#variable type

[drawdownbooks]

Harber Type Specimen (A2 version) by Benoît Bodhuin

Harber is a dot matrix design with variable axes for weight, slant, volume, noise, and optical size.

Published by Benoît Bodhuin, 2023

1 double-sided sheet, 5-color Risograph, 16.5 × 23.4 inches Ships folded, dimensions 8.3 × 11.7 inches

[digi-lov]

Strabimon BT6-022 by p!k@ru from BT-06 Booster Double Diamond

[hella1975]

okay it's 1pm and i willingly unprompted said to my mate 'hey if we make this a competition on who can finish our finance report first that'll make us way more productive' (bc we're both hateful people) and she agreed and our deadline is 3pm i will keep you posted

[my-current-obsession]

I decided to post a tier list of my thoughts of all the routes in various otomes that I’ve played. I was inspired to do this because I just finished Norn9, and while I’ll admit that upon finishing the game I have SEVERAL issues with the story as a whole and a few routes in particular, I did love Akito and Heishi enough to add them to my favorite routes of all time, and I’ll definitely return to the game every now and then just to replay those two, if nothing else. Looking forward to the fandisc, too!

I’d be happy to talk about my feelings in depth for basically any otome or specific route, if you’re curious. My absolute favorites are Code: Realize, Collar x Malice, Taisho x Alice, and Even if Tempest.

[patrocles]

sara snow. daughter of a lord, sister of another. a bastard she-wolf. a keeper of the old faith.

[oneknightstand-if]

Wait, how did that other anon get that flavor text about the whisper with a amnesiac secret MC? My guess is that's not available for the public demo atm? But I'm so so curious now as someone who's playing that route.

Since it included the code itself, I would think they went code-diving through the game for that. Also, that flavor text is ooooold.

It's part of the original update when the game was first released and uses the old (secret = "amnesia") coding (which I got tired of pretty quick and shortened to just "liar" in more recent sections.

[professuntothelord]

i think there's a danger in interpreting john winchester's actions under the false dichotomy of the "good abuser" and the "bad abuser." with the good abuser being driven by love, but led wayward by personal trauma or experience, while the bad abuser is driven by hatred, stymied by little as they are simply bad; simply hateful. that's not how abuse works. abusers are, as all humans are, shaped by experience and a product of their life on earth. now that abuse can be expressed in a myriad of ways, to varying extremes, and led by a multitude of motives. this can subsequently lead to a spectrum of variable impact on the abused. you can't really dichotomize abuse and its different forms. it's likely a more illuminating approach to understand abuse for its individual cases, its individual motives. false dichotomies imply a narrative that is much, much simpler than abuse could ever be

[quinn-types]

Having cacophonous thoughts over Alhaitham seeing a group of people closest to him and assumes they're badmouthing him. I can't help but think about how it speaks volumes in regards to any past relationships he's had.

Not to mention Kaveh the Contrarian™ immediately dismissing that notion. Its also fascinating to me how Kaveh is so quick to insult Alhaitham but only to his face, like I get the sense he's fully prepared to physically fight Alhaitham but the latter seemingly never rises to the bait. And sure Kaveh complains to Cyno and Tighnari but in the same breath he is also explaining Alhaitham's idiosyncrasies to people who are asking in good faith.

To bring it full circle I get the sense that Kaveh has been trying to get Alhaitham set up with some friends and specifically with friends who will treat him well. Because Alhaitham "Everything is Connected and I will find the Weakest Link and Break it" is, quite fittingly, struggling to form any meaningful connections himself. Like I'm sure Alhaitham knows a lot of people and interacts with some of them on a regular basis but I don't think he's gone further than acquaintances for most of his life.

So thank the archons for Kaveh the Contrarian™ who took one look at this stubborn weirdo, saw past the "humble, feeble scholar" facade, as though Alhaitham were a chuunibyou 13 year old and not a full grown man capable of overthrowing the government, and thought "Maybe I can fix him?" Only to spend possibly the next few years getting to know him and changing that thought process to "I want to study this beautiful bastard's brain chemistry so badly but I must settle for watching him react to Situations because he's letting me sleep on his couch and raid his fridge for free so I can't justify killing him for science yet."

[milimeters-morales]

sometimes it’s fun to think that Miles just has to go to school right after the events of BTSV. bc i can only assume all this is taking place over a weekend, since he was at home nearing sunset for the party, which probably wouldn’t be allowed on a weekday without Miles sneaking off of school grounds. The other theory is that he’s just starting his spring break, since ATSV is taking sometime in March, and the meeting with the counselor just so happened to be close to it, even though i don’t really buy that bc why such an important meeting with so many students & parents days right before a break? wouldn’t it make more sense to have it done during a normal week? but it’s whatever bc it’s more of a “well schools are different everywhere” thing, and less funny than “Miles saves his dad and his universe and gets a C- on his pop quiz the next day” to me so i don’t really consider it that much

Edit: wait no, that can’t be possible because ..? hold on i need to do some math .

