December 6th, 2025

Posted by Jay Ong

LEGO has unveiled 40777 Celebration Series: Gingerbread Train Ornament, the fourth and seasonal GWP (gift with purchase), under the Celebration Series banner. It’s a really neat LEGO Gingerbread Train that looks like it will pair really well with 40809 Festive Gingerbread House. There’s no official release date yet, but if it follows previous Celebration Series […]

The post LEGO 40777 Celebration Series: Gingerbread Train Ornament GWP revealed! appeared first on Jay's Brick Blog.

Posted by Grant Watson

Believe the marketing, and Michael Chaves’ 2025 horror film The Conjuring: Last Rites marks the final instalment of the hugely successful Warner Bros franchise. Of course any viewer of American horror knows that is almost certainly a lie: given time there will inevitable be another remake, reboot, or sequel, since horror franchises seem as impossible to kill as their supernatural antagonists. That this fourth film in the series has also been the most commercially successful suggests there will be more to come. To be honest I kind of hope there is a fifth film some time in the next few years; this is a deeply mediocre effort with which to end things.

The Conjuring series is based around the real-life self-proclaimed demonologist Ed Warren and his supposedly psychic wife Lorraine. It has always been a slightly uncomfortable basis for a film franchise, since the actual Warrens were deluded fools at best and cynically exploitative con artists at worst. Their supposed supernatural encounters have been widely debunked and criticised, yet Warner Bros has happily paid for an entire franchise of sequels and spin-offs based on their names. For me, at least, it has always left a somewhat sour taste. These films are claimed to be “based on a true story”, but it’s a particularly disreputable kind of truth – if there is indeed any truth there at all.

That’s honestly a shame, because in the hands of James Wan – who directed the first two and produced the third and fourth – these films have enjoyed some of the strongest and visually effective ghosts, demons, and otherworld phenomenon of recent genre cinema. Wan has a real knack for it, whether here or in other films and franchises like Saw, Insidious, and Malignant. There is some palpably awesome supernatural horror to be found in Last Rites; sadly it is not all there is for viewers to find.

The film picks up on the Warrens (played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) well into the 1980s: effectively retired and lecturing to rapidly declining audiences on their demon-hunting exploits. Their daughter Judy (Mia Tomlinson) is slowly becoming afflicted by supernatural forces, which her parents fear and which boyfriend Tony (Ben Hardy) does not comprehend. Meanwhile over in Pennsylvania, a working class family fall under the influence of a malevolent force that terrorises them in their own home.

This is very much a film in the format of the first two Conjurings: a family living in terror, people getting possessed, and the Warrens wading in with a combination of old-fashioned values and religious fervour to save the day. So far, so good, only it takes more than half of the 135-minute running time to bring the film’s two halves together. One half is precisely what the audience has come for: ghostly thrills, scary moments, and a creepy atmosphere. The other half wastes a lot of the audience’s time with Judy and Tony’s blossoming romance, Ed’s fears over his failing heart, and familial regret over abandoning their dangerous ghost-busting careers in favour of a safe retirement.

It is a struggle for the audience to care, and if there is a single mistake that Last Rites makes it is that it mistakenly believes it is a love for the Warrens that has pulled the audience through the franchise and not simply a healthy love for a scary movie. I strongly suspect the majority of viewers do not really care about Ed and Lorraine Warren. They have always been somewhat one-dimensional, blandly conservative, and relatively humourless. While Wilson and Farmiga have consistently played them very well, they have always functioned as cyphers to enable the haunted families to escape trauma. Certainly I do not particularly care for the Warrens; to be completely honest, I am uncertain I have ever even liked the Warrens. They seem to be based on genuinely terrible people. I – and I suspect much of the audience – watches The Conjuring for a creepy ghost or demonic presence instead.

This is a film that drags. This is a film that squanders its time on bland family drama and nostalgia, and does it so egregiously that by the time the actual plot finally kicks in it was difficult to care. The apparent “final” Conjuring movie is also the least effective of them. It feels like a chore.

Posted by cks

Many, many years ago, my department operated one of the university's secondary authoritative DNS servers, which was used by most everyone with a university subdomain and as a result was listed as one of their DNS NS records. This DNs server was also the authoritative DNS server for our own domains, because this was in the era where servers were expensive and it made perfect sense to do this. At the time, departments who wanted a subdomain pretty much needed to have a Unix system administrator and probably run their own primary DNS server and so on. Over time, the university's DNS infrastructure shifted drastically, with central IT offering more and more support, and more than half a decade ago our authoritative DNS server stopped being a university secondary, after a lot of notice to everyone.

Experienced system administrators can guess what happened next. Or rather, what didn't happen next. References to our DNS server lingered in various places for years, both in the university's root zones as DNS glue records and in people's own DNS zone files as theoretically authoritative records. As late as the middle of last year, when I started grinding away on this, I believe that roughly half of our authoritative DNS server's traffic was for old zones we didn't serve and was getting DNS 'Refused' responses. The situation is much better today, after several rounds of finding other people's zones that were still pointing to us, but it's still not quite over and it took a bunch of tedious work to get this far.

(Why I care about this is that it's hard to see if your authoritative DNS server is correctly answering everything it should if things like tcpdumps of DNS traffic are absolutely flooded with bad traffic that your DNS server is (correctly) rejecting.)

In theory, what we should have done when we stopped being a university secondary authoritative DNS server was to switch the authoritative DNS server for our own domains to another name and another IP address; this would have completely cut off everyone else when we turned the old server off and removed its name from our DNS. In practice the transition was not clearcut, because for a while we kept on being a secondary for some other university zones that have long-standing associations with the department. Also, I think we were optimistic about how responsive people would be (and how many of them we could reach).

(Also, there's a great deal of history tied up in the specific name and IP address of our current authoritative DNS server. It's been there for a very long time.)

PS: Even when no one is incorrectly pointing to us, there's clearly a background Internet radiation of external machines throwing random DNS queries at us. But that's another entry.

Posted by John Scalzi

I think it’s important to note, when writing a series of essays about “comfort watches,” that not every movie on that list is going to be a comfortable watch. Some of them might even be hard-“R” movies with lots of violence, portraying a decaying civilization where law is rare and order is even more so, and where everyone in the movie is pretty much just hanging on by their fingernails. These movies are not nice! Nevertheless there is something relentlessly rewatchable about them, something that makes you just settle in on the couch for a couple of hours with a smile on your face, maybe because you’re sure glad you don’t live there. For me, Dredd is one of those films. The world of Mega-City One is a terrible place and I hope never to take up permanent residence, but I’m happy to visit. That is, from behind a pane of bulletproof glass.

For those of you not familiar with the 2000 AD comic feature on which the film is based (and have otherwise and correctly blocked the painfully bad 1995 Sylvester Stallone film made from the same source material from your brain): The world is fucked and irradiated and almost all of it is a wasteland, except Mega-City One, with 800 million people stretching across the Acela Corridor of the United States. Most people there live crappy lives in “megablock” apartment complexes that can house 50,000 people, and along with residents, are filled with crime and drugs. Law enforcement is sparse and in the hands of “Judges,” empowered both to stop and punish crime at the same time. Basically, life sucks, and if you do crime, you’re likely to get away with it, but when you don’t, some extremely well-armed dude is going to shoot you in the head about it. Fun!

The titular character, Dredd, is a judge, who never takes off his helmet and rarely speaks more than a sentence at a time. He’s assessing a trainee judge named Anderson, who also happens to be psychic (in the Judge Dredd mythology there is a whole thing about mutants and such, and it’s not really more than waved at here). Dredd and Anderson enter a megablock after a drug-related crime, which for various reasons annoys the local drug lord named Ma-Ma; she locks down the entire megablock and puts a hit out on the judges. From there, things get real messy, real quick.

As noted earlier, this comic book material was made into a movie before, in 1995. It just did not work, not in the least because it was far more of a Sylvester Stallone vehicle than a Judge Dredd movie — here’s Stallone galumphing around without his helmet so you can see his face, complete with overly-blue contacts, here’s Stallone tromping through a bunch of sets that look like sets, not slums, here’s Stallone bellowing Dredd’s catchphrase “IYAMDELAW” with scenery chewing abandon, and being saddled with Rob Schneider as comedy relief because it was the 90s and apparently that was just what was done back in the day. This movie was made by Hollywood Pictures, which at the time was Disney’s off-off-brand, and while the movie was rated “R,” every inch of it gave off a soft PG-13 vibe. This was a movie that yearned for its hero to be made a figurine in a McDonald’s happy meal.

Dredd, which came out in 2012… is not that. From the opening moments, Dredd makes it clear that this future, shot on location in South Africa, is literally trash; everything is run-down, nothing is new, the color scheme is graded heavily into sicky yellows and greens (except for the blood, which is super, super red). This Mega-City One doesn’t feel like a bunch of sets; it’s ugly and tired and feels all-too possible. Dredd himself, played by Karl Urban, is night and day from the Stallone iteration. When he says “I am the law,” it’s not a bellow. It’s a deeply scary intonation of facts. And he never takes off his damn helmet.

It helps that Dredd isn’t trying to do too much. The movie isn’t trying to jam in seven different storylines and five movies’ worth of worldbuilding into a single film. It keeps to a single story, a single day, and, mostly, a single location. After a brief opening voiceover, you learn about the world diagetically. For longtime fans of the Judge Dredd world, there are little easter eggs here and there but nothing that winks at the viewer. For everyone else, you learn just enough of what you need to get through the story, and everything else is atmosphere. The story is economical, partly because it had to be — the film had a budget of no more than $45 million, half of what the 90s version had to work with more than two decades earlier — but also partly because Alex Garland, who wrote the script (and who largely edited the movie after it was shot) was smart enough to realize every thing he wanted and needed to say about this world could be done with one, admittedly extreme, bad day in the life of its protagonist.

And what is there to say about Dredd himself? Largely that Urban plays him not as a star vehicle but as an archetype. Urban’s Judge Dredd could hang out with Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name quite handily. The two of them wouldn’t say much, but they wouldn’t have to; like understands like. Dredd doesn’t explain himself, has no extended monologues that are a journey into his interior life, and there is no indication that, when he is off the clock, he does anything but stand in a room, silently, waiting for his next shift. In the movie, Dredd isn’t focused on anything other than what’s directly in front of him, and Urban isn’t focused on anything other than getting Dredd to his next scene. Now, you can argue whether Urban’s low and mostly emotionless growl in this film constitutes good acting in a general sense. I don’t think you can argue it isn’t just about perfect for what the character is supposed to be, in the context of the film.

Judge Dredd, the comic book, is known to be a satire of both US and British politics and both nations’ rather shameful but continual flirtation with fascism, but as George S. Kaufman once said, satire is what closes on Saturday night. Even when one acknowledges that satire doesn’t have to be overtly funny, and is often more effective when it is not, there is nothing about Dredd that feels particularly satirical. Garland’s version of Mega-City One doesn’t present as satire or even as a cautionary tale; it just feels like a fact. Shit went bad. This is what’s left.

There is no world in which individuals should be walking around, embodying an entire legal process whole in themselves. “I Am The Law” is the very definition of authoritarianism and in the real world should be actively and passionately fought against. In Dredd’s world, however, this battle has already been fought, and lost. You get the law you get, piecemeal and not enough of it, and if you’re not actively a criminal, you’re happy with what little you get at all.

This is not a world I ever want to live in, and I will be happy to spend the rest of my life fighting against anything like it. But as a spectator, it’s fascinating, and in Dredd, it feels close enough to real to pack a punch. Everything in Dredd is some flavor of bad; everyone in Dredd is some level of desperate. No one is happy and everyone is looking for an escape of some sort. In this context, Judge Dredd is a strange and compelling constant. He’s not happy or sad, or fearful or mad. He is, simply, the law. That’s all he is. That’s all he needs to be.

— JS

nnozomi: (Default)
部首
广 part 2
庇, to protect/to cover; 床, bed; 序, order/sequence pinyin )
https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?cdqrad=53

语法
Uses of 多
https://www.digmandarin.com/hsk-2-grammar

词汇
本科, undergraduate (course) (pinyin in tags)
https://mandarinbean.com/new-hsk-4-word-list/

Guardian:
那你好好在床上躺着, lie down on the bed
只要你多看多听多学,你自然就懂得多了, you just need to watch, listen and learn a lot to understand more naturally
[no 本科]

Me:
你的程序有问题啊,来除错一下。
本科的时候你不会学习这种内容。
watersword: A empty box with the words "but I, alas, do not know how to see sheep through the walls of boxes" from Le petit prince (Writing: sheep through the walls of boxe)
posted by [personal profile] watersword at 05:31pm on 05/12/2025

On this Bandcamp Friday, I have purchased the entirety of Dessa's discography; made a loaf of bread for potluck Shabbat services tonight; gone to the makerspace to continue sanding the drawer divider pieces I made with the laser cutter earlier this week; picked up my CSA box; nearly froze to death waiting for the bus home.

merrileemakes: A very tired looking orange cat peering sleepily at you while curled up on a laptop bag (Default)
[community profile] voiceinmyear, a community to share any kind of audio-based narrative entertainment. Here you can recommend, critique, signal boost or otherwise enthuse about:
- podcasts, both fiction and non-fiction
- audiobooks
- podfics
- audio essays - YouTube or other video formats are fine as long as it can be enjoyed without visuals
- apps, platforms or websites to access or discover any of the above.

Just created and I'm keen to post some content soon, but also thrilled if anyone else wants to jump in and share some aural joy.
Music:: The chickens wot want to be let out but I'm busy chillin'
location: Bed
Mood:: 'relaxed' relaxed
December 5th, 2025

Posted by Bret Devereaux

This is the third part of our four-part series (I, II) discussing the debates surrounding ancient Greek hoplites and the formation in which they (mostly?) fought, the phalanx. Last week, we looked at how the equipment which defined the hoplite – hoplite (ὁπλίτης), after all, means ‘equipped man’) – and how it weighs in on the debate.

And what I expressed last time is that I found the ‘strong’ versions of both the orthodox and heterodox arguments uncompelling. The notion that the hoplite was effectively an ultra-encumbered turtle who couldn’t fight outside of a close huddle simply doesn’t stand up when comparing hoplite equipment – heavy, but not extremely so, somewhat constrained, but not particularly so – to other historical heavy infantry equipment. At the same time, the heterodox vision, where hoplites are as at home in open-order or fluid skirmishing as they are in the confines of a shield wall doesn’t hold up either. You can fight that way with hoplite equipment, but the panoply is terribly adapted for it while being very well adapted for the context of a shield wall, suggesting to me that this was always its primary intended purpose (albeit with a meaningful amount of flexibility built in).

We’re now going to carry those observations forward to discuss tactics. To the degree that the board public understands the hoplite debates, they understand it as a debate over tactics and often reduce it to the question, “did they shove?” But there are quite a few more tactical questions here than simply the question of the nature of the othismos. As with some of the previous questions, a lot of these questions are linked but weakly so, meaning it is possible to a degree to ‘mix and match’ without adopting a position that is incoherent. So we’ll begin by outlining what I view as the main differences here and also some of the significant elements of those positions I see as meaningfully unsatisfactory.

As we’ll see chronology also matters here: while the orthodox school generally imagines hoplite warfare to have emerged all at once (a position we’ve already seen can no longer be sustained given the archaeological evidence), reached tactical maturity in the phalanx relatively quickly and then remained rigid and relatively unchanged until the end of the fifth century, the heterodox school instead argues for a lot more chronological change.

Now, I wanted to do the discussion of tactics in a single post so that we could get into some of the interesting implications for polis society more quickly, but there really are too many moving parts and I realized – at the point where I had run out of most of the week, written 7,000 words and barely gotten through the Archaic – that this post needed to be split. The split is, as a result, horribly awkward.

This week, we’re going to look at the ‘strong’ orthodox hoplite model (and dismiss it) and then at parts of the ‘strong’ heterodox model (which we’ll also find unsatisfying, but not entirely without value), before finally working through what a ‘proto-phalanx‘ of the late 600s or 500s might have looked like, thinking in terms of comparative models and what little evidence we have.

Then next week we’ll turn to the ‘mature’ phalanx of the classical period, looking at how we might imagine it functions – tactics, ‘standard’ depth, role of supporting arms, etc. – along with the broader question of defining what exactly the phalanx is (and why I think a more flexible definition is more useful).

Since we’re leaving the definitional work to next week we’re going to avoid calling much of anything a ‘phalanx’ this week, even though these two posts are fundamentally about the phalanx. One of the things I view as a real problem in this debate are the hard definitional boundaries imposed by both sides, which derive from an overly rigid vision – Konijnendijk’s ‘Prussians’ again – of how the phalanx functioned. The problem is that while the orthodox insist that anything called a phalanx must fit that rigid (and as we’ll see, quite implausible) model, heterodox scholars often insist that anything that does not fit the model is not a phalanx in order to push the date for ‘the phalanx’ back. In my view it is well past time to let the evidence lead the definition rather than the other way around – the phalanx is what the phalanx does, not how we define it – so we’ll lead with the evidence and revisit the definitional scrum only at the end.

As always, if you like what you are reading, please share it as I rely on word-of-mouth to find readers! And if you really like it, you can support this project over at Patreon; I don’t promise not to use the money to buy a full hoplite panoply, but I also don’t not promise to do that. And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on Twitter and Bluesky for updates when posts go live and my general musings; I have largely shifted over to Bluesky (I maintain some de minimis presence on Twitter), given that it has become a much better place for historical discussion than Twitter.

Let Us Shove Off

As we’ve noted – nearly ad nauseam at this point – the orthodox and heterodox ‘camps’ differ both in their understanding of the chronology by which something called ‘the phalanx’ developed, but also their sense of the mechanics of what something called ‘the phalanx’ was and how it functioned. I think both tactical models are substantially flawed. I should note while putting this together Paul Bardunais linked his own synthesis (presented here in video form) which I hadn’t seen developed in full. It is not exactly my synthesis, but it is actually pretty close (I think it is a perfectly good, defensible, plausible model, which is more than I can say for the ‘strong’ models we’re about to discuss) as we’ll see and it is good to see someone working on a synthesis position.

One crucial difference between the orthodox and heterodox models of hoplite warfare is that orthodoxy generally imagines a tactically stable (or stagnant) phalanx: it doesn’t change after emerging and rapidly reaching ‘mature’ form. By contrast, the heterodox model assumes significant development over time. Now I do want to treat the evidence for tactics in the Archaic and Classical periods separately, because as we’ve already seen, I think the heterodox school is fundamentally correct in assuming meaningful change over time, but first I think it is worthwhile to dispense with the orthodox tactical vision, at least in its narrowest form. We ought to do that in the beginning because – since the orthodox view is that the phalanx is tactically stagnant – this model is supposed to be valid in every period. So rather than repeat myself, we can deal with it once here.

The modern version of orthodox hoplite tactics comes directly from The Western Way of War and so that is the ‘strong’ version of the model I will focus on here. The orthodox vision is that in a phalanx formation, hoplites were densely spaced (file widths of 45-60cm, shoulder-to-shoulder), they advanced at a run and then collided at speed with the two formations smashing together at full tilt. Then, the orthodox suppose the othismos was a kind of rugby-scrum style shoving match where the formations tried to push through each other (while also striking over and beneath shields) and as gaps and tears formed in the line from this pushing action, one phalanx would fall apart. Such fighting naturally fully excluded light infantry and cavalry. Moreover, as we’ve seen chronologically, the orthodox camp argues this form of warfare developed swiftly in the 8th and early 7th century and remained pure and unchanged from then to the late fifth century, a long period of relatively static hoplite warfare.

That vision exists within a sort of assumed framework, particularly among earlier scholars, as Roel Konijnendijk notes in his book,1 that derives more from early modern gunpowder warfare than from ancient warfare: there is an assumption of rigid command and control, supported by both training in arms (that is practice with weapons as opposed to just fitness training) and drill (that is, practice moving in unison) of a sort that is, bluntly put, not really attested in our sources until the late Classical period (if even then). Victor Davis Hansen’s work, coming later out of the Face of Battle school instead emphasizes the amateur citizen-soldier nature of hoplites (and thus doesn’t really assume lots of drill or practice) but keeps the rigid tactical system.

