#interview excerpt

[moonlitdark]

I think half the time, I do like to push. I've always liked to question myself and my world around me and how I operate within my space. I don't know why. I think it's that constant pursuit for self and truth.

That makes me happy. There's no greater feeling in the world than when we push ourselves into these spaces, into an uncomfortable space, and it goes well.

~ Jamie Campbell Bower, Rock Sound (Issue 314)

[maybuds]

from “Brian and Roger Eno: ‘Capitalists want you to be constantly stimulated’”

[Text ID in ALT text]

[ripleyscullies]

we all know about eric going to gay bars in the seventies at this point but eric frequenting FAMED GAY BDSM SEX CLUB THE ANVIL??

[isaiahpadams]

[rogerdeakinsdp]

Academy Award Winners for Best Cinematography: 2025 — Lol Crawley, BSC The Brutalist (2024) Directed by Brady Corbet Aspect Ratio: 1.66 : 1

“Q: The Brutalist is very visually striking, with its use of light and architecture playing a huge role in storytelling. What was your approach to crafting the film’s distinct visual language, and how did you use cinematography to reflect the passage of time? Lol Crawley: Even though the film takes place from the late 1940s after the Second World War, all the way through to 1980, we didn’t approach it with this idea of “This decade is going to look like this.” We wanted a cohesive sense, sort of aesthetic. What I like to do is look at the space and the performance and then figure out, well, what is this scene about? It’s like, well, maybe we thought it was four or five shots, but it was another thing. So even though we’re prepared, we’re very alive in the moment. And I hope, and I’m pretty sure, that the movie has a vitality and an energy because of that.” — Daily Bruin, March 2025

[letterful]

head in hands.

[sectoralchromatics]

Michèle Mouton talks in an interview during her pre-event tests at the 1984 Swedish Rally. She then became the only non-Scandinavian on podium and among top 20 results of this rally.

[curioussubjects]

im sure it means nothing that heather couldn't be around when robby was having a breakdown during the MCI because she would've been able to get through to him and mel couldn't interact with frank in the last episode because of how that would soften the blow of his storyline

[katabay]

PAGLUIB

way back in like. march?? I took a stab at writing some kind of kabitserye type of story but it was a mess: it kept veering off into murder mystery drama territory because I was reading a lot of murder mystery novels around then and it Wasn't Good because I hadn't tried writing mysteries, let alone murder mysteries, before lmao

I did write a handful of short mystery stories since then, so next year I might take a stab at this idea again now that I'm no longer jumping head first into a genre pool I don't know how to swim in :)

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Let’s start with Oregon – what does this mean for unhoused people in Grants Pass?

It means that Grants Pass can enforce its 24/7 citywide ban on public homelessness. The question was whether cities should be able to jail or fine someone who has no other alternative but to live in public space – the unhoused folks who are considered “involuntarily homeless”. The city was already allowed to arrest people who had declined offers of shelter. Now, Grants Pass will likely be fining people who have no shelter options.

When you fine someone who can’t pay, the fine can eventually turn into a misdemeanor. Studies have shown that it doesn’t help an already poor person to be driven into debt. Fining someone makes them less likely to emerge from homelessness, including by ruining their credit score and making them unable to afford basic needs like food.

Beyond fines, the city of Grants Pass is going to eventually jail more people. This is punishing people who have done nothing more than exist in public space. This case was about whether you can punish people for the unavoidable consequences of being human. The supreme court said yes.

How do you expect the decision will impact other jurisdictions across the west?

This is quite possibly the most consequential decision in history up until this point relating to homeless rights. It’s hard to overstate how important it is.

I think more cities will attempt 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. I think it will encourage cities to shift away from investments in evidence-based approaches like adequately investing in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and diversion and shift toward more law-and-order, enforcement-led efforts to essentially jail and banish already marginalized people from public view.

Grants Pass argued it wasn’t criminalizing the status of homelessness, but criminalizing the act of camping in public. The supreme court majority in its ruling on Friday concurred, and said that criminalizing an act does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Presumably cities could in the future go even further than Grants Pass has, as long as they frame their laws as prohibiting public camping, instead of prohibiting homelessness, although I don’t think that issue has been fully resolved by today’s decision.

Donald Trump and others have used increasingly dark rhetoric, threatening to force people into “tent cities”. Will the ruling embolden those kinds of efforts?

I think we could see the forced displacement of unhoused folks into what I would call internment camps out in the middle of nowhere – a mass migration of unhoused people from one place where their existence is banned to other places where the laws don’t ban their existence. Many cities already have authorized camps in far-out locations that are completely invisible to the general public. I learned about one that was bordered by a dump, a recycling center and railroad tracks – the quintessentially least desirable place.

The idea of rounding up unhoused folks and forcing them into camps or out of the jurisdiction entirely is obviously very concerning. And it should be of grave concern, because once something is invisible, you don’t know what’s happening to the already really vulnerable people living there. Trump has publicly contemplated using his federal authority to move people into the middle of the desert where they won’t bother anyone by existing. It’s a very dystopian vision of internment camps and the likely abuses and neglect that would come from that. It’s terrifying.

Prior to this ruling, cities already had quite a lot of latitude to restrict camping, correct?

Yes, cities could already sweep encampments as much as they like. In many cities, they’ve been sweeping tents at record rates. They could also already enforce anti-camping laws if there was something that could be shown to be an urgent public health or safety issue with respect to a particular encampment – for example, if an encampment was blocking a whole sidewalk. Cities could sweep without even giving notice in those circumstances. Under the previous standard, cities weren’t even required to provide adequate shelter. It just said if the city lacks shelter, it can’t jail or fine someone, which to me should be so straightforward, and yet somehow here we are.

