[+Sugar]

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
celticpaganthings
vulcanette-deactivated20260506

image
thekijs

I'm sorry, is this... Is this implying there's no DYE in that rug? All raw wool in its natural colours? She fucking bred the sheep to get the colours she wanted over the course of ten years!? Holy shit.


Edit: this has gotten a huge amount of traction (fibrearts tumblr is a, uh, tight-knit community it seems!) so I am adding this note to state that I checked Lola Cody's website and can confirm: There is no dye in her work. She uses exclusively hand-spun Churro wool sheared from her home-raised sheep flock. It's all natural colours!

Source: tiktok.com
weaving fiber crafts
theprofessional-amateur
thepromiscuousfinger

image
ofermod

For those of you looking for these recipes, they're from Cooking for Engineers. Which should shock nobody. But it's a great site. Sadly seems to be defunct, but I can personally vouch for the recipes being presented in a foolproof* manner. Not only is the card layout great (honestly, just having the oven temperature right there instead of having to keep trying to find it in the recipe is a game changer), but every step has a photo. None of this "until done" rubbish, it'll have a photo of "yeah, here's how it should look, and no, this photo isn't overly produced".

And unlike most cooking blogs, the commentariat substitutions are generally competent!

If you're still not sold on the site, may I add that he once took a pair of calipers to Chili's to test their claim that "their new Smokehouse Bacon Burgers [...] have 'the thickest bacon you've ever seen'."

image

Unsurprisingly, his verdict was:

(on Friday, April 13, 2008 at the Chili's in Santa Clara, California) they served bacon that was (to an accuracy of 1/128th of an inch) 3/16 in. thick (4.75 mm Β± 0.2mm) after cooking. [...] Does it truly hold up to its claim that it's the "thickest bacon you've ever seen"? My guess is that for most people that's true, but for me it was most definitely not the case.

So yeah, definitely check out his website, whether you're a novice or experienced cook, whether you're an engineer or someone who didn't even know what a caliper was before you started reading this. I highly recommend starting with the shepherd's pie (yes, it's the same one from Joy of Cooking), and either the creme brulee or the biscotti for dessert. The recipe image OP used was for espresso brownies. Presumably roasting your own beans is optional, though.

β€”β€”β€”

*It's me. I'm the fool. I'm proof that even a fool can follow the recipes.

recipes
surumarssi
beholdingslut

image

this from the guy who wrote the sting pain index, a scale he constructed after letting himself be stung by insects

beholdingslut

image

β€œwhy did i start this list” pleaseeeeeee this is so funny

caracalliope

his descriptions were extremely on-point, and frankly inspiring when writing a hurt/comfort scene

image

Instagram poets could never!

image
lobautumny

For those who want it, here is the entire list:

image
image
image
image
image
image

Anyways, dude's 1,000% a huge masochist. Nobody just describes pain like this unless they're enjoying it.

onehundredandtwentyfour
these all sound very unpleasant pain
surumarssi
fictionadventurer

One of my biggest literary pet peeves is when historical or history-inspired fiction pretends that "courting" is a synonym for "dating". Usually it's just a one-to-one word swap--in a modern context, these characters would be dating, but this is olden times, so they call it courting instead. Sometimes they'll pretend there's a shade of difference, and that courting is a more serious exploration of marriage or something. But I read a lot of fiction that was actually written during these historical eras, and the word "courting" is never used like that.

Two people do not decide that they are "courting". One person decides to "court" someone else. It's an action, not a stage in the relationship. A man decides to court a woman because he wants to encourage her to have romantic interest in him. He's trying to win her favor. It's not an exclusive relationship--a woman could be courted by multiple men at once. She'll spend time getting to know the guy who's interested in her, but they won't officially define their relationship as one where they only show romantic interest in each other. If they reach a point where they want it to be exclusive, that's when you propose.

