I'd like to extend a warm thank you to Shirogane of Fundies Say the Darndest Things

 I've arrived. For having the audacity to say, LE GASP, maybe the transgender lobby might need to moderate their approach and quit demanding all of humanity deny their own eyes, brain, and personal conscience to accommodate them, I have gotten an entry on the "hall of shame" (really not ashamed at all, I think I'll take a picture of it and frame it) that is Fundies Say the Darndest Things. 

Original here: https://fstdt.com/@Shirogane

On top of editing out the rest of my post and selectively curating one section out of context for other like-minded people to seethe at (and Shirogane, you can be honest, you were the anon who left a comment calling me crazy in response and ran to FSTDT to post what made you mad as some childish revenge), they also seem to think I'm some horrible transphobic bigot because I refuse to be a mindless lickspittle for their every demand. I'm actually pretty moderate on that. Do your thing without harming me or anyone else and I don't care what you do with your life, it's your business, just don't shove it into mine, and don't demand I kiss your ring lest you try to publicly pillory me for refusal.

And with that noted, Shirogane, well, if you were hoping to make me feel bad when I discovered your attempt to cancel me, well, I'm just going to dig in my heels and laugh. I knew what I posted would be free for public consumption and comment, so being attacked for calling something I deemed wrong as me being the bad guy because I hurt feelings does not bother me. And Dunning-Kruger, really? I admit I could possibly be wrong, but instead of trying to reason with me, you instead did the cowardly move of talking about me behind my back. Protip: A civil attempt to change my mind would have worked a lot better.

That said, I bear no grudges and take no offense. I forgive this because it's not worth getting upset over, and being an unshamed Christian, earning the scorn of the world is nothing to be surprised by. If anything, thanks. Glad to know someone actually reads this blog, I graciously thank you for the support.

On getting into AI art making and the ethics of it

 I am writing this post due to my getting into making AI art after being interested in the possibilities and wanting to use it for game modding.

Now, before I continue, I want to make a few things clear. I deplore the use of AI creation of any sort for evil intent. I do not ever plan to sell anything created by AI, do not ever intend to claim it as my own work (as it's generated by a computer, not my own actual skill), and I only ever plan to do AI creations of any sort in compliance with all applicable laws and with all proper safeguards taken against it causing financial, legal, or moral harm to another person. If I was ever given a request to take it down by proper authority, I would comply immediately.

Now that I got that out of the way, let me first explain what AI art is for the people unaware, then go into why I wrote this post.

First off, AI art is artwork, soundtracks, animations, or other media done by a computer being fed examples of currently existing material, then using procedural generation to attempt to make its own artwork based on this data. In practice, it makes hardly anything one would call truly original. It's in fact derivative of existent art, often with the resultant creation being a chimeric fusion of actual effort.

Legally, it's not entirely clear yet if it's plagiarism, parody, or falls into something of a grey area. So far, there are no laws against my use of it I'm aware of, and I'm just a mere hobbyist at best.

I use Stable Diffusion, an open-source protocol. I originally got interested when I saw Bing's Image Creator, but these days it's so locked down, sanitized, and refuses to make any results of anything that could offend anyone (but given it's run by Microsoft, who lobotomized their AI Tay when the internet taught it to be an unironic Nazi, this is no surprise). Ergo, I decided to try making my own with open-source tools.

The art I do is still images. I favor a 2D anime-based art style, and Stable Diffusion, provided you have a proper checkpoint (base data for your chosen art style) and Loras (models and other data that serve as addons to Stable Diffusion), you can make some decent material, albeit with a lot of work.

In fact, I'll be blunt. While there are many people who rage (with some degree of truth to their credit) AI art is theft, the overwhelming majority takes a LOT of tries before you get results that look even remotely good. I've lost count of how many terrible results and outright cosmic horrors I've produced before the generator spit out something passable.

Stable Diffusion works on a tag and weight system. It uses tags much like "Booru" style sites. For example "1guy", "car", "road" would be a basic prompt to specify you want to see a guy with a car on a road. Of course, you need to further specify if the car is in motion, if the window is down, and all the other details if you want more specific results, else the AI generator result can be super random. It also requires certain topics be given high or low weight, to give certain details emphasis or deemphasis, as the case may be.