This vision is, frankly, nuts. No other shield wall behaves this way, shoving in a mass rugby scrum. It is physically possible – these presses have been demonstrated, it will not necessarily crush the men in the middle – but it cuts against human psychology in combat (humans tend not to want to stay in the ‘danger zone’ of enemy weapons – called ‘measure’ – for very long) and more important against the sort of casualty figures we get, which suggest losses for victors in hoplite battles could be relatively low and thus most casualties occurred after the rout.2 If this kind of shoving were normal, we’d expect knives and daggers, not spears, to be the weapon of choice (and I should note that while Greek swords are generally on the short side, a xiphos is not a knife or a dagger) and one man with a knife pressed at the front could make a terrible mess very quickly as he can easily stab over the shields of his enemies into the neck from the side where even the Corinthian helmet offers less than perfect protection. Indeed, notably, something like a combat dagger isn’t even a standard element of the hoplite’s kit (rare to see them in artwork) and won’t be a standard piece of equipment in the Eastern Mediterranean until the early Roman imperial period (by which point the Romans have fallen in love with a devilish dagger from Spain they call a pugio).3

Crucially, as heterodox scholars have been pointing out for decades now, nothing in the source tradition requires us to interpret othismos (a term that is not used in every or even most hoplite battles!) this literally: plenty of cultures describe ‘presses’ and ‘pushes’ of infantry that are not literal shoving. At no point does any source clearly describe the othismos as literal shoving; instead it is used to mean what we might term ‘coming into contact’ or ‘shock’ (e.g. Hdt. 7.225.1, 9.62.2, Xen. Anab. 5.2.17, etc.etc.), that is, two formations moving into melee range, or in the sense of a given ‘push’ of effort to achieve victory – we use the same phrase metaphorically of infantry assaults with guns that don’t involve anyone getting within 50 yards of a shoving match. While we start to see lines of men in Greek artwork, seemingly in close-order, as early as the 650s, we never see obvious scenes of mass shoving or even a lot of ‘combat grappling’ (it is hard to grapple with one hand secure in a two-point grip on a shield).4 It is striking that the orthodox school in its modern incarnation is thus arguing that the primary mode of high-status Greek hoplite warfare – the supposed shoving othismos – is both the core of experience of battle in the late Archaic and Classical Greek world and also never depicted in artwork, not even once. That is simply, to me, an unsustainable reading of the evidence.

I am struck that early modern European artwork furnishes more examples of nearly-scrum-like engagements (see below) involved in the push-of-pike, but even in the most chaotic push-of-pike scenes, soldiers are not shoving but instead have recourse to draw their swords (generally the katzbalger, which at 70-80cm is not very much larger than a xiphos or kopis) and cut with them.

Via Wikipedia, the classic Hans Holbein the Younger scene of a push of pike (early 16th cent.). I should note not every artist depicts these clashes this way – often they do seem to have been ‘poking matches’ at the edge of pike’s reach, but evidently could produce melees of this sort. That said, while we do see some men grappling at very close range with daggers, many still use their pikes or else draw their swords, suggesting there is still enough space, even in this mass, to use such weapons.

One may well imagine that two shield walls coming together may have created a temporary press similar to crowd collapses or rushes that happen sometimes at overcrowded concerts and similar crowded spaces, but there’s no sign this was the intended goal. As we’ll see in a moment, I suspect rival hoplite formations probably did often collide at some speed (though not perhaps intentionally), but if they did, I would expect them to ‘accordion’ back out rather than for the men in the rear to press their friends into the points of enemy spears. Crowd crushes happen because the psychological pressure is urging people in the back to push forward but in combat the psychological pressure is urging everyone to move away from the enemy.

Given how speculative and awkward the ‘shoving’ othismos is (as opposed, as we’ll see, to othismos-as-pulse) it is a bit frustrating that it persists in many reenactment circles, presumably because – as Roel Konijnendijk once suggested to me – it is a reasonably ‘safe’ way to do a hoplite reenactment as opposed to, you know, jabbing sharp weapons at people.

Problems pile up for the orthodox model from there. The very tight shoulder-to-shoulder spacing seems quite clearly to be a product of reasoning from modern musket formations; no shock formation I know of was ever this dense (including early modern pike formations). As we’ll see in a moment, I don’t think the spacing was loose generally (> 100cm file width), but I also do not think it was ultra-tight generally (< 60cm). Since we’re not shoving, after all, we need some space to actually use our shield and weapon (though nowhere near as much space as some heterodox scholars imagine, more on that next week).

Meanwhile, the developmental timeline does not work either: hoplite equipment didn’t emerge suddenly and so the ‘mature’ all-hoplite phalanx couldn’t have done so either. Moreover, as the heterodox will frequently note, light troops and cavalry continue to appear frequently in Archaic artwork and battle scenes, often intermingled with hoplites, suggesting they still have a battlefield role. Tyrtaeus, writing in the mid-7th century describes “You light-armed men, wherever you can aim/from the shield-cover, pelt them with great rocks/and hurl at them your smooth-shaped javelins” (Fr. 11 West, trans. West), which sure implies that the light-armed have a job to do even c. 650 or so and that it involves being at least in the same zip-code as the shield wall of hoplites (since they are aiming “from the shield-cover”). And of course throwing javelins and rocks would hardly be feasible if the two opposing lines were locked in contact in a shoving match, as you’d end up hitting your own fellows as often as the enemy. So this orthodox vision will not do, especially for the Archaic.

So what will work?

The Archaic Phalanx Did Not Pine For the Fjords

Having beaten up quite a lot on the orthodox vision, I think we must now turn and beat up a bit on the heterodox vision, particularly the version developed by Hans van Wees. Now here I want to note that while the orthodox school has effectively a single vision of hoplite combat, the heterodox school can sometimes contain multitudes and so not every ‘heterodox’ scholar shares Hans van Wees’ combat model. However it is also the case that Hans van Wees is also pretty much the only scholar in print to lay out a complete model, so we have to deal with it.

And I want to begin with a fairly big reasoning problem involving some dead birds. Hans van Wees, it must be noted, is coming at the question of Greek warfare chronologically from the ‘other side’ in that his work before Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities (2004) was focused on war and violence in Homer, so he is advancing forward from the early archaic towards the classical rather than reasoning backwards from the classical towards the archaic.

Van Wees presents in Greek Warfare and again in his chapter in Men of Bronze (2013) warfare among the Dani people of the highlands of Western Papua New Guinea as a kind of ‘key’ to understand Homeric warfare and thus early hoplite warfare. He cites for this Gardner and Heider, Gardens of War: life and death in the New Guinea Stone Age (1968), the print publication of this research, but most people, if they are aware of this work will be aware of it through the famous and foundational documentary film made during that research, Dead Birds (1963), also made by Robert Gardner. The film presents an idealized vision of a single battle among the Dani people, a people living with stone-age technology (no metal working) in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, though the footage is actually a pastiche of several battles fitted together. That said, Dead Birds is essentially the only footage we have of a society waging a real life-and-death battle with contact weapons.

This is an important piece of scholarship and a crucial tool in our understanding of warfare in the past and I have been on and on so far about how I think the study of hoplite warfare would benefit from comparative evidence so you may be expecting me to praise the use of this material as a tool for understanding Greek warfare, but I cannot.

Van Wees clearly reads this warfare – and perhaps, though he does not cite it, watches the film – and sees in it things Homer is describing (remember, he is coming at this originally as a Homerist): initially massed ranks that break up into no-order open skirmishes, spear-throwing, front line fighters advancing and retreating and so on.5 The failure here is not the effort to use comparative evidence (that’s a good instinct) but the failure to ask if the comparandum – the thing being compared6is a good match for warfare in the Greek archaic?

Via Wikipedia, warriors of the Dani people from the central highlands. Now we need to suspend our cultureal assumptions for a moment and avoid focusing on if these fellows look ‘strange’ (we probably look strange to them and all of us would look strange to the Greeks). Instead, we want to ask are these fellows equipped to fight similarly to hoplites or other iron-age Greeks.
And the answer just has to be ‘no, obviously not.’ They don’t have helmets, or shields, or armor, or shields, or clothing, or shields, or iron-tipped spears, or shields, or swords of any kind OR SHIELDS.

Because it pretty clearly isn’t. In this documented last phase of Dani warfare (they don’t do these battles anymore), the Dani still had an effectively stone-age level of technology, compared to iron-age Greeks. I cannot stress this enough: that is a very big difference, an enormous gap in weapons and armor capabilities which in turn comes with enormous implications for tactics. Metal – be it bronze or iron (much less steel) – is so much better a material for weapons that it significantly alters battlefield dynamics.

The Dani fight not only unarmored, but almost entirely nude and do not generally use shields in contrast to armored Greeks and Homeric heroes whose armor ‘clatters’ (ἀρᾰβεῖν, ‘to rattle, clang, clatter’ (of armor)) to the ground when slain and who regularly bear shields. In part, this is because Dani weapons are much less lethal than iron-age weapons, a point that jumps out if one actually watches Dead Birds. These men are trying to kill each other (and to not be killed) but fighting at distance it takes a lot of luck for their weapons to actually inflict lethal harm (and indeed, the casualties for these battles are very low). An arrow with a bone tip, or a spear that is merely a sharpened wooden stake can only be so sharp. Multiple individuals in Dead Birds are hit by arrows or javelins which simply do not penetrate to lethal depth (though one man does eventually die of a wound) despite striking the target. Remember these are unarmored, nude combatants who have been hit directly with a weapon. The contrast with what a sharp, iron-tipped broadhead arrow launched from a war bow can do against an unarmored target is quite stark; ancient and medieval artwork regularly show combatants with arrows transfixed in their bodies – all the way through and out the other side. As is typical with ‘first system‘ warfare, the high casualty bursts in Dani warfare come not from battles, which are generally symbolic affairs, but from ambushes and raids.

But even Homer’s heroes are clearly practicing ‘second system‘ warfare: they are laying siege to a large fortified city, with an army that Homer clearly understands to includes tens of thousands of warriors (Homer’s Catalog of Ships, 2.494-756 describes the Greeks as bringing a total of 1,186 ships; if taken literally it might imply an army of c. 150,000 though of course this is all subject to heroic exaggeration). Those warriors wield weapons – typically described by Homer as bronze, though iron is known to him – and wear body armor, helmets and carry large shields. As van Wees notes (op. cit., 166), the most prominent weapon in early Archaic artwork is actually the sword (spears are very common too), a weapon which the Dani did not have and were not capable of manufacturing with any material available to them. Homer’s own world is part of a broader military system that by 750 BC includes large, sophisticated professional armies in the Middle East (the Neo-Assyrians), employing complex siege craft (indeed, more complex than what the Greeks will have for centuries) and increasingly true cavalry. Homer seems to be blending a vague memory of late bronze age warfare (chariots! bronze weapons!) with early iron age warfare on the edge of ‘civilization.’7

So while in absolute chronology the Dani are c. 2,700 years in Homer’s future, in a kind of relative developmental chronology, their warfare is at least two thousand years in Homer’s past (taking the Greek bronze age to start very roughly at c. 3200). We might as well be trying to use footage of Roman warfare as the key to understanding the World Wars. Sure, humans and human psychology doesn’t change, so there may be some valuable insights (and indeed there are some about human psychology in combat which are useful in pushing back against the orthodox model) but we would need to be alert to everything that is different, which is a lot.

Approaching Archaic warfare through the lens of Homer, the Dani and Dead Birds sets van Wees’ entire foundation askew. That doesn’t mean everything in his model is wrong, but it throws a lot of things off.

In particular, the van Wees model of archaic hoplite warfare runs thusly: hoplites emerge in the context of a kind of warfare that looks a lot like the way the Dani fight: extended skirmishes with missiles, with individual warriors occasionally running forward to take more risk (and be more lethal) doing battle at closer range, sometimes with javelins, sometimes with contact weapons (swords and spears). This is, for van Wees, the environment in which the hoplite emerges. Hoplites initially show up carrying two spears (one for throwing), which to van Wees suggests continued participation in the skirmish (see my doubt below) rather than being pure ‘shock’ specialists. For much of the archaic, in van Wees’ model, hoplites continue to fight in open order or even no order at all, with unarmored skirmishers – poorer Greeks – mixed in with them, taking cover behind the shields of hoplites in an intermixed and largely unorganized formation.

Over time, the hoplite grows gradually in importance, with other warriors not vanishing from artwork or literature (Tyrtaeus, importantly) but being less prominent, but those lights remain scattered ‘here and there’ amidst the hoplites even well into the sixth century, with light infantry prominent on the battlefield even to the Persian Wars at the end of the archaic. Van Wees admits no regular formation for hoplites prior to the first explicit mention of such in text in 426 (Aristophanes, Babylonians, F. 72) and contends that intervals less than six feet (180cm!) would have been unworkable even in the classical period (op. cit. 185).

For van Wees, these formations do not rush into a collision and then the ‘shoving-match’ othismos, but rather charge to release the psychological pressure of the fear of battle (thus the Spartans, better disciplined, walking into contact)8 but then slow down to a stop eis doru (‘into spear’s reach’) to then jab with spears at each other with overhead strikes. Formation collapse is thus not a result of shoving, but rather the line of hoplites collapses due to psychological pressure and casualties (more the former than the latter).

And I should be clear at the outset: some of this is workable. But a lot of it is not.

As we’ve already seen, I think the idea that the hoplite panoply emerged for open-order skirmishing is simply not tenable: no one commits to open order or no-order skirmishing wearing heavy armor and using a large round shield (instead, globally, the most common ‘kit’ for this kind of fighting in metal-working societies is little or no armor, but relatively large oblong shields that can provide full coverage for the body from missiles). Van Wees insists that a hoplite could advance and retreat just as well wearing their heavier equipment as a light infantryman (op. cit., 171) and that is just…obviously not true. The man in 4-8kg of equipment (a ‘light’) is obviously going to be able to run down the man in 18kg of equipment (the hoplite). That is a real liability in a ‘Dead Birds‘ combat scenario because the ‘front’ moves so far forward and so far back: either side often mounts sudden advances which send the other side scurrying backwards – but if you are wearing 2-3 times as much kit as your mates, when your line scurries backwards to get out of range (and those lights aren’t sticking around for you, they’re unarmored and so in real danger of being instantly killed by close range javelin or arrow shots) you are going to fall behind and those enemy lights are going to catch you and all of the armor in the world isn’t going to save you in a fight outnumbered four-to-one.

And I think here is a good time to stop and talk about how hard it can be to interpret artwork and we can take for our example one of the most important pieces of evidence in all of this, the hoplite artwork on the Chigi Vase (c. 645 BC).

Via Wikimedia Commons, three images of the Chigi Vase’s hoplite scene (there is a second scene below), c. 645 BC. Use the flutist to keep your bearings as to how these images come together – there is only the one guy playing the flute (an aulos, technically). So from (our) left to right, we have a shield and some weapons on the ground and men looking like they’re gearing and running to join a battle line (bottom left), then we have the flutist, then a battle line (top) meeting another, with men in lines, spears raised and then (bottom right) we have a better view of the second battle line, with shields presented as overlapping and a second line of men coming behind it.

And the thing is almost every aspect of that evidence – which seems clear at first glance – is open to multiple interpretations, especially in the context of a two-decade old fight where no one wants to admit they might have been wrong. We can begin with the weapons: while orthodox scholars will point to a dense formation of hoplite-armed heavy infantry (with no light infantry in sight!) Hans van Wees and other heterodox scholars point to the fact that each hoplite here carries two spears, potentially with throwing loops and suggest that this two-spear configuration (which fades out by the end of the 600s) is indicative of hoplites still skirmishing.

And I want to stop for a minute and examine that point because I think it is suggestive of one of the problems I keep coming back to in these debates, because “having a throwing spear alongside a thrusting spear means you probably skirmish” is a position that cannot survive a working knowledge of ancient Mediterranean warfare much less warfare generally. After all, Roman heavy infantry famously carry two javelins (the pilum) and yet are very clearly shock heavy infantry.9 Likewise, in Spain among both Iberians and Celtiberians, a javelin (frequently of the soliferreum type, sometimes of other types) was a standard weapon to pair with the ubiquitous thrusting spear; we very frequently find them in pairs in grave deposits suggesting they were basically always carried one-and-one, yet Fernando Quesada Sanz has spent the last two decades arguing – persuasively – that Iberian and Celtiberian warriors fought frequently as ‘line infantry’ in a sort of shield wall.10 Likewise, we know that in certain periods, Gallic infantry carried javelins and no one would accuse the Gauls of generally operating like skirmish infantry. More broadly, history is full of examples of shock infantry that expected to shoot a single volley at close range right before closing into combat, be that Roman volley-and-charge with pila in the third century BC or post-gunpowder shock tactics like with the 17th century Highland Charge or the contemporary Swedish Gå–På (“go on”). It is significant that these hoplites still carry a throwing spear, but it absolutely does not make them skirmishers.

But the heterodox folks are right that there is a lot of interpretive difficulty here. Van Wees (op. cit.) wants to read the image as representing a single moment of combat, with some men fighting in the front, others holding back and still more gearing up in the ‘everyone do their own things’ Dead Birds style of battle, but of course one could just as easily read the image as chronological, showing the battle line forming up, then marching into battle (it’s a pity we don’t have more of the other side). On the other hand is the question of what to do with the fact that each battle line is shown in two ranks, one separated by a flutist, the other just by an open interval. The orthodox reading is that this is an indication of formation depth, a crucial component in their definition of the phalanx, whereas the heterodox note that there’s a separation here, no sign of shoving and so perhaps the second rank is well behind the first, a distant reserve. Everett Wheeler, in exasperation, pointed out once that contact infantry basically never fight without depth in just a single thin line and I tend to think he is right about that objection, but there is certainly no shoving othismos here.11 In terms of spacing, I read these soldiers are tightly spaced, indicating a close-order formation, but the heterodox will dismiss such closeness as artistic license, noting that soldiers are often drawn more tightly packed in artwork than they would have been in reality.

We might note that what we see here looks somewhat similar to something like the Bayeux Tapestry, which we know to depict a shield wall, but of course a chasm of time and art style separates the two, so this is hardly decisive.

Via Wikipedia (though I have cropped) the English shield-wall at Hastings (1066) as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry (c. 1070s). Note the one little archer fellow, drawn smaller than the heavy infantry around him (because they’re more important) expressing the idea of some English archers being present, although to go by our sources for the battle, not many (far more Norman archers).

For my own part, my reading of the Chigi Vase is closer to the orthodox one: those men are in close order and the second rank of each formation does imply depth even if the artist has created some space for us to see the flutist. I think what is being expressed here is a chronological sequence, showing the formation forming up, then advancing and finally coming into contact, likely showing us the moment of volley before the charge. In this sense it is actually similar to the chronological scroll of the Bayeux Tapestry, where many scenes ‘blend’ into each other. The fact that the opposing formation is also shown at least two depth suggests to me that depth – not a sequence of two widely separated lines – is intended. We’ll come back to definitions next week, but I would call the thing on the Chigi Vase a ‘phalanx’ of a sort (we’re going to see my definition of ‘phalanx’ is a bit broader than some). But as you can see everyone has their own interpretation and the chances of convincing anyone of anything – something that seems promising when you first look at it – are slim.

At the same time van Wees is fundamentally right about some things. Light infantry with bows and javelins do not go away in Archaic artwork, though they do diminish over time, from being perhaps half of all depicted figures in the early Archaic to only showing up infrequently in ones and twos by the end. That might indicate an actual reduction in their numbers, but a even a fairly casual reading of Herodotus suggests otherwise: they’re still there, but they’ve become less politically and socially important and so are less frequently depicted or described. So we need a model of archaic battle which allows for both hoplites and light infantry with ranged weapons to share the battlefield; the ‘all hoplite’ Archaic phalanx of the orthodox school will not do with the evidence.

Towards Better Models

Instead, we need to think with iron-age comparanda about how heavy infantry work in concert with lighter ranged infantry. One possible comparison, contemporary to the Greek archaic, is the warfare system dominant in the Near East at the time: Neo-Assyrian infantry working in matched pairs of shield-bearing contact infantry (with spears) and foot archers. As best we can tell (our evidence is not fantastic) these fellows were expected to set up relatively static battlefield formations, with the shield-bearers providing both protection from ranged attack (with their large but thin shields) and also from sudden cavalry or contact infantry attack (with their spears). The archers could then safely develop ‘fire.’12 This has the advantage of being contemporary and there are lines in Tyrtaeus and artwork that support the idea of light infantry sheltering behind the shields of hoplites (van Wees, op. cit., 166-77 assembles the relevant examples). But that Neo-Assyrian paired infantry was also, from what we know, a quite well organized, professional standing infantry force which is not very much like our hoplites and the status distinction ran the other way (it was archery, not contact warfare, which seems to have been the higher status way to fight) and nothing gives us the sense that hoplites are fighting with lights in something like assigned pairs save perhaps some hint for the Spartans towards the end of the Persian Wars (op. cit. 182) and even then it is hardly strong evidence. I think we need to be aware that this combat model was, certainly by the late archaic if not earlier, available to the Greeks (at least some of them), but I do not think it was how they organized.

Another potential comparandum here is the early medieval shield walls I’ve alluded to before. I thought I would have to write a whole big paragraph about this, but actually Paul Bardunais walked through exactly this comparison and reconstruction, using a lot of knowledge gleaned from reenactment and safe combat sparring experiments and I don’t think I can improve very much on it. He presents this ‘hybrid’ shield wall as having a few ranks of heavy infantry, in relatively close order (we’ll get to intervals blow) at the front forming a protective wall, with light infantry skirmishers deployed behind. They might equally be able – with some difficulty – to filter through the ranks (since ‘close order’ does not mean ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’) so your skirmishers could move out in advance to screen the shield wall or drop back behind it if pressed. In this system, the shield wall becomes a kind of ‘base’ from which skirmishers can operate and since, as noted, hoplites are still often carrying a throwing spear of their own, it can also project some amount of ranged threat.

