Summary: Post 2x18. Lucifer keeps his promises. Even if it does take him six weeks to do so.
Word count: ~6200
Rating/Contents: PG. No warnings apply.
Notes Sequel to Speak a Lie to Tell the Truth. Big thanks to moonbeamsfanfic for the beta and pushing to make this story better.
( This was Lucifer being Lucifer again… keeping information to himself and then revealing it at the worst possible moment. They were going to talk this through. Now. Or at least when she got the paperwork done. )
Over the last decade, Orbit US, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, has quickly established itself as one of the premiere publishers of science fiction and fantasy, and a reliable source for everything from innovative works of science fiction to blockbuster epic fantasies. To celebrate the milestone, a selection of landmark Orbit titles is currently available on Nook for just $2.99 each, but we wanted to do more than point you toward some great titles, so we asked Orbit’s publisher, Tim Holman, to share a bit of history. Below his comments, you’ll find a timeline of key dates in Orbit’s history.
<a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/sci-fi-fantasy/orbit-books-turns-10-take-look-decade-milestones/>More here</a>
This is good news, to say the least.
The original intended recipient is no longer in the picture. Now I have 14" of an intended 36" square blanket done after two weeks, and wonder if it's worth finishing. It's pretty, but I don't know any babies and don't know if I want to spend weeks more working on it with no one in mind. Not really inspired to finish it and then try to find a charity that I can reach, or have to mail it somewhere. Maybe the Mom can ask someone at the church.
I'm disappointed and not really inspired to do it for charity.
Pairing/Characters: Severus Snape/Harry Potter, Ginny Weasley/OFC.
Word Count: 100 x 10
Challenge: Written for snarry100/snarry100/snarry100's prompt# 586: Special.
Summary: Harry's plans run into a roadblock.
Part Twenty-One of the Wisdom Series (LJ/IJ/DW).
Beta(s): sevfan and emynn.
Disclaimer: The characters contained herein are not mine. No money is being made from this fiction, which is presented for entertainment purposes only.
( Making Decisions )
A reader writes:
I have a young colleague on my team at a rather large company — let’s call her Arya. Arya doesn’t report to me, but I’m senior to her and participated in her interview process. She’s been with us a couple years, and this is her first job out of college. She’s proven to be bright, enthusiastic, and eager to learn.
Here’s the issue: Due to some family connections, Arya was on a first-name basis with several of our senior office managers prior to working here. And ever since she was hired, those managers have treated her as their go-to warm body for various favors, from arranging venues for outside meetings to securing catering to planning office parties.
I should mention that Arya’s role at the company has nothing to do with event planning or office management or any role that would typically handle these kinds of arrangements. Her work is entirely separate from this arena.
And while I know that in many workplaces, people from all departments will pitch in to help with things like party planning committees on work off hours, that’s not what happening here. It seems that she’s increasingly being given organizer role for company events, and she’s having to use office hours to complete the tasks.
It irks me because I feel that the senior managers are taking advantage of Arya’s youth and enthusiasm to rope her into tasks that aren’t what she was hired for — and that, being young and eager to gain favor with the higher-ups, she’s not inclined to speak up when it’s interfering with her actual workload. It’s also particularly grating that these extra tasks are ones that historically get foisted onto female employees.
I floated my concern to our mutual manger (who is excellent, by the way), and she agreed that it was problematic but felt that it would be inappropriate to intervene unless Arya voices concern about this on her own. I think she’s right, but I also worry that, being new to the working world, Arya might not know what’s okay to complain about, you know?
So what say you? Should I mind my own business? If we find out that Arya actually enjoys this type of work, does it affect whether or not it’s appropriate for management to keep giving it to her?
In theory, this isn’t really your business or something that you have standing to intervene on.
In practice, it’s possible that you have the kind of role and/or standing in the organization where it would make sense for you to talk to Arya about the situation.
But it’s harder to do that now, when you’re already talked to your manager and your manager has essentially said “we’re leaving this alone.”