Again, let me be absolutely blunt. This is a piss poor substitute for actual effort by actual artists. I have paid artists for work before, and I found it to have far more love, care, and charm than even my best AI creation. AI tends to hate and not understand subtle flaws that give real art its charms. It often makes horrible mistakes like deformed limbs, bad proportions, incompetence at drawing light and shadows, and many other botched-looking failures at making an image. I am going to admit I'm a cheap man with no art creation skills to my name (drawing straight lines is nigh impossible for me and I have no idea how I didn't totally flunk art class). I'm sure even the crudest stick figure artist makes stuff way better than I could. I bow in humbled awe of anyone with actual artistic talent.

Now, I want to cover the controversy over AI art. There is a lot of rage it's going to put real artists out of work, it's crap knockoffs, it's stealing what other made money off of, and how it can be used for all sorts of evil intentions and in fact has been done already. I do not deny any of this, people have been caught selling games with AI art without saying so, it can be considered plagiarism of material others have done since it's all based on preexisting data drawn from publicly accessible sources, and yes, it's very arguable even for parodic purposes it could be called plagiarism in many legitimate senses.

Conversely, I want to say the following. The genie is already out of the bottle, it's too late to put it back in. This is a tool like any other that can be used for good or evil, and I agree it should be governed and restrained by the firmest sense of ethics possible. Whether it's detractors like it or not, it's not going away, so I advise focusing on restraining it's potential for abuse instead of cursing its mere existence, too late for the latter now.

Finally, I just want to say my conscience on this subject is generally clear, given my the above. I again regret and deplore use of AI for evil. I greatly enjoy audio parodies on YouTube of AI versions of our presidents playing Mario Kart, meme videos of Dagoth Ur from Morrowind saying the most goofy dialogue people can dream up, and enjoy meme parodies done in AI that blend art styles and genres one does not usually see. This does NOT have to be a tool for evil, it can be a means for harmless fun.

It's merely my solemn hope and prayer it can remain that way, or at least the potential for evil use can be mitigated as much as possible.

Geth Reviews A Terrible Gun: Type 94 Nambu pistol

 Now, when reviewing this gun, I had to separate a lot of fact from fiction. One of its most notorious features has a lot of contention, with some claiming it was more deadly to the user than the intended target, and others claiming this is overblown nonsense. On the whole, however, this is a pretty disappointing gun for many other reasons.

Shown above is the Type 94 handgun (in the original Japanese,  Kyūyon-Shiki Kenjū). Now, many respected military historians such as the late Ian V. Hogg have given this gun bad reviews. More contemporary military weapons aficionados generally agree though Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons contends it wasn't great, but not as bad as it's believed to be.

The gun itself was designed by Kijirō Nambu, the Japanese version of John Moses Browning. The Type 94 was issued for service in 1934 (despite it being a commercial flop in non-military markets). Its designation comes from the Japanese historical tradition of their origins, meaning the gun was issued in the 2594 year of the Japanese system of dating. Oddly, it is not given a date based on the reign of the Japanese Emperor at the time. Earlier weapons designed by Nambu were considered quite good if expensive to manufacture, like the Type 14, a gun issued in the 14th year of the Taisho Era (aka 1926). So the Type 94 was made, based on Nambu (in cooperation with the Japanese military which he still sold weapons to even after his retirement) trying to make an easier-to-handle successor.

It's worth noting it took several years before the Japanese military accepted it for service, and even then it was primarily issued to paratroopers and tank crews, and could be purchased by officers on their own dime. According to The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, it was particularly favored by tank crews for its small size, a premium given the cramped confines of tanks.

Now, when discussing the design, before I get to the hotly contested point that neither side can agree on as being horrible, let's cover some of the generally agreed bad design flaws.