There's no middle ground--either you're getting to know each other, or you're committed to marrying each other. This idea of a period where you kind of commit to each other until you decide you definitely want to get married is a modern one, and it occurs in eras where they use the word "dating" to describe it. The closest equivalent I can think of are times and places where they'd talk about a couple "stepping out together", but they're still not calling it "courting". Words have meaning, and the word "courting" has never meant that, so stop using it that way!

starfieldcanvas

the other mild historical disjoint i run into is when people talk about dating in the fifties like it automatically meant exclusivity. the whole reason we have the expression "going steady" is because the default was to or "go around with" or "go out with" multiple people. not in the sense of being in a stable polyamorous vee, but in the sense that archie is actively "seeing" both betty and veronica during the entire time the two girls are competing for his attention and they're both seeing other guys to make him jealous, and nobody involved considers this "cheating."

bizarrely, America has in many ways gotten more conservative about dating since World War II.

penrosesun

I ran into a truly wild cultural misunderstanding with my father some years ago, when I had to explain to him what “hookup culture” actually was, and that the thing he assumed it was was actually what we call “cruising culture”. His response was “how is that different from dating?” and when I explained how it was different, he said, and please note that this a direct quote: “That’s ridiculous! You can’t expect a woman to stop fooling around with other guys for anything less than a marriage proposal. I mean, she’s not a prostitute, you can’t buy her.” Now obviously there’s like… a lot to unpack there, but I think it’s pretty darn illustrative of a substantive cultural shift around the assumption of monogamy!

Also, following this, I asked my mom what her thoughts were on the matter, and she said that while she “wouldn’t put it in those terms” she broadly agreed, and thought that anyone expecting any sort of exclusivity when a marriage proposal wasn’t at least on the very immanent horizon was “nuts, honestly.” I hesitantly asked if she was including relationships with premarital sexual activity in that, and her response was “Of course. I mean, gosh, you know your Aunt Terri used to have a guy for every day of the week before she finally settled down.”

And this was when I learned, to my shock, that the oft-repeated story of how “Aunt Terri used to have a guy for every day of the week” didn’t just mean “Aunt Terri had a full dance card” but rather meant that Aunt Terri had a period of her life where she literally dated exactly seven guys at once, all of whom she was sleeping with (or, my mom was quick to disclaim, “well, fooling around with, I don’t know how far she actually went with any of them, but they were definitely all fooling around behind closed doors”), on a literal weekly rotation. Like, they had a schedule. A schedule that all seven of the guys knew.

America has gotten a lot more conservative about dating, actually.

romantic relationships dating
so-i-did-this-thing
anachrosims

just in case anyone forgot how wildly colorful Georgian interiors could be, even among the working class to the wealthy:

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
anachrosims

image

and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE

image
image
image
image

ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)

image
image
image


image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO

image

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

"ELIZABETH" YOU CRY, "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT'S MONDAY"

Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.

Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

Part of the reason we don't see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!

In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of... well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren't as common in Europe.

WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.

CANDLES.

Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.

Humans LOVE bright colors, it's NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.

(STOP MAKING YOUR HISTORIC SIMS 4 BUILDS BE BLAND. STOP IT.)

periodinteriors

On the subject of Colonial America: don't forget, even if you couldn't afford wallpaper, wall stenciling might still be in reach!

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

(If ever you have the opportunity to visit the Stencil House at the Shelburne Museum in Vermont (pictured above at 3, 4, and 5), I highly recommend.)

And that's before you get into American painted murals:

image
image
image
image
image
image

Embrace the decorative arts, folks!

thousandhandbrightskycannon

periodinteriors:

anachrosims:

anachrosims:

just in case anyone forgot how wildly colorful Georgian interiors could be, even among the working class to the wealthy:

and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE

ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)


PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO

AND DON’T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS

“ELIZABETH” YOU CRY, “WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT’S MONDAY”

Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.

Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

Part of the reason we don’t see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!

In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of… well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren’t as common in Europe.

WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.

CANDLES.

Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.

Humans LOVE bright colors, it’s NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.

(STOP MAKING YOUR HISTORIC SIMS 4 BUILDS BE BLAND. STOP IT.)

On the subject of Colonial America: don’t forget, even if you couldn’t afford wallpaper, wall stenciling might still be in reach!

(If ever you have the opportunity to visit the Stencil House at the Shelburne Museum in Vermont (pictured above at 3, 4, and 5), I highly recommend.)

