Art History Misspellings

tanadrin:

isabelbrison:
jadagul:
tanadrin:
today was the whole-trilogy extended editions we-die-like-riders-of-rohan-in-a-26-degree-movie-theater marathon of lord of the rings, and i gotta say watching these movies two decades later,
they’re still delightful
it’s funny how they seem more and more an artifact of the period they were produced in (not in a bad way, mind)
it is annoying how little peter jackson trusts his audience. like. all major landmarks have to be within line of sight of each other. voice overs have to unambiguously lampshade every plot beat that was foreshadowed earlier in the movie. gandalf all but literally says at the end of the two towers “see you next time in… return of the king!” moments in the books that are already hella cinematic like the paths of the dead have to punched up just a little extra, like with an indiana jones skull slide. and it’s just not necessary! trust your audience!
you can really tell what dialogue is from the books, and what dialogue is original attempts at tolkien pastiche, because even if you don’t know the books encyclopedically, the walsh-boyens-jackson team is just. not at all up to doing the pastiche well. this isn’t counting the lines that are absolutely cringe, like “let’s hunt some orcs.” or all of gimli’s dialogue. god they do gimli so dirty turning a prince of the dwarves into the drunken comic relief.
when did we decide all dwarves were scottish, and they all used the same vaguely modernist angular architecture? i think it was before lord of the rings. was it in the 90s? the 80s?
was the Tomato Incident a spontaneous choice by john noble or a directorial decision? did they have to do multiple takes?
it’s so fun watching these movies in theaters now because the bits that gets everyone to laugh or cheer are the ones that have seeped into pop culture in weird ways. “they’re taking the hobbits to isengard,” of course. “po-ta-toes.” but also just aragorn kicking the helmet got a big giggle from the audience, because everyone was Thinking The Thing.
some extremely committed soul came in cosplay, with a thick elven-style cloak and everything, despite the fact it was unusually hot today and the Babylon’s ac was not coping well. i don’t know how they survived. i hope they survived?
5. My original take was it’s from The Lord of the Rings (1954), but I think that does predate it a little bit. Googling for this is hard because a lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about, but it did feel well-established in like D&D well before the films came out. At least one person online wants to blame it on “Three Hearts and Three Lions”, which seems plausible since I know that was a source for D&D trolls.
6. I was not aware that there was a Tomato Incident (I know the books much better than the films), but googling suggests you were talking about a scene with Denethor eating? In which case this article suggests it happened accidentally in a rehearsal—he was rehearsing his eating to be rhythmic for continuity purposes—and Peter Jackson saw it and got super excited and asked him to do it every time.
All of this! Gimli as comic relief makes me sad every time. There’s this tension in trying to make a film for the fans while also trying to appeal to ordinary people who have never read the books etc. and stuff like Gimli and the whole Aragorn/Arwen romance thing seems to have been put there because it’s expected these types of movies will have a bit of romance in them.
the aragorn/arwen romance is fine–it’s in the appendix only because arwen is barely in the main story, and adding her to the main story is an easy way to merge characters for a cinematic adaptation. what i don’t like is this whole random “oh no! if you don’t destroy the ring arwen will die!” bit in RotK, because the stakes are already if you don’t destroy the ring everyone dies! we don’t need to “make this personal” for aragorn! things are already maximally personal!
and i think that’s representative of the fact that that tension you speak of only exists if you don’t trust your audience. sure, some fraction of the film-watching public are morons. but less than you think! and a lot of tropes common to big blockbuster action-y movies like Lord of the Rings assume most of the film-watching public (or at least the audience for those films) are morons. the real tension is between trying to adapt a story which puts a measure of faith in its audience to be able to deal with Themes And Whatnot, to keep track of a couple of different plots unfolding at once (though the books largely do this in series, not in parallel like the films), and not assume they have the attention span of a goldfish.
and that’s really what holds the movie back in the end–it doesn’t quite trust its audience enough, it doesn’t trust the fact that the overall plot (which is pretty simple in the end tbh) will carry things forward even if people don’t remember literally every story beat from the previous installments, doesn’t trust that this world (which they have filmed in loving and extraordinary detail!) will feel sufficiently real that we’ll be invested in it without signposting the stakes in ways that feel ham-handed.
but still! delightful films. and given the huge possibility space of awful or forgettable lord of the rings adaptations we could have gotten, i feel very lucky these are the ones we did get.

Trust in the audience is a good way to put it, yeah; pretty sure most folks don’t need to be spoonfed cliches in order to enjoy a movie.

What upset me a bit about the romance thing is it’s very overdone. What was a background detail in the books is suddenly a major plot point, and in order to make it work as plot the characters have to react to it in ways that are kinda out of character for them. There’s the “Arwen will die” thing you mention and then there’s Elrond’s grumpy old man-like not wanting his daughter to marry a mortal. Which is ridiculous given his own ancestry.

But they are still great movies in spite of all this! It’s just part of a fan’s job to analyse everything to bits lol

jadagul:

tanadrin:
today was the whole-trilogy extended editions we-die-like-riders-of-rohan-in-a-26-degree-movie-theater marathon of lord of the rings, and i gotta say watching these movies two decades later,
they’re still delightful
it’s funny how they seem more and more an artifact of the period they were produced in (not in a bad way, mind)
it is annoying how little peter jackson trusts his audience. like. all major landmarks have to be within line of sight of each other. voice overs have to unambiguously lampshade every plot beat that was foreshadowed earlier in the movie. gandalf all but literally says at the end of the two towers “see you next time in… return of the king!” moments in the books that are already hella cinematic like the paths of the dead have to punched up just a little extra, like with an indiana jones skull slide. and it’s just not necessary! trust your audience!
you can really tell what dialogue is from the books, and what dialogue is original attempts at tolkien pastiche, because even if you don’t know the books encyclopedically, the walsh-boyens-jackson team is just. not at all up to doing the pastiche well. this isn’t counting the lines that are absolutely cringe, like “let’s hunt some orcs.” or all of gimli’s dialogue. god they do gimli so dirty turning a prince of the dwarves into the drunken comic relief.
when did we decide all dwarves were scottish, and they all used the same vaguely modernist angular architecture? i think it was before lord of the rings. was it in the 90s? the 80s?
was the Tomato Incident a spontaneous choice by john noble or a directorial decision? did they have to do multiple takes?
it’s so fun watching these movies in theaters now because the bits that gets everyone to laugh or cheer are the ones that have seeped into pop culture in weird ways. “they’re taking the hobbits to isengard,” of course. “po-ta-toes.” but also just aragorn kicking the helmet got a big giggle from the audience, because everyone was Thinking The Thing.
some extremely committed soul came in cosplay, with a thick elven-style cloak and everything, despite the fact it was unusually hot today and the Babylon’s ac was not coping well. i don’t know how they survived. i hope they survived?
5. My original take was it’s from The Lord of the Rings (1954), but I think that does predate it a little bit. Googling for this is hard because a lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about, but it did feel well-established in like D&D well before the films came out. At least one person online wants to blame it on “Three Hearts and Three Lions”, which seems plausible since I know that was a source for D&D trolls.
6. I was not aware that there was a Tomato Incident (I know the books much better than the films), but googling suggests you were talking about a scene with Denethor eating? In which case this article suggests it happened accidentally in a rehearsal—he was rehearsing his eating to be rhythmic for continuity purposes—and Peter Jackson saw it and got super excited and asked him to do it every time.

All of this! Gimli as comic relief makes me sad every time. There’s this tension in trying to make a film for the fans while also trying to appeal to ordinary people who have never read the books etc. and stuff like Gimli and the whole Aragorn/Arwen romance thing seems to have been put there because it’s expected these types of movies will have a bit of romance in them.

terrie01:

cardassiangoodreads:
obstinaterixatrix:
saxifraga-x-urbium:
queenclaudiabrown:
sindri42:
penandinkprincess:
i do not at all mean this in a perjorative manner, but i do think it’s important to be able to consume a piece of media and go, “i’m not the audience for this” and be able to just walk away
there doesn’t have to be something wrong or “problematic” about something for a person to not like it. personal taste is personal taste. but something not doing it for you doesn’t mean it automatically has to be wrong or bad. it’s just not for you.
There’s been several times when I’ve watched a thing and been like, they clearly did what they intended to do, and did it well, and I don’t want any part of it. This is a high quality and deeply unpleasant piece of art.
“This is a high quality and deeply unpleasant piece of art” is a wonderful line, I love it, I feel it in my soul
too good a take to be left in the tags
Recently, my son said to me after seeing a ballet on television: “It’s beautiful but I don’t like it.” And I thought, Are many grown-ups capable of such a distinction? It’s beautiful, but I don’t like it. Usually, our grown-up thinking is more along the lines of: I don’t like it, so it’s not beautiful. What would it meant to separate those two impressions for art making and for art criticism?
- Sarah Ruhl, 100 Essays I Don’t Have Time To Write
It doesn’t even have to be “deeply unpleasant,” which is still kind of fitting into the Finding A Larger Reason thing, at least the way most people use the word “unpleasant.” It can be good, it can be harmless and fun and even pleasant and still not be to your personal taste, still not be how you want to spend your time.
I track my reading on Goodreads and my personal difference between a 1 and 2 star review is “This book is bad” and “This book is objectively fine but I did not enjoy it.”

(via crankyteapot)

the-bramble–patch:

I’ve been seeing a few posts on minimalism going around, one being @bisquitt’s post on sustainability and minimalism—how the two terms shouldn’t be conflated, and how real sustainability is about anti-capitalism in the forms of reuse, repair, and community interdependence. Another is @allstrangeandwonderful’s post on how Minimalism is an aesthetic based around coping in the “corporate hellscape” we live in—contemporary designers gravitate towards neutral colors as a respite from the warlike corporate use of color to catch the attention of a consumer (See Mina Le’s video on this concept also. She offers up a few possible reasons for this trend towards “greige” interiors, one being the inundation from advertising we experience in our everyday lives).
I wanted to talk about these concepts and tie in some other things I’ve been seeing around.
Imo, minimalism is anti-consumerist, but not anti-capitalist. The lifestyle and aesthetic is intended to address the systemic problem of living in a consumerist society on an individual level. Instead of ending the capitalist system that thrusts consumerism on us all, it suggests that minimalists create a safe space away from consumerism. It is not interested in changing the system, only the individual. What really drove this home for me was watching The Financial Diet on YouTube interview The Minimalists, the guys who kicked off the trend. She keeps trying to ask them about the underlying issues Minimalism acts as a band-aid for, and they keep dodging her questions.
The lifestyle choices bisquitt offers up as sustainable are typically lumped under the umbrella of Solarpunk: “fixing shit around your house. thrifting. patching clothes and handing them down. a community garden. potluck dinner parties. farmer’s markets. a barter system among friends and neighbors. kindness. love among community members.“ These things do not conform to the minimalist aesthetic tenets of order, function, and simplicity. They are often vibrant, mismatched, and chaotic, messy even (see my post on solarpunk aesthetics here). This is because solarpunk aims to solve the same issues minimalism does, but on a societal level. Solarpunk is working towards a utopian future of degrowth, where the forces that Minimalism is in opposition to will no longer exist. This allows for everyday people to reclaim vibrancy from corporations. That busyness is only desirable in a world where capitalism isn’t such a burden. Solarpunk advocates for simplicity in all but design, instead of the other way around.
Another thing is the separation between meaning and function present in Minimalism. Minimalism is often associated with deriving pleasure from experiences, not things. The physical space is deprioritized (I know the movement is about changing the physical space, but the idea is that the physical space just makes your life more efficient) for a kind of zen outlook about mind over matter. Solarpunk is much more holistic in its recognition that inner peace comes from a play between the external and internal worlds—from connection and respect for people, things, and resources. Instead of removing meaning and beauty from a space to prioritize the mind, Solarpunk instills it, to elicit interaction with the world instead of a retreat from it. Thus, Solarpunk rolls meaning and function into one: a visibly mended shirt is both functional (the hole is gone), and meaningful (it says much more about the politics of the wearer than one mended invisibly). Another example is the bottle walls commonly used in Earthships: Making the bottles visible is beautiful, and it communicates that the builder is interested in using sustainable material.
In short, minimalism is individualist while Solarpunk is collectivist, and the aesthetics of each reflect that. Retreating from a broken society will not fix said society. Sustainability needs to be solved on a societal level, so minimalism as a solution to overconsumption just isn’t gonna cut it.

oh i hadn’t realised minimalism nowadays is this whole aesthetic with lashings of ideology lol it still mostly reminds me of the macho trend in non-representational art from the 1960s

(via incredifishface)

nerdyqueerandjewish:

starlightomatic:
madmaudlingoes:
anarchapella:
anarchapella:
I have thoughts about the whole feminist anti-interrupting thing. Like I agree, men do talk over people and it is disrespectful, but I also think there are cultures, specifically Jews, where talking over each other is actually a sign of being engaged in the conversation. It’s something I really struggle with in the south, because up in New York, even non-Jews participated in this cooperative conversation style, but down here, whenever I do it by accident, the whole convo stops and it gets called out and it’s a whole thing. Idk idk I feel like there’s different types of interruptive like there’s constructive interrupting where you add on to whatever is being said - helpful interrupting, and then there’s like interrupting where you just start saying something unrelated because you were done listening. I have ADHD so I’ve def done the latter too by accident, but I’m talking about being more accepting of the former.
I think a lot of the social mores leftists enforce around communication tend to be very white. Like Jews are not the only group of people that have distinct communication styles. Like the enforcement of turn-based communication, not raising your voice (not just in anger but also in humor or excitement), etc. it’s always interesting that the most pushback I get about how I communicate come from white people (mostly women actually, white men just give me patronizing looks because they don’t feel like they can call me out in same way). Like I’ve been teaching these workshops, and a few of them have been primarily black people, and I’ve noticed black people will also engage in cooperative interrupting (and I love it!). This isn’t a developed thought and I welcome feedback. Idk I think there should be space in leftist organizing for more diverse communication styles.
Here’s a source:
Interrupters: Linguist says it's the Jewish way – J.
WASHINGTON -- The next time someone accuses you of interrupting, you might want to explain that you are not being rude: You're actually enga
J.
As a linguist: overlapping talk is not the same thing as an interruption!
An interruption is specifically intended to stop another person from speaking so you can take over. Other reasons that talk might overlap:
close latching – how much time should I give between when you stop talking and when I start? Very close latching can feature a lot of overlaps.
participatory listening – how do I signal to you that I’m engaged with what you’re saying and paying attention? Do I make any noise at all, or do I limit myself to minimal “backchannel” noises (mm-hmm, ah, yeah), or do I fully verbalize my reactions as you’re going? Maybe even chime in along with you, if I anticipate what you’re about to say, to show how well we’re vibing?
support request – this can shade into interruption as a form of sealioning, but if someone interjects a request like “I didn’t catch that” or “What’s that mean?” it’s not really an interruption, because they’re not trying to end/take my turn away, they’re inviting me to keep going with clarification/adaptation.
asides – if there’s more than two people involved in a conversation, a certain amount of cross-talk is probably inevitable.
The norms around these kinds of overlaps vary – by context (we all use more audible backchannel on the phone; an interview is not a sermon is not a casual chat), by culture, and yes, by gender, which is why it’s a feminist issue. But gender doesn’t exist in a vaccuum! Some reasons overlaps might be mis-interpreted as interruptions when they’re not intended to be:
norms about turn latching: someone who’s not used to close-latching conversation might feel interrupted or stepped on when talking to someone who is. The converse is that someone who’s expecting close-latching might feel the absence of it as awkward silence, withdrawal, coldness, etc.
norms about backchannel: if you’re not expecting me to provide running commentary on your story or finish your sentences (or if I’m doing it wrong) then you might feel interrupted. But if you’re expecting that level of feedback you might feel ignored.
neurodivergence: If I have auditory processing problems, I might take longer to respond to you than you’re expecting. If I have impulse control problems, I might blurt something out as soon as I think of it, but I don’t necessarily want you to stop. If I have trouble with nonverbal or paralinguistic cues, I might not latch my turns the way you expect, or my backchannel might be timed in a way you don’t expect.
Non-native speakers of a language may need more time to process speech; may speak more slowly and with pauses in different places than native speakers; may not pick up the same cues about turn-latching and backchannel, resulting in a timing difference; may need to make more requests for support.
Norms around conversation tend to be super white/Western/male/NT; even among linguists, the way we talk about analyzing talk usually presupposes discrete turns, with one person who “has the floor” and everyone else listening. It even gets coded into our technology – I thing the account’s gone private, but someone recently tweeted, “For the sake of my wife’s family, Zoom needs to incorporate an ‘ashkenazi jewish’ checkbox” because the platform is programmed to try to identify a “main speaker” and auto-mute everyone else. Most of the progress on this front in linguistics has been pushed by Black women and Jewish women, or else we’d probably still be acting like Robert’s Rules represent the natural expression of human instincts.
And it’s very White Feminism to recognize how conversations styles have disparate impacts across gender lines without also recognizing other axes along which conversation styles vary, once that empower us as well as oppress us. Just because I feel interrupted doesn’t mean I am interrupted, and it definitely doesn’t mean I have the right to scream “EVERYBODY SHUT UP!!” until I’m the only one talking.
I don’t … have a great way to end this? Just that it’s good to recognize competing needs in communication, and have some humility and intentionality about whose needs gets prioritized and how.
Another thing; as someone who expects overlap because of my cultural upbringing, when someone doesn’t overlap me I just start looping and repeating myself because I’m waiting for them to interrupt and they’re “politely” waiting for me to finish speaking.
Okay nobody ever put that into words but the looping is exactly what I do in therapy - I should tell my therapist about this so I don’t need to say the same thing over and over again lol

(via dduane)

punkitt-is-here:

punkitt-is-here:
character i’ve taken to drawing whenever im stressed to get all the energy out. her name is Susan Taxpayer
its kind of insane shes only four months old apparently

Hello Mr. Gaiman,

I recently found this picture somewhere deep down on the Internet and I was asking myself when did this happen?

Or is this photoshopped?

Regards

Mrslectermoriarty

lionsong448:

ohifonlyx33:
🦀🦀🦀
Reblog if you’re comfortable receiving crabs on Crab Day (July 29th) so all your beloved followers know who they can comfortably crab on crab day (July 29th) without feeling nervous about crabbing someone 9n Crab Day (July 29th).
🦀🦀🦀
Happy to get crabs! Will be sending crabs to any friends/mutuals that reblog!

(via flagninja)

crab-day-counter:

clawedandcute:
oracleoutlook:
screwtornadowarningsimsouthern:
screwtornadowarningsimsouthern:
Okay so I did some research, very basic research, on the user base of tumblr and how many of us there are.
There are at least 300 million unique visitors worldwide on this site. Over 500 million blogs.
Listen. Tumblr is $30 million in debt. This is Super easy for us to solve.
If each user gifts one blog crabs, which costs slightly over $3, that would be roughly $600 million at least. Far more than enough to get Tumblr out of the red zone.
If we want tumblr to stay afloat and not change something as integral about their operating system, we need to show them they can be profitable without reducing themselves to common social media sites. What we have here is special. It is different. We are the social media site people run to when theirs collapses and for good reason.
If we want this to work, we have to make it work. We can even make it into a game. Just how long can we outlast the other social media sites?
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying.
It needs to be a holiday. Pick a date a few weeks from now, and just make it Crab Day. Maybe a Saturday as a lot of people are paid on Fridays. Just in case this post becomes more popular than any I’ve had before, lets set the date as the last Saturday in July (which for us in 2023 will be July 29th.)
On July 29th, gift as many crabs as you can without breaking the bank. Post crab memes if you cannot afford a crab.
Tumblr can pull this off. Tumblr likes doing things like this.
Guys there’s an account for this now @crab-day-counter

(via melkors-big-tits)

cuties-in-codices:

crowded hellmouths
in jacobus de theramo’s “belial”, german illuminated manuscript, late 15th c.
source: Hannover, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek, Ms I 57, fol. 61r and 4v

look at these nice, friendly demons! I’d love to have them around for tea

fairytalejello:

rainblue-art:
imiya:
This is impossible to not reblog.
Kimono’s Townhouse!!! Love!💜 It was so much fun.

Hello punkitt! No need to respond to this if your tired of these types of questions but I wanted to ask a transfem person if it would be offensive to identify as transfem while being afab? My gender fluidity and transgender interconnect in a way where when I’m feeling more fem I identify very strongly with the label transfeminie.