• Like many weapons of its class, it used a rather low-powered 8x22mm pistol cartridge. It had about six rounds per magazine. Overall, this not exactly what most contemporary forces would consider ideal for military purposes in terms of power, and all other combatants in the war all had much better options available.
• The grips are very small, obviously to accommodate the hands of the average Japanese user at the time, meaning this gun will feel dinky in the hands of larger handed person, The grips are either bakelite/plastic in the early models or "slab" grips made of wood in the later models. Either way, the grips are slightly rough to the touch, made worse by the sharp taper from top to bottom, meaning a firm grip could make it jump out of your hands if not held in place at the right angles. The frame finish is also pretty rough, so simply picking this up is going to be a bit uncomfortable.
• The sights are marginal at the very best, terrible at worst. The rear sight is a super small V style notch and the front sight has a small upraised blade that doesn't work well for precision aiming.
• The safety is pretty miserable. It's a small pivot lever that was easy to break and considering its other flaws with the possibility of accidental discharge (more on that later), this is a pretty bad flaw that lends credibility to the fact the Japanese themselves likely never used this weapon all that often. In most pictures of people holding it, like tank officers, they come equipped with a sword at their side, as was the custom at the time, and likely got more use out of that.
• The magazine well was not overly reliable. Not only did it require considerable force to get the magazine to load in place, but the magazine safety was prone to unlatching if it caught a hard surface or even when pulled out of a holster at certain angles. Removing magazines could also be tricky, forcing the user to hold open the slide with one hand while forcing the magazine to eject with the other. Due to the fact the magazine catch sticks out, this makes it dangerous to use unless you check to make sure the magazine is secure before firing.
• The ejector port is actually not too bad, being based on Luger-esque straight-up ejection, though given the differing placement of the ejector and extraction mechanism, expelled cases could hit the user.
• Despite using a locking bolt mechanism, it's really a blowback-style pistol like the earlier Type 14, and while recoil is generally not too severe given the low caliber of the cartridge, the firing pin is a bit weak and prone to breakage.
• Maintenance and cleaning are very, very difficult. Not only does it have a lot of small parts that hands would have trouble with, putting it back together is not easy, with many internals prone to damage if handled improperly; not all that hard to to do given the poor internals to begin with.
• Quality control early on was mediocre at best, this gun got even worse and was made of incredibly shoddy materials late in the war due to Japan's lack of access to raw materials and worsening war situation. By the end of the war, some models were just useless on arrival.

Now, all the above make this far below most of the other pistol options available to the user of a sideearm during the second World War. However, the most controversial demerit is the infamous "gun goes off without the trigger being pulled" problem.

This has critics on both sides unable to agree. The main problem is that if the safety is off or broken, very slight manipulation of the trigger bar will cause a premature ejection. 

Now, there are varying opinions on this: 

• As mentioned, it had trigger bar prone to premature ejection. While American GIs likely were responsible for spreading the rumor the gun was designed that way on purpose as a suicide attack last resort, laziness in gun design may have also played a factor.
• The few accounts of this gun that are reliable establish it was of bad manufacture, poor at stopping a target, and generally considered a piece of crap according to the 1944 Handbook on the Japanese Armed Forces. 
• In my own attempts at cross-referencing, the accounts of the Type 94 being considered a suicide weapon are generally considered apocryphal. There are no confirmed reports it was either used as for killing oneself to avoid capture nor was its notoriously shoddy safety and sear bar purposely manipulated to allow a discharge without pulling the trigger as a last-ditch attack. Both are entirely plausible, but none of the accounts I read can agree if these events did happen with any certainty.

Overall, even if you discount the last item, this was a pretty underwhelming handgun with low stopping power, was hard to maintain and clean, had bad design flaws and poor materials even in the better early models, and overall was a poor weapon for military use. When compared to all the other handguns available to the other Axis Powers and the Allies, this gun, hands down, is my pick for worst sidearm of World War II.

Geth Reviews A Terrible Gun: The Chauchat

 As many who read this blog or who know my tastes may be aware I adore reading about history. Wars are particularly interesting to read about, but honestly, they suck because wars kill people. And people die when they are killed.

And, now that I made a lame Fate/Stay Night meme reference, bear with me (and for the gun nuts among you, get the antacids) as we take a trip down the snark-laden road that was the history of the Chauchat, long considered to be one of the worst weapons to ever be given to soldiers to kill people with.

First off, the name, being French, is pronounced "show-sha". Also, that's merely the informal name. The actual official military designation is Fusil Mitrailleur Modele 1915 CSRG (French for "Machine Rifle Model 1915 CSRG"). The more informal name comes from its chief designer contributor, Colonel Louis Chauchat.

Before we continue, some argue this gun is unfairly maligned, and while it was a piece of garbage that had better use as a paperweight or should have been used to club to death the guys who scammed the troops into accepting them, some argue it was not all THAT bad. These people, frankly, I must disagree with, because this was a weapon issued for service in a war where bodies stacked daily, and weapons that helped you kill the other sides faster were obviously essentially.

One of the arguments given by those who tried to defend this weapon was its innovations, which would be standard on many later weapons. To be fair, I agree, a WWI light machine gun with a pistol grip, was easy to mass produce, and had an easy-to-change-out magazine (on par with a rifle or even a pistol for ease of swapping out) sounds like a dream weapon. At the same time, so does buying a car with TV and DVD player tossed in for free along with everything else that has a bum engine. I ultimately would be all "you just ONE job" to the car, which I would have purchased more to go from place to place via automotive movement. By the same token, just because the Chauchat had some fun bells and whistles still does not obviate the fact the most basic reason it was made was done very poorly on a good day.

To give an idea of how even in the planning stages this weapon was headed for trouble, it's worth noting it had FOUR designers, Specifically, Colonel Louis Chauchat, Charles Sutter, Paul Ribeyrolles and the factory Societe des Cycles Clement et Gladiator. With four different pairs of eyes on the development, these guys could backstop any flaws. Instead, they proved that old saw about too many cooks screwing up the soup.

Now, the design phase dates back to 1903, when the French sensibly realized a man-portable LMG was a great idea. In defense of this weapon, weighing barely above 20 pounds made it one of the lightest and most feasibly man-portable guns of its class. Of course, while guns like the Lewis Gun were far heavier, they also worked a lot better, so while it gave the guys holding a workout to the point they could do arm crunches with them for toning, they paid off by actually not being so useless one wanted to trade them out for some magic beans. Another problem that cropped up in the design phase that would dog this weapon in all incarnations of practice was reliance on the 8mm Lebel round. Even at the time that this was chalk on a blackboard the Lebel round was a long-in-the-tooth grandpa that was laughably underpowered and needed to be retired. Unfortunately, the French were unwilling to throw out what they got used to, so the Chauchat and a lot of their other weapons went into WWI already fitter for museums than maneuvers.

The construction phase was beyond inexcusable. Typically, when you mass produce anything, you want the average finished product to at least be (or have a good chance of being) reasonably sound out of the box. Unfortunately, the quality control for this was nonexistent, using second-hand Lebel rifle parts that were no longer fit for normal service, sheet steel that was of cheap alloys, and milled parts (milling refers to the process of cutting parts out to exact specifications and fitting them together) had no standards for baseline quality. As a result, the sights were useless, the parts had trouble fitting together, and good luck getting spare parts. Even if you somehow had them, it was a coin toss if they'd work since even those were cursed by the cheapest bidder-level effort.

In practice, many aspects of this gun were laughably bad in practice:

• The magazines were these bizarre, half-moon-shaped pieces of garbage that could deform easily and not even fit their magazine well. Even if they did work, some brainless idiot literally left the inside of the magazine exposed to the elements, meaning the ammo would be dead on arrival in a war where dirt, rain, mud, and all sorts of other disgusting things were omnipresent.
• The much-touted pistol grip was a squared-off block that was about as much fun to hold as a dog turd and felt just as pleasant to steady the weapon. The foregrip was placed just slightly ahead of the pistol grip and was a cockeyed knob-like attachment that did not feel normal in combination with the blocky pistol grip.
• LMG weapons were meant for long-range use and thus had a bipod. Unfortunately, some idiot gave it a super tall bipod that gave enemy troops a lovely profile of the user so anyone wanting to pop a skull would not have found it hard to do so.
• The firing mechanism of the receiver was a baffling one. It used a long-recoil model, meaning all the moving parts of the gun, after the discharge of a round, had to slide back as far as they would go before it could fire another round. This meant the firing rate was bad, the recoil was absurd, and given how poorly these weapons were constructed, this did not allow them to avoid excessive wear and tear.
• Just above the butt stock (which would be just below the eye of a sniper or cradled high against a shoulder) was the recoil tube. Combine really stiff recoil with a recoil tube that could dislocate your arm or bust your jaw if your face grazed the recoiling tube above the butt stock. I'll wait while you quit wincing from the imagined agony.
• The sights were not aligned well at all with the gun even under ideal conditions. Some genius thought a cheek weld was a practical idea for a gun with nasty recoil and a squared-off block of a receiver and thus the sights were offset to the left, meaning your aim required adjusting for this idea that was never fully developed.
• On top of the magazines jamming due to practically any matter getting in them, the gun itself was miserable at dissipating excess heat, meaning a few clips of ammo later it was a useless jammed fireball that had to cool off and often bashed against a solid object to free up any jammed gun parts due to heat distortion.

