I only (rarely) get it in the morning, right before I'm about to fully wake up. I always panic because I'm desperate to move on my own, even though I know I shouldn't. But I've never seen a demon or anything, just my room – though it's an imagined version because my eyes aren't actually open yet, and usually when I wake up the room and lighting look quite different.
Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works 85-92. I love his music but could never get into the older or more ambient stuff, but now I'm enjoying it. I love his crazy stuff more but it's difficult to concentrate with, although I usually have the music off when I'm concentrating and only put it on when my mind is half-wandering off somewhere.
> Games are doomed by femininity. Across media, genres marketed toward women are deemed lesser than their masculine counterparts: romance novels are trashy, chick flicks are shallow, and pop idols are embarrassing.
I was excited to read the love letter to girl games, but this article is more of a disparagement, as if everything that appeals to women is regarded as trash. There are plenty of things made by women for women that are universally loved. There are shallow chick flicks, yes, and they're not trying to be anything more than they are (I love a lot of them). It seems that the author is the one framing all these things as worthless. Is a game worthless because it never hit the (very competitive) mainstream?
The game mentioned in the article, Consume Me, has 922 written reviews, the majority of which are very positive. It has the description: Consume Me is a semi-autobiographical game that depicts dieting, disordered eating, and fatphobia. In my opinion, the art looks cool and the game looks fun enough, but I don't get the impression it was aiming for mainstream appeal. Why should it? Mainstream games are often addiction traps meant to separate players from their money continuously.
This article needs more love and less disparagement.
The typography and design inside the book is beautiful but the cover looks like an old bargain-store flyer. There's an expression about that, something about judging a book by its cover? I can't remember exactly.
Which dog bite statistics are you referring to? I would be interested to see data that contradicts these findings:
---
Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution
> Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.
> family dogs represent a more significant threat than often is realized and that, among the breeds identified, pit bulls are proportionally linked with more severe bite injuries
Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: a case series at a level one pediatric trauma center
> Pediatric dog bites span a wide range of ages, frequently require operative intervention, and can cause severe morbidity. Dog familiarity did not confer safety, and in this series, Pit bulls were most frequently responsible.
reply