#just copies of the originals) the variants (especially Nine)

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

No one:

Some random person, every week since July: Has anyone done this yet? *posts meme redraw of Shadow breaking it to Sonic that they’re gonna have to kill Nine and Sonic going "Damn😔"*

[jamesstegall]

Stop saying “delta plus.” It doesn’t mean anything.

If you’ve been worried by recent news stories about a strain of covid called “delta plus,” it may freak you out to hear that scientists just expanded the delta family from four variants to 13. 

Please take a deep breath. Scientists would really like you to understand that there’s no evidence delta has learned any new tricks, and these new names are for helping keep track of covid’s evolution—not nine new reasons to panic. And many researchers are also really, really hoping you’ll stop saying ‘delta plus.’

“The name ‘delta plus’ is completely incorrect, because it gives the perception that this will cause more damage,” says Anderson Brito, a member of the Pango Lineage Designation Committee, which assigns scientific names like B.1.1.7 to new branches of the virus. “So far, we have no evidence any of the mutations affect behavior compared to the original delta variant.”

It might be helpful to think of covid as a tree. Delta is like a thick branch on that tree—a big family of viruses that share a common ancestor and some of the same mutations, which let them spread between people more quickly. When the big branch grows new twigs, which happens all the time, scientists keep track by using technical names that include numbers and letters. But a new scientific name doesn’t mean that those viruses will act any differently than the branch they grew from: and if one of those new branches does start to change its behavior, it gets a new Greek letter, not a ‘plus.’

(Now is a good time to note that while some of delta’s mutations make it more transmissible, vaccines are still very good at preventing severe illness from every known strain of covid.)

What’s in a name?

This naming confusion stems mostly from journalists (and their scientist sources) blending two commonly-used systems of tracking covid’s evolution—despite the fact that the approaches have very different strategies and goals. 

The alphanumeric system that gave the first delta variant its scientific name—B.1.617.2—is called Pango. It’s meant for researchers tracking small genetic changes to the virus. It doesn’t determine whether new lineages act differently in people, just whether they’re different on a molecular level. There are currently over 1,300 Pango lineages, 13 of which are considered part of the delta family.

The name delta, meanwhile, comes from the WHO system, which is meant to simplify genomics for the general public. It gives names to related covid samples if it believes they may be of particular interest. There are currently eight families with Greek letters, but until there’s evidence a new sublineage of the first delta strain is acting differently from its parents, the WHO considers them all to be delta. 

“Delta plus” takes the WHO designation and mixes it up with Pango’s lineage information. It doesn’t mean the virus is more dangerous, or more concerning.

“People get quite anxious when they see a new Pango name. But we should not be upset by the discovery of new variants. All the time, we see new variants popping up with no different behavior at all,” says Brito. “If we have evidence a new lineage is more threatening, WHO will give it a new name.”

Tracking evolution

“For a genomic scientist like me, I want to know what variations we’re seeing,” says Kelsey Florek, senior genomics and data scientist for the Wisconsin state public health lab. “For the greater public, it doesn’t really make a difference. Classifying them all as delta is sufficient for communicating with policy makers, public health, and the public.”

Fundamentally, viral evolution works like any other kind. As the virus spreads through the body, it makes copies of itself, which often have small mistakes and changes. Most of these are a dead end, but occasionally, a copy with a mistake replicates enough inside a person to spread to someone else. 

This week, scientists split delta’s ‘children’ into 12 families in order to better track small-scale local changes. None of this means the virus itself has suddenly changed.

As the virus spreads from person to person, it accumulates those small changes, allowing scientists to follow patterns of transmission—the same way we can look at human genomes and identify which people are related. But in viruses, most of those genetic changes have no impact on the way it actually affects individuals and communities.

But genomics scientists still need a way to track that viral evolution, both for basic science and to identify any changes in behavior as early as possible. That’s why they are keeping a close eye on patterns in delta, especially, since it’s spreading so rapidly. The Pango team continues to split descendants of the first delta lineage, B.1.617.2, into sub-categories of related cases.