I think this is a workable mental model, though it seems like it may need a bit of modification to fully fit the evidence. I want to be clear that isn’t me saying it is wrong. Greek artists in the archaic tend to show skirmishers intermixed with hoplites when they show them, but it is really tricky to know how to gauge that. As you are presumably seeing from the artwork I’m showing here, going from a stylized 2D representation of a formation to understanding the actual formation is tricky and artists often have to distort, compressing intervals (very frequent in medieval artwork where formations we know were not shoulder-to-shoulder get compressed until they look it, cf. also the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius for the same effect), removing depth (so showing only a single rank) and so on. Likewise, my reading of Tyrtaeus’ description of hoplites in battle suggests that while there are certainly light infantrymen running about, there is an offensiveness to the ideal hoplite, who doesn’t just stand under ranged fire but gets in close to the enemy that speaks to me of something closer to what Bardunais terms a ‘bludgeon’ shield wall (which he associated with the classical period).

By fierce deeds let him teach himself to fight,
and not stand out of fire – he has a shield –
but get in close, engage and stab with lance
or sword, and strike his adversary down.
Plant foot by foeman’s foot, press shield on shield,
thrust helm at helm and tangle plume with plume,
opposing breast to breast: that’s how you fight,
with the long lance or sword-grip in your hand.
– Tyrtaeus fr. 11 West (trans. M.L. West)

I might suggest a third comparative model: warfare in pre-gunpowder coastal West Africa, within the range of the tsetse fly. While north of this region, in the Sahel (too dry for the tsetse fly), warfare was dominated by cavalry, the tsetse fly’s sleeping sickness is lethal to horses and so warfare further south along the coast (along the Gulf of Guinea, down through to the Congo River) was an infantry affair. Armies here consisted of two kinds of troops, a broad (lower status) militia force which composed the bulk of the army and were armed as relatively light skirmishers and then a ‘core’ of better trained professional warriors maintained by local kings who formed the backbone of the army and were better equipped (notably including large shields, although not much body armor). A battle between two armies might begin with the engagement of skirmishers, intended to soften up the enemy force (and perhaps screen the higher status warriors). But at the right moment those higher status warriors with their large shields and contact weapons would charge forward in a dense mass, ideally scattering the enemy (who would have their own ‘base’ of heavier warriors too), thus winning the victory. Here the battlefield is open enough for the skirmishing troops to work in and around the ‘heavies’ who initially function as a defensive bulwark to the army but then at the right moment are deployed offensively.13

undefined
Via Wikimedia Commons, an African warrior with weapons, including a several iron-tipped javelins and a large shield, c. 1641. This warrior was painted fighting in Brazil, but was likely originally from the Kongo people.

Now I want to immediately caveat this model (I’ve spent so much time harrying van Wees for not doing so, I can hardly not do so myself), there are some major differences. The first is armor: this West African system had large shields (generally oblong, more useful against missiles, rather than round) but not much body armor and that’s a really big difference. They do have iron weapons, so those shields are necessary to limit the lethality of the skirmish and that professional core of contact infantry might wield deadly iron swords and iron-tipped spears (just like early hoplites). However, whereas warfare in Greece (and much of Eurasia) was about control of land, warfare in this part of West Africa was frequently about control of people (really, control of laborers) and as a result there is an emphasis in the local kit on capture weapons like clubs, not because these guys are primitive, but because they want to take enemies alive as captives. Those are some pretty meaningful differences and so I am by no means suggesting sub-Sahelian West African pre-gunpowder warfare as a 1-to-1 of early Archaic hoplite warfare: instead it is just another tool we can use to think about how people might combine light infantry and something like a shield wall.

But you can see how this model might work, especially if we work in elements of Bardunais’ model as well. Towards the close of the 8th century, the wealthier Greeks begin to start equipping themselves as ‘specialist’ contact infantry (albeit still carrying perhaps a single throwing weapon), probably suggesting that ‘contact infantry’ (as distinct from skirmisher) was a role that had already existed and was generally the higher status role (as, frankly, Homer clearly seems to think). Fairly quickly these fellows end up grouped together rather than mixed up indiscriminately with the skirmishers, either in a single block as the core of the army (the ‘West African’ model) or as a line in the front of it (the ‘Early Medieval’ model), but still working hand in glove with the skirmishers. As these fellows group up, the equipment that makes the most sense in that context – what will eventually be the hoplite kit – begins to predominate.

By the late 600s, we see the last of the throwing spears carried by hoplites in artwork drop away, which suggests that these fellows are now exclusively contact infantry. That in turn suggests to me that ‘shock action’ has likely been the decisive part of the fight – or at least perceived as such – for some time. As noted above, I suspect that one retained throwing spear was not for the skirmish, but rather for volley-and-charge tactics. Instead I suspect this body of heavy infantry has been, probably for most of the 600s, been being used a bit like those West African troops: screened by the skirmishers, providing protection to them but then being expected to close, hurl spears and engage for a decisive shock action. The decline of throwing spears may indicate that the pre-shock skirmish phase is starting to be truncated to the point that it is no longer even useful to carry a second spear you aren’t going to get a chance to throw at a good target. That ‘at a good target’ may be operative: another hoplite in a shield wall is not all that vulnerable to a single thrown spear, but a skirmishing ‘light’ might be – as the pre-shock skirmish phase gets shorter and more and more focus goes into the direct clash of hoplites, that might lead to the diminished use of a simple throwing spear.14 Light infantry is still doing things, but their diminished place in artwork may represent their increasingly subordinate role, that by c. 600 or perhaps 550, an ‘offensive shield wall’ composed of hoplites is understood to be the decisive component of battle (albeit screened and supported by ‘lights’).

That model of Archaic warfare puts me more or less in the middle between the ‘strong’ gradualism of van Wees et al. and the ‘strong’ orthodox position, but I think it best fits the evidence we have.

But that leaves a fairly big pair of questions, because you’ll notice in all of this I have avoided using a very important word: the phalanx. We need to push into the classical period – where our sources at last get decent – and ask what is a phalanx and how does it function? Which is where we will turn next week.

sovay: (Lord Peter Wimsey: passion)
[personal profile] spatch and I have been married for twelve years. A round dozen of anniversary gifts looks as though it adds up to the woven road of silk. Here we are still, intertwined and traveling.
Music:: The Mountain Goats, "Fishing Boat"
rydra_wong: Lee Miller photo showing two women wearing metal fire masks in England during WWII. (Default)
Largely the same as before:

Currently trying to support a friend in a Very Bad Situation and it's desperately anxiety-inducing and my brain is trying to eat itself, which also makes me less useful as support, which is bad.

So if anyone would like to ask or discuss anything about Prophet or Dark Souls or IWTV or climbing or, you know, any of the somewhat cheering topics I sometimes ramble about, PLEASE DO. "More of a comment than a question" questions also very welcome.

I cannot guarantee replies in a timely or consistent manner (because of the Situation and also the bad state of my brain) but it would be deeply appreciated nonetheless.


Except that THANK FUCK my friend is now out of the Very Bad Situation (and please let him remain so, please please please).

My brain is just trying to eat itself because it's prone to doing that and it's been a very very hard year (and I'm having yet another IC flare-up, joy).

The whole “Are there weird electric fields at the surface of water droplets” question is not getting any easier to understand. I last wrote about this topic here). There are several subsidiary questions that go off in different directions: does unusual chemistry actually happen at air-water interfaces (and is this more prominent, as you might expect if true, in small droplets that are mostly surface area?) Or are these reports (mostly) experimental artifacts? If it does happen, what’s the mechanism? Does it have to do with unusually high electric fields (and field gradients) as some have proposed, or is it something else? Is it specific to air-water interfaces, or does it happen in the vacuum as well? And as for the later, how about under mass spec conditions (with electric charges all over the place?)

This latest paper will not douse the flames. They’re using a technique called “vibrational sum frequency generation” spectroscopy which seems well suited to studying surface phenomena. The technique probes changes in the OH stretching band in water’s IR spectrum, and the wavenumber values you get are well known to be correlated with local electric field strength. The authors take pains to go into detail about what is meant by “electric field strength”, to their credit - is it from a roughly static arrangement of water molecule dipoles at the surface, or is it the sum of a bunch of dynamic fluctuations (in the hydrogen-bonding network,e etc.)? But no matter how you get there, the arguing is most vigorous over the idea that such fields can be large enough to change chemical reactivity, and there are very passionate advocates on both sides of that question.

The authors are studying extended thin films of water by SFG spectroscopy, and they make predictions of what they should see for the OH stretches under different conditions. Specifically, there should be a red-shifted zone under any sort of relatively high and relatively persistent electric field at the surface (as opposed to the spectra of bulk water), and they go into detail about what the different sorts of fields (and mechanisms for generating them) might mean to the spectra.

Now, people have of course tried to estimate these field strengths before, through other techniques, and some measurements come in at 10 to 20 MV/cm, which is pretty strong stuff. Values of this size, the authors note here, should be very apparent in these SFG measurements (and you can indeed see things shift around dramatically in SFG with small amounts of ionic solutes in water or with changes in pH). But they don’t see it!

These findings indicate that exceptionally large interfacial fields, as sometimes invoked to explain microdroplet reactivity, are not supported by our SFG results. Within the framework of vibrational SFG, we conclude that there is no evidence for such fields at the neat air−water interface. The interpretation of interfacial electric field-driven catalysis in microdroplet experiments must therefore be reconsidered in light of the absence of spectroscopic field signatures at water interfaces.

Yeah, it seems as if it should be. But as the authors note, you don’t have to reach for electric field explanations to deal with unusual interface chemistry - there could be altered solvation chemistry, redox pathways, evaporative concentration and other factors at work, and these aren’t mutually exclusive, either. So this certainly doesn’t mean that all the reports of interesting surface chemistry are wrong - but people may have been reaching for the wrong way to explain them. Let’s see how this goes over!

Posted by Jimmy Maher


This article tells part of the story of Chris Roberts.

With the Wing Commander movie having gone down in flames, there was nothing left for Chris Roberts and the rest of Digital Anvil to do but go back to making games. This undoubtedly pleased Microsoft, which had been waiting for some return on its generous investment in what it had thought was a new games studio for more than two years now. Yet Microsoft must have been considerably less pleased by the actual states of the game projects being undertaken by Digital Anvil. For they rather belied Roberts’s repeated assurances that doing the special effects for the movie wouldn’t affect the games at all. Of the five game projects that had been begun before the movies came calling, Robert Rodriguez’s Tribe had ended with his departure and Highway Knight had also been quietly abandoned. Two of the other projects — the real-time-strategy game Conquest and the crazily ambitious alternative-life-in-a-box Freelancer — were spinning their wheels with no firm timetable.

That did at least leave Starlancer to stand out as a rare example of good sense. At the height of his brother’s movie mania, Erin Roberts had flown to Britain, to place his Starlancer design documents in the hands of a new outfit called Warthog, located in the Robertses’ old hometown of Manchester. The first tangible product to result from Microsoft’s investment in Digital Anvil would thus come from a sub-contractor rather than from the studio itself.

Starlancer shipped in April of 2000, whereupon it became clear that, while Warthog had done a competent job with it, they hadn’t been able to make it feel fresh or exciting. “An interest-killing combination of ennui and déjà vu snakes through the whole endeavor,” wrote Computer Gaming World. In terms of presentation, it most resembled a higher-resolution version of Wing Commander II, the last game in the series before digitized human actors entered the picture. It too made do with straightforward mission briefings and the occasional computer-generated cutscene. By no means ought this to have been an automatically bad thing. Yet Starlancer lacked the spark that might have let it challenge the previous year’s Freespace 2 for the title of the 1990s space sim’s crowning glory. It sold like the afterthought it felt like.

In the meantime, Chris Roberts had picked up the pieces after the disappointment of the Wing Commander movie’s reception and unleashed his prodigious capacity for enthusiasm upon the Freelancer project. As he told gaming magazines and websites throughout 1999 and 2000, his goal was to create a “detailed, dynamic, living world” — or rather a galaxy, in which you could travel from planet to planet in your customized spaceship, doing just about anything you could imagine.

Freelancer is way beyond anything I’ve done in the Wing Commander universe. It’s going to be a fully functioning, living, breathing universe with a whole ecosystem. You can see the promise in something like Privateer, but this is geometrically [exponentially?] beyond that game. It’s like building a city. [?] Compared to Privateer, the scope, the dynamic universe  — it’s all 3D — is much more interesting. There’s much more intrigue the player can get involved in. Everything’s rules-based versus scripted. Commerce happens, trade happens, and piracy happens because of what’s going on in the game universe and not because of scripted events.

Freelancer could be played alone, but would well and truly come alive only when played online, as described by Computer Gaming World:

Freelancer’s multiplayer game will be a massively-multiplayer universe where thousands of players will be able to fly around and interact with each other in a variety of capacities. Digital Anvil envisions a dynamic, socially-oriented game that features the single-player game’s politics and clans as a backdrop. This multiplayer game will also permit you to ally with one of the main houses in the game, or go it alone.

Perhaps the coolest potential feature is the ability to own your own base…

Any of you reading this article who have been following the more recent career of Chris Roberts will readily recognize the themes here. Roberts is not a designer with a huge number of grand conceptual ideas, but once he has one he likes, he holds onto it like a dog does a bone.

Alas, by the summer of 2000 Microsoft was finally running out of patience. Seeing Digital Anvil’s lack of concrete progress toward finishing Freelancer as their fourth anniversary as a studio approached, the mega-corp was becoming restless. Even Erin Roberts seemed to be losing patience with his brother. With Chris’s acquiescence, he set up his own studio in Austin, called Fever Pitch Studios, to finish Digital Anvil’s long back-burnered real-time-strategy game Conquest. It would emerge in August of 2001 under the name of Conquest: Frontier Wars, the second Digital Anvil game that had had to leave its place of birth in order to come to fruition. It would prove no more successful than Starlancer, drowning in a sea of similar games.

Well before then, Microsoft reluctantly concluded that Chris Roberts, the whole reason it had invested so heavily in Digital Anvil in the first place, was the primary reason that the studio couldn’t finish a single game on its own. Still not wanting to raise a scandal the year before the Xbox launched to signal an even deeper commitment to games, it “offered” to buy Roberts out, a transaction which would give it a majority stake in the studio. On December 5, 2000, the press release went out: “Microsoft has reached a preliminary agreement to buy Digital Anvil. The acquisition will strengthen our commitment to producing top-quality PC and Xbox titles.” Roberts was to be given the face-saving ongoing role of “creative consultant” on Freelancer, but the reality was that he had been fired from his own company for his inability to keep to a schedule and hold to a plan. His time at Digital Anvil had resulted in one commercially failed and critically panned movie, plus two games that had had to be sub-contracted out to other developers in order to get them finished; both of them as well had been or would become commercial failures. Yet Chris Roberts walked away from Digital Anvil much wealthier than when he had gone in. He told the press that he would “take some time off to kind of rethink what I want to do in the interactive-entertainment field.” When he was done thinking, he would decide to go back to focusing on movies instead of games.

In the meantime, Microsoft installed a new management team down in Austin, with orders to sort through the unfocused sprawl that Freelancer had become and find out if there was a game in there that was worth saving. Perhaps surprisingly, they decided that there was, and turned the project over to a producer named Phil Wattenberger and a lead designer named Jörg Neumann, both Origin Systems alumni who had worked on the old Wing Commander games. At Microsoft’s behest, they steered Freelancer in a slightly more casual direction, making the player’s ship easily — in fact, optimally — controllable using a mouse alone. The mouse-driven approach had actually originated during Roberts’s tenure, but there it had been tied to a customizable and upgradable “Neuronet,” an onboard artificial intelligence that was supposed to let you vibe-sim your way to glory. That got jettisoned, as did many other similarly unwieldy complications. The massively-multiplayer living galaxy, for example, became a single-player or locally multiplayer one that wasn’t quite so living as once envisioned.

When it finally shipped in March of 2003, Freelancer garnered unexpectedly strong reviews; Computer Gaming World called it “the best Chris Roberts space sim Chris Roberts didn’t actually make.” But it wasn’t rewarded commensurately in the marketplace. Even with its newfound accessibility, it was hard for it to shake the odor of an anachronism of the previous decade among gamers in general; meanwhile the dwindling number of TIE Fighter and Freespace enthusiasts had a tendency to reject it for being irredeemably dumbed-down. Instead of marking the beginning of a new era for the space sim, it went down in history as a belated coda: the very last space sim to be put out by a major publisher with real promotional efforts and the hope — unrealized in this case — of relatively high sales behind it.

As for Digital Anvil: it was shut down by Microsoft once and for all in November of 2005, after completing just one more game, a painfully unoriginal Xbox shoot-em-up called Brute Force. Two games finished in almost nine years, neither of them strong sellers; the most remarkable thing about Digital Anvil is that Microsoft allowed it to continue for as long as it did.

By the time his games studio shuffled off this mortal coil, Chris Roberts had been living in Hollywood for a number of years. And he had found a way to do pretty well for himself there, albeit in a role that he had never anticipated going in.


The decade that Chris Roberts spent in Hollywood is undoubtedly the least understood period of his career today, among both his detractors and his partisans. It is no secret why: documentation of his activities during the decade in question is far thinner on the ground than during any other time. Roberts arrived in Hollywood as just another semi-anonymous striver, not as the “game god” who had given the world Wing Commander. No one in Tinsel Town was lining up to interview him, and no one in the press paid all that much attention to what he got up to. Still, we can piece together a picture of his trajectory in which we can have reasonable confidence, even if some of the details remain hazy.

Roberts moved to Hollywood in the spring of 2001 with his windfall from the Digital Anvil buyout burning a hole in his pocket. Notwithstanding the fiasco that had been Wing Commander: The Movie, he still harbored serious ambitions of becoming a director, probably assuming that his ability to finance at least part of the budget of any film he was placed in charge of would give him a leg up. He even brought a preliminary script to show around town. It was called The American Knight, being a cinematic reinterpretation of another computer game: in this case, Origin Systems’s 1995 game Wings of Glory, which was itself yet another variation on the Wing Commander theme, dealing with the life of a World War I fighter ace in the air and on the ground. In an even more marked triumph of hope over experience, Roberts also nursed a dream of making a live-action Wing Commander television series. He founded a production company of his own, called Point of No Return Films, to forward both of these agendas. January of 2002 found Point of No Return at the Sundance Film Festival; according to E! Online, they “threw an after-hours shindig that attracted 250 revelers, with Treach and De La Soul among them.” It really did help Roberts’s cause to have some money to splash around.

But Roberts soon found that the people he met in Hollywood knew Wing Commander, if they knew it at all, only as a misbegotten flop of a film. And they weren’t much more interested in his World War I movie. They were, on the other hand, always ready to talk backroom business with someone who had some number of millions in his pocket, as Roberts did. What followed was a gradual but inexorable pivot away from being a filmmaker and toward being a film enabler, one of those who secured the cash that the creative types needed to do their thing. A watershed was reached in March of 2002, when Point of No Return Films morphed into Ascendant Pictures, whose focus was to be “improving film value in foreign territories (presales), attracting top talent and film projects, and generating equity investment in films.” It wasn’t the romantic life of an auteur, but it did show that Chris Roberts was learning to talk the talk of back-office Hollywood, aided and abetted by a network of more experienced hands that he was assembling around him. Among them was a German immigrant named Ortwin Freyermuth, who would become the most important and enduring business partner of Roberts’s post-Origin career.

Ortwin Freyermuth, right, discusses a director’s cut of Das Boot with the film’s original editor Hannes Nikel circa 1997. Like Chris Roberts, Freyermuth really does love movies.

Freyermuth was renowned in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms of Hollywood for having pioneered an incredibly useful funding model for American films. It hinged on a peculiarity of German tax law that had been intended to encourage local film-making but instead wound up becoming a demonstration of the law of unintended consequences, played out on an international stage. The original rule, as implemented by the German Ministry of Finance in the 1970s, stated that any money that a German resident invested into a film production could be immediately deducted from his or her taxable income as if it was a total loss. It was hoped that this would encourage more well-heeled Germans to invest in homegrown movies, in order to combat the creeping mono-culture of Hollywood and ensure that Germans would have films to see that dealt with contemporary life in their own country. In time, this well-meaning measure would produce just the opposite result.

Enter Ortwin Freyermuth, a lawyer who enrolled at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the mid-1980s to study international copyright law. When he stumbled across the German law I’ve just described in the course of his studies, he noted with no small excitement what it didn’t say: that the films that were deemed eligible for the tax deduction had to be German films. He arranged to fund the 1990 movie The Neverending Story II almost exclusively with German money. This first experiment in the field was not so egregious compared to what would come later, given that the movie was also shot in Germany, albeit using mostly American actors. Then again, it was only a proof of concept. Freyermuth co-founded Capella Films thereafter to make German financing a veritable way of life for Hollywood. “In the best Hollywood tradition,” wrote Variety in 1994, “the company is rife with layers of relationships, both contractual and personal, here and abroad, such that an organizational chart, if one existed, would have more lines and intersections than fractal math.” Such byzantine structures, which had a way of obscuring realities upon which people might otherwise look askance, were standard operating procedure for Freyermuth.

