Crafting Iceberg

where's that photo of that shepherd dog being comforted by one of the sheep he guards after saving them from a wolf attack

sure yeah the vampire can come. Inside

BALMAIN Fall/Winter RTW 2023 if you want to support this blog consider donating to: ko-fi.com/fashionrunways

If i had an evil doppelganger i would simply invite it to come live with me. if i can get a wfh job so can it, i'll even let it borrow my resume. Cut our housing costs in half. Double our odds of getting chores done because we each know the other is Watching And Judging if we don't do the thing we said we were gonna do. Way easier to make the bed. Write twice as fast by trading off outlining and drafting. Sure i'd occasionally lose some sleep from holding my bedroom door shut at 3 a.m. while it tries to force its way in to murder me, but what roommate is perfect

Here's a portrait I did based on the movie Hackers (1995), which I'm posting on its own because I want to talk about this movie!

I had never watched the movie before working on this commission, but it was truly magical to watch. I've been kind of taking in what I watched over the last days and it has given me so many thoughts that I don't even know to begin. Watching without any knowledge of how the movie was received, I was shocked to learn that there is a major split in opinions about the movie, which has left me completely puzzled. How can a movie, that in my eyes is simply phenomenal, be even able to receive such negative reviews to this day?

I think the keyword here is what I used to describe the movie: magical. There is a magic circle that needs to be accepted and entered for you to truly enjoy the movie, and see how the silly sequences are a depiction of reality that is juiced up, and not a substitute of reality. If you just take the movie at face value, you won't be able to appreciate how this effect works. You'll think just because an interface is translated as two obvious HACK buttons, they can in no way actually be depicting hacking. But they are, the movie does a lot to show its appreciation and love for the scene, with accurate references to relevant books, multiple little "tricks" like phreaking and resetting the phone to call someone other than your lawyer when you get arrested. You can appreciate that effort and also how it was dressed up to resonate more with a larger audience, and keep the movie's amazing pace!

Now there are also things that maybe were taken for granted in movies of this time. The set design and costumes are fantastic, and somehow still feel fresh today. Maybe they are not realistic but they are effortlessly cool in a way I think almost no one does well nowadays. All the characters are visually strong and are immediately identifiable, on top of having great chemistry and represent a decent variety of archetypes. Despite being a movie, it communicates strongly that this world is bursting with life and character, that the game is not set, and that there is still future ahead of us. They have a scene of the main guy wearing lingerie in a dream, and the main girl joyously, sincerely smiles at the thought. That is a deep understanding of the human spirit.

Yet it kills me! It kills me that people watch this movie and think it's "terrible" or "cringy", that they don't have eyes to see how much heart it has. People have convinced themselves that reality can only exist within their brain specifically, that there is no use for magic, even in movies, even in books and games. What's the point of being smart if you just want all the answers handed to you? The abstraction is not a defect, it's a working piece.

The people who saw the world through these cold lens have removed all of the punk and empowerment that the movie champions. They boiled down the culture to just code and went on to make lame companies that serve to optimize suffering and take the people's ability to actually interface and express themselves through computers and electronics as a whole.

You can accept both the material reality and understand the purpose of abstraction and interpretation beyond furthering material gain. Perhaps the movie didn't intend to show me such a complex message, but that's what I got from it, and it gave me room to interpret it that way, allowed me to be curious.

That's all I have to say. Maybe I'm preaching to the crowd, but whatever. When you approach something, have heart! Without your heart, your head would have no blood, and your mind, no thoughts. Treasure, and use, it!

This!!! I've have had my Alpha inizia (136€ back then) for about 12 years now and it still runs like a powerhouse! My basic rule of thumb is if it has a shiny screen and lots of fancy stitche s you won't need them much anyway

A follow-up to how cheap they can make a sewing machine:

[Original post]

Okay, but, How expensive can they make a sewing machine?

So, if we start out with a "cheap" machine, what happens when we go up in price.

Welcome to the Brother CS4000. It's a computerized machine and usually runs at like $130 right now. It does all kinds of cool things! The only thing that it doesn't do is last very long.

Well, here's what happens if you take it apart and take out all the circuit boards:

No, there's no missing central component.

If you've never taken a sewing machine apart, this might not look wrong, so let me explain.

This is a Singer Izek, and the same machine with the plastic outer casing removed. Inside, there's a metal frame that all the components are attached to.

See, most modern sewing machines are plastic on the outside, but the plastic is just a cover. The insides have a frame, and the mechanism can function without the shell at all.

That Brother up there doesn't have a frame at all. Everything that should bolt to the frame is just attached to the plastic housing. This is a problem for a lot of reasons. Notably, if the machine is being held up by flexible plastic, then there's no way for the machine to be consistent and precise. Also, the plastic shell serves as a protection, like a bike helmet for your sewing machine. When the components are attached to the outside, your machine becomes very fragile, because hitting or tapping the outside of the machine is the same as hitting or tapping the inside. This is why we don't allow newborn babies to ride bicycles, btw.

Even in a metal-frame machine, there's going to be plastic parts. Putting plastic parts in a sewing machine makes it quieter, more portable, and cuts down on maintenance. People don't fucking do the maintenance anyway, so finding ways to reduce it is going to help the machine run well longer.

Unfortunately, most machines are sold in boxes, where the person selecting the machine has to make a choice by reading the outside of the box. This means things like "This machine has 4672 stitches!" looks good and "this machine has 12 stitches but its brain is not basically exposed to the elements," doesn't. Any description of superiority that requires a human to explain it instead of a catchy tagline just isn't going to sell.

So, when you're looking at the Brother CS 4000 and the Baby Lock Zest, they're about the same price. The Zest has like 12(?)ish stitches, half of which are double-action (the same stitch but it goes forwardbacky instead of just forward) and no width control, and the CS 4000 has more technology in it than we took on the first manned trip to the moon, you might ask why they're the same price. Well, in the Zest, they cut down the features like easy bobbin setting, number of stitches, complexity of internal cams, and other features that you get in higher end machines.

In the CS 4000, they just got rid of...you know...the insides. The. The important parts. Imagine a car where there's no chassis and they just glued the engine to the underside of your hood.

Not all plastic machines are the same.

Anyhow, since I'm possibly unique in the world of budget lolita sewing blogs to be able to make a post about the most expensive sewing machines possible, I'm willing to try to undertake that expedition. Stay posted.

I sketched them...

（Bird Cesare）