Until recently, it had registered 617.2 itself, plus three “children”, called AY.1, AY.2, and AY.3. This week, the team decided to split those children into 12 families in order to better track small-scale local changes—hence the total of 13 delta variants. None of this means the virus itself has suddenly changed.  

“Especially at the margins, with these emerging variants, you are splitting hairs,” says Duncan MacCannell, chief scientific officer of the CDC’s Office of Advanced Molecular Detection. “Depending on how those definitions are crafted and refined, the hairs can split in different ways.”

What matters to the public?

It’s worth noting that not all variants with WHO nicknames are equally bad. When the organization gives a new family a name, it also adds a label telling us how worried we should be. 

The lowest level is a variant of interest, which means it is worth keeping an eye on; in the middle is a variant of concern, like delta, which has clearly evolved to be more dangerous. Often, variants of interest are given that label because they share a mutation with variants of concern—they’re under surveillance. 

The CDC has an additional, more severe category, a variant of high consequence, which has never been given to a family of covid. It’s reserved for potential future strains that might cause serious illness in vaccinated people, don’t show up on commonly-used diagnostic tests, or perhaps resist multiple treatments for covid symptoms.

The two Pango lineages that are most commonly being referred to as ‘delta plus,’ AY.1 and AY.2, both have a mutation previously seen in another variant of concern, called beta, which first emerged in South Africa. But in the several months since AY.1 and AY.2 emerged, there has been no sign they behave any differently than their parent. 

“We identify mutations that we think have significance, and there’s some evidence to support that. Sometimes those pan out, and sometimes they don’t,” says MacCannell.

So if they don’t act any differently, why are many public health agencies—including the CDC—splitting out the sublineage of delta cases when they report their figures? 

“A lot of it is trying to head off questions. If we just put up a ticker that says, ‘delta has this many cases,’ we get questions like, ‘do we have any AY.3? I’ve heard that AY.3 is concerning,’” says Florek, who created Wisconsin’s covid sequencing dashboard. “It’s not just the media. It’s facilities, hospitals, clinics—all the customers we serve as a state public health laboratory.”

“As far as what the best approach is? I’m really not sure. I think we’re all kind of learning the best way to communicate the necessary information, in a way that’s actionable and interpretable by a large audience.”

Scientists will always have educated guesses about which genes are linked to changes in behavior. That speculation, though, is often based on lab experiments that look at the effects of individual genetic changes. 

In reality, mutations happen randomly across the genomes of viruses in all the millions of people who are infected. Some of those mutations die out, and a few spread to other people. As changes accumulate, they interact with one another, and with human actions, in complicated ways to give rise to real-world behavior. 

It takes a long time for scientists to do the research and really understand what’s going on—a lot longer than it takes to write a news story or post a paper online without peer review.

“Genomics is not everything, it’s the beginning of the story. It tells us that this variant exists,” says Brito. “We can be anxious when there’s a reason, but not for minor changes.”

This story is part of the Pandemic Technology Project, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation.

from MIT Technology Review https://ift.tt/3sfFWww via IFTTT

[natefromcomicburst-blog]

STABBITY BUNNY CREATOR, RICHARD RIVERA INTERVIEW

Stabbity Bunny Creator Richard Rivera Interview FEB 8TH 2018

Richard Rivera is the affable sort of guy you want to buy a beer for just to hear him spin a yarn. His engrossing approach to storytelling is evident in his breakout hit Stabbity Bunny, which is flying off the shelves. Despite its recent rise in popularity, Rivera has had to work hard to get to today, self-publishing Stabbity for several years and working directly with his fans through a grueling convention schedule. More recently Rivera has not slowed down his travel schedule, but he does have a strong partner via a publishing deal with indie darling Scout Comics. Amazing variants from up-and-coming studios like The Brain Trust have also helped create buzz for Richard’s work and fans have clearly decided to “make mine Stabbity!”