The Freyermuth model spread throughout Hollywood as the 1990s wore on. It seemed like a win-win, both to those in California and to the Germans who were suddenly funding so many of their movies. In some cases, you could just borrow the money you wanted to invest, use your investment to reduce your taxable income dramatically, then pay off the loan from the returns a year or two later. And there was nothing keeping you from doing this over and over, year after year. Large private-equity funds emerged in Germany, pooling the contributions of hundreds of shareholders to invest them in movies, 80 percent of them made outside of the country. These Medienfonds became as ordinary as any other form of financial planning for Herr und Frau Deutschland. They were great for people on the verge of retirement: make an investment just before retiring, then enjoy the return afterward when your tax rate was lower. They were great for spreading out and reducing the tax liability that accompanied a major windfall, great for parents wishing to move money into the hands of their grown children without getting hit by high inheritance taxes. For Hollywood, meanwhile, they turned into a money spigot like no other. Insiders took to calling it “stupid German money,” because the people behind the spigot tended to take it in stride even if the films they were investing in never turned much of a profit. The real point of the investment was the tax relief; any additional profits that emerged were just gravy. The highest tax bracket in Germany at the time was about 51.5 percent. If you were in this tax bracket, then as long as you got at least half of your money back, you came out ahead.

The sheer ubiquity of these media funds placed the German people’s elected representatives in Berlin in a delicate situation; a growing number of their own constituents were benefiting from the current state of the law. Nevertheless, in 1999 the Ministry of Finance made an attempt to stop the madness. It revised the rules to bring them into closer alignment with those that governed other, superficially similar European incentive schemes: to qualify, a film now had to either be made in Germany at least partially or have a German copyright owner. (A law of this sort in Luxembourg was the reason that the Wing Commander movie had been shot in that country.) But stupid German money was now too entrenched as a modus operandi for people on either side of the Atlantic to walk away from it without putting up a fight. Artful dodgers like Ortwin Freyermuth realized that they could sell the copyright to a Hollywood production to a German media fund, whilst inserting into the sales contract a right to buy it back at a future date for an agreed-upon price. Far from being hobbled by the change in law, they realized that they could use it to charge a premium for the tax relief they were providing to the citizens of Germany. For example, the Germans paid $94 million to Paramount Pictures for the copyright to the 2001 videogame adaptation Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. When they sold it back, the Germans were paid only $83.8 million. The tax benefits were so great that it was still worth it. By now, half of all the foreign money pouring into Hollywood was coming from the single country of Germany: $1.1 billion in 2004 alone.

Despite their ongoing popularity among the well-heeled classes, the media funds became more and more controversial in Germany as the young millennium wore on. Germany was, it was more and more loudly complained, effectively subsidizing Hollywood using money that ought to have been going to roads, schools, hospitals, and defense. Stefan Arndt, the producer of the rather wonderful German movies Run Lola Run and Good Bye Lenin!, noted that he had had to go outside his homeland to finance them because his fellow citizens all had their gazes fixed so firmly on Hollywood. “It’s crazy,” he said. “Every other country in the world ties strings to its film subsidies.” Even a group of hardcore Tolkien fans sleeping in line the night of the premiere of The Return of the King, the third film in Peter Jackson’s disproportionately German-funded Lord of the Rings trilogy, thought the situation a little bit absurd when they were told about it: “I don’t think that’s good, because I think that the three films carry themselves, that they put in enough money, that it doesn’t necessarily have to be financed with taxes.”

Whether we wish to see him as a devil tempting a young Faust named Chris Roberts, or just as a savvy man of business who found a mentee he deemed well worth his time, Ortwin Freyermuth showed our once and future game developer how this particular game was played. In April of 2004, Roberts was credited onscreen for the first time in a finished wide-release film as an executive producer. As if to underscore the transition he had made from creator to enabler, it was not a terribly Chris Roberts sort of movie. The Punisher was based on a Marvel Comics character, but it was no family-friendly superhero movie either. It was a grim, dark, and brutally violent revenge fantasy that made Dirty Harry look cute and cuddly. “At the end,” wrote the late great Roger Ebert in his review, “we feel battered down and depressed, emotions we probably don’t seek from comic-book heroes.” Whatever else you can say about Wing Commander, it does care deeply about the nobler human virtues which The Punisher submerges under fountains of blood, even if Chris Roberts is often irredeemably clumsy at presenting them.

Although The Punisher may have had a B-movie attitude, it wasn’t a B-movie, any more than Wing Commander had been. It was made for a budget of $33 million, with a cast that included John Travolta. (Admittedly, he sleepwalks through his performance as if he can barely be bothered to learn his lines, but one can’t have everything.) However joyless fuddy-duddies like yours truly and Roger Ebert may find movies like this, there was and is a market for them. The Punisher earned $20 million more than it had cost to make at the box office even before the long tail of cable-television showings and home-video rentals was factored into the equation.

Chris Roberts was off and running as a backstage Hollywood player. At the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2005, his name could be seen alongside those of George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh among the producer credits for The Jacket, an arty but flawed science-fiction film starring Adrien Brody, Kiera Knightley, Kris Kristofferson, and the future Agent 007 Daniel Craig, with a soundtrack by Brian Eno. Again, these names are not the stuff of B-movies.

After The Jacket, Ascendant Pictures graduated from being an ancillary source of funding to becoming one of the primary production houses behind four reasonably high-profile independent features during 2005 and 2006. None of Lord of WarThe Big WhiteAsk the Dust, or Lucky Number Slevin has gone down in film history as a deathless classic. Yet all of them could boast of A-list actors: Nicholas Cage, Jared Leto, Ethan Hawke, Robin Williams, Holly Hunter, Woody Harrelson, Colin Farrell, Selma Hayek, Donald Sutherland, Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley, and Bruce Willis can all be found amongst their casts.

A you have probably guessed, all of these films were funded primarily with German money. The aggregate return on them was middling at best. Lord of War and Lucky Number Slevin did pretty well; The Big White and Ask the Dust flopped miserably. As already noted, though, the fact that most of their investors were more concerned about the tax benefits than a more conventional return on investment made this less of an issue than it might otherwise have been. Then, too, like mutual funds on the conventional stock market, the German media funds put money into many movies in order to avoid a single point of failure. A film that became an unexpected hit could easily offset two or three duds.

Chris Roberts had arrived in the Hollywood inner circle — perhaps still the outer edge of the inner circle, but still. He had come a long way from that nerdy bedroom coder who had bumped into an artist from Origin Systems one day in an Austin games shop. Now he was living in a luxury condo in the Hollywood Hills, with one live-in girlfriend and a former one stalking him. (Oddly, it would be the latter whom he would wind up marrying.) I’ve been pretty hard on Roberts in these articles, and I’m afraid I’m going to have to be so again — harder than ever, in fact — before we’re finished. But two things he most definitely is not are stupid or lazy. I wrote at the outset of this pair of articles that few people have ever stretched so thin a thread of creative talent as far as he has. Let me amend that bit of snark now by acknowledging that he could never have done so if he wasn’t smart and driven in a very different sort of way. And let me make it crystal clear as well that nothing I’ve written about Roberts’s tenure in Hollywood so far should necessarily lead us to criticize him in any but the most tempered of ways. In exploiting a loophole in German tax law for all it was worth, he wasn’t doing anything that tons of others — a full-fledged cottage industry worth of them, on both sides of the Atlantic — weren’t also doing. But there’s more to the story in his case. Chris Roberts and Ortwin Freyermuth were actually near the center of one of the biggest financial scandals in modern German history, where dubious ethics crossed over into outright fraud.

Hollywood accounting is never simple. In that spirit, Ascendant Pictures spun off another company not long after its own founding. The wholly-owned subsidiary Rising Star Pictures was created to “closely cooperate with VIP Medienfonds Film and Entertainment”; this was the largest of all the German media funds, which collected almost half a billion Euros every year from its shareholders. Rising Star’s purpose was to be VIP’s anointed agent on the left side of the Atlantic, directing that fire hose of stupid German money around Hollywood. This meant the films of Ascendant, yes, but also those of others, to which Rising Star presumably charged a brokering fee. The final incarnation of Ascendant’s website, which is for some reason still extant, claims that Rising Star was involved in the funding of fourteen films in 2003 alone. A version of their site from March of 2005, accessible today via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, heavily stresses the relationship with VIP, calling Rising Star the latter’s “primary placement agent.” This was a big, big deal, given the sheer quantity of money that VIP was taking in and paying out; more than $250 million came into Rising Star from VIP during 2003. The speed and scale of Chris Roberts’s rise in Hollywood becomes even more impressive when figures like these are taken into consideration.

Andreas Schmid

Unfortunately, Andreas Schmid, the head of VIP, was arrested for tax fraud in Cologne in October of 2005. It seemed that he had not been putting most of the money he collected into movies with even ostensibly German owners, as the law required. At regular intervals, Schmid dutifully gave his shareholders a list of films into which he claimed to have invested their contributions. In actuality, however, VIP used only 20 percent of their money for its advertised purpose of funding movies. Schmid deposited the remaining 80 percent into his bank, either parking it there to earn long-term interest or sending it elsewhere from there, to places where he thought he could get a higher rate of return. He then sent fake earnings reports to his shareholders. By defrauding both the government and his clients in this way, he could make a lot of money for himself and his partners in crime. There is reason to believe that Chris Roberts and Ortwin Freyermuth were among said partners, working the scam with him through Rising Star. I’ll return to that subject shortly.

For now, though, know that Schmid may have gotten so greedy because he knew the jig was soon to be up. Rumors were swirling in both Hollywood and Berlin throughout 2005 that the German Ministry of Finance had just about had enough of watching its tax money fly out of the country. The VIP Media scandal proved the last straw, if one was needed. In November of 2005, just one month after Schmid’s arrest, it was announced that blanket tax write-offs for film investments of any stripe were a thing of the past. Going forward, Hollywood would have to find another golden goose.

Even if they weren’t in on the fix, so to speak, the arrest of Schmid and the elimination of their primary funding mechanism could only have had a deleterious effect on Ascendant Pictures. Just when they had seemed to be hitting the big time, the ground had shifted beneath their feet. Those films that were already paid for by Germans could still be made, but there would be no more like them. The last Ascendant movie from the salad days to emerge from the pipeline was Outlander, their most expensive one ever and arguably also their worst one yet; not released until 2008 due to a whole host of difficulties getting it done, it managed to lose $40 million on a $47 million budget.

Deprived of the golden eggs, Ascendant blundered from lowlight to lowlight. They had to renege on a promise to Kevin Costner to line up the financing for a movie called Taming Ben Taylor, about “a grouchy, divorced man who refuses to sell his failing vineyard to the golf course next door.” Costner, who had been so excited about the movie that he had co-written the screenplay himself, sued Ascendant for $8 million for breach of contract; the case was settled in March of 2008 under undisclosed terms.

The first and only film that Ascendant helped to fund without German money only served to advertise how far down they had come in the world. Keeping with the golf theme, the low-rent Caddyshack ripoff Who’s Your Caddy?, which made Wing Commander look like Hamlet, was released in 2007 and failed to earn back its $7 million budget. It’s best remembered today for an anecdotal report that Bill Clinton loved it. By this point, Ascendant was little more than Chris Roberts and Ortwin Freyermuth; everyone else had jumped ship. (Freyermuth seems genuinely fond of Roberts. He has stuck with him through thick and thin.) The company would nominally continue to exist for another three years, but would shepherd no more movies to completion during that time. Its final notices in the Hollywood trade press were in association with Black Water Transit, a locus of chaos, conflict, and dysfunction that culminated in a film so incoherent that it would never be released.

Over in Germany, Andreas Schmid was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison in November of 2007. Yet the fallout from the VIP scandal was still ongoing. Shortly after his conviction in criminal court, 250 former shareholders in his fund, from whom the German government was aggressively demanding the taxes they ought to have paid earlier, launched a civil lawsuit against Schmid and the UniCredit Bank of Munich, where he had been depositing the money he claimed was being used to fund movies. The case hinged on a single deceptively simple question: had the information that Schmid sent to his shareholders in the reports issued by his fund been knowingly falsified? Some of the documents from these court proceedings, which would be decided in favor of the plaintiffs on December 30, 2011, can be accessed online at the German Ministry of Justice. I’ve spent some time going over them in the hope of learning more about the role played by Roberts and Freyermuth.

It’s been a challenge because the documents in question are not the trial transcripts, transcripts of witness interviews, nor the detailed defense and prosecution briefs one might wish to have. They are rather strictly procedural documents, used by the court to schedule its sessions, outline the arguments being made before it, and handle the other logistics of the trial. Nonetheless, they contain some tantalizing tidbits that point more in the direction of Roberts and Freyermuth as co-conspirators with Schmid than as his innocent victims. I’ll tell you now what I’ve been able to glean from them as a non-lawyer and non-accountant. I’ve also made them available for download from this site, for any readers who might happen to have a more nuanced command of the German language and German law than I do.

The claimants in the lawsuit show great interest in Ascendant’s daughter company Rising Star, which they believe had no legitimate reason for existing at all, a judgment which is confirmed by the court in a preliminary draft of the final ruling. A document dated June 27, 2008, contains the startling charge that Rising Star “never produced films, but were merely an intermediary layer used for concealment,”[1]Diese produzierten nie Filme, sondern waren lediglich eine zur Verschleierung eingeschaltete Zwischenebene. citing emails written by Chris Roberts and Ortwin Freyermuth to Andreas Schmid between 2003 and 2005 that have been submitted into evidence. (Sadly, they are not included among these papers.) Another document, dated May 15, 2009, calls Rising Star “an artificially imposed layer.”[2]Eine künstlich dazwischen geschaltete Ebene. The final judgment concludes that Rising Star was an essential conduit of the fraud. What with Rising Star being the “the primary placement agency for VIP,” as was acknowledged on the Ascendant website, all of the money passed through it. But instead of putting the entirety of the money into movies, it only used 20 percent of it for that purpose, funneling the rest of it back to the UniCredit Bank of Munich, Andreas Schmid’s co-defendant in the shareholder lawsuit. Even the 20 percent that stayed in Hollywood was placed with other production companies that took over the responsibility of overseeing the actual movies. Rising Star, in other words, was nothing but a shell company, a false front for getting the money from the investment fund into Schmid’s bank.

Both Roberts and Freyermuth were interviewed at least once, presumably in the United States, by investigators from the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office; this must have been done in the run-up to Schmid’s earlier, criminal trial. They are described here as witnesses rather than defendants, yet the facts from their testimony that are cited here leave one wondering why that should be the case. From a document dated May 15, 2009: “The structure provided by VIP was a ‘pro forma transaction,’ solely intended to achieve a certain tax advantage. This was also explained by witness Freyermuth.”[3]Die von VIP vorgegebene Struktur sei ein „Pro-Forma-Geschäft“ gewesen, alleine mit der Zielsetzung einen gewissen Steuervorteil zu erreichen. Dies habe auch der Zeuge Freyermuth so erläutert. The claimants cite the testimony of Roberts and Freyermuth as evidence that “the fund managers therefore instructed their American partners to submit inflated estimates.”[4]Die Fondsverantwortlichen hätten deshalb ihre amerikanischen Partner veranlasst, überhöhte Schätzungen abzugeben. Likewise, it is written that Roberts and Freyermuth confessed to a falsified “profit distribution for the film Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, which, according to the fund’s information, was 45 percent produced by VIP. In reality, the profit distribution did not correspond to the alleged 45-percent co-production share; it was significantly less favorable.”[5]Insoweit greift die Klageseite auf eine Gewinnverteilung (sog „waterfall“) für den Film „Das Parfum“ zurück, der nach den Fondsangaben zu 45 % von VIP 4 produziert worden sei (sog. Coproduktion). Tatsächlich habe die Gewinnverteilung keinesfalls dem angeblichen Co.-Produktionsanteil von 45 % entsprochen, sie sei wesentlich ungünstiger gewesen. Even with the most open of minds, it is very hard to read statements like this and conclude that Chris Roberts and Ortwin Freyermuth were anything other than active, willing co-conspirators in a large-scale, concerted fraud perpetrated on German investors and ordinary taxpayers.

In a document dated May 17, 2010, it is stated that Freyermuth and Roberts are being summoned to appear as witnesses before this court, on the morning and afternoon respectively of July 16, 2010. But a report dated July 8, 2010, states that “the hearing scheduled for July 16, 2010, is cancelled after witness Freyermuth informed the court that he could not appear on such short notice, and the summons for witness Chris Roberts was returned to the court as undeliverable.”[6]Der Termin vom 16. Juli 2010 wird aufgehoben, nachdem der Zeuge Freyermuth mitgeteilt hat, nicht so kurzfristig erscheinen zu können, und die Ladung des Zeugen Chris Roberts als unzustellbar wieder in den Gerichtseinlauf gekommen ist. On August 3, 2010, the court states that they will be ordered to appear again, this time on September 20, 2010, saying that Freyermuth will be told to inform Roberts, who apparently still cannot be reached, about the summons.[7]Zu diesem Termin sind die Zeugen Freyermuth und Roberts, letzterer über Freyermuth, zu laden. However, the paper trail ends there. It seems most likely that the two never did come to Munich to answer questions before the court.

Assuming all of this really is as bad as it looks, the final question we are left with is why and how Roberts and Freyermuth escaped prosecution. This question I cannot even begin to answer, other than to say that international prosecutions for financial malfeasance are notoriously difficult to coordinate and carry off. Perhaps the German authorities decided they had the ringleader in Andreas Schmid, and that was good enough. Perhaps Roberts and Freyermuth were given immunity in return for their testimony about the mechanics of the fraud in the United States. Or maybe there were some extenuating circumstances of which I am not aware, hard as it is to imagine what they might be.

In July of 2010, Roberts and Freyermuth sold Ascendant Pictures and all of its intellectual property to a film studio, film school, film distributor, real-estate developer, venture-capital house, and children’s charity — never put all your eggs in one basket! — called Bigfoot, located in, of all places, the Philippines. Roberts had left Hollywood some weeks or months before this transaction was finalized; thus the undeliverable court summons from Germany, addressed to the old Ascendant office. I do not know whether or how much he and Freyermuth ended up profiting personally from the VIP Media affair when all was said and done. I can only say that he does not seem to have been a poor man when he moved back to Austin to think about his next steps in life.


Most of you probably know what Chris Roberts got up to after leaving Hollywood, but a brief precis may be in order by way of conclusion, given that it will be many years at best before we meet him again in these histories.

Man of good timing that he was, Roberts started looking for fresh opportunities just as the new Kickstarter crowd-funding platform was tempting dozens of figures from the old days of gaming to launch new projects. In 2012, he joined together with a number of his earlier business partners, from both Digital Anvil and Ascendant Pictures — Erin Roberts, Tony Zurovec, and Ortwin Freyermuth were all among them — to found Cloud Imperium Games and kick-start Star Citizen, the “virtual life in space” game that he had once thought Freelancer would become. Brilliantly executed from a promotional standpoint, it turned into the biggest Kickstarter project ever, raising hundreds of millions of dollars.

As of this writing, thirteen years later, Star Citizen is officially still in the early alpha stage of development, although it is actively played every day by tens of thousands of subscribers who are willing to pay for the privilege. A single-player variant called Squadron 42 — the Starlancer to Star Citizen’Freelancer — was originally slated for release in 2014, and is thus now eleven years behind schedule. Cloud Imperium promises that it is coming soon. (If and when it finally does surface, it will include motion-captured footage, shot twelve years ago now, of Mark Hamill, Gillian Anderson, Andy Serkis, and Gary Oldman.)

Having long since exhausted its initial rounds of crowd-funding, Cloud Imperium now pays its bills largely through pay-to-win schemes involving in-game spaceships and other equipment, often exorbitantly priced; Ars Technica reported in January of 2024 that buying the full hangar of ships would set up you back a cool $48,000, almost enough to make you start looking around for the real spaceship in the deal. By any standard, the amount of money Cloud Imperium has brought in over the years is staggering. Assuming the whole thing doesn’t implode in the coming months, Star Citizen seems set to become the world’s first $1-billion videogame. While we wait, Wing Commander IV, the last game Chris Roberts actually finished, looks forward to its swift-approaching 30-year anniversary.

Naturally, all of this has made Cloud Imperium and Chris Roberts himself magnets for controversy. The loyal fans who continue to log on every day insist that the scale of what Star Citizen is trying to achieve is so enormous that the time and money being spent on it are unavoidable. Others accuse the game of being nothing but a giant scam, of a size and shameless audacity that would put a twinkle in even Andreas Schmid’s jaundiced eyes. Some of those who think the truth is most likely somewhere in between these extremes — a group that includes me — wonder if we should really be encouraging people to upload so much of their existence into a game in the first place. It seems to me that games that are meant to be enjoyed in the real world are healthier than those that set themselves up as a replacement for it.

Even if everything about Star Citizen is on the up-and-up, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that breathtaking incompetence has played as big a part as over-ambition in running up the budget and pushing out the timeline. I tend to suspect that some sort of spectacular collapse is more probable than a triumphant version 1.0 as the climax of the Star Citizen saga. But we shall see… we shall see. Either way, I have a feeling that Chris Roberts will emerge unscathed. Some guys just have all the luck, don’t they?



Did you enjoy this article? If so, please think about pitching in to help me make many more like it. You can pledge any amount you like.