Now, all of the above bullet points apply to the original 1915 model of this weapon, which was, on a very good day, marginal at best. When the US joined the fight, the French convinced them to take these weapons in 1918, albeit with some requested modifications for a higher caliber, the .30.06 round.

The 1918 version had its own embarrassing design failures:

• When modifying the gun for higher caliber rounds, some idiots didn't bother to check the difference between Imperial measurements and the metric system. As a result, the barrels often were too small for feeding the rounds. Rounds that did feed could literally have chunks of the case tear off inside the barrel, making the gun an instant paperweight.
• The Americans were often forced to downgrade to the original 8mm version because the mass majority of the larger caliber versions would become useless after firing no more than a single round. As mentioned above, the 8mm Lebel round version was already an exercise in fail, and it really says something that it was a legit improvement over the 1918 revision.
• Repair and maintenance were already a nightmare for the 1915 model, it was impossible for the 1918 version, as they came with no spares or manuals, meaning once it broke, it was dead.

Now, this gun, despite being one of the biggest mass-produced flops in the history of firearms, COULD be made into something valuable. The Belgians heavily modified it and replaced many of the worst features, upping it from laughably bad to decently useful. Most everyone else did not have that luxury, so the French and later the Americans were cursed with a gun has, in my own humble opinion, earned being spit on the judgment of history.

In short, this was a dumpster fire in the history of firearms. Despite those who think it had a lot of great concepts and want to defend it on those grounds, I look at it from the "how practical was it for guys dealing with life and death situations" standpoint. From that standpoint, it was terrible.

On The Values of Talent and Effort

 This post is going to be a combination of three things. Commentary about a game I played, some history of professional wrestling, and what the Bible says about proper effort. As strange a combination as it sounds, the first two will be relevant to the third.

To start things off, when it comes to game series, I'v always been a longtime fan of the Dragon Quest series. It's a turn-based series that has always pleased me due to the fact it's remained charmingly old school even as technology and other games have done new and exciting things. The last game in the mainline series I enjoyed was the PC version of DQXI S, which was a port based on the added content from the Switch port. That game was super long and rewarding, and I rather warmly appreciated how the developers bent every effort to use their talent to make something amazing.

More recently, I was intensely and bitterly disappointed when I played Infinity Strash Dragon Quest: The Adventures of Dai.

Infinity Strash was a video game adaptation of a spinoff anime based on the Dragon Quest video game franchise that has always commanded fan respect, and I hoped it would be done justice in video game format. To my horror, despite the billing as an action RPG, it was an execrable waste of time that was a massive wall of badly summarized scenes from the anime interspersed at rare intervals with gameplay right out of an amateur first Unity or Unreal engine asset flip project. The developers demand over 60 USD for what amounted to a lazy visual novel in disguise with some terrible mobile game style arena battling tacked on. Neither the story or gameplay showed a genuine display of talent and effort, and I was quite grateful (since I got it through Steam) that they were gracious enough to refund my purchase.

Before I continue, my disappointment was at the absolute inattention and contempt towards the use of the talent of the developers to show they wanted to invest their time and money into rewarding me for spending my own. What I got was worthy of contempt instead.

Now, let me shift gears and detail an instance in being entertained I got far more than my money's worth, even when the parties involved need not have tried too hard to gain my interest.

I used to follow professional wrestling in the late 90s and early 2000s. It's not something I particularly care for these days, but there was a time I was an avid fan because the stuff the wrestlers did to entertain was just THAT good. When it comes to the 1998 World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment after legal troubles with the World Wildlife Fund over the initials), I remember some of the most exciting wrestling ever, the crown jewel being the both famous and infamous "Hell in a Cell" (a type of wrestling match in which the parties wrestle on and in the steel chain-link cage over the ring, the winner being the one to pin the other and leave via the door on the inside of the ring usually) match with Mankind (IRL named Mick Foley) and the Undertaker (IRL named Mark William Calaway). Foley admitted in his first autobiography "Have a Nice Day: A Tale of Blood and Sweatsocks" that he was afraid the 1998 match was going to be horrible.

In 1997's version of "Hell in a Cell", starred two men in their prime. Undertaker and the wrestler Shawn Micheals. That match was considered excellent because Michaels did everything he could sell the Undertaker (a 6-foot-tall wrestling veteran) as an unstoppable force of nature and the Undertaker was able to make the more agile Michaels look great in turn. Foley was afraid in 1998 he and Undertaker could not recreate that magic, mostly because the Undertaker had a broken ankle and Foley was nowhere near as athletic as Micheals was, not to mention over 250 pounds, at least 100 pounds heavier.

So, in an effort to make sure the match would be considered good, Foley and Taker decided to take some risks, albeit with reluctance as it was later explained.

When the match began, Foley's character made it into the arena, he climbed up the cage to meet him, tossing a steel chair atop the cage as well for use as a weapon, since the match had no rules against weaponized objects. Undertaker's character came out next and also climbed the cage to begin the match. Soon after he reached the top, the match started with a series of punches, deliberately moving Foley to the edge.

The first immortal moment of the night came when Undertaker grabbed Foley and tossed him off the cage. sending a 250 lbs plus man over 22 feet from the top of the cage through the Spanish announcer's table, which broke on impact, leaving Foley taking a fall on solid concrete. This resulted in time stopping for everyone as Foley lay motionless to the point everyone legitimately assumed he died and nigh everyone broke character, terrified for his well-being. He managed to awaken while being moved out on a stretcher and miraculously made his way up the cage again, where Undertaker still was. The second nightmare of the night happened when a chokeslam by Taker after a brief scuffle on the second time on the top of the cage caused the steel cage to rupture (an event that was not planned, the first toss off the cage was), causing Foley to crash on his back into the ring. Worse, the steel chair he had tossed up earlier followed, smashing Foley in the face, which caused one of his teeth to dislodge.

Amazingly, he managed to recover again, and after a brief incident in which an attempt to drop Undertaker onto thumbtacks backfired, Foley was pinned and the match ended.

It's worth noting the risks taken to ensure people who paid to watch were entertained were considered far in excess. Vince McMahon, then owner (now retired) was grateful for the sheer amount of effort exerted but begged Foley to never go that far again. Everyone involved was worried the high bar of drama and violence in that match would inspire copycats and measures were implemented to prevent it. Regardless, at the time, it became an iconic moment of two men working against limitations to deliver quality entertainment, at the risk of their health and lives. In short, while later agreed it should not have gone that far, that was when all the parties involved took risks and exerted all sorts of effort to make sure their talents would be rewarded with something special.

Now that I've said the first two parts, let me get to the part the Bible comes into play. The credo of God to all Christians is that they should be proud of their work and use their talents to the utmost of their ability. Jesus explained this in the Parable of the Talents, and before I get to that, a bit of explanation on the origin of the word.

A talent was then a dry measure of weight, about 800 pounds, and typically precious metal was issued in talents, such as gold, as in the parable. So talents were valuable as a result. It equaled about 20 years of wages for a common worker, so not a small monetary sum either. It's because of the parable they became a loanword for abilities and skills.

Here is the parable in question:

The Parable of the Talents

14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,[b] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’



As this parable clearly demonstrates, if you have talents (of the classical or modern kind), you really need to put them to work. If you have a lot, then shoot for even more. If you only have some, still try your best. The worst you can do is not even try to do anything thus producing a miserable result.

In the game example I brought up, the developers did not even bother to try. The result was something worthy of contempt, a slap to the face of those who expected better, and worthless in both the short and long-term as anything of value.

In the wrestling example I brought up, sure, they went far beyond what they had to make it entertaining, but many (and I agree) would agree it was too far. But it still shows moral integrity to one's craft that they still, despite limitations, tried to make some quality entertainment despite not having as much at their disposal, and you still have to applaud the effort as laudable.

My point is basically, when it comes to one's talents, I and the Bible encourage people to do their best. Not only will you have done something you can be proud of, but other people can be proud of your efforts. Even if you are not Christian, the long-term benefit should still be obvious: you will have left a good example for others to follow so that others will likewise leave effort clearly marked by use of their talents, and in doing so leave a net positive on the world.

For those who are Christian, well, you please not only yourself for having basic integrity, you please God, who wants to see you do the best with what He's given you.

Grana Padono Oro, Smoked Cheddar Brick, and Aged English Cheddar Taste Testing Review

 For this month, Mom and I bring back another exciting episode of Dragon Ball- wait, wrong subject.

Seriously, this month, we tasted some more cheese, ordered from Murray's in New York. Like always, it shipped well packed with adequate ice and it was undamaged and in good quality.

Here's how our taste testing went.

Grana Padono Oro 20 Months

In my earlier post about Pecorino Romano, I mentioned that cheese is very gritty and grainy. Well, Grana Padono Oro, while a relative of that cheese, it goes through a different cooking process than Romano, resulting in a much less dry texture and it's more flaky than grainy. This is ironic, because "Grana" means "Grain".

Grana Padono Oro is an Italian cheese that has enjoyed Denominazione d’Origine Protetta (Protected Designation of Origin) status since 1996. It's produced using raw cow milk from two separate milkings. This milk is then partially skimmed, the curd is given two cooking periods, then it's bathed in a salt brine before pressing. It also includes egg whites, which help with its flakier texturing and buttery consistency.

The result is a taste similar to Parmigiano Reggiano, but it has a different texture with a flaky, buttery consistency. This makes it more pleasant and less gritty going down than Romano and Parmigiano and thus can be flaked or shredded finely over dishes for a gentler taste from those two cheeses. It also tastes fine eaten on its own as a snacking cheese.

A final interesting note is that Grana Padono, like many Italian cheeses that can be grated, is a lowlands cheese that combines techniques used in making alpine cheeses, which gave birth to the trademark taste one expects from many traditional Italian cheeses suited for grating and drying for long-term preservation.

The taste test we did basically confirms the above, and while I enjoyed snacking on Pecorino Romano on its own, I found the Grana Padono Oro takes less time to get used to the texture on one's palate.

Aged English Cheddar

Aged English Cheddar is a cheese that comes from Dorset, England, and its origins go back to the Middle Ages. It's something of a medley of contrasting notes mixed with the traditional cheddaring of the curd, resulting in a fine cheddar worthy of its laurels.

Unlike the more sharp texture and taste of clothbound cheddars, this cheddar is gentler and sweet tasting, though still has a tangy aftertaste.

Mom and I tried some slices of it. I was struck by its rich consistency yet sweet, caramel-like flavor, and Mom noted how the tangy aftertaste makes savoring the flavor on the way down a treat. We would both recommend it for a snack cheese or used in any cheese dish you might prefer.

Smoked Cheddar Brick

Now, this is an American cheese from Wisconsin. Brick is a cheese with a basis in white cheddar, but it uses a different cooking time to achieve a different density of milk fat and texture. It also incorporates some concepts from the making of Mozzarella, leading to a cheese that is something of a hybrid of cheddar and mozzarella in texture.

Our taste testing barely proceeded before the piquant and pleasant aroma of well smoked (with hickory wood chips) cheese hit our nostrils. Upon tasting the cheese, it melted delightfully and creamily on the tongue yet had a firm smoky cheddar flavor. It was quite pleasant to chew and would make an excellent melting cheese for dishes of that nature.