With stores selling out of Stabbity Bunny, Rivera and team have obviously hit on something special. Comic Burst reached out to Richard, who was gracious enough to grant us the following interview, which is edited for clarity and length.

Comic Burst: Thanks for taking the time to speak with us today, especially considering how busy you have been with the huge success of Stabbity Bunny. There is a lot of talk in the comic community about the book. What do you think of the success?

Richard Rivera: Oh it’s great! I’ve spent the last three years driving to conventions and I pretty much drove to them all. I’m pretty much the guy who doesn’t like to stop when driving either. I have driven 18 hours before, only to show up just in time to set up for the convention, work that day, and then crash hard that night, and I love it. I love meeting all these people who want to know more about the book. Especially going to a city for the second or third time, and having more and more people come up wanting to know if there are more issues. To get the story out was the whole point and it feels great. What Scout [Comics] has done is given me the opportunity to get the word out on a larger stage. It feels like every store is now helping me, and all the conventions are going on for my book.

Richard Rivera Stabbity Bunny Signing Forbidden Planet London

CB: Does it feel like “finally, my time has come?”

RR: (Laughing) I’m much simpler than that. I’m just happy there are more people being exposed to the book and some of those people are excited about it. I’m really, really happy for the people who bought the book over the years, and now some of those people are selling those books for hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

CB: Collectors certainly love your books! The other day a variant was spotted auctioning for around $400. That’s a lot of money for a new indie book.

RR: Yeah, I couldn’t believe it! I had not seen many for sale and then maybe a month ago an issue number one convention variant came out--because I do watch these things you know--and the numbers pretty much stick in my head. It went for $57, and then a one-through-four set went for $43. Soon after that, prices started climbing fast and I was surprised. A one-through-five is at over $400 today!

I wish I had kept a few of those issues. I had set aside ten copies of issue number five--which you can see on the inside cover is a limited 100 print run--but at Megacon people were coming up like “Hey! Do you have any new issues?” and I’d be like “yeah I have a number five” and I’d give it to them. I gave them all away, but I’m really happy people got them. I want to get the story out there! Something like this I can honestly say I never expected.

CB: You have left readers wanting more. Are there any other projects you are currently working on?

RR: Yes. I have another series called Shadowplay co-created with Alex Lobato , artwork by Clara Meath, and color art by Liezl Buenaventura, who is also the color artist on Stabbity Bunny. I can’t say much but I can say that it’s a shared universe with Stabbity Bunnyand there is a potential crossover for sure.

CB: So there is a lot to come from you and Scout Comics on the horizon.

RR: I’m incredibly happy with Scout. I have gotten to meet pretty much everyone at Scout and every time I met up with them I’m more encouraged.. A bunch of cool guys really working hard to get stories out there, to get some fresh titles. Rather than shopping Shadowplay around I want to stay with Scout and do whatever small part I can be to help them grow into the next Dark Horse.

CB: That’s an admirable sentiment, such loyalty is hard to come by today.

RR: Thank you. That’s nice of you to say!

CB: Who are your influences?

RR: It was the mid-to-late 70’s and I read whatever was on the spinner rack of comics at the store. Back then, I wasn’t conscious of writers as much as I was artists, but Marvel stuck with me with all the Neal Adams and Barry Windsor-Smith stuff. A particular memory is Vision going crazy and beating up the Skrull because they had taken Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. To see him so enraged and actually kill and hurt more people than he had to...there were no Wolverines or Deadpool or Punisher or whoever. I enjoyed moments like that, that showed the more human side of things. I’ll always enjoy Silver Age storytelling because of the innocence.

CB: Was that a defining moment in regard to showing you the dark side that’s sometimes present in comics?

RR: It was. The next thing that really got me was Daredevil 191 along with Warrior Magazine from England. Alan Moore stories were in there, and a number of things were black and white, which were a revelation to me. Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing made me realize that writing could be structured in multiple layers, with symbolism, literary references, and foreshadowing all in a story that didn’t feel unwieldy. It flowed so well. So much depth.

