just literally everything! it has a bunch of stuff I haven’t shared online because they’re mostly like sketches, messy scribbles, practices, scrapped commission sketches, etc! You’ll get a 100% raw look at my sketchbooks and EVERYTHING I’ve drawn in last two months!
Please consider supporting me!
This sketchbook will be on sale at $5 until July 6, 2016 and the price will go back to the usual $10 ! This is to hopefully encourage sales and give Jude and myself bit more money to spend on our trip to Anime Expo 2016 !
AH ALSO I forgot to edit the little description in cover that says “110+ pages of sketches inks and wateroclors”, there’s no watercolors in this update! I was in a rush and forgot to change that oops, it’s just mainly a bunch of sketches I haven’t shared online
During the sneak peek of
Gem Harvest (I watched the NYCC extended clip), we see that Peridot and Lapis
have been getting busy farming a whole lot of crops around the barn.
However, they are
disappointed to discover that the food they have grown isn’t sentient.
But how did they come to
this conclusion in the first place?
Why did they assume that, like gems,
everything grown in the ground would come alive?
Is it just because they’re
gems and simply don’t know better yet?
Or has Lapis been mislead about how food actually works in this world?
I’d assume if one was on an alien planet, they probably wouldn’t question the logic much since everything would seems foreign and absurd. An island of living watermelons? It’s just an Earth thing… right?
But thanks to Steven, they got their pumpkin baby/puppy. I’m happy for them.
On Ashley (Stick with me, This might get interesting)
(yooooo. I’m already seeing a bunch of Ashley hate in the tags on the director commentary post. I feel like my summary may have been misleading so I figured I’d better post the verbatim transcript of the whole ashley/chris conversation before I unintentionally fuel a war with shoddy info.)
Why does ashley tell you to shoot her but then locks you out anyway? Did she panic or was that just a mistake in development that got overlooked?
Tom: Definitely not a mistake in development, it was very deliberate… definitely planned. Ashley had been through a lot that night, had a gun pointed at her, and fired at her, seen a friend murdered,she’s in a very stressful state. she had a very hard time, and she is unpredictable, its gotta be said..
I’m confused, so did Ashley mean it or did she not?
Jez: or did the player mean it?
Tom: Well I don’t know if the player meant it. I think ashley.. that was quite deliberate by Ashley, not letting Chris in. yes I think thats definitely the case.
Jez: Because of what had gone on before.
Tom: Very upset. Maybe an over reaction? I don’t know. its difficult to judge isnt it, I mean whos been in that situation? I know I havent
Basically the developers confirmed that Ash deliberately killed Chris, but they’re clearly sympathetic to her as well- which we should acknowledge too. The take away shouldn’t be that Ash is a heartless bitch, more like hey, look at what traumatic stress can do to the human psyche. That specific death scene is one of the most obvious examples of inaction causing a character’s death, but this is actually an omnipresent theme in the game. Almost all the characters do it- Matt can choose not to help Em and let her fall to her (presumed) death, Sam complains but doesn’t actually do anything to stop the prank, She can also choose not to save Mike, No one but Beth went running out after Hannah, christ, even Chris does it in the scene immediately after Ash could have done it to him. He sits back and does nothing when Mike shoots Em. Different scenarios, different motives, but does that make any of those deaths more acceptable? Are we in any position to pass that judgement? Josh’s subconscious addresses this theme specifically:
“I don’t know which is worse, actively triggering events that lead to someone’s death, or passively allowing tragedy to occur.”
Man, think about that, not from the perspective of the characters, but as players. We forgive and ignore these other characters’ examples of inaction leading to death because they aren’t as obvious, or we like the character, or we find a way to justify it, but we look at Ashley’s choices and see no redemption? We demonize her for playing god while we are simultaneously playing god ourselves. This is so fucking meta and cool to think about guys. Yes, it’s confirmed that Ash deliberately kills Chris if he chose to kill her earlier, but to only take that info and use it to dismiss the door opening scene with a “Fuck Ashley” is to really miss out on what makes her character, and all these characters interesting and human. The idea that no one is innocent, including the player, and how that doesn’t mean they aren’t still worth saving… it’s really cool.
We’re the players though- We are omnipresent. We have the potential to know and control things the characters can’t, and we do it all from the comfort of our homes. We have the tools to make better choices than these characters ever could in these scenarios. How can we know we wouldn’t react the same way in that situation? I mean, do you really know what you would do? Isn’t it sort of scary to think about? Sorry, I’m getting super off track. Ashley isn’t even my fav or anything, I just think we (myself definitely included) are a bunch of pots callin the kettle black about some of this stuff sometimes. We can take for granted the perspective we have as players, you know?
