnam. Only he, like many Americans who backed the Vietnam War, ascribed the best of motives to the Americans and their allies, while laying all the evil at the door of the enemy. It was the same kind of bad faith and bad conscience that in 1967 inspired all the American rhetoric about “revolutionary development” and “building democracy” in Vietnam. It was the same kind of rhetoric that inspired the unrestricted use of violence upon the Vietnamese.”]
frances fitzgerald, from fire in the lake: the vietnamese and the americans in vietnam, 1972
the game Season: A letter to the future is like if the person who wrote that "disco elysium but a witch in the alps" tweet had actually good ideas for a disco inspired feel-good game