SourcesComputer Gaming World of November 1999, August 2000, and May 2003; PC Gamer of November 2000; Los Angeles Times of August 14 2008; Der Spiegel of June 13 1993; Variety of February 24 1994 and November 13 2007; Los Angeles Daily News of March 5 2008; Billboard of April 19 2005, May 10 2005, September 20 2005, October 4 2005, and October 11 2005; Austin Business Journal of April 20 2001; Die Welt of December 6 2009; Deutsches Ärzteblatt of May 2 2003; New York Times of December 13 2004; Forbes of May 31 2019.

Online sources about games include a 2002 Wing Commander retrospective by the German website PC Player Forever; a 2000 GameSpot interview with Chris Roberts; Freelancer previews on ActionTrip and Games Domain; the old Freelancer News site; and the GameSpot review of Freelancer. Vintage reports of Digital Anvil’s acquisition by Microsoft can be found on GameSpotIGN, Microsoft’s home page, and EuroGamer.

Online sources about movies include “Send in the Clowns (But Beware of Their Funny Money)” by Doug Richardson, Roger Ebert’s review of The Punisher, a profile of Ortwin Freyermuth at Alumniportal Deutschland, “How to Finance a Hollywood Blockbuster” and “Hollywood’s Big Loss” by Edward Jay Epstein at Slate, the current zombie version of Ascendant’s website and the more incriminating 2005 version, Bigfoot’s 2011-vintage websiteE! Online’s report from the 2002 Sundance festival, “Medienfonds als ‘Stupid German Money'” by Dr. Matthias Kurp at Medienmaerkte.de, “Filmfonds für Reiche” at ansTageslicht.de, “Was sind Medienfonds?” at Investoren Beteiligung, and “Stupid German Money” by Günter Jagenburg at Deutschlandfunk. I made extensive use of the Wing Commander Combat Information Center, and especially its voluminous news archives that stretch all the way back to 1998.

As noted above, I’ve made the documents I found relating to Rising Star in the class-action lawsuit against Andreas Schmid available for local download. By all means, German speakers, dive in and tell me if you can find anything I’ve missed! I retrieved them from the official German Federal Gazette, or Bundesanzeiger.

My invaluable cheat sheet for this article, as for the last, was “The Chris Roberts Theory of Everything” by Nick Monroe from Gameranx.

But my superhero and secret weapon was our own stalwart commenter Busca, who used his far greater familiarity with the German Web and the German language to find most of the German-language sources shown above, and even provided some brief summaries of their content for orientation purposes. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude. Do note, however, that the buck stops with me as far as factual accuracy goes, and that all of the opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are strictly my own.

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 Diese produzierten nie Filme, sondern waren lediglich eine zur Verschleierung eingeschaltete Zwischenebene.
2 Eine künstlich dazwischen geschaltete Ebene.
3 Die von VIP vorgegebene Struktur sei ein „Pro-Forma-Geschäft“ gewesen, alleine mit der Zielsetzung einen gewissen Steuervorteil zu erreichen. Dies habe auch der Zeuge Freyermuth so erläutert.
4 Die Fondsverantwortlichen hätten deshalb ihre amerikanischen Partner veranlasst, überhöhte Schätzungen abzugeben.
5 Insoweit greift die Klageseite auf eine Gewinnverteilung (sog „waterfall“) für den Film „Das Parfum“ zurück, der nach den Fondsangaben zu 45 % von VIP 4 produziert worden sei (sog. Coproduktion). Tatsächlich habe die Gewinnverteilung keinesfalls dem angeblichen Co.-Produktionsanteil von 45 % entsprochen, sie sei wesentlich ungünstiger gewesen.
6 Der Termin vom 16. Juli 2010 wird aufgehoben, nachdem der Zeuge Freyermuth mitgeteilt hat, nicht so kurzfristig erscheinen zu können, und die Ladung des Zeugen Chris Roberts als unzustellbar wieder in den Gerichtseinlauf gekommen ist.
7 Zu diesem Termin sind die Zeugen Freyermuth und Roberts, letzterer über Freyermuth, zu laden.

Posted by Jay Ong

2026 will kick off with an all-new 71051 Minifigures Series 28 Animals, featuring 12 LEGO Minifigures in animal costumes to collect! This is the first time that we’ve gotten an entire LEGO Collectible Minifigures Series in animal costumes, I absolutely love as Animal Costumed minifigures are some of my favourite to collect. Get ready to […]

The post Review: LEGO Minifigures Series 28 Animals (71051) appeared first on Jay's Brick Blog.

Posted by fromtheheartofeurope

My usual approach to excerpting fails with this book for reasons that I’ll explain, so I’m taking the attitude that, contra the old saying, more is more.

Second paragraph of third chapter of “The Mannerheim Symphony”:

Should I go on with it? Would Sinnikka hate me if she knew I was reading something so far below her ideals? Would she not rather that I was undergoing torture?

Second paragraph of third chapter of “The Impossible Smile”:

Sweat stood out on his forehead, like grease on a bit of dirty vellum. As he spoke, he held a beaker of bitter-tasting liquid to Wyvern’s lips, letting it slop down his chin while he concentrated on what he was saying. With the sense of urgency harrying him, he had not unlocked the bands around Wyvern’s throat and ankles; but instead of standing over him, he now knelt before him.

Second paragraph of third chapter of “Equator”:

Rain pelted down his neck. His light tropical suit would be soaked in no time. A taxi slowly overtook him, splashing his legs.

I picked this up in excitement at Eastercon in 2022, glad to find a Brian Aldiss book that I had not already read – and then realised that in fact I knew it under its other title, Cracken at Critical, and had read and lost a copy, soon after its original 1987 publication.

It is an intriguing book. The main framing narrative has the title “The Mannerheim Symphony”, and the narrator is a famous Finnish composer, in a Hitler-won-the-war universe, who discovers a dead young woman by the roadside and has to negotiate with his suspicious wife and a police detective who is possessed by a reindeer. So far, so weird.

In the dead woman’s belongings, he finds two short science fiction stories apparently written by her father, Jael Cracken, and reads them. The joke is that the two stories are in fact real Brian Aldiss stories from 1958 and 1965, and one of them was originally published under the pseudonym Jael Cracken.

The first, “The Impossible Smile”, has a telepathic protagonist trying to find allies and avoid enemies in a transitional dictatorial regime between England and the Moon. There’s a flavour of Alfred Bester about it, but it also has some very Aldiss twists.

The second, “Equator” (originally published as “Vanguard from Alpha”) has Earth dealing with immigration from humanoid aliens, mainly in a vividly depicted Sumatra. There are more chase scenes and a beautiful alien babe, and a memorable climax in a vast mechanical setting.

A lot of readers think that the whole thing is rubbish. I don’t; it’s a guilty pleasure for me, Aldiss returning to his early work and repurposing it for the needs of two or three decades later. The haunted police detective is a little jarring, but the composer trying to distract himself from his unfaithfulness to his wife by escaping into science fiction… well, let’s just say that Aldiss knew what he was writing about.

And there are some passages that I find very nicely done.

The solar system progressed toward the unassailable summer star, Vega. The Earth-Moon system danced around the sun, host and parasite eternally hand-in-hand. The planet spun on its unimaginable axis. The oceans swilled forever uneasily in their shallow beds. Tides of multifarious life twitched across the continents. On a small island a man sat and hacked at the casing of a coconut.

You can get The Year Before Yesterday, as Cracken at Critical, here.

This was the SF book that had lingered longest unread on my shelves. Next is Yet More Penguin Science Fiction, edited by one Brian W. Aldiss.

Posted by Grace Ebert

With 125 Volunteers, Choi + Shine Crochet the 12 Animals of the Chinese Zodiac

Located in the Yangtze River Delta, Hangzhou is enmeshed in waterways. The city’s center abuts a large lake and sits just north of the Qiantang River, infamous for its magnificent tidal bore that sweeps through the region each fall.

For their latest project presented in the Hangzhou Triennial of Fiber Art at Zhejiang Art Museum, Jin Choi and Thomas Shine merged aspects of this local environment and culture with their distinctive process. The artists, who work as Choi + Shine Architects, often create sweeping lace isntallations crocheted in partnership with local communities. Choi typically designs the motif, while Shine focuses on the structure itself.

a large-scale installation of white fiber by Choi + Shine

Suspended above reflective surface mimicking a dark body of water, “Distance” comprises crocheted sculptures representing all 12 animals of the Chinese Zodiac. “As society evolves, [the zodiac] continues to find relevance, connecting to the wisdom of the past and the shared narratives that shape our identities today,” the artists write. “Its legacy, with its rich symbolism, cultural significance and unifying power, will endure as a navigational tool in the current and future social shifts.”

Rather than depict a dog or rabbit in its entirety, Choi isolated elements of each animal—find preliminary sketches and reference imagery on the artists’ website. The ox, for example, is represented through a slender tube evocative of a horn, while the rooster can be spotted through a fan-like plume.

The installation’s structure is circular and appears to shift depending on the viewer’s perpseicve. “The composition loses its legible visual order and the elements start to form different relations, allowing for varying compositions,” the artists say. This emphasizes “one’s power to position oneself in reference to others, to actively define different connections and relationships.”

As for the making-of, Choi + Shine know that community members come to their collaborative process with varying levels of craft experience. Their projects often become educational sessions in addition to community gatherings, as participants demonstrate a particular stitch or help troubleshoot issues.

a large-scale installation of white fiber by Choi + Shine

“Many volunteers are actually novices in crochet, and there are many complex patterns. They may not be very good at crochet, so we are in the process of communicating and collaborating. Beginners and skilled volunteers help each other,” said Wu Qin, who led volunteer efforts for this isntallation.

“Distance” is now permanently isntalled at the Zhejiang Intangible Cultural Heritage Museum. Follow more of the Choi + Shine’s work on Instagram.

a large-scale installation of white fiber by Choi + Shine
a large-scale installation of white fiber by Choi + Shine
a large-scale installation of white fiber by Choi + Shine
two people working on a crochet piece
two people working on a crochet piece

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member today and support independent arts publishing for as little as $7 per month. The article With 125 Volunteers, Choi + Shine Crochet the 12 Animals of the Chinese Zodiac appeared first on Colossal.

Posted by John Scalzi

For the last four days, the 2025 Whatever Gift Guide has been about helping you find the perfect gifts for friends and loved ones. But today I’d like to remind folks that the season is also about helping those in need. So this final day is for charities. If you’re looking for a place to make a donation — or know of a charitable organization that would gladly accept a donation — this is the place for it.

How to contribute to this thread:

1. Anyone can contribute. If you are associated with or work for a charity, tell us about the charity. If there’s a charity you regularly contribute to or like for philosophical reasons, share with the crowd. This is open to everyone.

2. Focus on non-political charities, please. Which is to say, charities whose primary mission is not political — so, for example, an advocacy group whose primary thrust is education but who also lobbies lawmakers would be fine, but a candidate or political party or political action committee is not. The idea here is charities that exist to help people and/or make the world a better place for all of us.

3. It’s okay to note personal fundraising (Indiegogo and GoFundMe campaigns, etc) for people in need. Also, other informal charities and fundraisers are fine, but please do your part to make sure you’re pointing people to a legitimate fundraiser and not a scam. I would suggest only suggesting campaigns that you can vouch for personally.

3. One post per person. In that post, you can list whatever charities you like, and more than one charity. Note also that the majority of Whatever’s readership is in the US/Canada, so I suggest focusing on charities available in North America.

4. Keep your description of the charity brief (there will be a lot of posts, I’m guessing) and entertaining. Imagine the person is in front of you as you tell them about the charity and is interested but easily distracted.

5. You may include a link to a charity site if you like via URL. Be warned that if you include too many links (typically three or more) your post may get sent to the moderating queue. If this happens, don’t panic: I’ll be going in through the day to release moderated posts. Note that posts will occasionally go into the moderation queue semi-randomly; Don’t panic about that either.

6. Comment posts that are not about people promoting charities they like will be deleted, in order to keep the comment thread useful for people looking to find charities to contribute to.

All right, then: It’s the season of giving. Tell us where to give to make this a better place.

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)


An assortment of stories and essays.

Utopias of the Third Kind by Vandana Singh
andrewducker: (Default)

Posted by cks

A while back I wrote about how in POSIX you could theoretically use inode (number) zero. Not all Unixes consider inode zero to be valid; prominently, OpenBSD's getdents(2) doesn't return valid entries with an inode number of 0, and by extension, OpenBSD's filesystems won't have anything that uses inode zero. However, Linux is a different beast.

Recently, I saw a Go commit message with the interesting description of:

os: allow direntries to have zero inodes on Linux

Some Linux filesystems have been known to return valid entries with zero inodes. This new behavior also puts Go in agreement with recent glibc.

This fixes issue #76428, and the issue has a simple reproduction to create something with inode numbers of zero. According to the bug report:

[...] On a Linux system with libfuse 3.17.1 or later, you can do this easily with GVFS:

# Create many dir entries
(cd big && printf '%04x ' {0..1023} | xargs mkdir -p)
gio mount sftp://localhost/$PWD/big

The resulting filesystem mount is in /run/user/$UID/gvfs (see the issue for the exact long path) and can be experimentally verified to have entries with inode numbers of zero (well, as reported by reading the directory). On systems using glibc 2.37 and later, you can look at this directory with 'ls' and see the zero inode numbers.

(Interested parties can try their favorite non-C or non-glibc bindings to see if those environments correctly handle this case.)

That this requires glibc 2.37 is due to this glibc bug, first opened in 2010 (but rejected at the time for reasons you can read in the glibc bug) and then resurfaced in 2016 and eventually fixed in 2022 (and then again in 2024 for the thread safe version of readdir). The 2016 glibc issue has a bit of a discussion about the kernel side. As covered in the Go issue, libfuse returning a zero inode number may be a bug itself, but there are (many) versions of libfuse out in the wild that actually do this today.

Of course, libfuse (and gvfs) may not be the only Linux filesystems and filesystem environments that can create this effect. I believe there are alternate language bindings and APIs for the kernel FUSE (also, also) support, so they might have the same bug as libfuse does.

(Both Go and Rust have at least one native binding to the kernel FUSE driver. I haven't looked at either to see what they do about inode numbers.)

PS: My understanding of the Linux (kernel) situation is that if you have something inside the kernel that needs an inode number and you ask the kernel to give you one (through get_next_ino(), an internal function for this), the kernel will carefully avoid giving you inode number 0. A lot of things get inode numbers this way, so this makes life easier for everyone. However, a filesystem can decide on inode numbers itself, and when it does it can use inode number 0 (either explicitly or by zeroing out the d_ino field in the getdents(2) dirent structs that it returns, which I believe is what's happening in the libfuse situation).

posted by [syndicated profile] dg_weblog_feed at 07:00am on 05/12/2025

Posted by Unknown

Anorak Corner [National Rail edition]

It's time once again for the annual splurge of passenger data from across Britain's railway network, this batch covering the period April 2024 to March 2025.

Everything changed in 2022 when Crossrail opened, firing a purple bombshell that upended former norms and shook up the list of busiest stations. Any interchange between tube and Crossrail counts as entering or exiting a National Rail station so some mighty distortions are skewing the numbers.

The UK's ten busiest National Rail stations (2024/25) (with changes since 2023/24)
  1) -- Liverpool Street (98m)
  2) ↑2 Waterloo (70.4m)
  3) ↓1 Paddington (69.9m)
  4) ↓1 Tottenham Court Road (68m)
  5) ↑2 London Bridge (55m)
  6) -- Victoria (54m)
  7) ↓2 Stratford (51m)
  8) -- Farringdon (50m)
  9) -- Bond Street (43m)
10) -- Euston (40m)

Six of the top 10 are Crossrail stations, the arrival of purple trains having displaced the usual trio of Waterloo, London Bridge and Victoria from the summit. Liverpool Street retains the crown it snatched in 2022, its complement of commuters boosted by through services on the Elizabeth line. With 98 million passengers it's massively ahead of the rest of the pack and I suspect will be the UK's busiest station every year for the foreseeable future.

Waterloo has rebounded to 2nd place but is only marginally ahead of Tottenham Court Road, which wasn't even a National Rail station until three years ago. London Bridge and Victoria also demonstrate the importance of commuting south of the river. Stratford, which enjoyed a chart-topping year during the pandemic, drops to seventh although that's still an impressive ranking for a station outside central London. Farringdon is boosted by being the sole link between Crossrail and Thameslink. Whitechapel, amazingly, lurks just outside the top 10 at 12th.



If you're wondering about other Crossrail stations in the listings the next busiest is Canary Wharf (25th), then come Ealing Broadway (27th), Reading (33rd), Woolwich (34th), Romford (38th), Abbey Wood (39th), Ilford (43rd) and Custom House (51st).

If you're interested in comparing London's rail termini, the ranking is Liverpool Street > Waterloo > Paddington > London Bridge > Victoria > Euston > St Pancras > King's Cross > Charing Cross > Blackfriars > Marylebone > Fenchurch Street > Moorgate > Cannon Street. All but Moorgate and Cannon Street are in the national Top 50.

The UK's ten busiest National Rail 'flows' (2024/25)
  1) Tottenham Court Road ⇄ Liverpool St (8.7m)
  2) Paddington ⇄ Tottenham Court Road (7.2m)
  3) Bond Street ⇄ Tottenham Court Road (6.8m)
  4) Liverpool Street ⇄ Stansted Airport (6.5m)
  5) Paddington ⇄ Bond Street (5.6m)
  6) Victoria ⇄ Gatwick Airport (5.5m)
  7) Liverpool St ⇄ Stratford (5.2m)
  8) West Ham ⇄ Barking (5.1m)
  9) Farringdon ⇄ Liverpool St (5.1m)
10) Paddington ⇄ Farringdon (4.8m)

A recent innovation to the annual dataset, these are the most popular journeys on the UK rail network. Seven of the top 10 are on the Elizabeth line, sometimes just one stop, and the top three all involve travelling to/from Tottenham Court Road. Two airport connections are the only journeys that extend outside London. Perhaps the most unexpected inclusion is West Ham ⇄ Barking, most of which involves passengers changing to/from the Jubilee line.

The top three flows outside London are Birmingham New Street ⇄ Coventry (2.4m), Edinburgh Waverley ⇄ Glasgow Queen Street (2.4m) and Birmingham New Street ⇄ Wolverhampton (1.9m).

The UK's ten busiest National Rail stations outside London (2024/25)
  1) -- Birmingham New Street (37m)
  2) -- Manchester Piccadilly (27.4m)
  3) ↑1 Leeds (27.3m)
  4) ↓1 Glasgow Central (25m)
  5) -- Edinburgh (23m)
  6) -- Gatwick Airport (21m)
  7) -- Brighton (15.3m)
  8) -- Glasgow Queen Street (15.0m)
  9) ↑1 Liverpool Central (14.8m)
10) ↑1 Liverpool Lime Street (14.4m)

Poor old Birmingham New Street had always been in the national top 10 but Crossrail has again nudged it out. It's now in 13th place overall, with Manchester Piccadilly 15th, Leeds 16th and Glasgow Central 17th. Some of these stations have very similar passenger numbers so don't read too much into this year's shuffles.

The next 10: Reading, Cardiff Central, Bristol Temple Meads, Cambridge, Newcastle, York, Sheffield, Stansted Airport, Manchester Victoria, Oxford

311 provincial stations served over a million passengers during 2024/25, thirty more than in the previous year. For comparison 226 London stations exceeded a million passengers. In surprising London/not-London comparisons, West Ham was busier than York, Seven Sisters was busier than Nottingham, Lewisham was busier than Leicester, Putney was busier than Preston, Norwood Junction was busier than Norwich and Purley was busier than Plymouth.

London's ten busiest National Rail stations that aren't central London termini or part of Crossrail (2024/25)
  1) -- Clapham Junction (24.5m)
  2) -- Highbury & Islington (24.0m)
  3) -- East Croydon (21m)
  4) -- Canada Water (19m)
  5) -- Vauxhall (16m)
  6) -- Barking (14m)
  7) -- Wimbledon (13m)
  8) ↑1 Finsbury Park (11.2m)
  9) ↓1 West Ham (11.1m)
10) -- Richmond (10m)

Once you strip out central London termini and Crossrail a rather different picture appears and rankings are more stable. Half of the top 10 are Overground stations. All but two are also tube stations, where everyone changing to or from the tube technically counts as an entrance or exit even if passengers don't leave the station. Clapham Junction's total would almost double if the data included interchanges.

The next 10: Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters, Surbiton, Shoreditch High Street, Willesden Junction, Lewisham, Shepherd's Bush, Bromley South, Peckham Rye, Old Street

London's ten least busy Overground stations (2024/25)
  1) -- Emerson Park (303,000)
  2)
-- South Hampstead (478,000)
  3)
-- Headstone Lane (517,000)
  4)
↑1 Wandsworth Road (610,000)
  5)
↑2 Penge West (635,000)
  6)
↓2 South Kenton (643,000)
  7)
↑2 Stamford Hill (676,100)
  8)
↓2 Hatch End (696,000)
  9)
↑1 South Acton (747,000)
10)
↓2 Kilburn High Road (758,000)

Emerson Park on the runty Romford-Upminster line remains at the bottom of the Overground heap by some distance. It's the only one of these ten stations whose passenger numbers have decreased. South Hampstead's total is particularly pitiful for a zone 2 station. South Kenton is also one of the tube's least used stations, and combining numbers from the two modes would knock it out of this list. Half of the ten least busy Overground stations are on the Lioness line.