“I don’t know. its difficult to judge isnt it, I mean whos been in that situation? I know I havent.” (Tom Heaton, Design Director for Until Dawn)
Since Druidry is a spiritual path – a religion to some, a way of life to others – Druids share a belief in the fundamentally spiritual nature of life. Some will favour a particular way of understanding the source of this spiritual nature, and may feel themselves to be animists, pantheists, polytheists, monotheists or duotheists. Others will avoid choosing any one conception of Deity, believing that by its very nature this is unknowable by the mind.
Monotheistic druids believe there is one Deity: either a Goddess or God, or a Being who is better named Spirit or Great Spirit, to remove misleading associations to gender. But other druids are duotheists, believing that Deity exists as a pair of forces or beings, which they often characterise as the God and Goddess.
Polytheistic Druids believe that many gods and goddesses exist, while animists and pantheists believe that Deity does not exist as one or more personal gods, but is instead present in all things, and is everything.
Whether they have chosen to adopt a particular viewpoint or not, the greatest characteristic of most modern-day Druids lies in their tolerance of diversity: a Druid gathering can bring together people who have widely varying views about deity, or none, and they will happily participate in ceremonies together, celebrate the seasons, and enjoy each others’ company – realising that none of us has the monopoly on truth, and that diversity is both healthy and natural.
Nature forms such an important focus of their reverence, that whatever beliefs they hold about Deity, all Druids sense Nature as divine or sacred. Every part of nature is sensed as part of the great web of life, with no one creature or aspect of it having supremacy over any other. Unlike religions that are anthropocentric, believing humanity occupies a central role in the scheme of life, this conception is systemic and holistic, and sees humankind as just one part of the wider family of life.
So, I’ve been seeing this spread around Facebook, and… I don’t even know.
Hey, other white people? This is a problem.
WE ALREADY KNOW that not all cops are bad.
WE ALREADY KNOW that not all black people are criminals. (In fact, there are less black criminals than we think there are.)
AND WE ALREADY KNOW that not all white people are racist.
This is not news.
Labels are not the problem.
And image macros like this are so disconnected from the conversation we need to be having that they would be better off not existing, because it’s misleading.
The problem isn’t that all cops are bad people; the problem is that ALL COPS have unchecked authority that they are able to abuse.
The problem isn’t that all black people are criminals; the problem is that we see criminals as being predominantly black, and that all people with dark skin at some point in their lives, and many with great frequency, have been cast as guilty on sight.
The problem isn’t that all white people are racist; the problem is that enough white people are racist to make it a problem, and that the rest of us have the luxury to walk away and make it a non-issue.
As a white person I don’t have sit awake at night worrying about racism. I don’t have to worry if the police are going to cast guilt on me because of my skin colour.
We’re not talking about individuals as much as we are institutions.
We highlight individuals because it highlights the all too human aspect of these systems, but it’s so much bigger than Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner.
In the October 2007 polls Barack Obama trailed behind Hillary Clinton by A WIDER MARGIN than Bernie Sanders does now. In other words, Bernie Sanders is closer to beating Hillary than Barack was at this time in the election cycle.
The mainstream media spent the last 5 months hyping Joe Biden. They are either trying to intentionally mislead us, OR they are no better than tabloids (will publish anything to gain traffic) OR they simply are irrelevant and incompetent at reporting and interpreting the news. Do NOT let the media dictate who will win this election. Do NOT let them choose our candidate for us.
Please post the shit out of Bernie Sanders & urge all of your friends to register to vote.
I continue to wreck my head about this Cole character, because some things are just not adding up… If Travis Aaron Wade is truly portraying Cole, then Cole will look quite a bit older than a 20-year-old. Why cast an 38-year-old-actor, if you could just cast an actor that fits that age range better (I still think they could mislead us with Travis Aaron Wade being another character than Cole and have us thinking it in order to really surprise us, but it’s unlikely)?
Sure, maybe those weren’t good enough in auditions, but still… Something is off about these spoilers we got. I continue to be excited and curious about the character though and what he might bring to the table, but the age thing is really bugging me for some reason…
Also 1: Character bleed much, Jared? :) Our past?
Also 2: It’s most probably my ears playing tricks on me and it’s kind of easy to mishear it, because the words sound so similar (which duuh… sparked this spec), but did anybody by any chance also hear the “colt character” instead of “Cole character”?
I’m just completely numb. The fact that Kishimoto says he deliberately built up NaruSaku to mislead is more than a punch to the gut. He mislead a relationship better than he did an actual plot line. The fact that he has to explain why NaruSaku didn’t happen in interviews and produce a movie shows it had actual development. Knowing he did this to mislead hurts. It’s one thing to mislead to create a bittersweet twist in the plot line like Naruto dying or something but this wasn’t bittersweet at all. This was all bitter.
He could have let it be and not explain in interviews but he did. It was something big and he knew it. He didn’t have to explain anything else plot wise. For NH to happen he had to explain why and how NaruSaku didn’t happen. I would have been fine with just the movie but the interviews were another stab.
