Lanvin for H&M: a 200$ disaster

It's no secret that I love clothes, the more colorful, the better. I like looking at clothing pictures on the web and when I first saw that Lanvin was doing a collection for H&M, I had a serious "WANT!!!" moment.

Lanvin is a fashion designer famous for making clothing with amazing ruffles:



What H&M is famous for is clothing that anyone can afford. So, beautiful, designer and affordable - what's not to want? I glued my eyes to the screen.

Not for long. Soon after pictures were published, prices got announced. These weren't the usual H&M prices: while these stores are filled with 40$ dresses, the Lanvin ones cost 200$. Quite a lot.

I didn't give up on the dream so soon: ok, it was expensive, but the dresses were so nice and trendy (though that means they will stat screaming "I'm so last season!" soon) and perhaps the quality was worth it.

It turns out it is not. On the promotional shot below, you can see on the collar how the fabric is raveling.


And my, it's a promotional picture! If that looks so much better than in reality, how bad must these dresses look like!

It seems I'm not the only one to disapprove of the quality of those dresses. A few days ago, a polish gossip site published pictures of a star wearing one. They didn't mention the names of Lanvin and H&M, but the lack of hem was heavily criticised. No wonder, it's so visible!


Honestly, I expect way more for 200$ and way more from a world-famous designer. Doesn't he have a reputation to loose?

[Picture source, source, source]

Figuring out the right and wrong women's figures

When it comes to women's figures, the norms keep on changing. It however used to be simple: when sweets were a luxury, fat meant rich and thus was "in". Then it was thin's turn: thin people were the ones who could resist the temptation of tasty food - a kind of saint. That one has been taken too far, up to anorectic chick, and too many deaths later, something seems to be slightly changing. But how exactly?

If you're slightly too thin, there's always someone for you to ask whether you've got anorexia:


Yet, a model's silhouette is still this:


Can you see the difference?
(In reality, if an anorexic person is that skinny, it means that his or her illness has already gone very far and done severe damage. Read more about it on Psychology Today.)

If too thin is sick, what about the other way? There just was a plus-size show at New York Fashion Week:


Does that mean that extra weight is now socially acceptable? I'm not sure: Jessica Simpson has recently been heavily criticized for her weight gain, while she looks good and is far from being obese:


So what's right and what's wrong when it comes to a woman's figure? Go figure!

[Picture source, source, source, source.]

China gymnastics 2000 medal revoked

Remember how back in 2008, I was wondering if the China olympic female gymnastics team had cheated by sending underage girls? Remember how while investigating the matter, I found that a gymnast from the 2000 team had admitted to cheating the same way?

Well, I learned recently that China's 2000 team medal got revoked! One of the gymnasts, Dong Fangxiao, was found to have falsified her age. (It's not the one I was writing about two years ago. Yang Yun is considered innocent due to lack of proof.) The team taking the spot is U.S.


Well, I'm happy. I'm not happy for the Chinese girls themselves, as they were just put in the middle of such a situation. You can't really put all the blame on a fourteen-year-old for anything: it's also the parents, the coaches, the teachers who are co-responsible. Plus, the incident doesn't change the fact that both Dong and Yang put thousands of hours into perfecting their skills. But, so did other girls, and competition should be fair: putting younger girls against older ones is not. China nor any other country should be allowed to cheat that way.

[Article, picture credit]

There IS growth in simplifying your life.

I recently shared on my feed an article about an article about the myths of simplyfing your life. If I agreed, I wouldn't have much to write, but fortunately, I do not.

First, simplifying and going zen are two different things. Here goes the article:

The objective (if it can be said to have an objective) of zen is not happiness, but to be free from desires. When one is free from desires, he is content with the situation or the here-and-now. When you accept everything as it is, there is no need to have or pursue anything (including possessions, responsibilities, or desires) and one can simplify. There is no change and thus there is no personal growth.

So maybe there is not much growth in zen. But you don't have to be zen in its strict sense to simplyfy your life. Simplifying is to me about getting rid of distractions, of unnecessary things, not all things possible.