The least busy station on each Overground line (2024/25)
  Liberty: Emerson Park (303,000)
  Lioness: South Hampstead (478,000)
  Windrush: Wandsworth Road (610,000)
  Weaver: Stamford Hill (676,100)
  Mildmay: South Acton (747,000)
  Suffragette: Crouch Hill (901,000)

A year after the Overground lines were given separate names, the Suffragette line has the busiest least used station.

London's ten least busy National Rail stations (2024/25)
  1) -- Sudbury & Harrow Road (23000)
  2) -- Drayton Green (23300)
  3) -- South Greenford (52000)
  4) -- Sudbury Hill Harrow (54000)
  5) -- Morden South (76000)
  7) ↑1 Coulsdon Town (98000)
  6) ↓1 Birkbeck (105000)
  8) -- Reedham (106000)
  9) -- Castle Bar Park (113000)
10) -- Crews Hill (119000)

Sudbury & Harrow Road is once again London's least used station. This unloved halt sees a measly four trains in the morning peak and four in the evening peak, so most locals use the nearby Piccadilly line station instead. Drayton Green is very close behind, a station that's only a short walk from West Ealing where all trains terminate. South Greenford and Castle Bar Park are also on the little-used Greenford branch. Coulsdon Town and Reedham continue to suffer from a post-pandemic reduction in services on the Tattenham Corner line.

The next 20: South Merton, Woodmansterne, West Ruislip, Greenford, St Helier, South Ruislip, Northolt Park, Knockholt, Sundridge Park, Belmont, Bromley North, Ravensbourne, Sutton Common, West Sutton, Kenley, Wimbledon Chase, Riddlesdown, Emerson Park, Woolwich Dockyard, Haydons Road

And now outside London...

The National Rail stations with NO passengers in 2024/25
0) Stanlow and Thornton [three years running]
0) Teesside Airport [two years running]
0) Altnabreac

Stanlow & Thornton, an industrial halt in Cheshire, is entirely surrounded by the UK's second largest oil refinery. It used to get a few peak services but has been closed since February 2022 "due to safety concerns of the footbridge which is the only entry point to the station". Teesside Airport lost its weekly train in May 2022 after the westbound platform closed due to safety issues. Its eastbound platform had closed in 2017 after the footbridge was deemed unsafe, cutting the number of weekly trains from two to one. Technically both stations are only temporarily closed, but given their miserable passenger record it's hard to see anyone stumping up for repairs.

Altnabreac is an exceptionally remote station in the Scottish Highlands, about 20 miles from Wick and Thurso. Train services were suspended in November 2023 due to an access dispute with a neighbouring property. The new owners believed they owned the station platform, blocked the access road and decided that train drivers were honking at them offensively. The legal dispute lingers on, the offending couple having been summoned to Inverness Sheriff Court just last week. Rail services resumed on 6th April 2025, six days after the cut-off for this year's figures, so expect to see Altnabreac with a non-zero total next year.

Here are the true least used.

The UK's ten least busy National Rail stations (2024/25)
  1) ↑8 Elton and Orston (68)
  2) -- Shippea Hill (76)
  3) -- Ince and Elton (98)
  4) ↓3 Denton (100)
  5) -- Reddish South (102)
  6) ↓2 Polesworth (154)
  7) -- Chapelton (160)
  8) ↓2 Coombe Junction Halt (224)
  9) ↑2 Scotscalder (226)
10) ↑3 Beasdale (230)

These are the stations that can't even muster five passengers a week, such is the inaccessibility of their location or the paucity of their service, Most have appeared in this Top 10 on many previous occasions. Elton & Orston was also 2021/22's least used station and is served by just two trains a day, one to Nottingham and one to Skegness. Shippea Hill in Cambridgeshire remains in the doldrums after a brief bump in visitors inspired by being a least used station. Ince and Elton is Stanlow and Thornton's underwhelmed neighbour.

Denton was last year's least used station but has managed to double its passenger total. Along with Reddish South on the Stockport-Stalybridge line it's served by only one train a week in each direction, currently on a Saturday morning. I visited both stations earlier this year, but on a Thursday so I don't count in the data but at least I can say I've been.

Polesworth on the West Coast Main Line gets one northbound train before 7am but no southbound trains. Chapelton is a request stop in the Taw Valley south of Barnstaple. Coombe Junction is a unpopulated reversing place between Liskeard and Looe. Scotscalder near Thurso is the least used station in Scotland, taking over from Kildonan. Beasdale is a once-private halt on the West Highland line. For aficionados of least used stations over the years these are all very familiar names.

The next 20: Ardwick, Buckenham, Pilning, Kildonan, Culrain, Duncraig, Invershin, Kinbrace, Rawcliffe, Lochluichart, Barry Links, Locheilside, Achanalt, Hensall, Portsmouth Arms, Roman Bridge, Lelant Saltings, Spooner Row, Thornton Abbey, Kirton Lindsey

Altogether 22 stations failed to attract 10 passengers a week and 117 stations failed to attract 10 passengers a day. But they all soldier on because closing a railway station remains a very tough legal wrangle, and better to have a little-used halt on your doorstep than no station at all.

» Rail passenger data here (total annual entry and exit frequencies)
» Official 23-page commentary here and FAQ here
» Previous updates: 23/24, 22/23, 21/22, 20/21, 19/20, 18/19, 17/18, 16/17, 15/16, 14/15, 13/14, 12/13, 11/12, 10/11, 09/10, 08/09, 07/08, 06/07, 05/06 (which makes today my 20th annual report)

» Anorak Corner [tube edition]
» Anorak Corner [bus edition]

Posted by Jay Ong

2026 is set to be a massive year for LEGO Ninjago with the theme celebrating its 15th anniversary! To kick off the festivities, LEGO have officially revealed a series of 7 Ninjago minifigures coming to Build-a-Minifigure stations at LEGO Stores from 1 January 2026 onwards! If you’re headed in-store to pick up the new January […]

The post LEGO Ninjago 15th Anniversary coming to Build-a-Minifigure in January 2026! appeared first on Jay's Brick Blog.

Posted by John Scalzi

There are many ways to die in this world, roughly as many ways as there are to live, but there is one thing I know for sure: I do not wish to die the way Daniel Miller (Albert Brooks) dies in Defending Your Life. One, he dies on his birthday, which, while it makes for a tidy headstone, is a terrible way to spend the one day of the year that is all about you. Two, he’s just bought a car, and he’s not going to get to enjoy it. Three, he dies listening to Barbra Streisand, and, no disrespect to Ms. Streisand, but there’s nothing in her oeuvre that I wish to slip the surly bonds of Earth to. The last song Daniel hears is “Something’s Coming”; the title, at least, turns out to be prophetic.

And then Daniel is dead, and where he goes is neither heaven nor hell, and not even purgatory or limbo. He has arrived in Judgment City, which looks rather a bit like Orange County, and which processes all the dead of the Western United States. Judgment City has some nice perks, like the fact that humans who arrive there can eat all the food they want and never gain weight, and also it’s the best food they’ve ever had. But there are drawbacks, too, like the fact that everyone has to wear bulky white caftans, and also that one has to make a good argument for how they’ve lived their life on Earth. If it goes well, they move on. If it goes poorly, they go back to Earth. If it goes really poorly, the universe throws them out.

You’re on trial for your life, in other words, and because this way station is both bureaucratic and strangely Calvinistic, there are subtle hints about how your trial is going to go before you even step into the courtroom. To begin, how is your hotel? If you’re at the afterlife equivalent of the Four Seasons, you’re probably fine. If you’re at something like a bog-standard Marriott, it could go either way. If you’re at the equivalent of a Motel 6, get ready to go back. Likewise, the number of days of your life that the trial will examine is a good hint how things will go; the fewer the better.

Daniel, who is a sharp study, immediately wants to know where he falls on the “go on or go back” spectrum, which amuses Bob Diamond (Rip Torn), his appointed counselor. Mind you, everything about the humans coming through Judgment City amuses the staff there; they are ascended beings who use forty to fifty percent of their brains, unlike the humans, who use five percent at most. The staff of Judgment City look at humans like humans look at clever pets or precocious toddlers. They want good things for them! But they’re not going to socialize after hours or anything.

What Daniel mostly gets from all of this is that some people are shoo-ins to move on, and some people are, to put it nicely, going to have to work for it, and Daniel is in the latter category. Daniel was not a bad person on Earth; he was nice enough and well-liked by co-workers, even if he didn’t have a lot of what you would actually call friends. But in Judgment City, there’s the belief that when you use as little of your brain as humans do, you are ruled by your fears, and Daniel… well. He’s very human.

There’s more going on in this movie, including a budding romance between Daniel and Julia, a woman who may be too good for him, the first clue of that being that she is played by Meryl Streep. But what makes Defending Your Life work for me is both the teleology and the philosophy of Judgment City, as laid out by Brooks, who in addition to starring in the film, also wrote and directed it. Brooks has posited possibly the most practical afterlife ever, a fact that I think is easy to overlook as the story chugs along.

I don’t personally believe in an afterlife, but if I were going to believe in one, this is very close to the one I would believe in — not a place of perfect peace or eternal damnation, but basically a performance review to see how you did in the place that best suited your personal development. If you go on, great — the next place has a new set of problems and challenges for you to experience, solve and learn from. If you need more time back on Earth, that’s fine too — like the California Bar, not everyone passes the first time, and there’s no shame (at least at first) going back and trying again until you get it right. Is there a God? Who knows? Judgment City is not here to answer that. What it’s here to answer is: Are you ready for what comes next?

Well, that’s nothing new, I hear you say, that’s just Buddhism with extra steps. And, well, maybe it is, and if it is, then it makes sense that fear would be the thing that reattaches you to Earth, the thing you have to eventually let go of in order to move on. We are at this moment living in an era where large numbers of people are motivated by their fears, and others derive their power by making people afraid of other people, including their neighbors. I think if the afterlife is anything like it’s depicted here, there are going to be a fair number of people who currently live well who, in the afterlife, are going to be surprised to be staying at a seedy roadside motel, looking at a month’s worth of days of their life. At least the snacks will be great.

Brooks may or may not just be giving the eternal wheel of suffering a new spin, but whatever he’s doing, he’s being smart and funny about it. Brooks’ Daniel is a slightly depressed everyman who is more clever than he is good, someone who is willing to settle even when, in his heart, it’s not what he wants. It gives Daniel a sort of melancholy that’s both approachable (you can see why his co-workers like him) and also a lot to deal with (which is why he doesn’t have a lot of friends).

He’s relatable, and I think a lot of us can see at least a little of ourselves in him. As director, writer and star, Brooks only rarely goes for the laugh-out-loud moment in this film. But over and over again, there are rueful chuckles. You’ll laugh with this film, and you might wince in self-recognition as well. Ultimately, Daniel will have to work for his happy ending, and it’s never obvious whether or not he will get it. And that, too, is like life.

Defending Your Life makes me laugh, but it’s also made me think about my own choices and my own fears in this life. I can say that there have been a few times where I thought about this film when I was on the verge of having to make choices about where my own life was heading. There is a scene in the film where Daniel is up for a job, and he wants a specific salary. He has his (then) wife pretend to be the job interviewer, and they spar over the salary he will accept. Then he goes to meet the actual guy, and takes the first number thrown out at him, even though it’s far below what he actually wanted. We see his face when he realizes what he’s done. He let his fear get in the way of what he wanted, and he knows it.

I thought about that scene a few years later, when I was working as a film critic at the Fresno Bee newspaper. At one point, I was up for a film critic job at the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, and it came down to me and one other writer. I had informed the Bee that I was up for the job, and they were waiting to find out whether I would take the job or not. If it was offered to me, it would come with a largeish bump in pay, which was something I kind of needed; the Bee was a lovely place to work, but they didn’t pay me a lot and weren’t inclined to give me more.

Spoiler: I did not get the job. When I didn’t, I could have just gone back to work like nothing ever happened, without the raise I wanted and needed. Or, I could raise on a busted flush — after all, the Bee didn’t know (yet) that I didn’t get the job. I went into my Managing Editor’s office to tell him what happened with the St. Paul offer, and the first thing I said to him as I came through the door was “give me a twenty-five percent raise and a weekly column, and I’ll stay.” If he said no, I was screwed, because I had implied I had gotten the other job. But I chose to stuff that fear down, and ask for what I needed and wanted.

Second spoiler: He said yes to my proposal and told me he was glad I was going to stay. I thanked him, went to the men’s room in the hall, slipped into one of the toilet stalls, sat down and had a nice five-minute nervous breakdown before going back to my desk and back to work. I had faced my fear, and I had got what I wanted. And it’s made a difference in how I’ve lived my life since then.

I owe Daniel, and Albert Brooks, and Defending Your Life for that. We’ll see what sort of hotel upgrade that gets me in the afterlife. I’d still rather not be listening to Streisand when I go, however.

— JS

posted by [syndicated profile] brickarchitect_feed at 01:23am on 05/12/2025

Posted by Tom Alphin

Parts Guide Beta sign-up form, lots of new architectural LEGO sets, and awesome articles on LEGO building creativity.
nnozomi: (Default)
部首
广 part 1 yǎn
广, wide; 庄, village; 庆, to celebrate pinyin )
https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?cdqrad=53

词汇
被迫, to be compelled (pinyin in tags)
https://mandarinbean.com/new-hsk-4-word-list/

Guardian:
全部到村广场集合, everyone meet in the village square
不过我得庆幸,如果不是被迫跑腿的话,我永远不可能发现这个秘密, but I was lucky, if I hadn't been made to run errands I could never have discovered this secret

Me:
全村庄知道他。
我不是被迫的,是自己的意志。
December 4th, 2025

Posted by Vector editors

“I wanted to capture the essence of the place.” 

Nkereuwem Albert

A review by Jesutomisin Ipinmoye

The Bone River by Nkereuwem Albert is an urban fantasy published by Phoenix, an imprint of Ouida Books focused on Science Fiction and Fantasy stories. 

There are many things to love about The Bone River.

There is the magic system, the sense of a thick and present world bubbling away beneath the fabric of our own world. In Nkereuwem’s Calabar, miracles are the work of Pastors contorting magic in front of a blind congregation, and penises can, in fact, be stolen. By virtue of your initiation and belonging to one of four houses, you become a conduit to magic and mystery seeping out of the earth. You can command the dead, kindle fire from within you, and form familiars out of bone. You can shape it into beasts and seal gods. It is a land of infinite possibility. If you’re creative enough, you can conjure magic in service of peace—or to deceive.

This brings me to the story itself. By the time you put down Nkereuwem’s The Bone River, you would have witnessed how fragile peace can be, while war remains a latent possibility. This in itself should not be a discovery. We are well familiar with the flexibility of politicised narratives, the speculative reality of a truth wielded by authority. Surely, it should not take too much imagination to condense the abstraction of the lie beneath Calabar’s secret peace into a manner of critique about the cities we inhabit or the stories we tell about the blood that soaks our collective memories. After all, there is even greater violence than a certain bastard’s deception that is used every day as a tool to maintain a semblance of “status quo,” a peace with which no one is comfortable. And yet, the discovery of deception, as you read, grabs you. You know things like this happen, and yet, you are shocked. Why wouldn’t you be? It is the job of good fantasy to re-expose us to reality afresh. When you have seen and seen and seen with all your seeing eyes, the world unseen can and should shock you in new ways. 

And then there is a stressful sapphic romance.

Stressful, because I am unfortunately a sucker for simple romances that make you go awwww. That’s boring, but man, when it comes to love, I love boring. It is in this regard that Nkereuwem is after my life. When you travel with Onari “Heych” Henshaw and Afem Aba Ye Duop, you soak in so much of them that you wish that their love was enough to topple kingdoms and overpower all complications. After all, isn’t this what every queer person secretly hopes? Who can deny the desire that love should be enough? And yet, the solidity of a relationship is rooted in the decisions, not merely in feelings. The weight of “I Love You” is in how long it takes to say the words and how desperate the ear waiting to hear them is. The rejection bites harder when you know what is lost. Abasi, it is heartwrenching and beautiful, and I think Nkereuwem deserves to be flogged for it.

Indeed, there are many things to love about The Bone River. And yet, I find myself most drawn to the city where it all happens.

The Bone River is a love letter to Calabar. That much is indisputable. The Nigerian city rises to such a state of presence within the story that I must consider Nkereuwem a romantic. Only a true lover knows the soul of another this way. He went to the University of Calabar to study dental surgery, and his encounters with morbid anatomy and healthcare are evident in the work. Consider Afem and Necromancy. The level of detail with which her dealings with death are described could have been the fruit of scientific research, but it also bears an intimacy that renders some of the prose in many parts unnerving.

I am aware of the conversation that happened between Nkereuwem Nkereuwem and Gabrielle Emem Harry on Old Marian street in Calabar. The very conversation that birthed this book. I’ll save it for the good doctor — this is the one “Dr.” reference he’s allowed me — to share. But, the very story, from the moment I heard it, filled me with envy.

For both of them, Calabar is a city with claws. You see it in the way Nkereuwem writes: it is from the soil and the water of the land that everything pours. Magic comes with deep veneration. Even when the magic is a job, or a duty, or a burden, or a conquest, there is still the acknowledgement of place that flows with it. The writers are at its whims and yet, there is a desire to hold it in regard, a desire to attenuate their relationship with it such that it benefits them. Perhaps even to own it. You get the feeling that the text spiritually lifts Calabar off the map and looks into all parts of it.

Forgive my use of second person there — perhaps this is an emotional sentiment that resonates strongly only with me. But you must understand, I write from a place of dislocation. My next sentence on a blank page comes with a lilt — it can not land. And so work this grounded feels like a heady offering to me. It is a bold attestation of belonging that makes me weep.

In a voice note I prodded Nkereuwem with in preparation for writing this, I asked about this translation of place. Forgive me for taking tips in the name of a review. In his reply, he said he wanted to “capture the essence of the place.” He spoke of work like Chimeka Garrick’s A Broken People’s Playlist, another love letter, but to Port Harcourt. He spoke of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus and Nsukka. What he spoke of, without words, was the kind of understanding that comes from a place where and when one really lives. 

And when one really lives, what is a surprise? What new thing did Calabar whisper to Nkereuwem Nkereuwem? It is this familiarity that allows Nkereuwem to reproduce Calabar and its headiness with microscopic detail.

I know this is a strange take-away. Understand that I am a person of many dislocations. Home is still a place that I am looking for with both eyes open and both palms outstretched. But that is what fantasy is for; the very act of peeling open a world unseen requires you to know every dwindling trickle of tar and bend of its bay. And so The Bone River came to me at the right time. It came as a reminder that you only move on when you find unseen but solid ground.

In her review of Ben Okri’s seminal novel, The Famished Road, Linda Grant recounted, “When I finished the book and went outside, it was as if all the trees of South London had angels sitting in them.”

It is the power of excellent fantasy, of characters dwelling behind a curtain in our very own worlds, speculating about us as we about them, that allows us to, very briefly, wipe the scales off our own eyes and see the secret peace that holds our foundation. Much like Grant, I finished The Bone River and stepped outside my house, hopeful that I could feel sigils and wards inscribed in the walls of my home, trusting that I could find my unseen world, too.

Bio:

Jesutomisin Ipinmoye is an author and beleaguered lecturer learning to suffer sexily on an island in the Indian Ocean. He is a big fan of the short story and, as such, has publications (in, or upcoming in, Khoreo, Twisted Tongue, Brittle Paper, etc.) and a book (“How to Get Rid of Ants,” Parrésia Publishing) to that effect. You can find him on Substack, where he’s investigating our stuck-ness in time.

Posted by Kate Mothes

In Clay, Syd Carpenter Explores Nature, African American History, and the Land

When we look at a leaf, we see a predominantly flat plane, intersected by a midrib and myriad veins, or perhaps dotted with ailments like fungi or the eggs of insects. But imagine what these bits of foliage would look like if blown up like balloons. Artist Syd Carpenter responds “to the garden as a source of form” with her Expanded Leaf series. Imagining a papery leaf if it were inflated, perhaps to the size of a cat, the resulting forms take on “the girth, weight and physicality of animals,” she says.

Carpenter is known for her clay-based practice exploring the body, land, agriculture, and African American history. She taps into the ancient legacy of the material, merging the timeless medium with contemporary concerns. Perception and expectations are thoughtfully challenged as we encounter bulbous, creature-like beings that simultaneously seem alive and inanimate.

A ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of bowl-like vessel with food items like salt and eggs on its rim
“Indiana Hutson” (2021), clay, 11 x 24 x 23 inches

In her recent Farm Bowl series, Carpenter considers another enduring juxtaposition, especially in the world of craft: form and function. She transforms the ubiquitous shape of a bowl into a series of tableaux that delve into relationships between African Americans and the land. Investigating ideas of utility, labor, place, and narrative, the sculptures are encircled by farm animals, foodstuffs, modest houses, and fences.

“The handmade bowl is a universal form with equivalent examples represented in every culture,” Carpenter says in a statement. “It is an open, round form with an inner recessed chamber rising from a smaller foot to a wider rim. Bowls can serve ritualistically or as mundane, utilitarian objects.” In their nearly universal applications and ageless form, the bowl provides a unique way of “holding” African American experiences and connections to the land.