I think it’s painful too because I was mislead and now I read people saying “haha, you were trolled” “you should have seen NH/SS coming anyways” “good, NaruSaku fans need this”.
It hurts a lot. I can’t even explain how much it hurts but it does. The only other time I cried this much over Naruto was Nejis death. Now I look at all my artwork and just say “why?”. It’s like a part of my dignity and life was stripped away and I don’t think anyone truly understands this pain except other NaruSaku fans.
You do not, in fact, represent everybody on the Internet. You do not represent those of us who know what happens when the government interferes in what should be a free and open system. You do not represent those of us who know that the private sector is better than the government at, well, everything.
Your posts are misleading and manipulative. You use blatant peer pressure (“join everybody on the internet”) to push something that nobody would like if they knew what it really was.
Stop calling yourself “everybody” on the Internet. You aren’t. Doing so is an outright lie.
Katie, who is not part of your “everybody” and can think for herself.
Some of you might have seen this image. It was posted on reddit in r/Scotland and this was one of the comments. It’s worth the read.
“I’m an NHS doctor (GMC #7036831)*, and seeing [the image below] on my feed made me very suspicious at how they arrived at this claim (I’m voting Yes, by the way).
Some facts about this rather misleading image.
Better Together polled 106 Scotland-dwelling fellows of the London-based Academy of Medical Sciences. Of the 76 respondents, 73 indicated their preference as remaining in the UK. So that’s the 93% figure dealt with.
Who are the Academy of Medical Sciences? Their “about us” page states:
‘Our elected Fellows… are drawn from the fundamental biological sciences, clinical academic medicine, public and population health, health technology implementation, veterinary science, dentistry, medical and nursing care and other professions allied to medical science as well as the essential underpinning disciplines including mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, ethics, social science and the law.’
This is not an NHS-affiliated organisation and its membership is evidently drawn from such a wide range of disciplines, many of which not directly related to clinical medicine, that calling their respondents “top doctors” is arguably very misleading.
Who funds the Academy? Well, their site states they do receive funding from the Department of Health, but their donors list is essentially a directory of huge multinational drug and medical technology firms.
What are their aims? Here’s one of the sections:
‘We seek to capitalise on our independence and ability to connect stakeholders from across the life sciences sector to… [Facilitate] strong and equitable partnerships between academia, industry and the NHS… along with promoting effective engagement with regulators and policy makers…’
So, there you have it. Better Together have presented the above figure as a majority of ‘leading doctors’ planning to vote No. What we actually find, with a minimum of Google detective work, is that the ‘leading doctors’ are actually Fellows of a London-based organisation, primarily concerned with academia and not directly affiliated with the NHS, funded in part by donations by big pharma and openly stating their aims include influencing policy decisions.
Are Better Together openly lying to people on Facebook? You decide.”
“All can be doubted by consciousness except consciousness.“
The actual phrase that Descartes is remembered for, Cogito ergo sum*
(/ˈkoʊɡɨtoʊ ˈɜrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɨtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/; Classical Latin:
[ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], “I think, therefore I am”, or better “I am
thinking, therefore I exist”) can be misleading if taken too literally. As our understanding of psychology has developed, we have learned that even the sense of “I” can be doubted, in light of exotic states of consciousness. Rewriting it to exclude the personal reference yields a more scientifically accurate and serviceable proposition which allows us to build a rational cosmology around the constancy of consciousness rather than the landscape of human-specific or animal-specific psychology.
Throughout history, satirists have risked their liberty and even their lives using humor to engage in deep commentary about the reigning political system and its exalted political figures—they’re called leaders, though surely better terms are rulers and misleaders. But no satirist risks his life or liberty in America today, which makes the scarcity of good satire so puzzling. Is it fear that keeps it safely limited? Or is it simply that so few people today can see the fundamental flaws in the American political system, which trashes liberty in so many ways?
This is a window into Trump’s view of humanity: He believes that, deep down, everybody else is as horrible as he is.
He is wrong.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I say I doubt Utah Sen. Mike Lee is a hypocrite for denouncing Trump, because I doubt he has ever grabbed a woman’s genitals without her permission, or bragged about doing so.
Most of us are better people than Donald Trump. I have standing to criticize him, because I am a better person than he is. You probably are, too.
I’m not a Christian, and I usually try to refrain from telling Christians how to apply their faith. But I’m appalled by the pass Trump gets from so many self-professed Christians despite having a personality that, more or less, consists of sin.
Trump is greedy. He is cruel. Boastful. Dishonest. Intemperate. Vain. And, now we know, he believes he is entitled to grab women’s genitals without their permission.
Christian forgiveness is one thing — though my understanding is, forgiveness is supposed to be sought from God, which Trump says he has never done.
But even if you feel compelled to forgive Trump, that does not mean you should make him president. Especially since his sins are worse than most people’s.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is not supposed to be an endorsement of moral nihilism, but a lot of Trump’s supporters are twisting it into one.