Anyone want to help me play yarn detective? I...picked up a couple more balls from the box upstairs (it's been there for days, apparently, so people have Had A Chance) but they have no labels.

Ok, mystery yarn A has clearly been knitted before, and this is several balls of it. Between about 12 and 16 WPI, single ply, but fairly tightly spun. Burns like it's a wool/acrylic blend; self-extinguishes quickly. Colors are very short—often only ~1"
Mystery yarn B is 20 wpi on the nose, is mostly wool, three-ply, very round. Reminds me of Happy Feet DK but has way more of a sheen than I remember HF having.
Mystery yarn C, 14 wpi. I was sure that it was going to be a weird soft acrylic, but the burn test makes me think it's another acrylic/wool blend. The color's a gradient and each shift lasts about 6". I don't even know where to start with this one.
It's worth noting that in A, the colors are very distinct—there's nowhere that the colors were blended in the spinning. (There are lots of single plies that are almost right, but were clearly dyed before spinning, and this was not, imo.)
UPDATE: @linneaharts has called A for Silk Blend by Manos Del Uruguay, and it's a dead match for the wildflower colorway, so that one is SOLVED, hooray!
UPDATE 2: @bibliogrrl called B for Malabrigo, and after poking Ravelry, I think she's right, and it's their sock yarn in Marte, which seems to have *wildly* varying dyelots. But what I have looks a lot like this
https://t.co/QOv6hUr2wE and this https://t.co/UgAW3OBESj
Pals, this is like two days of back-to-back enrichment, this is all going SO GOOD! (Shh, deadlines, shh, it's going so good.)

I'm still full-on baffled by yarn C, but realistically, it's going to make ugly-ass socks for my gremlin child, so I care somewhat less about that one.
Also, hey, if anyone wants to peer pressure me into using Ravelry more, that would be, like. Ok. If you wanted to. https://t.co/junQ9rAYFG

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like