A major retrospective of Carpenter’s work, Planting in Space, Time, and Memory, opens in January at the Woodmere Art Museum in Philadelphia. Running concurrently, another solo show titled Home Bound in Wood, Steel, and Clay runs from January 22 to April 5 at the Berman Museum of Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Her work is also included in the group exhibition Re-Union: Syd Carpenter, Martha Jackson Jarvis, Judy Moonelis, Sana Musasama, and Winnie Owens Hart at the Frances M. Maguire Art Museum of Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, from January 14 to March 29.

If you’re in Washington, D.C., you can also see Carpenter’s ceramics in State Fairs: Growing American Craft at the Smithsonian’s Renwick Gallery, which continues through September 7. Find more on the artist’s website and Instagram.

An abstract ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of a bulbous form with a bumpy texture
“Worst enemy” (2006), clay, 20 x 24 x 15 inches
A ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of bowl-like vessel with a chicken, coop, and fence on its rim
“Farm Bowl with Chicken” (2021), clay, 11 x 18 x 21 inches
An abstract ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of a bulbous reddish form
“Heart of the Yam” (2006), clay, 26 x 26 x 14 inches
An abstract ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of a bulbous form
“Merge” (2006), clay, 26 x 24 x 15 inches
An abstract ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of a bulbous reddish, pinkish form
“Sebi”
A ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of bowl-like vessel with a house form and a horse on its rim
“O’Neal Smalls” (2021), clay, 13.5 x 23 x 17 inches
An abstract ceramic sculpture by Syd Carpenter of a bulbous, beige-colored form
“Bite down” (2006), clay, 26 x 22 x 12 inches

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member today and support independent arts publishing for as little as $7 per month. The article In Clay, Syd Carpenter Explores Nature, African American History, and the Land appeared first on Colossal.

posted by [syndicated profile] johndcook_feed at 06:51pm on 04/12/2025

Posted by John

This post is a side quest in the series on navigating by the stars. It expands on a footnote in the previous post.

There are six pieces of information associated with a spherical triangle: three sides and three angles. I said in the previous post that given three out of these six quantities you could solve for the other three. Then I dropped a footnote saying sometimes the missing quantities are uniquely determined but sometimes there are two solutions and you need more data to uniquely determine a solution.

Todhunter’s textbook on spherical trig gives a thorough account of how to solve spherical triangles under all possible cases. The first edition of the book came out in 1859. A group of volunteers typeset the book in TeX. Project Gutenberg hosts the PDF version of the book and the TeX source.

I don’t want to duplicate Todhunter’s work here. Instead, I want to summarize when solutions are or are not unique, and make comparisons with plane triangles along the way.

SSS and AAA

The easiest cases to describe are all sides or all angles. Given three sides of a spherical triangle (SSS), you can solve for the angles, as with a plane triangle. Also, given three angles (AAA) you can solve for the remaining sides of a spherical triangle, unlike a plane triangle.

SAS and SSA

When you’re given two sides and an angle, there is a unique solution if the angle is between the two sides (SAS), but there may be two solutions if the angle is opposite one of the sides (SSA). This is the same for spherical and plane triangles.

There could be even more than two solutions in the spherical case. Consider a triangle with one vertex at the North Pole and two vertices on the equator. Two sides are specified, running from the pole to the equator, and the angles at the equator are specified—both are right angles—but the side of the triangle on the equator could be any length.

ASA and AAS

When you’re given two angles and a side, there is a unique solution if the side is common to the two angles (ASA).

If the side is opposite one of the angles (AAS), there may be two solutions to a spherical triangle, but only one solution to a plane triangle. This is because two angles uniquely determine the third angle in a plane triangle, but not in a spherical triangle.

The example above of a triangle with one vertex at the pole and two on the equator also shows that an AAS problem could have a continuum of solutions.

Summary

\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Case} & \textbf{Plane} & \textbf{Spherical} \\ \hline SSS & 1 & 1 \\ SAS & 1 & 1 \\ SSA & 1 or 2 & 1 or 2 \\ AAS & 1 & 1 or 2 \\ ASA & 1 & 1 \\ AAA & $\infty$ & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}

Note that spherical triangles have a symmetry that plane triangles don’t: the spherical column above remains unchanged if you swap S’s and A’s. This is an example of duality in spherical geometry.

The post Solving spherical triangles first appeared on John D. Cook.

Posted by fromtheheartofeurope

Second paragraph of third chapter:

It was a step which could only have been taken by a Minister exercising Peel’s authority. With the single exception of Corn Law repeal, his ‘mastery’ over his Cabinet was said to be complete; he had ‘got them as obedient and well trained as the crew of a man of war’.¹ His purchase of Indian corn proved the decisive factor in relieving the distress of 1845-46, but the subsequent value to Ireland of Peel’s boldness, independence and strength of mind was unfortunately outweighed by his belief in an economic theory which almost every politician of the day, Whig or Tory, held with religious fervour.
¹ Peel Memoirs, II, p. 173.
Parker, Life and Letters of Sir James Graham, 2nd baronet of Netherby, PC., GCB (1907), Vol. I, p. 26.
Treasury Minute, December 9, 1845. Correspondence explanatory of the Measures adopted by H.M. Government for the Relief of Distress arising from the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, H.C., 1846 (735), Vol. XXXVII, p. 2. (Corr. Explan.).
Greville, [Memoirs,] Vol. V, p. 16.

Like most schoolchildren in Ireland, I was taught about the famine in history classes as one of the fundamental facts of Irish history. The 1841 census found that the population of Ireland was 8.5 million; today, combining both parts, it is just over seven million. The populations of counties Clare, Fermanagh, Longford, Sligo, Tipperary, Mayo and Cavan today are less than half what they were in 1841. The populations of counties Monaghan and Roscommon are less than a third of their 1841 numbers. Leitrim’s population today is 22% of the 1841 figure. It’s a catastrophe whose impact is still very visible. The immediate impact in the 1840s is vividly shown in this map:


Cecil Woodham-Smith’s 1962 book was the first popular history book of the twentieth century to cover the whole period in detail. It came after successful books on the Charge of the Light Brigade and Florence Nightingale, and she later wrote a biography of Queen Victoria. She was from an Irish military family; she claimed to be descended from the Dukes of Leinster, but I have to say that my research does not support this. She was clearly a good story-teller, and Alan Bennet has a couple of funny anecdotes about her.

We were taught at school that the Famine came about as a combination of the natural disaster of a fungal infection, the potato blight, killing the crop on which most Irish people survived, and the unwillingness of the British government to provide relief for the starving population; meanwhile corn which could have fed the hungry was exported and thousands of impoverished tenants were evicted, driving the great wave of Irish emigration to the USA (and to an extent Canada and Australia) which still shapes Irish-American relations today.

A lot of this is rooted in The Great Hunger. But there’s a huge difference between reading the awful, but sanitised, version of history in my schoolbooks forty-five years ago, and reading the primary documentation that Woodham-Smith assembled. The direct accounts of the misery and squalor endured by the population are really tough reading. One cannot defend the authorities in Dublin Castle or in London on the grounds of ignorance. Indeed, the British Prime Minister wrote: “we have made it the most degraded and most miserable country in the world…all the world is crying shame upon us.”

Woodham-Smith is also very enlightening on the second prong of the received historical account, the ideological opposition of the London government to effective aid. Like most governments, of course, Sir Robert Peel and then Lord John Russell were particularly motivated by their need to keep a parliamentary majority, and Russell’s attempts to take a more proactive stance were blocked by others within his coalition. In the end, the buck stops at the top, and also with Charles Trevelyan, who as Assistant Secretary to the Treasury was the single most influential voice on maintaining laissez-faire (what we would today call libertarian) policies, which killed a million people.

I was less familiar with other parts of the story. I had vaguely clocked the fact that more people died of disease than malnutrition; but Woodham-Smith fleshes this out with details of the epidemics that swept through the devastated population, based to a certain extent on the advance of medical knowledge between 1845 and 1962. The worst of all was the effect on emigrants crammed together in unhealthy conditions on the ships going to North America, and then quarantined together when they arrived. On Grosse Isle, just off Quebec, at least 3,000 Irish immigrants are known to have died of various diseases and at least 5,000 are known to be buried. The true figures are obscure, but those numbers are bad enough.

Although the English politicians were more culpable because they were in power, Irish politicians did not cover themselves in glory either, and Woodham-Smith spends a couple of chapters looking at the failure of the Young Ireland movement and the pathetic 1848 rebellion. I admit that it’s difficult to prescribe what politicians could do as society disintegrates around them, but calling on the starving masses to seize arms against the entrenched forces of the largest army in the world probably isn’t it.

Having said all that, the book ends on a weird high note describing the visit of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert to Ireland in 1849, as a kind of coda to the whole story. The royals had a great time, cruising along the coast from Cork to Dublin and then doing official engagements in Dublin and Belfast. Woodham-Smith presents this as a huge success. I guess it was cathartic, but the direct effects of the famine continued until 1852, so the royal visit wasn’t really the end of the story as it is presented here.

Parenthesis: Victoria’s 1849 visit was the first by a British monarch since her uncle, George IV, had turned up in 1821; and only the second since the War of the Three Kingdoms in 1689-90 had seen James II and William III in direct combat at the Battle of the Boyne. Before that, only three English monarchs had set foot in Ireland during their reigns: Richard II in 1394, King john in 1210 and Henry II in 1171.

I was fortunate enough to acquire my father’s first edition copy from 1962, but you can get The Great Hunger here.

This was my top unread book by a woman. Next on that pile is The Enigma Score, by Sherri S. Tepper.

posted by [syndicated profile] in_the_pipeline_feed at 12:11pm on 04/12/2025

Some chemistry today, drawn from real life (mine, anyway). I was setting up a short series of palladium-catalyzed couplings the other day (Buchwald-Hartwig type, C-N bond formation), and since there were very close precedents to my structures in the chemical literature, I naturally just borrowed the known conditions. There was nothing out of the ordinary about them; it seemed as if they’d work about as well on my starting aryl bromides as it did on the ones already described.

Well, they didn’t, of course. Which is the way of such metal-catalyzed couplings, which is why there are fifty gazillion ways of running them in the literature. They work until they don't! You can vary the catalyst ligands, first off, and boy are there are lot of them out there. You can change up the solvent, and the base needed for the reactions to go. There are other additives to try, and you can even vary the source of the palladium. (These days, if you know the system well enough and have some money to spend, you can order “pre-cat” materials where the ligand/Pd complex is already formed for you). In fact, here’s a recent Organic Process Research and Development paper that investigates that last variable in great detail: some catalyst systems don’t seem to care where their palladium comes from, while others care very much indeed, in case you were wondering.

But I had no desire to wander off and try a whole list of reaction conditions. In the manner of discovery biopharma chemists everywhere, I didn’t want to perfect my reaction - I just wanted it to make a reasonable amount of product so I could get on to the important stuff! I was staring at my compounds and trying to think about what made them different from the known examples, and the main thing was that I had an extra functional group at the other end of the molecule. I hadn’t thought it would be a problem, but I wondered if it was perhaps sensitive to the base I was using (which was good ol’ cesium carbonate). So I was very interested indeed when I saw this new JACS paper from the Hartwig group themselves.

It goes into great detail about the use of a base that I’d heard of but never actually tried, potassium 2-ethylhexanoate (K-2-EH). That might be an obscure-sounding reagent (along with the starting 2-ethylhexanoic acid) unless you’re a Real Industrial Chemist. Those compounds show up in a lot of polymer, coating, formulation, and materials science applications, and the acid is one of the largest-scale compounds of its kind produced industrially. So you can buy big ol’ bottles of the sodium and potassium salts relatively cheaply, and the potassium one is especially notable for dissolving in all kinds of organic solvents (where a lot of other potassium salts and carboxylates may not).

The Hartwig group found that it’s an excellent choice in the C-N couplings that bear the name, partly because of that solubility and partly because it’s a much milder base than many that people reach for. I read up on that, checked our inventory, and found a bottle of the stuff one floor below me. A milder base was about the only idea that I had to fix my problem, so it seemed like a good opportunity to try it out.

And by golly, I checked this morning and the reaction is making beautifully clean product, as opposed to the mixture of dark gunk I got with the cesium carbonate conditions. It is relatively rare that we get to actually figure out what’s going wrong with our reactions (unless you’re a process chemist, in which case that is your entire job!) But it’s also rare to fix things cleanly on the first shot - I can count the number of times I’ve been able to turn things around like this with one change on the fingers of my hands. Maybe just one hand, and that’s after forty years at the bench. 

That’s not as grim as it sounds, because remember, over most of that span I’ve been in the world where (as I like to say) there are two yields for reactions: Enough and Not Enough. Most of the time, even a relatively crappy conversion, the sort of thing a process chemist would not put up with for ten seconds, has been Enough, and I move on. But when all your starting material turns to gorp, you don’t have that option. Honestly, I would have settled just for a better product/gorp ratio, but what I got was the cleanest coupling reaction I’ve run in a long time. So thanks to Hartwig and collaborators, and those of you troubleshooting Pd reactions, try a K-2-EH run and see if it helps! 

Now I can move on (after another step or two) to the real reason I'm making these compounds, which is to do something very odd to an unsuspecting protein, and sadly I can't talk about that. But without making the needed compounds, you can't test out those weirdo ideas, can you? I'm glad these are now unsnarled.

posted by [syndicated profile] johndcook_feed at 04:44pm on 04/12/2025

Posted by John

The previous post introduced the idea of finding your location by sighting a star. There is some point on Earth that is directly underneath the star at any point in time, and that location is called the star’s GP (geographic position). That is one vertex of the navigational triangle. The other two vertices are your position and the North Pole.

Unless you’re at Santa’s workshop and observing a star nearly directly overhead, the navigational triangle is a big triangle, so big that you need to use spherical geometry rather than plane geometry. We will assume the Earth is a sphere [1].

Let a be the side running from your position to the GP. In the terminology of the previous post a is the radius of the line of position (LOP).

Let b be the side running from the GP to the North Pole. This is the GP’s lo-latitude, the complement of latitude.

Let c be the side running from your location to the North Pole. This is your co-latitude.

Let AB, and C be the angles opposite ab, and c respectively. The angle A is known as the local hour angle (LHA) because it is proportional to the time difference between noon at your location and noon at the GP.

Given three items from the set {abcABC} you can solve for the other three [2]. Note that one possibility is knowing the three angles. This is where spherical geometry differs from plane geometry: you can’t have spherical triangles that are similar but not congruent because the triangle excess determines the area.

If you know the current time, you can look up the GP coordinates in a table. The complement of the GP’s latitude is the side b.

Also from the current time you can determine your longitude, and from that you can find the LHA (angle A).

As described in the previous post, the altitude of the star, along with its GP, determines the LOP. From the LOP you can determine the arc between you and the GP, i.e. side a. We haven’t said how you could determine a, only that you could.

If you know two sides (in our case a and b) and the angle opposite one of the sides (in our case A) you can solve for the rest.

Adding detail

This post is more detailed than the previous, but still talks about what can be calculated but now how. We’re adding detail as the series progresses.

To motivate future posts, note that just because something can in theory be computed from an equation, that doesn’t mean it’s best to use that equation. Maybe the equation is sensitive to measurement error, or is numerically unstable, or is hard to calculate by hand.

Since we’re talking about navigating by the stars rather than GPS, we’re implicitly assuming that you’re using pencil and paper because for some reason you can’t use GPS.

Related posts

[1] To first approximation, the Earth is a sphere. To second approximation, it’s an oblate spheroid. If you want to get into even more detail, it’s not exactly an oblate spheroid. How much difference does all this make? See this post.

[2] In some cases there are two solutions for one of the missing elements and you’ll need to use additional information, such as your approximate location, to rule out one of the possibilities. More on when solutions are unique here.

The post The Navigational Triangle first appeared on John D. Cook.
seawasp: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] seawasp at 10:53am on 04/12/2025
A fairly long lecture...

... click here to read the rest... )

Posted by Kate Mothes

For This Prestigious Contest, Photographers Capture the Planet’s Most Stunning Landscapes

Known as Tse Bitai to the Diné (Navajo) people, or “winged rock,” Ship Rock in New Mexico is an otherworldly geological formation rising out of the desert that can be seen for miles around. The result of a massive volcanic eruption, the unique outcrop consists of a monolithic stack and at least six radiating, serpentine ridges of long-cooled lava.

Originally, Ship Rock was likely a few thousand feet below the ground, but gradual erosion over tens of millions of years has revealed its jagged shape. For Karol Nienartowicz, who won second place in this year’s International Landscape Photographer of the Year contest, the natural landmark was an irresistible place to document from the air as a storm rolled through the Navajo Nation.

A photograph by Lukas Trixl of a New Zealand mountain and greenery
Lukas Trixl (Austria), “The Land Before Time,” New Plymouth, North Island, New Zealand

One of more than 3,600 entries from photographers around the world for the competition’s 12th edition, Nienartowicz’s image is joined by dozens more honorable mentions that highlight the astonishing diversity of our planet’s surface. Forests, deserts, mountains, lakes, canyons, plains, and many more nuanced ecological systems take center stage in the winners’ striking images.

A panel of judges chose three winners, with the first place award of Landscape Photographer of the Year presented to J. Fritz Rumpf, followed closely by Nienartowicz and Joyce Bealer. Another category commended specific photographs, with Lukas Trixl’s ethereal capture of New Plymouth, New Zealand, taking the top spot.

In total, a pool of 101 photographs made the cut for publication in the competition’s annual book, a further 101 of which can be viewed in the online gallery.

A photograph by Enrico Raimondo of snow-covered pine trees in the mountains of Italy
Enrico Raimondo (Italy), “From the cold age,” Capracotta, Molise, Italy
A photograph by Dennis Hualong Zhang of a supercell in New Mexico
Dennis Hualong Zhang (Armenia), “Supercell,” New Mexico
A photograph by J. Fritz Rumpf of snow-covered trees in a snowy landscape by a lake
J. Fritz Rumpf (U.S.), “Winter Meditations”
A photograph by Henriqu Murta of otherworldly rock formations in the desert in Algeria
Henrique Murta (Brazil), “Martian Sculptures,” Tassili N’Ajjer National Park, Algeria
An aerial photograph by Max Terwindt of a volcanic eruptions and the aurora borealis in Iceland
Max Terwindt (Netherlands), “Aurora Eruption,” Reykjanesbaer, Iceland
A black-and-white photo by Matt Payne of desert landforms in Utah
Matt Payne (U.S.), “Cracked Earth,” Utah
A photograph by Albert Dros of mushrooms in a wetland forest
Albert Dros (Netherlands), “Porcelain Shrooms,” Speulder forest, Veluwe Area, the Netherlands
a photograph of a Dolomite landscape in autumn by Martin Morávek
Martin Morávek (Czech Republic), “Morning in Dolomites,” Dolomites, Italy
A photograph by Karol Nienartowicz of the Atacama Desert in Chile
Karol Nienartowicz (Poland), “Salar de Gorbea,” Salar de Gorbea, Atacama, Andes, Chile

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member today and support independent arts publishing for as little as $7 per month. The article For This Prestigious Contest, Photographers Capture the Planet’s Most Stunning Landscapes appeared first on Colossal.

Posted by John Scalzi

For the first three days of the Whatever Gift Guide this year, We’ve had authors and creators tell you about their work. Today is different: Today is Fan Favorites day, in which fans, admirers and satisfied customers share with you a few of their favorite things — and you can share some of your favorite things as well. This is a way to discover some cool stuff from folks like you, and to spread the word about some of the things you love.

Fans: Here’s how to post in this thread. Please follow these directions!

1. Fans only: That means that authors and creators may not post about their own work in this thread (they may post about other people’s work, if they are fans). There are already existing threads for traditionally-published authorsnon-traditionally published authors, and for other creators. Those are the places to post about your own work, not here.

2. Individually created and completed works only, please. Which is to say, don’t promote things like a piece of hardware you can find at Home Depot, shoes from Foot Locker, or a TV you got at Wal-Mart. Focus on things created by one person or a small group: Music, books, crafts and such. Things that you’ve discovered and think other people should know about, basically. Do not post about works in progress, even if they’re posted publicly elsewhere. Remember that this is supposed to be a gift guide, and that these are things meant to be given to other people. So focus on things that are completed and able to be sold or shared.

3. One post per fan. In that post, you can list whatever creations you like, from more than one person if you like, but allow me to suggest you focus on newer stuff. Note also that the majority of Whatever’s readership is in the US/Canada, so I suggest focusing on things available in North America. If they are from or available in other countries, please note that!

4. Keep your description of the work brief (there will be a lot of posts, I’m guessing) and entertaining. Imagine the person is in front of you as you tell them about the work and is interested but easily distracted.

5. You may include a link to a sales site if you like by using standard HTML link scripting. Be warned that if you include too many links (typically three or more) your post may get sent to the moderating queue. If this happens, don’t panic: I’ll be going in through the day to release moderated posts. Note that posts will occasionally go into the moderation queue semi-randomly; Don’t panic about that either.

6. Comment posts that are not about fans promoting work they like will be deleted, in order to keep the comment thread useful for people looking to find interesting gifts.