Dear electricity provider,

post permalink

triflesandparsnips:

dirtydragonthoughts:
kedreeva:
dreorzen:
nudityandnerdery:
ub-sessed:
kedreeva:
cheesedemon:
digitaldiscipline:
spontaneousmusicalnumber:
hamvendor:
hamvendor:
How come semi trucks in Europe look like “toot toot :)” and in North America they look like “HONK HOOOOOOOONK >:|”
“Henlo I am big twuck pwease give me wots of woom tank u :)”
“I WILL FUCKING PANCAKE YOUR CUCK ASS”
@trainwreckgenerator why did you hide these in the tags
This suggests that Maximum Overdrive was Jurassic Park for motor vehicles.
I’m sorry, but that is misleading as hell. American and European trucks are bred for different purposes.
American trucks are bred for long hauls on largely straight roads. They can go for hours without a break. A European truck needs more breaks and a lighter load, and they would indeed take great internal damage if they tried to keep up with the Longsnout.
The European Shortsnout is not bred for looks, but for agility! They navigate the windy roads of Europe in a way that would be way too risky for the powerful, but more clumsy American truck. It is true that the European overheats faster at high speeds, that is the very reason that breaks every 4,5 hours are mandatory for both the truck and the handler and a day of driving can never be longer then 9 hours.
So, all in all, appreciate all of our trucks and our shared history, and be the responsible owner that gets the right breed for the right job.
To be fair, the US does have shortnose trucks as well, they’re just a breed kept mainly for very local work where, like the above says, they are working in places with lots of turns, shorter drives, and plenty of stops. I see them used for garbage pickup a lot, where a longnosed Mack wouldn’t be able to fit much less maneuver, and the short nose prevents them from getting rubs (raw skin or even open sores) on their snouts.
I would also like to point out that the tags have got it backwards. The wild trucks (which I’m pretty sure are extinct in the wild now) that all modern breeds stemmed from were shortnose trucks. We had known about automobiles and domesticated several species, but the truck species was not discovered until close to the start of the 1900’s, in Germany, which I BELIEVE was the first country to breed them in captivity, although England was the first country to really start using them for work. I managed to find a photo of taxidermied specimen
As you can see, it resembles both long and short nosed breeds, as well as the far more common house truck used by individuals instead of for commercial work.
As to the aggression, while the mack longnose LOOKS aggressive, they’re generally gentle giants (although please do give them space on the road! not seeing you in their blind spot is NOT the same as aggression!), it is actually the smaller house truck that is often trained by their handler to be aggressive: the keyword being TRAINED, they are also not naturally aggressive. The only time I have seen a mack be commonly aggressive is when they are pulling 2 gravel trailers, and I would be cranky if I was being overworked, too. If you see them hauling that kind of load, just give them space, and you’ll be fine.
I feel like somebody should add something about the Australian variants.
From my understanding of Australian wildlife:
Does anyone know if/how American School Busses are related to trucks?
Pics for reference:
The classic long-nose schoolbus
But short-nose varieties exist, I remember when they first started appearing in my district!
@dreorzen While school buses ARE in the automobile order, they are actually part of the Van family, not the Truck family, due to their passenger capacity. As you can see in the photos, they have no cargo bed or hookup, and are not really built for object transport. But they DO excel at carrying passengers, particularly children (although certainly not limited to just children)
They’re known to be exceptionally protective of any passengers, and if you look closely on that second image you can actually see a specialized appendage that is (I think) unique to school buses- a small, red, octagonal fan, which they extend when there are small creatures around them that they are acquiring or releasing. Much like an angler fish’s bioluminescent bulb appendage, this fan (along with several bioluminescent patches on top of their faces and on their hindquarters) works to mesmerize any other vehicles in close proximity, to where those vehicles will cease movement until the bus lowers the fan. It’s super fascinating behavior, and little wonder why we trust our children to these gentle, protective giants.
Don’t forget about the bus trucks.
While these vehicles can sometimes be bred by accident (after all, who hasn’t accidentally left the gate open when your school bus is in season), they are usually bred for specific purposes.
These hybrids are bred for both their cargo capacity and their gentle temperments. Especially in a farm setting, there’s a need for many different kinds of vehicles, some of which sometimes don’t get along. Having a vehicle with both the strength and capacity of a large work truck with the amiable nature of a school bus can be a real benefit.
It’s a little unfortunate that these hybrids tend to be sterile, though, since it would be easier if they’d breed true. Also, something to keep in mind… bus trucks are bred from a bus.
Truck buses are bred from a truck and… tend to not be quite as useful as bus trucks, although some people do like keeping truck buses for companionship and as show vehicles.
Finding out more about different working breeds is always interesting, but to be honest, I’m probably always just gonna be a cat person.