Edit 2: am i missing something??? Miles became spider-man in december 2018, and he says he’s been at it for a year and four months, which mean he’s been spider-man for 16 months, which would make ATSV take place in 2020??? so i was right about the month just not the year . okay we got there. yeah this makes sense bc he had to have had his birthday lol uh doy

[happywebdesign]

Vercel Ship

[befuddled-calico-whump]

im being in a silly 🥺 mood rn. how would all of your whumpees react to being hugged :)

all of them? oooh boy (/pos)

in a scenario where they've been whumped but have had adequate time to heal/recover:

Eagerly hugs back, stranger or not: Jericho, Benji

Eagerly hugs back as long as they know you: Joy, Ander, Skye, Wes, James

Hesitant to reciprocate: Hunter, Melchior, Cerus

Doesn't reciprocate: Kaius

Does not want to be touched unless you've built up a lot of trust and they know you: Alexei, Uriah, Judd, Caelon

Does not want to be touched at all: Sahota

in a scenario where they're actively being rescued by a stranger:

Leaning into it, desperate for comfort: Benji, Wes, Jericho

Recoiling from any touch: Kaius, Caelon, Uriah, Judd, Skye, Ander, Melchior, Cerus

Actively fighting off the person who's trying to hug them: Lex, Sahota, Joy, Hunter

[heretodefyfate]

dumbass me finally know how to make a custom trainer battle

remember kids, always read guide very carefully before complaining

[digi-lov]

Strabimon BT7-019 Alternative Art by sasasi from BT-07 Booster Next Adventure

[lottieurl]

i'm curious about how you'd have jackie be a part of the cannibalism? because i find the concept absolutely fascinating (especially in the 21 timeline honestly because can you imagine the kind of person jackie would be if she survived all of That.) i just haven't given toooo much thought to the "how" of it myself

hm if you want like a specific scenario i feel like i'd have to write a fic lmao cause there's so much to cover (and honestly! maybe i will eventually. did ANYONE write cannibal jackie au or is it real boring on ao3 idk i haven't browsed the tag too much) but after s2 it's actually baffling to me that people are so insistent on how jackie Never Could?

everyone is SO focused on the creators saying her death represents the death of civilization they seem to actually forget she's also a character not a symbol (and i've seen the way people analyze some of her behavior in like the weirdest way just to keep everything as symbolic of civilization. like incomprehensible things being said just cause someone analyzes her only through the "she symbolizes civilization" lenses. i love her death and the way she haunts the narrative as much as any other shaunajackie enjoyer lmao but come on) like do we all understand that ben could die early on and also represent the death of civilization AND death of authority (from their life before crash)?

with that out of the way. here's the show we're all watching. natalie who was the other person horrified and enraged by what the girls did at doomcoming is A PART OF THEIR CANNIBALISTIC MURDER CULT. travis the guy they assaulted and tried to kill on shrooms is a devoted lottie follower now. travis the guy who was throwing up when he was trying to get the ring off his dead father's finger to give to his brother. that travis. is eating his brother's heart raw. taissa the sceptic who was one of the only people trying to get jackie to stay inside and who had to repress her first act of cannibalism and who threw up when she found out about it and who was the most vocally against what lottie was doing for a while (other than nat of course) is A PART OF ALL THIS NOW. van the girl who couldn’t handle seeing worms in a dead deer and nearly threw up is a shameless cannibal now and doesn’t flinch seeing all the blood. and we also have akilah who seems so kind and doesn't really want to take part in any of this but wants to survive and is scared of the rest so she does. there is lottie who doesn't want what is being done in her name but is scared and confused and lost and is being told this is all on her. and you're telling me you cannot imagine jackie taking part in any of this? on this show? like okay fine but i have a creative mind and see the kind of characters we now have in a cannibalistic cult and can tell none of those were characters who - before crash - Seemed Like People Who Would. literally none of them

but back to jackie! people ALWAYS mention the way she had trouble adapting, the way her death represents the death of civilization (which is like. literally pointless to mention if we are entertaining an idea where the death does not happen? like?) and that she wasn't eating much by doomcoming. YEAH CAUSE SHE WAS SO HEARTBROKEN AND SUICIDAL AFTER FINDING OUT ABOUT SHAUNA'S BETRAYAL. can you really just not imagine any other path for her character if she didn't die? cause i'm thinking of what liv said about van and about how it's "the corruption of the beautiful parts of her" and can see that with jackie too. all the other traits of hers like. yeah she was very depressed and lost after the crash. okay. imagine if she had a reason to stay alive (shauna lmao like. quite literally not a lot of other reasons for her she's so pathetic (affectionate) but yeah shauna or shauna related things everytime). the girl who - before crash - was so determined to be this person she was pretending to be and the image she was crafting that she was in a long-term relationship with a guy she didn't love and had sex (yeah she didn't consider it sex but like. it was. we are here in the 2020s and not ill with cishetnormativity so we can say that much) that made her miserable because she was such a determined person. how would those traits look like corrupted by the wilderness? because we somewhat saw it already at doomcoming when she just decided she's gonna sleep with travis and then made it happen. or those traits of her we see that help make people feel better? to me echoing van's storytelling and how it made others relax and how it entertained them? it feels like it comes down to jackie only ever being seen as A Bitch by jackie haters or a failgirl angel who has no flaws by her fans so the latter have an issue even like. trying to imagine a jackie corruption arc so to speak that would end in her participating in cannibalism