The problem with zen is that it's trying to eliminate all the emotions, desires, etc, good and bad. It's not living life to the fullest, but rather the opposite. It's about not accepting the price of unpleasure for getting pleasure. It's sacrificing the good stuff not to have to deal with the bad. I'm not trying to make it sound bad, it's all a mattern of an ethically neutral personal choice, it's just that for me, the more intense way of life is more appealling.

On the other hand, I love simplifying. I love growth, and these two go really well together. Here's why.

1. Simplifying is a goal. Reaching your goal is growth.

It works for any goal. I remember once seeing classmates reading a magazine about fishing and my first thought: what could be more boring than fishing? But to these guys, it was something big. Goals are very subjective: even the smallest goal can be great for someone (remember learing to walk? not so much impressing anymore, is it?) and even the biggest goal can be discredited: what's the point of you speaking 12 languages if I can never talk to you when I need to? My point is proved already.

Okay, but growth for the sake of growth... there must be something more. Well, there is.

2. Letting unimportant stuff go is growth.

Simplifying to me was, among others, shopping less. I had periond of time in my teens when I would enter almist any shop I passed by, always looking for new clothes and make-up - mostly tops and lipstick. Now I'm trying to make a better use of the things I already have and the time as well. Letting it go was more of a natural process than an achievement, but here is growth.

3. Letting small things go leaves more room for the big ones.

The day you realize something is not worth caring that much (my lipsticks don't really define me as a person, do they?), you also realize what is more important. On one hand, the inequality between people and make-up products is obvious, but when you get upset because these great shoes one sale were sold out in your size and you discard the birthday wishes from your friends, you could use a little reminding. We all do at times, and when we get it, that's what I call growth. (I won't even mention where the saved time and energy can go.)

4. Simplyfing makes you happier.

Okay, happiness isn't really growth, but it helps. Here are the most appeling examples to me: having less stuff so there is less to clean and organize, bulk cooking so you spend less time in the kitchen (cooking feels to me like something I have to do and it gets me frustrated easily), unsubsrcibing the old newsletters so you don't have to delete those e-mails anymore and can find the time to write one to an old friend, finally configuring that program right to free yourself from the repetitive task, working out at home or outside so you don't have to budget, pack and plan for the gym and other similar little things.

Just remember: everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

The video game industry sucks

I recently came across two things:

1. an article in LA Times on how unfriendly to women, and people in general, the video game industry is
2. a booklet by CD Project Red supposed to make people want to work in this industry.

Here are the scans of the first pages:






A picture says a thousand words, so I'll let these speak for themselves.

LHC launches and girl suicides

If you haven't heard about the LHC launch yesterday, you've been living under a rock.

My family life is going crazy with Dad being on TV every hour. Of course, I'm excited and proud and stuff, but I can't avoid TV like I usually do and therefore I'm forced to watch living proofs of journalists' stupidity. Each time they interview a scientist I'm wondering when they are going to ask about the philosopher's stone and the time machine. All the suggestions of the LHC causing our world to collapse were starting to get boring... until this morning, when I learned a 16-year-old had committed suicide:

A teenage girl in central India killed herself on Wednesday after being traumatized by media reports that a "Big Bang" experiment in Europe could bring about the end of the world, her father said.

How cruel/stupid/I don't know what can these journalists be? Don't they feel the slightest bit of responsibility? Do they wonder about the impact of their words other than the number of viewers/readers?

Okay, enough ranting. There are also many good reports and articles out there, like
"How long would it take the LHC to defrost a pizza?".

Magazines meant for women are mean to women

I think that magazines meant for women are mean to women. While they write about self-acceptance, they often don't help at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Below is how I see the average magazine for women.

Awesome thighs
This is another exercise program that will leave you disappointed. Let's be honest - you're not a very motivated and systematic person. If you were, you'd already have the thighs you want, or at least realistic views about them. But since you're reading this, you don't. This article will raise your expectations (see the model? she's trying our workout for the first time and just look at her photoshopped perfect body), but you'll give exercising up pretty soon and add this to your failure list that gets longer with every magazine issue.
Still, remember your thighs are the most important thing about you and define who you are as a person, that's why we are putting so much emphasis on them, so failing to complete this program makes you a failure.
Next issue: your butt.

No restrictions diet
Yay, eat what you want. Just do it five times a day in small portions and drink lots of water. We know we've been telling you this for 10 years, but you've probably forgotten, you dumb blonde, or you can't even stick to that, you failure.

1000 reasons to eat chocolate
Yay, eat chocolate at will! Those three celebrities do and stay thin, so you can too. Last month, we did the same about nuts (so you can eat nuts at will) and next month, we'll cover the benefits of ice-cream. Because diets should have no restrictions.

Learn a skill
When we mean skill, we mean curling your lashes, applying eyeliner, or something equally shallow. Something that might impress only your shallowest girlfriends. We'd never suggest you to learn a new language, that you could use in various occasions, add to your resume, tell a human about... no. Cause we don't believe you could do that. All the skills you can learn resolve around hair and make-up.

Get rid of cellulite
There is no such term in medicine. We don't care. It's inevitable. We don't care. If you put all the effort (and money) you're putting in eliminating poverty, the world would be such a better place. But that's not what we want you to do: we want you to think cellulite is a real problem (unlike poverty, it's affecting you!) and make you work on it as if your life (or many other lives)
depended on it. Why accomplish anything when you can fight cellulite for the rest of your life?

Best products for biggest problems
Shadows under your eyes? Problem. No time for your family? Not a problem. Rough feet? Problem. Rough character? Not a problem. Dry skin? Problem. Dry summer causing famine in Africa? Not a problem. It's all about the priorities.

Hottest clothes
Latest, hottest, best! Look how great they look on the model! Too bad you would look ridiculous in them. But turn to page X where we advise you on dressing for your silhouette and propose you something totally different.

Dating advice
Don't ask questions he doesn't like, like "how do I look in this dress?". Don't expect marriage, he doesn't want to commit to you and you'd make him feel uncomfortable. Feel uncomfortable yourself. And if you nag him about marriage too much, you'll scare him off, so don't do that if you want your relationship to work. Actually, don't talk about your needs, just the intimate ones, that turns him on.
Oh, wait, you're between guys? Don't worry, you can easily get one if you don't show a trace of dignity or respect for yourself. Just show legs, show tongue, show no sign of intelligence - and you're done! A male you deserve should be yours by now.

Wow, I got carried away. I guess it's hard to find a magazine that would be filled with both good content and pretty pictures.

Summer Olympics - did China cheat?

The only olympic competition I was interested in during the 2008 games was women gymnastics. The girl whom I supported, Nastia Liukin, won 4 gold medals! Plus, her teammate got 4 silver medals, and the team got silver as well, losing to China. Congratulations!

But the world is wondering wether China cheated by sending younger girls than the minimum age, which is 16. Why would that be cheating? Younger means lighter, which means throwing yourself up in the air is easier. Perhaps it also has a psychological meaning, as younger girls stress out less.


I was browsing wikipedia today, starting with Missy Peregrym's page, and landed on Yang Youn's one, which said:

Yang Yun is a Chinese gymnast. She won the bronze medal on the uneven bars and was a member of the bronze medal winning Chinese team at the 2000 Summer Olympics. She later stated that she was 14 at the time, though the minimum age to compete is 16.^[1]

Interesting, isn't it?

Well, cheating or not, that makes me admire the American gymnasts even more. Not only did they win, but they had it harder technically. Also, if I had doubts about my opponent's fair play, I would feel bad, stressed and nervous, and I'm sure these girls had to overcome those feelings, which they did. I really admire them for that.

[Picture credit]

Perspective

• Your plane is two hours late because of bad weather: big deal. You're so tired now.
• The Warsaw airport is too small and no new one is being built: very big deal. Flying out of here is such a pain in the plane.
• A part of the Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport collapsed: huge deal. Major news featured on tv.
  
• The Tbilisi International Airport has been bombed: no big deal. There's a war going on.
  

The power of a good definition.

I heard once that most arguments are about definitions. I'm actually going to argue with that, as it implies that everyone thinks basically the same, different people just label things differently. However, I agree that it is crucial to precisely define things we talk about. And today, I'm going to talk about courage.

So what is courage anyway? No one ever asks because we all "know" since preschool that courage is "like when the knight fights the dragon and he is not scared".

I did however hear a good definition of courage once. In a Disney Channel movie: "The princess diaries". (I was young and needed something to watch, okay?)

Courage is not the lack of fear but the conviction that something else is more important than fear.

The biggest difference between those two definitions? Their impact. When you have the first one in mind and you're scared of doing something, you won't find the courage to do it. You'll think "I'm not like those courageous people because I'm scared". With the second one, you chances of doing the thing you fear skyrocket, but only if it's the right thing to do. Because it doesn't really work when it comes to something dangerous and stupid. Unless it has some value for you, like impressing some people, fear will stop you and courage won't help, because it's no courage to do something unreasonable. (Okay, there a whole other discussion about the difference between "is stupid" and "is stupid to you", but I'm not going there now.)

Realizing this made me really think. Why is a children movie the only place I heard such a good definition of courage? I read, go to the church and stuff, and somehow my environment never really taught me about courage. What else did I miss?

Another example just came to my mind: humility. As the opposite of pride, it's often confused with low self-esteem: the lower you think of yourself, the more humble you are. But, don't we hate hearing "Oh, I'm so fat"? And how about "I'm an expert on this, I will take this responsibility" - isn't it a really positive attitude? So can humility be something negative? Not if you define it like St. Bernard: "a virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself". The crucial part here is the truth: if you're truly an expert in something, don't deny it, others will benefit more from your skills than from a so-called humility.

I think that after centuries of focusing on humility as the opposite of pride, our society needs now more to fight the exaggerated low self-esteem, which I think is a form of pride: "it hurts me I'm so fat, because I'm supposed to be fit". Still, it's hard to find the balance between the two sides, but keeping in mind a good definition really helps.

It's amazing how values that seem so outdated can become great when you give them a bit of thought and look at them in a new way.

Tolerance is intolerant.

Tolerance sounds nice, but personally, I think it sucks. Respect is much better. Go respect!

First, "tolerance" means that you think that what you tolerate is bad. With respect, it's the opposite. Tolerance is good for loud music totally incoherent with your taste. Or inappropriate behaviour. Can you tolerate inappropriate behaviour? You can, even though it's inappropriate. Can you respect it? No, because it's inappropriate. You can however respect people's freedom to choose to behave so, because freedom is good.

Second, tolerance is contradictive, as it doesn't tolerate intolerance. I just read an extremely expressive example of it today, in an article by Megan Carpentier about same-sex marriages:

(..) the opponents of gay marriage, those blind, blithering idiots who think that allowing people (...) to marry will hurt Marriage and religion and make the Baby Jesus cry and/or God smite us or whatever people like that use to justify their blind intolerance...

Nothing says "tolerance" like calling someone a blind, blithering idiot, making fun of his arguments and ending the article with "fuck that guy". I personally am an opponent of same-sex marriage. Still, I respect other's people freedom and privacy and do not deserve to be called an idiot. I'd really love my views to be respected as well, or at least tolerated.

Howard Webb dead on the web

Despite anything I said about TV being boring, and despite having the concurrent programming final exam today, I couldn't resist the temptation of watching the Football game yesterday evening. My country was playing against Austria.

We did great, scoring a goal in the first half, fair and square. But, in the second half, (actually, the the 92nd or third minute) when players were fighting for the ball, the referee, Howard Webb, gave Austria a penalty shot, and they scored, ending the game 1:1. Everyone in Poland is disgusted and frustrated about the injustice of the situation. More info on the game here.

Fortunately, in Poland, people have the excellent habit of openly expressing their anger in a sane and open way (I'm beging ironic here in case you're afraid I'm supporting agression). So, when I decided to google for Mr.Webb, one of the first results was a poem almost impossible to quote or translate due to the amount of obscene words (the ones with the dots). His English Wikipedia page is semi-protected due to vandalism, and so is the Polish discussion page.

Better yet, here's what Grono.net, one of Poland's biggest social networking webiste, looked like this morning (8 a.m.):
Again, the obscenity of many of those pictures make them unworth quoting, but this one is quite funny:


As for now, 9:30 a.m., more people have noticed the trend and there are now recursive pictures (and boy, do I love recursion):


The guy is dead. At least on the web.

Three nuclear incidents in two days in Europe

Accidents happen, but when three similar accidents happen in two days in a part of the world, it starts to get strange.