How do you expect legal advocates for unhoused people will respond to this ruling?

The dehumanizing message of today’s decision is going to galvanize civil rights attorneys. It has to. Anytime somebody’s basic right to exist is threatened, civil rights activists have to regroup. And cities should not approach this too cavalierly. There will be legal consequences for cities that pursue 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. All this decision does is remove the protections for unhoused folks under the eighth amendment of the US constitution. States across the country have analogs to the eighth amendment in their state constitutions. States can and often do interpret their state constitutional provisions to be more protective than the federal constitution. The eighth amendment at its core is really about how much we value the humanity of vulnerable people. So it’s crippling from a human standpoint to have that protection removed. But there are other avenues that homeless rights advocates and human rights lawyers can still pursue. They can make arguments under other federal constitutional provisions. There are still due process arguments under the 14th amendment. You can still argue there is selective prosecution. There are arguments that could be made under the fourth amendment [which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures]. There’s the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and most chronically homeless people would likely qualify as someone with a disability who has protections from state-sanctioned abuse.

[badgalsasuke]

So Kishimoto has discussed how he will only show the faces during a battler or action scene if it's a decisive scene, or stricly necessary. He prefers to not show the face so readers will focus instead on the characters' body movements.

This confirms once again, how pivotal the eye contact between Naruto and Sasuke was during their final battle, as it is not something Kishimoto likes to do on the regular for the fight scenes.

Kishimoto put so much emphasis in Naruto's intense gaze for Sasuke and how much it affects Sasuke. Like, notice how Sasuke has to close his eyes hoping to escape Naruto's intense look.

[oacest]

[Liam] Gallagher's earliest memory is being stung by a bee outside his granny's house in Charlestown, County Mayo, when he was four. Throughout his childhood, the urban charms of Burnage alternated with holidays amid the rural basics of his mother Peggy's, hometown. "Wild, hazy days they were," he reminisces. "Running round like lunatics in a field with loads of cousins..." As a kid he was already prone to extreme enthusiasms - such as Weetabix: "I was addicted to them. Nine a day. Three in the morning. Three when I came in from school. Three before I went to bed. I'd wake up like, 'Who fuckin’ wants it? His "sensitive side" lay dormant for many years. His mother bought him a violin, but it wasn’t his style. Despite reports of his pulling-power, he insists he rarely had girlfriends because "I couldn't be arsed putting the time in. I wanted to be off with the lads and having a laugh." The lads included Paul "Bonehead" Arthurs front West Point and Paul "Guigsy" McGuigan from Levenshulme. He played Gaelic football, association football, and boxed briefly, until the club banned him when his lack of rapport with the Queensberry rules was exposed: "This lad (Geoffrey Scholes), he cracked me on the nose so I fuckin’ took the gloves off and gave him a good kicking. He took acid from time to time "It's good to get LSD out of your system when you're young" - and was particularly partial to the magic mushrooms he picked in Lyme Park, until, when he was 16, they led him to discover his capacity for cliff-edge self-restraint. He and a friend picked a sackful and took them down to Didsbury to share with a regular crowd of friends. But nobody came. He ate "a neckload", then felt something alarming happening: "I said, That's it, l'm off to hospital. I went up to a nurse and I told her, Look, I know you're going to boot off at me, but I've been taking a load of mushrooms and me head's up me arse, so can I just hang about here? I sat there zebedeed up, man. But it shows I've always been good at cutting things out when I have to."

Liam in Q, Dec 1999

[rainbowpopeworld]

(Edited to add: not an actual quote from Michael Sheen - this is a meme)

[mementoboni]

About Kyo's colorful voice (2)

ーーAt the same time, the many ways of using your voice have become a part of your personality as a vocalist. What kind of process did you go through to broaden your singing style?

Kyo：In my opinion, I think it has been narrowed. Up until “Withering to death.” I had been using various techniques to expand my voice in the work, but with “THE MARROW OF A BONE” it suddenly shrunk. After performing live, I got really pissed off at being called “The vocalist who cannot sing” (laugh). Some people thought that I was just doing a good job of making sound recordings on the computer (laugh). Until then, I had intentionally included soundtracks that without singing in the coupling song of singles. But in the end, nothing seemed to be conveyed. There was a great sense of distance, so I felt that I was the only one walking to an unknown place, I had to pull them up. So I decided to raise the quality of our works above “Withering to death.” From a global perspective, what is the style that only I could create? I did some research on myself, and I packed it all into “UROBOROS.” Moreover, I felt like I've almost 100% recreated it in live performances so no one would complain. After I actually did it, I was able to create exactly what I had envisioned, and I felt satisfied that I could become a singer with a unique style. After that, when we toured overseas, I was selected in many rankings in the metal vocalist category, and I felt that I had done nothing wrong. I think it was with “UROBOROS” that I finally found a match between my live performances and our works.

source: DIR EN GREY PLAYERS BOOK (2016) - Kyo part

[theinfinitedivides]

interview with the vampire, s1, amc, 2022 / molloy, samuel beckett, 1955

original gif sources for stills (full gifs not reposted out of courtesy to creators): ep 7 — @emmaziadarcy

[isaiahpadams]

My true-love hath my heart and I have his,

By just exchange one for the other given:

I hold his dear, and mine he cannot miss,

There never was a bargain better driven.

His heart in me keeps me and him in one;

My heart in him his thoughts and senses guides:

He loves my heart, for once it was his own;

I cherish his because in me it bides.

His heart his wound received from my sight;

My heart was wounded with his wounded heart;

For as from me on him his hurt did light,

So still, methought, in me his hurt did smart:

Both equal hurt, in this change sought our bliss,

My true love hath my heart and I have his.

- Philip Sidney