And that’s before you get into American painted murals:

Embrace the decorative arts, folks!

interior design
celticpaganthings
hylianengineer

There is one very important thing I need people without major dietary restrictions to understand: the distress caused by allergies, celiac disease, and other food restrictions is largely not about the food.

Do I miss some foods I can't eat anymore without getting sick? Sure, but that's not what really bothers me. What bothers me is being excluded from a huge portion of human social life of which food is a crucial component. What bothers me is the stress and social stigma of trying to figure out what I can safely eat. What bothers me is the amount of extra work and cost that is required of me to identify, obtain, and prepare safe foods. What bothers me is people treating my needs like a nuisance, as though I chose to be like this - as though their brief inconvenience to check an ingredients list is unreasonable, when I deal with this every day of my life forever.

I don't miss the food that much. I miss not having to worry about what I eat. I miss freedom. I miss when trying new foods and new restaurants was fun instead of a minefield. I miss not having to plan my entire life around the need for safe foods.

Food is such a basic human need, and a lot of people don't really need to think about it. When your danger foods can be anywhere and everywhere, suddenly your entire life revolves around avoiding them, and it massively sucks. You get used to it and it's not a big deal most of the time, but then you go to a new restaurant, or your office has a potluck, or you've been invited to a party and suddenly it feels just as miserable and exhausting as it ever has.

awareness dietary restrictions disease
ferretianwitch
mootsiicuxffuxfiyfiifyi

image

Thoughts?

ferretianwitch

It’s so funny watching these liberals promote the same nazi propaganda they claim to hate, holodomor was never an actual genocide. it was a famine yes, but at the hands of the kulaks, the kulaks literally had EXPLOITED workers, and had modern day 8 acres of land (because they had 3 ha of land which would be modern day 8 acres of land) & did not give out their resources to starving working class people. when they were told their resources were going to be given out to the workers, they mass slaughtered their cattle, and mass burned their crops. which then lead to a famine.

when the Nazis were aware that countries were becoming more conscious about what they were doing (aka genocide), they claimed the Soviet Union did more work of a genocide, and claimed that they killed more people than them. The Nazis relied on this tactic for a while.

later after WW2, and then came the Cold War & several red scare & anti-communist time periods, anti-communist organizations began using this propaganda the most to prove how “communism is so evil, and doesn’t work” even the black book of communism documented this into their own book (the same book that was called out for not being credible, and lying about their sources, as well adding in NAZIS and FASCISTS, terrible people in general as victims, and lied about the numbers of how many people “died under and because of communism”. the black book of communism also added in natural disasters and famines Marxist projects could not control but would eventually solve their situations) and they began using it to prove the “evil horrors of communism”

“but why are there graves and memorials in Ukraine talking about these victims!” because modern day Ukraine is a right wing country. and Ukraine is filled with not only right wingers but FAR RIGHT wingers. it’s why you see mainly Nazis & far right wingers favoring Ukraine. Ukraine is also allied with countries who til this day, commits genocides against innocent people. the Ukrainian government is making tombs & memorials for these “victims” because it help fits the narrative of their politics.

I do not support Russia, and Russia is definitely NOT a socialist project, not even CLOSE to a dictatorship of the proletariat. but this propaganda has to stop, it does not help anyone & only leads to more damage.

each person who lived in the Soviet Union, or USSR have their own different opinions and experiences within the Union, some are positive, some are negative, and some are just neutral. but a lot of people within the Soviet Union, the older generations usually had the most positive experiences. the negative experiences vary, but most of their family were caught exploiting workers, and were punished, others are literal fascists, and others just had their own experiences that are neither of the two.

you see the negative experiences being more popular in media the most, because western countries that are anti-communist, highlight their voices and make them the center of the spot. they do their best to make them seem like the victims, when 97% of the time, they are not.

communism has been the only ideology to STOP fascism, communism has been the only ideology that has liberated people. communism has been the only ideology to lift people out of poverty and struggles, millions of people, mind you.

the fact they put Kulaks there as VICTIMS is insane. did the USSR had some issues? yes, but again most countries, states, unions, and yes, that includes marxist projects will have issues, because it’s COMMON. it’s something that will happen all the time, so why put the USSR (Soviet Union) on a pedestal?

communism soviet union