A lot of my writing I feel is empathetic. Where will this fall on your emotional scale? Are these people I’d like to know? Are these people I would be scared of? Why are they doing this? The moustache twirling days are long in the past. There is a lot of cast in Stabbity. The cast of Stabbity Bunny are everyday people like you and I. I once described the characters in Stabbity as “people who put away their hedge trimmers and cook books, and show us that everyday people can make a difference.”

CB: How did you meet Dwayne Biddix (artist/visual designer) and Liezl Buenaventura (color artist)?

RR: I started working on Stabbity nine years ago, and about five years ago wrote 36 issues to start making into comic books. At first I approached a couple folks over at Deviant Art and was ignored completely, which I completely understand; every day an artist is approached by people saying “hey, I want to make a comic book!” and they don’t know that person. They didn’t know me. Then I decided that it was more important to me to find an artist on Facebook where you can see not only their work, but you can kind of get to know them and see if you can work together. After stalking Dwayne Biddix for a few months, I approached him and asked if he would check out the script. Knowing how nice of a guy he was, I knew he would at least read the script. I sent it to him at night and the next morning I’m like “so…did you look at the script?” and he was like “yeah I did…” and then “DUDE! THAT WAS THE BEST SCRIPT I'VE EVER READ!”

Then we needed a color artist. There were some really strong submissions, but nothing that made the light shine down and angels choir start playing. We eventually found this moment with Liezl though. I’ve let people try out for other series, but I always go back to Liezl.

Stabbity Bunny "Donnie Darko" Brain Trust variant cover, graffiti found Leake Street Tunnel, London

CB: Thank you very much for speaking with us today and we are excited to see where Stabbity Bunny goes from here!

RR: Thanks for having me and thank you to all the fans and stores for buying the book.

Interviewed and written by - Nathan Liberty

Edited by - Dr. No

Want more info on the smash hit Stabbity Bunny check out their website http://stabbitybunny.com and their awesome publisher Scout Comics at http://www.scoutcomics.com

Click this link below to see the original article at comic burst, now!!

https://www.comicburst.com/blog/stabbity-bunny-richard-rivera-interview/

[kendrixtermina]

It's not your "4 fix" that makes people think you're a infp. It's your obvious inferior Te. People like midlink have told you a thousand times: high Ti users break down their thought process instead of sending a long walk of text with difficult and over researched words. A intp wouldn't need a "long list with points and examples with less vague definitions" because that's Te, a Ti Dom is not as sure about their type as you're so stubborn with yours. You don't explain yourself like a intp.

Ah you’re one of their cronies. as I suspected. 

One group of raid-loving associates is hardly “people”. Calm your Fe tits and get perspective. . 

I shall not be wasting further time on this nor repeating the same arguments I made weeks ago, other than the tl; dr is that you’re shoehorning my words into your conceptions of the definitions with a generous helping of word-twisting and presumption. 

An amusing example for casual readers:

Me: “Be precise and specific. Give me reason to give your random claim attention and consideration.” ( that is, Don’t use a vague  that could be applied to anything)

They: You asked for said you needed “less vague” definitions [as in easier to understand] hence inf Te. 

It’s like those ppl who argue their fav character is an INFJ  and blame all the obvious, copious and constant displays of sensing on “inferior Se”. never mind that an inferior function would generally be used mostly when triggered rather than being the person’s default aproach.

I mean take a step back and look at this.  Do they realize that they’ve just basically claiming that using, referencing or researching technical jargon is something an INTP would never do? I don’t think they meant to do that  because it’s opposite of like what any source ever tell you about INTPs when you first ask what they are. Stereotypes don’t apply to everyone but the love of nerd jargon and researching new topics seems to be widespread. 

Rather this is insofar as I can tell a honest mistake due to using bad definitions. 

Good example for these “One trick pony, simplistic” conception of the functions a la “Si is memory” or “Ni is planning” that creates so much confusion, in their case “all referencing is Te”. In truth one behavior can be done by various processes in various ways. 