And even if you did talk to Arya, I suspect it would be a tricky and maybe fruitless conversation. Since Arya is new to the work world, she probably doesn’t yet have the experience or judgment to know if she should be concerned about what’s going on or not. So there’s a high chance that she’d tell you that she doesn’t mind helping out at all — because that’s the kind of thing people say when they’re new to the work world and want to make a good impression.
Because of that, her manager is the one who’s best positioned to address this, since she can take a better look at how it’s really impacting Arya’s workload and Arya in general.
But for some reason, her manager is taking a weird stance on this. Her statement that it would inappropriate for her to talk to Arya about it unless Arya raises it herself is bizarre. Managers need to intervene in all kinds of things that an employee might not raise on their own.
But for whatever reason, her manager has told you clearly that she isn’t getting involved, and I think ultimately you can’t circumvent that call.
Big-picture, is it a problem that senior managers are pulling Arya into this sort of work? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows, maybe she’s expressed an interest in doing that sort of work, and she’s thrilled they’re delegating it to her. Or maybe not — maybe she’s being pigeon-holded into work that has nothing to do with her career goals and either doesn’t spot it or doesn’t know how to push back against it. That’s where her manager talking to her would be really helpful.
I don’t want my young coworker to be taken advantage of was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.
No, really, if you return to me a copy-edited article for my attention, and mention that you have made changes to the text (as well as changing the title to one that I think is misleading), please to be sending it to me with your changes tracked and marked up.
For if you are going to insult my ability to write English prose, I think I should be able to see how you have 'improved' my text without having to compare it line by line with the text I sent you.
I may possibly have dumped my bibliography on this editor's head...
Drinks on Phinney Ridge* with minim_calibre Tuesday evening. It was a bonding experience: two middle-aged queer ladies with kids and much else in common. This only happens once in a purple moon, and I wish it happened way more often. She walked me home down the ridge, and then asked which way back up to her car was least likely to trash her knees. Aw! And yikes!
Yesterday, an increasingly rare dinner at home with the Wendling followed by dragging him up the ridge to catch the sunset. Good: he whined about that less than he used to. Bad: he expressed the opinion that I'll never find Ms. Right. He makes the absolutely ironclad point that it gets harder as you get older. Thanks a lot, kiddo.
*Cocktails for me, mocktails for her, because reasons.
(Of course, I have no idea if you can even view the photos. I really need to work out my image hosting issues. Flickr is an impossibility at the moment while I'm out of Canada.)
Anyway! I'm sure somewhere in your mind, you were wondering about the fact that I keep posting pictures of pretty buildings and lovely, walkable cities. Admit it--you expected a bit more Soviet brutalist and you were wondering where it was. The answer is that it's all in Kaunas. Kaunas does have a cute Old Town but the stuff we wanted to see wasn't there, and where we're staying is pure 1960s poured cement. I will admit a slight fondness for it, though I wouldn't want to live there.
Our first stop was the Devil's Museum, which is exactly what it says on the tin. It's an excellent collection of devils of all sorts. Our one criticism is that the gift shop was missing some obvious opportunities as it practically didn't exist.
Then we went across the street to the museum of M. K. Ciurlionis, a Symbolist artist and composer. Cool, not the most exciting, but some lovely work.
We also rode a funicular, which is kind of like an amusement ride except not very good. But it's one of my favourite words now.
The main event was going about a half-hour outside town to the Ninth Fort. It's an early 20th century fort that became a hard labour camp, then a transfer point for deportations to Siberia during the first Soviet occupation of Lithuania, then basically a killing field under the Nazis. The second time the Soviets occupied the country, they turned it into a vast and ghastly monument to the victims of fascism, which subsequently was expanded to include evidence of their own crimes after Lithuania's independence.