The first incident took place on Tuesday and was just a rumor in Lublin, Poland, about higher radioactivity levels. Some people thought the cause was an accident in Ukraine. Nothing major happened, a few schools cancelled classes, it was just a rumor.

The second incident took also place on Tuesday, in the morning, and might have triggered the above rumor. In the Czech republic, the 35-year old Dukovany plant's automated safety system cut output from one of its four reactors after a worker mistakenly turned off coolant pipes.

The next day, however, a real thing happened: a water leak from the primary coolant unit in Slovenia's Krsko nuclear plant on Wednesday afternoon forced the 25-year old facility to shut down its single reactor for emergency repairs.

Here's the original article.

So many questions now. How come three incidents of the kind happen in two days when there weren't any of the kind in months? Where did the rumor come from? How come a rumor appears a day before an accident?

Another problem is the Polish society's attitude towards the nuclear energy. All most people know on the subject are legends about giant mutated rabbits in Tchernobyl. In their minds, nuclear power equals huge danger, when no matter how suspicious the above incidents were, no one has suffered, not even animals. However, only yesterday, four miners have died in a methane blast, and over 180 others died in mining accidents during the last 35 years. That's how safe the "good old ways" of obtaining energy are.

[Update] It turns out there was an incindent in Ukraine as well:

Ukraine's state nuclear power utility Energoatom has admitted that a small leak occurred at water-moderated reactor in the country's northwest on May 29, but said no radioactive materials were released.

This brings us down to three nuclear incidents in five days, still quite much and still very strange.
[Source]

Free the bathing suits!

I recently ordered a new bathing suit, namely this one:

I choose it because of its original cut: it looks a bit like a dress or figure skating outfit.

The reason of my choice were not body issues. I just cannot stand how nowadays, there is all this talking about freedom, being yourself and doing what you want, but there is only one form of bathing suit socially acceptable. Plus, this only right cut is far from perfect, as many women feel uncomfortable in it. Our personal-freedom-oriented culture puts a lot of pressure on them to look perfect for the "bikini season". There also is a huge lack of respect for the female body in our society, which takes form in pointing out its imperfections when it does not fit the norms, or treating it in a far from platonic way when it does. Well, at least, women can choose the way they are disrespected.

Anyway, what I think, is that any form of bathing suit (as long as it is safe, of course) should be socially acceptable, from bikini to Burquini:


I really hope the recent invention of the Burquini will be the start of the liberation of the bathing suit in any shape or form and soon every woman will be able to find a bathing outfit that she will feel comfortable in.

You may read more about the Burquini here and the bikini season here.

[Picture credit]

What [not] to watch: Juno

Last Saturday, I went to the cinema to see Juno.The movie is about how a 16-year-old deals with an unexpected pregnancy. First, she considers abortion, and then adoption.

I loved this movie for several reasons. In short, it was light and fun to watch, but really smart at the same time. And by "smart" I mean:

1. It was unpredictable. In most comedies, you can tell the end after having watches the first ten minutes. Here, I was absolutely clueless several times: where that girl and that guy gonna end up in a romance? Was she gonna keep the baby in the end? I can't remember a movie where I was that eager to see what would happen next.

2. It didn't have cliches. It seemed more like fighting with the stereotypes. For example, a pro-life activist was just a nice girl trying to do something good, and not agressive, cold-hearted, fighting for some outdated convictions.

3. It didn't have bad characters. No one was perfect, but everyone was basically good, everyone made choices based on his situation and point of view. No one acted in a certain way "just because he was the bad one", and that helped the viewers understand everyone's actions.

4. It was realistic. No scene where everything falls down, no scene where you ask yourself "who on Earth would act like that?" or how can anyone be so dumb. (These were funny when I was in pre-school.)

5. It was really nice and pro-life. Maybe a bit too nice, which made it a bit unrealistic to me. For example, Juno's school mate's reactions to her pregnancy weren't shown, but everyone who has gone to school knows what it looks like. But all in all, it's a move that shows normal people trying their best and I love watching that. (I can't stand war movies for example, they make me feel really bad.)

As for being pro-life, I love that it turned out this way without trying too hard. At the same time, it was in a way "pro choice", as it showed that the girl had many options and was absolutely free to make the choice for herself, and the choice she made turned out to be the best for everyone. But, that choice was life, and this film simply celebrates life.