Since neither of us invented mbti and we wish to talk about mbti and not some thing we’ve made up from scratch on our own, we would have to read up on sources in order to talk about this mbti thing and use jargon in order to discuss the topic with precision and familiarize ourselves with the concept.

Since no human can invent the wealth of modern science themselves we ALL have to reference at some point. That’s no more a particular function than memory rather function influences how we reference. I daresay a lot of referenciing is also Ne but that would be a more associative sort. 

With the T functions its more about connections - the difference is more that Te takes the data as it is as basic “building blocks” which it then build into methods, procedures and applications, whereas Ti tries to understand what the source “means” that is recreate a model of the concept and its logical interconnections in their head. They won’’t just go and use the fact right away until they have analyzed it for themselves, but they may well think “this is an useful concept!” and adopt it, making additions or changes for themselves or synthezising their own understanding from multiple sources depending on what convinces them whereas the Te user adopts an alghorithm/procedure based on how well it gets results. 

Accepting info after checking it isn’t the same as just “swallowing” it. There’s a difference between citing a source as an appeal to authority or doing it so the other person knows which imput you used, which parts of the thinking are yours and to go and form their own conclusions. Obviously I would not reference concepts that did not convince me but the decision wether to be convinced or not is made via how the concept mashes with previous understanding and wether it makes logical sense not because I have seen its results and widely found useful by ppl in general (Te) - indeed a lot of this advanced in depht socianics stuff isn’t known or used by many people but I use it because I have found it makes sense and makes good distinctions.barring future changes of opinion of course.

Indeed knowledge only through results but not and unless there’s very good proof I tend to disbelieve or be sceptical of claims of casual relation if there is no mechanistical explanation of HOW thing A can possibly affect thing B. For better or for worse. Sometimes it turns out the local INTJ was right and a problem really ~was~ the laundry detergent’s fault even if I did not know how. . 

But in either case the person will talk of square roots when they encounter a square root or a problem that square roots  are relevant and refer to the word “square root”. Not everyone who ever did this is a FP or TJ. The difference is more in the focus understanding: TE: “You get a square root by multiplying a number with itself.” Ti: “A square root is a number’s multiple of itself.” - hence why socionics calls it procedural logic or alghorithms (”This is how you do it.” where the answer is a method) vs. structural logic or laws. (”What is it?” where the answer is a cathegory in the TPs’ sorting system)

Te is not just repeating phrases. TJs and FPs do not just repeat stuff - they know, to varying degrees, when and how to use what depending on what they encounter and criticize/ find fault in such methods. (Indeed in my experience the types who do the most “unsynthesized repeating of statements” are usually Ti inferiors who often compensate with a very Fe ish, “A said X statement but B said Y so I am asking a third person consensus decision process and they seem to have a hard time extracting extra information from a statement by deduction.)

What Jung meant by “objective” or “Subjective” in his original definition of the functions - which I’ve studied -  is not the colloquial sense of the words (that extroverted functions only copy and that introverted ones make every) but wether “the attention begins with the subject” or “the object.”

That means ddoes the thought start with the person, or with what they are seeing? 

Te, Ne, Fe, and Se will pay attention to the stimulus because it’s there wether it’s reacting to a feeling, awknowledging a fact, reacting to a sensation, noticing an association etc. with Fi, Ti, Si and Ni the process begins from the inside - how does the stimulus relate to the subject and their own feelings/beliefs/archetypes/past sensations? Hence why Te pays attention to things that are ‘relevant’ whereas Ti follows what the person is interested in & may not show much interest in what is deemed “relevant” by broad society hence the math geek who knows nothing about movie stars etc. 

And once you understand that it is way more probable that I have Ti insofar as I can discern I match those patterns very well. 

IDK who OP is surely can’t type them from just this paragraph but I recall that a lot of ppl of the group from the 2 weeks back poster were ENTPs so for a moment I’ll work off the asumption that you are one it would make a lot of sense if you were even if its not the only option. 

This is where the fine distinctions of socionics concepts are useful particularly in how they describe the difference between different function slots such as auxillary and as well as Victor Gulenko’s “Cognitive styles” (I am almost certainly holographic-panoramic so assuming that I was indeed mistaken and was a Fi user all along, I’d be an ENFP if anything.

It may come down to a difference between ENTP and INTP.

But to make iot short and cut to the basics the idea  - which at least to me seemed consistent with all my observations - is that the auxxilary or “creative” function is used to “create” new thoughts at the behest of the base/program/dominant function when the dom function switches it on. in any case the dominant function is what makes the primary decisions that is basic in any variant of jungian typology. 

Hence why an ENTP can defend a wolly foreign belief system on the fly in a debate, change opinion over night and reinterpret all past data to that end etc. but that is specific of auxillary Ti not all Ti. In an ENTP your auxillary spits out ever new all new such logically consistent frameworks at the whim of your dominant Ne. 

So Ne doms change their opinions very fast and are often constantly wondering if they’re mistyped - even when they know that this is common for Ne doms they still could be wrong and as Ne doms they primarily see the world as “coulds”. Since they have little Si they are not likely to give past experiences much weight and take longer to “retain” tendencies anyways so their opinions are not particularly inert especially if their gut fix is not nine. 

I mean think of it: Ti is an introverted function. It uses an internal framework to make decisions which it constantly mantains. New problems are either quickly decided based on past categories or require a slow introverted process of reorganization.  In an INTP, Ti is in charge and flips Ne on when needed.  Dom Ti fits everything into one big central framework which is the main organising principle of the person’s mind. 

When new data or queries are encountered the ENTP would first go to Ne and look at the possibility, examine it in its own right, and then later create or look for a logical framework that fits it. The INTP would go to Ti first, that is, try to fit it into that big preexisting net work. And only if it does not fit will it be reorganized, “Oh, I was wrong, so what else could it be? * activates Ne” 

 First time someone presents you with a possibility you will examine it but you won’t reexamine something from the ground up if you already “know” the terrain and have a strong detailed framework that explains why the person may think that even though you don’t think it’s true. You’re still open to changing your mind but a threshold of unaccounted data must be crossed before reevaluation will happen. That is how dominant  introverts work. It’s not stubborness its not reinventing the wheel twice. 

Its not uncommon for INTPs in particular to “miss” data that does not fit their framework at times and need some time to change entrenched beliefs. And again that’s not just me saying it that’s very common info with a simple cause: the way in which dominant Ti tries to fit everything in a preexisting framework first and then maybe changes. Really not making any wild controversial claims here. Also we have more Si than ENTPs making the ideas more inert for better or for worse. 

To summarize: 

Dominant Ti doesn’t change at the drop of a hat like aux Ti especially in conjunction with tert si

Citing sources is basic rhetoric not Te the difference is in HOW the sources are used

The difference is in focus on the object vs begin of thinking inside the subject

in the end there’s only so much sense in discussing my thinking with a stranger who isn’t a telepath. I know my head but how would i prove that to you? 

(See the common apologist spiel about”All nonbelievers secretly believe.” Me: *feels no belief* actually no. - but how to I prove to someone what is or isn’t in my head, especially if their worldview doesn’t even allow for the possibility? Same with being in denial. How do you prove youre not in denial? especially when both no denial and denial can produce the answer “No im not?”.  )

Person A: You talk only about yourself!

Person B: No I do not`?

Person A: You’re doing it again! ... but you can’t answer a quetion anout yourself without mentioning yourself. Its the other person who mentioned you in the first place. So IDK if anything will even come of this except another hour of my life going out the window. 

[actionfigureinsider]

A Miniseries Three Decades in the Making, A Heartwrenching Tale of Justice and Family

SAN DIEGO, CA (April 27, 2020) – Springing from a lost 1987 storyline by TMNT co-creators Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, the much-anticipated

will be available this summer from IDW Publishing (OTCQX: IDWM) in an epic oversized five-issue miniseries!

In a future New York City far different from the one we know today, a lone surviving Turtle goes on a seemingly hopeless mission to obtain justice for his fallen family and friends. Kinetic layouts from Eastman, atmospheric inks from Andy Kuhn, and a thrilling script full of surprises from longtime TMNT scribe Tom Waltz all combine to make this one of the most memorable TMNT stories that fans will ever read.

In his own words, Kevin Eastman reflects on the conception of this important TMNT milestone:

“About ten years ago, I re-discovered a twenty page outline for a TMNT story that Peter and I wrote together back in 1987. The story was set thirty years in the future, which (as written then) was set in 2017. Reading through it again, I drifted back to a very different time in TMNT history — back when it was all about the comics, mostly just Peter and I writing and drawing the issues, pre-everything the world would soon come to know about these characters that we’d created and called the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

“It has been an INCREDIBLE thirty-six year journey, thanks to the brilliant talents of so many that brought new visions and TMNT stories to life, and especially the fans who supported all of them. Nine years ago, I was invited back into the TMNT comic universe, via my friends at IDW Publishing. Aside from the original run with my friend and co-creator Peter Laird, working on the IDW TMNT universe has been the best time I have had with the Turtles for a very, VERY long time.

“A little over a year ago, as the ongoing series headed towards issue one hundred, I showed a rough revised and updated version of the story outline (now set in the year 2040) to Tom Waltz, who equally fell in love with the possibilities of it. The Last Ronin is a heartfelt love poem to all the TMNT universes of the past, and offers up an intense look at one possible future — firmly based on and adapted from an original thirty-three year-old idea, from the original creators.

“Trust me — Tom, Andy, and I have just started on a two-hundred page journey… and it IS going to be one HELL of a ride…”

Series co-writer Tom Waltz says, “When Kevin first showed me the outline that he and Peter had created back in the ’80s, I was gobsmacked. Beyond Peter Laird’s eerily prescient technological and sociological predictions, the story idea itself was exciting and versatile, designed in a way that it could be easily modified to fit into the many different TMNT iterations that have existed over the years, without losing any of the core elements injected into it by both Kevin and Peter. I have the absolute honor to join these legendary creators to craft a TMNT story set in a chaotic future, rife with revenge, honor, tragedy, hope, and over-the-top ninja-action sequences that’ll blow any Turtles fan’s mind, no matter what version of the beloved franchise is their favorite.”

#gallery-0-4 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-4 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

“After hitting TMNT #100 last year, we were interested in doing something even larger in scope and also something that really plays to everyone’s strengths,” says editor Bobby Curnow. “The Last Ronin is that project: the future New York we’re building is a perfect place for Tom’s immersive world-building and characterization, and Andy’s art is more innovative and engaging than we’ve ever seen. This is Kevin and Peter’s vision, but the entire team is making it their own and that’s really exciting to see.”

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Last Ronin #1 will be available with multiple cover variants for retailers and fans to enjoy, including Cover A by Kevin Eastman and two Retailer Incentive editions by Eastman and Mateus Santolouco (TMNT: Shredder in Hell), respectively. Each issue is a blockbuster 48 pages and 7.5×11 trim size!

For information on how to acquire copies of TMNT: The Last Ronin comic books, please contact your local comic shop or visit www.comicshoplocator.com to find a store near you.

    About IDW Publishing IDW Publishing (IDWP), a division of IDW Media Holdings Inc. (OTC: IDWM), is an award-winning publisher of comic books, graphic novels, art books, trade paperbacks, and tabletop games. IDWP is one of the top four publishers of comic books and graphic novels in the U.S. with a library of world-renowned licensed content and original series. IDWP’s critically-acclaimed imprints include Top Shelf Productions, Artist’s Editions, The Library of American Comics, and Yoe! Books.

THE LAST RONIN: Imagines a Dark Future for the TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES –Straight from TMNT Creators Eastman and Laird! A Miniseries Three Decades in the Making, A Heartwrenching Tale of Justice and Family SAN DIEGO, CA (April 27, 2020) – Springing from a lost 1987 storyline by TMNT co-creators…