I can't really describe it to you properly. Unless you've been in the remnants of a concentration camp or similar, you won't be able to get what it's like to stand in a place that is well and truly haunted by the unquiet dead. The museum consists of one building that's an overview of the atrocities committed on the premises, but focusing mainly on the Soviet occupation, several vast, giant sculptures and plaques describing the Nazi massacres, and the fort itself, which shows prison cells, interrogation rooms, a recreation of a Kaunas Ghetto house, and informational rooms with the requisite belongings of the victims. It's cold, and damp, and good luck ever not feeling that bone-deep chill again. Also, this is why we don't fucking compromise with fascists, okay?
Anyway we coped really well after, which is to say I had 1/3 of a bottle of wine and I'm just about shaking history from my head. Tomorrow it's back to Kiev, and then home.
After I looked through her IMDB filmography, I saw that she basically did voice work on a lot of the shows of my childhood. She was the voice of various characters in Denver The Last Dinosaur, The Smurfs, The Incredible Hulk (the 1982 cartoon, narrated by Stan Lee), and The Real Ghostbusters. She was the voice of Aunt May in Spider-Man And His Amazing Friends. Mrs. Featherby in both the Ducktales series, as well as Ducktales The Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp (1990).
She was the voice of the Talky Tina doll in an episode of The Twilight Zone.
She was in Rikki-Tikki-Tavi (1975) as the voices of Nagaina the Cobra, Wife of Nag; Teddy's Mother; and Darzee's Wife. I think that, and The Cricket In Times Square (1973) were on Nickelodeon a lot, too. She was the voice of the Hag in Faeries (1981), which I watched when I was likely only a year old--2 at the most...however old I was, a moment where a shadow is stabbed and starts bleeding left an impression, for I searched for it for decades before finding the title.
There are many Emilys in this film, as she, like Whitman, contained multitudes. The first one we meet is the schoolgirl Emily, steadfastly refusing to declare religious conversion and a born again, saved, experience. This Emily is played by Emma Bell, who, then, in a subsequent sequence of family portraits subtly ages and becomes Cynthia Nixon, who performs the star turns of acting as the adult Emily Dickinson.
|Cynthia Nixon as Emily Dickinson and Jennifer Ehle as her sister Vinnie.|
I saw the film months ago but the thoughts it provoked about the poet and the times in which she lived, the people among whom she passed her passionate, and often painful life -- exterior and interior -- remain riverlets winding through my ongoing mental preoccupations.
A Quiet Passion is an exquisite film, with the exception of allowing Mabel Loomis Todd to actually see the poet, which she never did. But here the meeting is, in a terrible, at the pitch of highest plausible drama, a moment when Austin, Emily’s brother, is discovered by her in – not flagrante, exactly – but in a passionately incriminating intimacy -- in hers and Vinnie's home! This is so many violations simultaneously that the infuriated Emily literally spits out the words (not the first time in this family drama, in which all members can and do give as good as they get, when these terrible moments blaze up between them. This is not Austin's house, he's betraying Susan, her sister-in-law, whom Emily and the whole family love tenderly, and -- Austin has fallen from the place of perfection and moral arbiter where Emily and the family had so fondly placed him.
Emily's life is so much about family. The Dickinsons are tied and bonded as closely in affection and intelligence as a family can be. As we know, not all is smooth all the time. The fallings out are passionate and the barbs thrown are cruel and to the exact bulls eye, just because they do know and love each other so well, and are such equals in passion and self-knowledge. Yet, except for Austin's Grand Treachery, whenever the members fall out, once the poison has erupted, they are horrified, not with the person toward whom the violence was directed, but at themselves. They are horrified by themselves, and see where they are unfair, and wrong, and always apologize sincerely, at once, and are ashamed. The apologies are always accepted.
These days I miss that old puritan tradition of constant examination of soul, the authentic desire to be honest with God, to care at least as carefully for the soul as the bank account, and that death and the after life are always in mind. Abigail Adams was fully possessed by this, but like Emily, it never interfered with her sharpness of intelligence and commentary.
In this film the trajectory of the poet's mind is beautifully evoked over time. Death takes one to God, who is the beloved passionate anonymous Byronic lover eagerly awaited, but whom never quite enters the bedroom, the father, the, the father, the Brontëan brother, like life, death and heaven, merging one into another. The Brontës' novels, Wuthering Heights particularly, and Jane Eyre, with whose narrator, Emily closely identifies, painfully convinced that she, like Jane, is unblessed by the beauty and charms that attract men's love, while passionately desiring it -- and equally, believing that love is death for a woman -- are deliriously invoked with delighted consciousness of committing female transgression at every turn in these women's earlier lives.
|Vryling, Emily, Vinnie, happily making fun of men who take themselves so seriously while knowing nothing.|
Some have evaluated the dialog in the earlier parts of the film as too much admiration for Jane Austen – which writer, importantly, unlike the Brontës and George Eliot -- Dickinson did not like. or admire. Thus, intelligently, throughout the film, admiration of the Brontës is expressed by many of female characters. Perhaps these critics got it wrong -- they are English after all, and there are areas of the trans-Atlantic mind that seem to remain forever veiled to their sight. All these sharp, quick quips and ripostes among Emily, her sister, Vinnie, and their friend, Vryling Buffam, are accompanied by continual happy prolonged laughter. They are happy young women, thoroughly in love with each other’s intelligence, personalities, characters and language brilliance. Their pleasure in each other is so gracefully expressed by the actors (the cast is splendid even beyond the tour de force that Cynthia Nixon achieves), that the viewer participates equally in their pleasure.
|After Buffam's marriage vows; Emily does not join the other guests outside the church congratulating the newly married couple.|
This joy begins to fade with death of friends and relatives, and particularly the marriage of her beloved friend Vryling Buffam's religious conversion, and her subsequent marriage a pastor. Thereafter the friendship, as Emily feared, disappears entirely. It may be Emily deliberately disappeared the friendship, as she was as passionately convinced that marriage had to destroy the only kind of friendship that she could sustain, that of passionate intimacy. Now too disappears the laughter, as her partner in transgressive wit enters the grave of wife and motherhood. Her terrible loneliness begins to manifest, chosen as deliberately out of anger with the world she's been given, her place in it as a woman, as an artist with a soul as large as the universe, physical maladies and pain, and -- a mind that cannot be contained within a single world, much less house and garden, and which possesses an intimate, passionate relationship with God.
I do wish the film had included the witnessed incident of Emily drowning unwanted newborn kittens in a bucket of water. I had to make due with another acclaimed incident of her father, while waiting to be served his dinner, calmly complaining his plate is not quite clean, and she calmly picking up the plate to smash it into pieces against the table. She explains, “Now it does not matter.”
Most of all though, I wish the film makers had resisted and not manufactured an event between Emily and Mabel Dodd Loomis, her brother's adulterous lover, and the woman who took over Emily after her death and created out of whole cloth all the phony mythology of the eternal Maid of Amherst, and herself as the only intimate of the poet. Loomis never saw Emily in the flesh, never exchanged a word with her, and never got a glimpse of her poems. She stole them from Emily's sister, Vinnie, then went on tour 'acting' Emily, and reading her poems, which bowdlerized to fit better with her phony Emily. Which is a 19th century tale in itself!
Nevertheless, in terms of Emily herself, and her family, these decades of the 19th century from the 1830's to post the War of the Rebellion, the picture of the finest and most progressive and liberal minds of New England, and thus of our nation, and just how much passion and imagination fueled such minds -- there's never been a film like this. It is joy to watch from the first scene, to the last.
Though all the actors are superb, in the end, such a film succeeds or fails according the actor who is Dickinson. Cynthia Nixon is magnificent. No one can doubt that the poet would be in heaven to see herself as Nixon has portrayed her. Poetry is anything but a quiet passion.
We happen to have a kernel driver already for other experiments with our specific hardware, so we have somewhere convenient to put this kernel code as needed.
This is running on a hardware board dedicated to a single task, so we have a few advantages. We would prefer to allocate a large chunk on start-up, and will have complete control over which programs we expect to use it, we don't need to dynamically manage unknown different drivers trying to get this memory, and we never intend to free it, and the board will only be used for this so we don't need to make sure other programs run ok. And there's no restriction on addresses, DMA and other relevant peripherals can access the entire memory map, so unlike x86 we don't need to specifically reserve *low* memory.
There are several different related approaches, and I went through a few rabbit holes figuring out what worked.
Option 1: __memblock_alloc_base()
From research and helpful friends, I found some relevant instructions online. One was from "Linux Device Drivers, 3rd edition", the section entitled "Obtaining Large Buffers", about using alloc_bootmem_low to grab kernel pages during boot. I'm not sure, but I think, this was correct, but the kernel started using memblock instead of bootmem as a start-up allocator?
From the code in the contiguous memory allocator (search the kernel source for "cma"), I learned that possibly I should be using memblock functions as well. I didn't understand the different options, but I used the same one as in the contiguous memory allocator code, __memblock_alloc_base and it seemed to work. I tried large powers of 2 and could allocate half of physical memory in one go. I haven't fully tested this, but it seemed to work.
There are several related functions, and I don't know for sure what is correct, except that what the cma code did worked.
This code is currently in a kernel driver init function. The driver must be compiled statically into the kernel, you can't load it as a module later. You could put the code in architecture specific boot-up code instead.
Option 2: cma=
fanf found a link to some kernel patches which tried to make a systematic way of doing this, based on some early inconsistently-maintained patch, which later turned into code which was taken up by the kernel. Google for "contiguous memory allocator". There's an article about it from the time and some comments on the kernel commit.
It's a driver which can be configured to grab a large swath of contiguous memory at startup, and then hand that out to any other driver which needs it.
You specify the memory with "cma=64MB" or whatever size on the kernel command line. (Or possibly in the .config file via "make menuconf"?) You need to do this because it allocates on start-up, and it doesn't know if it should have this or not.
It then returns this memory to normal calls to "alloc_dma_coherent" which is designed to allocate memory which is physically contiguous, but doesn't normally allocate such big blocks. I hadn't tested this approach because I didn't need any specific part of memory so I'd been looking at kmalloc not "alloc_dma_coherent", but a colleague working on a related problem said it worked on their kernel.
It may also do clever things involving exposing the memory to normal allocating, but paging whatever else is there out to disk to free it up when needed, I'm not sure (?)
I was looking at the source code for this and borrowed the technique to allocate memory just for our driver. We may either go with that (since we don't need any further dynamic allocation, one chunk of memory is fine), or revert to using the cma later since it's already in the kernel.
I went down a blind alley because it looked like it wasn't enabled on my architecture. But I think that was because I screwed up "make menuconfig" not specifying the architecture, and actually it is. Look for instructions on cross-compiling it if you don't already have that incorporated in your build process.
Option 3: CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER
This kernel parameter in .config apparently increases the amount of memory you can allocate with kmalloc (or dma_alloc_coherent?). We haven't explored this further because the other option seemed to work, and I had some difficulties with building .config, so I don't know quite how it works.
I found the name hard to remember at first. For the record, it means, ensure the largest size of zone which can be allocated is at least this order of magnitude (as a power of two). I believe it is actually 1 higher than the largest allowed value, double check the documentation if you're not sure.
There are several further approaches that are not really appropriate here, but may be useful under related circumstances.
* On many architectures, dma does scatter-gather specifically to read or write from non-contiguous memory so you shouldn't need this in the first place.
* Ensure the hardware can write to several non-contiguous addresses.
* Allocate the several blocks of the largest size kmalloc can allocate, and check that they do in fact turn out to be contiguous since kernel boot-up probably hasn't fragmented the majority of memory.
* Ditto, but just allocate one or several large blocks of virtual memory with malloc, and check that most of it turns out to be allocated from contiguous physical memory because that's what was available. This is a weird approach, but if you have to do it in userspace entirely, it's the only option you could take.