Got it? Excellent. Now: Geek out and tell us about cool stuff you love — and where we can get it too.

Tomorrow: Charities!

Posted by Jay Ong

LEGO has officially unveiled 11371 Shopping Street, giving fans a long-awaited look at the 2026 Modular Building! This 3,456-piece model is the next in line for LEGO’s esteemed Modular Building Collection, and features two buildings, a music shop and a furniture shop, connected via a central alleyway, giving it a really unique footprint compared to […]

The post LEGO 11371 Shopping Street officially revealed as the 2026 Modular Building set! appeared first on Jay's Brick Blog.

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)


Cleric Chih's quest to record the tragic history of a famine succeeds all too well.

A Mouthful of Dust (Singing Hills, volume 6) by Nghi Vo
posted by [syndicated profile] johndcook_feed at 12:42pm on 04/12/2025

Posted by John

The previous post touched on how Lewis and Clark recorded celestial observations so that the data could be turned into coordinates after they returned from their expedition. I intend to write a series of posts about celestial navigation, and this post will discuss one fundamental topic: line of position (LOP).

Pick a star that you can observe [1]. At any particular time, there is exactly one point on the Earth’s surface directly under the star, the point where a line between the center of the Earth and the star crosses the Earth’s surface. This point is called the geographical position (GP) of the star.

This GP can be predicted and tabulated. If you happen to be standing at the GP, and know what time it is, these tables will tell your position. Most likely you’re not going to be standing directly under the star, and so it will appear to you as having some deviation from vertical. The star would appear at the same angle from vertical for ring of observers. This ring is called the line of position (LOP).

An LOP of radius 1200 miles centered at a GP at Honolulu

The LOP is a “small circle” in a technical sense. A great circle is the intersection of the Earth’s surface with a plane through the Earth’s center, like a line of longitude. A small circle is the intersection of the surface with a plane that does not pass through the center, like a line of latitude.

The LOP is a small circle only in contrast to a great circle. In fact, it’s typically quite large, so large that it matters that it’s not in the plane of the GP. You have to think of it as a slice through a globe, not a circle on a flat map, and therein lies some mathematical complication, a topic for future poss. The center of the LOP is the GP, and the radius of the LOP is an arc. This radius is measured along the Earth’s surface, not as the length of a tunnel.

One observation of a star reduces your set of possible locations to a circle. If you can observe two stars, or the same star at two different times, you know that you’re at the intersection of the two circles. These two circles will intersect in two points, but if you know roughly where you are, you can rule out one of these points and know you’re at the other one.

 

[1] At the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, these were the stars of interest for navigation in the northern hemisphere: Antares, Altair, Regulus, Spica, Pollux, Aldeberan, Formalhaut, Alphe, Arieties, and Alpo Pegas. Source: Undaunted Courage, Chapter 9.

The post Line of position (LOP) first appeared on John D. Cook.
andrewducker: (Default)

Posted by Jay Ong

Here’s a sneak peek of the 2026 LEGO Modular Building, 11371 Shopping Street, plus the official reveal of its companion GWP (Gift with Purchase) – 40913 Vintage Parade Car! Update: 11371 Shopping Street has officially been unveiled! See here for more On the product page of 40913 Vintage Parade Car (which is live on LEGO.com), […]

The post Sneak peek of 2026 LEGO Modular Building and 40913 Vintage Parade Car GWP appeared first on Jay's Brick Blog.

sovay: (Claude Rains)
Once again the Malden Public Library comes through with Kate Dunn's Exit Through the Fireplace: The Great Days of Rep (1998), a capacious, irreproducible oral history of repertory theatre in the UK. Its timeline of personal recollection runs from the 1920's into the decade of publication, documenting a diverse and vivid case for the professional and communal value of regional theatre without rose-glassing its historically shabbier or more exploitative aspects; its survey includes the subspecies of fit-up theatre which flourished primarily outside of England and devotes chapters to stage management, design, and directing as well as acting and the factor of the audience. It's a serious chunk of scholarship from a writer who is herself fourth-generation in the theater, which must have helped with assembling its roster of close to two hundred contributors. It's just impossible to read much of it without cracking up on a page-by-page basis. Despite the caution in the introduction not to view the heyday of rep as a perpetual goes wrong machine, the cumulative effect of thrills and tattiness and especially the relentless deep-end pace of getting a new play up every week writes its own Noises Off:

Howard Attfield was another actor who was caught on the hop. He remembers, 'I was playing an inspector, I forget the name of the murder thriller, and it was a matinée day and very hot and I remember standing in the dressing-room and I was having a shave, and I thought I had all the time in the world because my first entrance wasn't until the ending of the first act. The inspector comes in, says his lines and ends the first act. So I was standing there quite happily in my boxer shorts having a shave when I heard my call, which I could not believe, and I went absolutely wild. My costume was a suit, an inspector's suit, and a sort of a trench coat and a hat. Anyway, I thought I'd best put on something, the least possible, so I put on trousers and I remember putting on shoes without socks, then I put on the trench coat, did it all up as I'm flying out the door, grabbed the hat and went charging down the stairs, saying, "I'm coming, I'm coming, I'm coming," and I made it on to the stage just in time, but as I went on someone in the wings said, "Shaving foam, shaving foam!" and I realized that I'd got halfway through this shave and I hadn't wiped it off. Luckily it was on the upstage side, as I was coming on from stage right. So instead of looking at the audience, I did everything looking from stage right to stage left, and the upstage bit was foam in my ears and right round my face. I delivered the line and the curtains came down and I collapsed on the floor half naked and half shaven.'

Persons in this book set themselves on fire, fall out of their costumes, get flattened by scenery, fuck up lines, props, entrances, exits, sound cues, lighting cues, scene changes, the sprinkler system. The number of actors who started their careers as assistant stage managers appears to have been part of the apprenticeship quality of rep; the number of actors who were abruptly promoted because a lead had flanicked screaming into the night feels more telling. "It wasn't till many years later that I got into the truly creative side of acting. In those days it was a question of learn the lines and don't bump into the furniture." It is a tribute to the book's scope that so many of its names are unfamiliar to me when my knowledge of older British actors is not nil; it's not just a skim of national treasures. For every Rachel Kempson, Bernard Hepton, or Fiona Shaw, there's an actor like Attfield whose handful of small parts in film and television has barely impinged on me or even one like Jean Byam who was so strictly stage-based that it would never have been possible for me to see her in anything. At the same time, thanks to its compilation from personal histories, I have been left in possession of some truly random facts concerning actors of long or recent acquaintance during their repertory careers, e.g. Alec McCowen corpsed like anything and at one point became convinced that he could telepathically cause a fellow actor to forget their lines. Richard Pasco had such reliable stage fright that the manager of the Birmingham Rep would knock him up five minutes before curtain to check whether he'd been sick yet. Clive Francis had a stammer so bad it made him the bête noire of the prompt corner at Bexhill-on-Sea. (Robin Ellis did not have a stammer, but found it a lifeline during one particularly non-stop season to play a character with one because it gave him the extra time to reach for his next line.) Bernard Cribbins does not name the production for which he was required to transport a goat—an actual goat, from a farm on the moors—by bus to the theatre, leaving unexplained the reasons it had to be a real one. Of course it was medically possible in the '60's, but it is still n-v-t-s to me that Derek Jacobi got smallpox doing panto in Birmingham. That art was produced by this theatrical system as opposed to merely peerless anecdotes absolutely deserves celebration. As a resource for writers as well as theatre historians and actors, the book is a treasure. Details about interwar digs and mid-century tea matinées would not be out of place in Angela Carter. The less farcical side of all the blowups and breakdowns is the assertion by more than one interviewee that rep provided, if not exactly a safe, then at least a survivable space for a growing actor to fail in ways that were essential to their confidence and their craft: "If you didn't become a great actor in weekly rep, at least you learnt to control your nerves. Despite all the throwing up on a Monday, one seemed to be ice cool on stage, because you knew you mustn't give anything away and you mustn't make your fellow actors look bad." But also one night at the David Garrick Theatre in the late '40's Lionel Jeffries lost hold of a lettuce leaf that sailed out into the stalls and splatted itself dressing and all onto a member of the public and that Saturday a packed house came to see if he'd do it again. Opening the book at random is almost guaranteed to yield a story of this nature. Fortunately I was not onstage at the time, and nobody cared how much I laughed.
Music:: English Teacher, "This Could Be Texas"
watervole: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] watervole at 08:23am on 04/12/2025 under

 My first group diabetes talking session is later today.

I'm going to be the thinnest diabetic in the room by far. (because most of the others are likely to have type 2 diabetes)

My weight has fallen gradually over the last few years (which I now know was due to my body finding it harder to produce enough insulin), but not feeling like eating when I had the flu has brought me to an adult lifetime low of 48.4kg which is definitely too low.

The trouble is partly that I'm tired, my asthma is still bad (I've just started on a steroid course) and I can't seem to get interested in food. 

I've put a small bowl of mixed nuts by my computer to encourage nibbling.   I've asked my husband to offer me fruit whenever he has some (nibbling a persimmon right now).

I'm open to ideas...

I tending to eat small quantities, I really need more, but I just don't feel hungry....

 

I don't think it's anorexia - I like the way I look. I've been this shape (well, with nearer 550kg) all my adult life, and I'm very happy with it

I'll let you know if the person running the meeting has any suggestions!  Meanwhile, I can at least have a guilt-free square of quality chocolate.

 

 

posted by [syndicated profile] dg_weblog_feed at 07:00am on 04/12/2025

Posted by Unknown

Press release - 03 December 2025

PREFERRED NEW BILLINGSGATE AND NEW SMITHFIELD MARKETS SITE IDENTIFIED IN LONDON’S ROYAL DOCKS

Billingsgate and Smithfield Market Traders, the City of London Corporation and the Greater London Authority have identified a preferred new site in the Royal Docks in Newham where both markets can locate together.



The relocation of the historic wholesale markets to the proposed new site of Albert Island fulfils the shared ambition of the City of London Corporation and Traders for a new site to be found within the M25, first set out in December 2024.

The move is subject to the successful passage of the Parliamentary Bill to provide for the cessation of the markets at their current sites. Planning permission from Newham Borough Council will also be needed to enable the markets to operate on site.



Not the press release - 04 December 2025

(because it pays to visit the actual places and not just cut and paste)

This is Smithfield Market, as pictured in September when I got to look inside as part of Open House.



The central gangway had been sluiced clean and the refrigerated counters were empty but it still reeked of meat. This splendid building is the East Market Hall, designed by Sir Horace Jones in 1868. There's been a meat market on this site for at least 800 years but there won't be after 2028 because the market's closing. The intention is then for the building to become a 'cultural venue', which'll no doubt be simultaneously excellent and excruciating.

This was Billingsgate Market.



Billingsgate lies just downstream of London Bridge and displaced Queenhithe as the City's premier catch-landing spot in the 16th century. The specialist fish market moved indoors in 1849, then shifted to this grand arcaded market hall (with gold-fish weathervanes) in 1875. But it was repurposed for offices in 1982 when the fish market moved out and is currently a "premier events space".

This is Billingsgate Market.



It's in Poplar between the A13 dual carriageway and the Docklands financial cluster. A fish thrown from the rear quay could easily hit Canary Wharf Crossrail station. The market building is an odorous warehouse with a bright yellow roof and opens daily at 5am (Sundays and Mondays excepted). It's surrounded by a lot of parking spaces for vans and fishmongers because land was really cheap round here in 1982. This market too is due to close in 2028 and be replaced by hundreds and hundreds of flats. You might think the City of London Corporation stands make a killing from selling 10 acres of prime development land but no, the land's owned by the borough of Tower Hamlets on payment of an annual ground rent stipulated as "the gift of one fish". Even the market's bin store is large enough to be the footprint of a whopping skyscraper, perhaps called Haddock Heights or Turbot Tower.

This is where Smithfield and Billingsgate Markets were due to go.



It's a site on Chequers Lane in Dagenham amid a seriously scuzzy Thamesside industrial estate. Dagenham Dock station is very close by. Specifically it's a patch of contaminated hardstanding once occupied by Barking Reach Power Station. It wasn't the ideal place for a new market because it's 10 miles east of the City of London, but it does have very good connections to the A13 so was well located for East London slaughtermen. The City of London Corporation selected this as their new market site in 2019, then last year announced they weren't intending to relocate anything and the market traders would have to do without. The site thus remains empty apart a whirly turbine and a huge spoil heap shaped like an artificial white volcano. Sorry the photo's not great but they don't clean the upstairs windows on the EL2 as often as they could.

Yesterday the City announced it had changed its mind.

This is where Smithfield and Billingsgate Markets are now due to go.



This is Albert Island, an isolated post-industrial leftover at the eastern end of the Royal Docks near Gallions Reach station. Ships once entered the Royal Albert Dock on one side of the island and the King George V Dock on the other side. Two of the locks are still operational although hardly anything passes through these days. To the north is Royal Albert Wharf where well over 1000 boxy flats are pretty much complete and occupied. To the south is Galleons Point where not quite so many flats were built in 2003. But the island inbetween remains desolate, abandoned and almost entirely empty, bar the odd decaying warehouse and scraps of overgrown concrete. The intention is that meat and fish be traded here instead.

This is a photo taken yesterday on Albert Island.



I was surprised to get even partial access to the island because the main access road from the Steve Redgrave Bridge is barriered off with signs warning of guard dogs on patrol. But the walkways across the lock from Royal Albert Wharf were open and accessible, just as they used to be when Capital Ring section 15 passed this way. That followed an estuary-side footpath which is now extremely sealed off but it means you may well have been to this dystopian landscape before, probably while very much looking forward to getting out again. On the far side of the lock I found a board listing anachronistic byelaws, an old sign warning about the importance of Rabies Prevention and a quayside where maritime folk once kept busy. It was only possible to walk a short way down the road before retreating, hemmed in between metal railings and peeling boards, but I can confirm that a heck of a lot of remediation needs to take place before anyone trades a lamb shank.

And this is why nobody's building flats here.



Albert Island lies directly on the flightpath into City Airport. What's more the end of the runway is only quarter of a mile away at this point so planes swoop low on approach and/or screech off overhead after takeoff. It thus isn't possible to build any kind of highrise building here, nor is the nearby roar of jet engines starting conducive to buying one. The long-term vision for Albert Island has therefore been for something non-residential, with ideas including a "state of the art commercial shipyard", a "River Centre for London", a sustainable employment magnet" and a research-based "Ideas Factory". Now it seems two of the City's centuries-old wholesale food markets will be filling much of the space, again with pretty decent ongoing transport connections, once a proper plan has been shaped and agreed.

Having visited yesterday I can confirm that Albert Island is a godforsaken wasteland and any redevelopment should be very welcome. How long it takes to transform is yet to be confirmed, and whether trading in dead animals improves the ambience I'll leave you to decide.
andrewducker: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] andrewducker at 07:31am on 04/12/2025 under
Opening up my YouTube Recap so I can find out what nonsense Gideon has been watching this year.

(Sophia is on her own account, but for technical reasons Gideon can't be yet.)

Posted by John Scalzi

I never quite got Brian De Palma. An unquestionably talented director, he knew how to make a hit — see Carrie and the first Mission Impossible film — and if he was going to fail, he was going to do it on a scale so grand that people would write books about it (The Bonfire of the Vanities). He was brash, steeped in film lore, and more than happy to make sure you knew when he was showing off, which was often; what were Body Double and Blow Out other than him paying homage to, and then trying to one up, Hitchcock and Antonioni? The chutzpah! The actual brass balls on this guy!

Some people loved it (Pauline Kael, for one, seemed to eat it up, and who was going to argue with her), but I was, and, I have to say, still am, largely unimpressed. Scratch a De Palma film and you’ll very often find there’s no there there — it’s mostly just surface flash and thrill and some very intentional shock and subversion, all very mannered and very little with any resonance. Outside of Carrie — which made household names out of De Palma, Stephen King and Sissy Spacek all in one go — it’s debatable that De Palma ever made a truly classic movie, a world-beating piece of celluloid that is studied for its quality over its kitsch.

(And yes, my dudes, I see you standing up on a table full of cocaine, beating your chest over Scarface and telling me to say hello your little friend. Grand Guignol as it is, what it has going for it is excess. It’s a lot, and I found it tiring, and when Tony Montana finally ended up face down in the water, what I remember thinking was good, now I get to go home.)

So: Brian De Palma. Mostly, not for me! Maybe for you, fine, okay, you do you! But not for me!

Ahhhh, but then there’s The Untouchables. And suddenly, for length of this one single film, Brian De Palma is indeed very much for me.

Come with me now to 1930 Chicago, smack dab in the middle of prohibition, and Treasury Officer Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner, stalwart) has come into town to take on the bootleggers and gangsters, two groups with, shall we say, a rather substantial overlap. Ness has little success at it until he comes across beat cop Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery, the most Scottish Irish cop ever), who knows where all the bodies are buried around town, and where the rum is being run. Together with their small and select team (Andy Garcia, in one of his first big roles, and Charles Martin Smith as comedy relief, until he isn’t), they take on Al Capone (Robert De Niro) the celebrated gangster who is loved by the press, despite the fact that he’ll happily blow up a kid or two if that’s what it takes to keep his grip on the town.

It’s a rich setting, and of course this film is not the first time the prohibition era had been essayed — heck, The Untouchables itself was an update of a late 50s TV series starring Robert Stack. The film was treading a path that had been trod upon many times before. This reappraisal and reinvention of film and television tropes was nothing new to De Palma, who had by this time had homaged directors and source material, including Scarface (originally a 1932 movie starring Paul Muni), and he would go on to retread Mission Impossible. The Untouchables, as a property and as a mode of storytelling, was old hat, both for De Palma or for the culture at large. So what is it that sets this movie apart?

Weirdly — no really, weirdly, because this is a film where one character bashes in the head of another character with a baseball bat — I think what makes this film work is restraint. Brian De Palma is Brain De Palma-ing himself all over this film, with all his stylistic tics and touches and his oh-look-do-you-see-how-I’m-referencing-Eisenstein-aren’t-I-so-very-clever-ness, but he’s doing it at about an 8, rather than an 11. Yes, there is that (rather famous) scene involving a baseball bat, but here’s the thing: what makes it shocking isn’t the assault, it’s the context. De Palma shows us enough of the assault (and the aftermath) to make the point, but, unlike, say, Scarface, there’s no lingering. De Palma gets in, gets what the scene needs, and gets out.

Now, I am going to accept there is skepticism for this thesis of mine. The Untouchables does not exactly skimp on the blood or the occasional shot of someone’s brains all over a window pane. This is a movie that rather handily earns it “R” rating. But my argument is that in these cases it’s not about quantity, it is about quality. Those brains on the window pane are actually in service to the story. They are just enough to fill in the scene, and then we’re moving on. For De Palma, for whom so much of his directorial style is basically more, of whatever it is, not just blood although certainly blood too, this sort of restraint in the service of story feels a little revolutionary. Turns out you can do a whole lot, if you’re not trying to bludgeon your audience into sensory overload.

De Palma didn’t have to drive his audience into sensory overload in no small part because the whole affair is just so incredibly handsomely mounted. The script, by David Mamet before his metaphorical cheese starting slipping off his metaphorical cracker, is sharp and pithy and melodramatic as hell. The set design offers up a version of Chicago that is a beautiful fable — 1930 Chicago didn’t look like this but how wonderful it would have been if it had. The wardrobe — the wardrobe! — is done by Georgio fucking Armani, and by God you can tell, everyone looks so ridiculously good. You can pause the movie at just about any point where there’s not blood being sprayed about, and it will look like a fashion shoot. It’s all so good that the terrific Ennio Morricone score is almost an afterthought. Almost.

And then there’s the cast. Sean Connery won an Oscar for his portrayal of a cop past his prime who decides to do the right thing, even if he knows how little good it will do, and as it’s the film’s only Oscar, it’s not unreasonable that this performance is what the film is remembered for. With that given, I will yet argue that this is Kevin Costner’s movie. It’s hard to remember on this side of Field of Dreams and Dances With Wolves and even Yellowstone, but this is the film that made Kevin Costner an actual star; before this he was playing corpses (The Big Chill, out of which he was mostly cut) and second bananas (Silverado).

In Elliot Ness, Costner found the character he’d carry forward: The compelling square, the do-right stiff you can’t actually take your eyes off of. He’d occasionally tilt off this character, mostly when Ron Shelton needed him to play a gone-to-seed sportsman, but it’s pretty clear that with The Untouchables, Costner learned how his bread would be buttered going forward. He went with it for a good long while.

As for De Niro as Al Capone; well, scenery is chewed, and the chewing is delicious.

The Untouchables is the one Brian De Palma movie I unreservedly love, and enjoy, and rewatch, but this is not to say it is a great film. Even Pauline Kael, famously a De Palma champion, understood this; she wrote that The Untouchables was “not a great movie; it’s too banal, too morally comfortable… But it’s a great audience movie — a wonderful potboiler.” This is exactly right. Not every film has to be great, sometimes “just really goddamned good” is good enough. It just needs every good thing in proportion, and for the director to understand when enough is enough.

For this one film, Brian De Palma seemed be content with just “enough.” It wouldn’t last, and that’s fine. It didn’t have to.

— JS

November

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1 2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30