i just do not! get! why everyone is SO INSISTENT she never could. like how are you watching that show. i am not asking rudely just genuinely curious. because if you think Under No Circumstances Could She Ever then i suppose you think there are two types of people (well, characters) you can sort into two boxes. those who could engage in cannibalism and those who never would. which is.. i mean i disagree but fine. just tell me this then. do you literally think all the rest of them just happen to be in that Could Do Cannibalism box? like inherently? the plot luckily happens because those characters are just inherently people who CAN do this unlike those other people who never could? i'm sorry but that sounds like such a boring way to watch it. especially when canonically at least some of them are so openly distressed by having to do this and they very much do invent a religion to be able to both shift blame and excuse their actions in their minds

[sufficientlylargen]

Go is a bad programming language

I need to take a minute to rant about the go language and a few of the many, many things wrong with it.

1. Unused variables are compile-time errors.

So if you're debugging this:

x, y := foo() doSomething(x) doSomething(y)

and you decide to comment out doSomething(x) in order to check something, then hey, your code doesn't compile anymore! No, if you want to comment out a few lines while debugging, you also have to go up and make sure you also remove any declarations or assignments to variables that are only used in that block.

This is absolutely infuriating, and is one of the least developer-friendly features I've ever seen (excluding languages that were explicitly designed to be terrible).

So why did they do it? Why would the designers make such a ridiculous decision? The answer is simple:

2. Go doesn't consistently distinguish assignment from declaration.

Some languages distinguish between declaring a variable (e.g. int x) and setting it (e.g. x = 12); others don't bother and just let x = 12 be declaration if needed. There are pros and cons to both, but Go manages the difficult task of achieving the worst of both worlds.

You can declare var x int and assign x = 12, but you can also combine the two with x := 12 - the := implicitly declares the variable being assigned.

Fortunately, go IS smart enough to not let you double-declare something - var x int; x := 12 is a syntax error.

But go also lets you assign multiple values. What do you think this does?

var x int = 1 x, y := 2, 3 fmt.Println(y) fmt.Println(x)

Did you guess that this is a syntax error? Wrong! It prints 3, then 2 - the := operator is fine with the fact that x already exists, as long as at least one of the variables you're assigning to does in fact need to be declared.

What about this: var x int = 1 if true { x, y := 2, 3 fmt.Println(y) } fmt.Println(x)

If you "the same thing", you're wrong! This one IS a syntax error! Why? Because now that it's in a separate block, that := is now declaring x instead of assigning to it! And the new x is unused, so the compiler can't let you do that! Note, though, that if the first print printed both x and y, the compiler would not have caught that for us. The code would just compile fine and be wrong. That is the golang experience.

So why would a language allow a := that changes meaning but only when there are multiple variables? Simple! It's because:

3. Go has no error handling whatsoever

No exceptions, no maybe monads, no anything. Just a convention that functions that might fail should return a pair of (result, error).

This means code that in a sensible language might look like

print(foo(bar(3), baz("hello")))

in go instead looks like

a, err := bar(3) if err != nil { return err } b, err := baz("hello") if err != nil { return err } c, err := foo(a, b) if err != nil { return err } fmt.Println(c)

Yay boilerplate!

So obviously you need := to allow some things to already exist, otherwise you'd have to give all those errs different names, and who has time to come up with that many variable names?

4. Don't use go.

Anyway, these are just three of the many, many things I hate about go, which also include

Switch statements for values vs for types have almost-but-not-quite identical syntax (they should either be the same or be different, preferably different).

Type switch naming is stupid (sensible languages let you name the variable in each case instead of just renaming the variable once at the beginning).

Unused imports are a compile-time error (so incredibly stupid and frustrating).

Capitalization distinguishes public values from private ones (result: APIs cannot use capitalization in a meaningful way, because by definition every member of the API must be capitalized).

Extremely limited type system (terrible type inference, no generic methods on objects, no co- or contravariance among functions or objects - a function that returns a Square is not a function that returns a Shape and cannot be used as one).

Any public type can be instantiated with a "zero value", so every object method must do something sensible if the object is completely uninitialized (I saw some code in one of go's own built-in libraries that represented "any nonnegative integer or undefined" as a pair of (val int, isZero bool); a value of 0 is undefined unless isZero is true, in which case it means 0. I don't think that would pass code review in any other language at all).

Surprisingly awkward and unintuitive concurrency support for a language that claims to have been built with concurrency in mind.

Weird and inconsistent special magical cases (e.g. if g() returns three arguments and f() takes three arguments, then f(g()) is fine; if g returns two, you can't f(1, g()) or anything like that).

More things that I won't spend any more time writing up, I just needed to get this out of my system.

[scarletiswailing347]

i have once again gave myself far too much trouble than is worth except this time what im trying to do may be straight up impossible in twine :head_in_hands: