squirrelhaven

Thanks to

dorinda, I've been introduced to the BBC's historical farm series, in which a historian and a couple of archeologists spend a year working a farm as it would have been worked in some historical period, ranging from WWII to the Tudor era. I really like them! They're not deep history, but seeing how things work in practice (what does it look like, feel like, smell like to thatch a roof? make cheese? light a coal range?) is fascinating, and the people doing it are delightful. It's generally the same three in all the series, with a couple others popping in -- I'm really sorry Chloe Spencer, who was in the first series, didn't return for the later ones, because I really liked her, and it was nice to see two women working together; after that it's just Ruth Goodman, the historian, with a couple of men. (Except that her daughter, a specialist in historical clothing, sometimes joins her, which is very fun!)

I love how the reenacters interact with each other. They all get along, and there's no manufactured tension, just occasional gentle joshing, as when Peter lost the dice throw and had to be the one to dig out the seventeenth-century-style privy they'd been using. ("This job is grim," he tells the camera.) The food is especially interesting to me! It looks more varied and tastier than I'd often have expected; obviously most of the recipes that survive from the earlier periods are on the luxe end, and they're portraying fairly well-off farmers, but even so, when you're sticking to period ingredients and cooking methods (no cooking oil or fat other than animal fat! sealing the oven door with flour-and-water paste!), I was expecting a bit more, well, pease porridge hot, pease porridge cold, you know? Which, to be fair, they do also eat. And the WWII urgency to massively increase domestic food production, which (not being British) I didn't really know about, drives that series in fascinating ways -- as do the effects of rationing.

It took me a long time to think, wait, are they really drinking raw milk in all these early-set series? It sure looks like it! At the beginning of the first series, I think it was, which reenacts 1620, the voiceover notes that, due to modern health and safety laws, they can't actually live in the cottage; but then later on they do seem to be living in it, given that they're using the privy at night (and washing clothes with ammonia derived from their own rotted urine), so I'd love to know more about that kind of behind-the-scenes stuff. Sometimes I almost yelp "At least tie a cloth over your faces!" when they're doing something like sweeping out decades of powdery dried birdshit from cottage rafters. (Did you know that the wing of a goose makes an excellent duster! I do, now!) But in general I trust that they took reasonable safety precautions, despite the occasional offhand comment about falling off a roof or being butted by a cow...and anyway the shows are 12-20 years old, so it's too late to worry about it!

But they're pleasant and interesting and warmly human and I recommend them to anyone who might like that kind of thing, because it's the kind of thing you might like! Also some of the scenery and cinematography is gorgeous.

the_shoshanna

have a recipe! I've made this twice in the last week or so, it's freaking fantastic.

Roasted Squash and Kale Salad

2 delicata squash
olive oil
2 bunches kale
¼ tsp ground cinnamon
¼ tsp smoked paprika
¼ tsp ground nutmeg
⅛ ground cloves
⅛ cayenne pepper or red pepper flakes
½ Tbsp brown sugar
1 cup pecans, roughly chopped
½ cup dried cranberries
½ red onion, minced
2 Tbsp maple syrup
1 Tbsp Dijon mustard
1 Tbsp balsamic vinegar
1 tsp lemon juice

Preheat oven to 425°F. Halve the squash lengthwise, scoop out seeds, and slice into half-inch-thick semicircles. Toss squash pieces with a little olive oil and spread them on a couple of baking trays (I use silicone baking mats), overlapping as little as possible. Bake about 25 minutes, until some pieces are browning on top; flip them halfway through if you like. When they come out, dump them into a large bowl.

Meanwhile, strip the kale leaves from the stems and roughly chop the leaves. (I generally dice the stems and save them for soup or the like, but you can also dice them and use them here, or just toss them if you're not a fan.) When the squash comes out of the oven, pile the kale on the baking trays, drizzle the piles with a little olive oil, and toss and massage the leaves with your hands (watching out for the hot tray underneath) until they're well coated and a bit tender. Bake the leaves in the same oven until wilted and crisp in some spots, about 5-10 minutes. When they come out, add them to the bowl with the squash.

Meanwhile, combine the cinnamon, paprika, nutmeg, cloves, cayenne pepper, and brown sugar in a small bowl, add the nuts and 1 or 2 tablespoons olive oil, and toss to coat. When the kale comes out of the oven, spread the nuts on the baking trays (here is where a baking mat is great, since otherwise melting sugar might stick) and bake them in the same oven until toasted and candied, about 5 minutes. Add them to the squash and kale; be sure to scrape in any coating that has come off the nuts. Add the cranberries as well.

Meanwhile, in the same bowl in which you mixed the nuts and their coating (which surely still has a fair bit of leftover coating mix in it), whisk together the onion, maple syrup, mustard, balsamic vinegar, and lemon juice. Whisk in more olive oil, anything from another couple tablespoons to a quarter-cup. Taste and adjust. When you have it as you like it, pour the dressing over the salad and toss everything together. Eat warm or at room temperature.

denise posting in

dw_news

I'll start with the tl;dr summary to make sure everyone sees it and then explain further: As of September 1, we will temporarily be forced to block access to Dreamwidth from all IP addresses that geolocate to Mississippi for legal reasons. This block will need to continue until we either win the legal case entirely, or the district court issues another injunction preventing Mississippi from enforcing their social media age verification and parental consent law against us.

Mississippi residents, we are so, so sorry. We really don't want to do this, but the legal fight we and Netchoice have been fighting for you had a temporary setback last week. We genuinely and honestly believe that we're going to win it in the end, but the Fifth Circuit appellate court said that the district judge was wrong to issue the preliminary injunction back in June that would have maintained the status quo and prevented the state from enforcing the law requiring any social media website (which is very broadly defined, and which we definitely qualify as) to deanonymize and age-verify all users and obtain parental permission from the parent of anyone under 18 who wants to open an account.

Netchoice took that appellate ruling up to the Supreme Court, who declined to overrule the Fifth Circuit with no explanation -- except for Justice Kavanaugh agreeing that we are likely to win the fight in the end, but saying that it's no big deal to let the state enforce the law in the meantime.

Needless to say, it's a big deal to let the state enforce the law in the meantime. The Mississippi law is a breathtaking state overreach: it forces us to verify the identity and age of every person who accesses Dreamwidth from the state of Mississippi and determine who's under the age of 18 by collecting identity documents, to save that highly personal and sensitive information, and then to obtain a permission slip from those users' parents to allow them to finish creating an account. It also forces us to change our moderation policies and stop anyone under 18 from accessing a wide variety of legal and beneficial speech because the state of Mississippi doesn't like it -- which, given the way Dreamwidth works, would mean blocking people from talking about those things at all. (And if you think you know exactly what kind of content the state of Mississippi doesn't like, you're absolutely right.)

Needless to say, we don't want to do that, either. Even if we wanted to, though, we can't: the resources it would take for us to build the systems that would let us do it are well beyond our capacity. You can read the sworn declaration I provided to the court for some examples of how unworkable these requirements are in practice. (That isn't even everything! The lawyers gave me a page limit!)

Unfortunately, the penalties for failing to comply with the Mississippi law are incredibly steep: fines of $10,000 per user from Mississippi who we don't have identity documents verifying age for, per incident -- which means every time someone from Mississippi loaded Dreamwidth, we'd potentially owe Mississippi $10,000. Even a single $10,000 fine would be rough for us, but the per-user, per-incident nature of the actual fine structure is an existential threat. And because we're part of the organization suing Mississippi over it, and were explicitly named in the now-overturned preliminary injunction, we think the risk of the state deciding to engage in retaliatory prosecution while the full legal challenge continues to work its way through the courts is a lot higher than we're comfortable with. Mississippi has been itching to issue those fines for a while, and while normally we wouldn't worry much because we're a small and obscure site, the fact that we've been yelling at them in court about the law being unconstitutional means the chance of them lumping us in with the big social media giants and trying to fine us is just too high for us to want to risk it. (The excellent lawyers we've been working with are Netchoice's lawyers, not ours!)

All of this means we've made the extremely painful decision that our only possible option for the time being is to block Mississippi IP addresses from accessing Dreamwidth, until we win the case. (And I repeat: I am absolutely incredibly confident we'll win the case. And apparently Justice Kavanaugh agrees!) I repeat: I am so, so sorry. This is the last thing we wanted to do, and I've been fighting my ass off for the last three years to prevent it. But, as everyone who follows the legal system knows, the Fifth Circuit is gonna do what it's gonna do, whether or not what they want to do has any relationship to the actual law.

We don't collect geolocation information ourselves, and we have no idea which of our users are residents of Mississippi. (We also don't want to know that, unless you choose to tell us.) Because of that, and because access to highly accurate geolocation databases is extremely expensive, our only option is to use our network provider's geolocation-based blocking to prevent connections from IP addresses they identify as being from Mississippi from even reaching Dreamwidth in the first place. I have no idea how accurate their geolocation is, and it's possible that some people not in Mississippi might also be affected by this block. (The inaccuracy of geolocation is only, like, the 27th most important reason on the list of "why this law is practically impossible for any site to comply with, much less a tiny site like us".)

If your IP address is identified as coming from Mississippi, beginning on September 1, you'll see a shorter, simpler version of this message and be unable to proceed to the site itself. If you would otherwise be affected, but you have a VPN or proxy service that masks your IP address and changes where your connection appears to come from, you won't get the block message, and you can keep using Dreamwidth the way you usually would.

On a completely unrelated note while I have you all here, have I mentioned lately that I really like ProtonVPN's service, privacy practices, and pricing? They also have a free tier available that, although limited to one device, has no ads or data caps and doesn't log your activity, unlike most of the free VPN services out there. VPNs are an excellent privacy and security tool that every user of the internet should be familiar with! We aren't affiliated with Proton and we don't get any kickbacks if you sign up with them, but I'm a satisfied customer and I wanted to take this chance to let you know that.

Again, we're so incredibly sorry to have to make this announcement, and I personally promise you that I will continue to fight this law, and all of the others like it that various states are passing, with every inch of the New Jersey-bred stubborn fightiness you've come to know and love over the last 16 years. The instant we think it's less legally risky for us to allow connections from Mississippi IP addresses, we'll undo the block and let you know.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Reading

historical farm life

it's been way too long

Mississippi legal challenge: beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

Profile

March 2018

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags