Month: April 2017

Ksenia Penkina has perfected a glazing technique that results in cakes that are works of art. (Check out more of Penkina’s work on Instagram!)

One might say that the peregrine falcon is the cheetah of the sky: It lacks the cheetah’s distinctive orange-and-black coloring, but in mid-air, the predatory bird can travel up to three times faster than the land-bound feline.

The crow-sized falcon cruises at rates between 40 and 60 miles per hour, and can even clear an astounding 293 feet per second while diving to capture prey. Learn how the bird’s body is built for speed by watching the video below, courtesy of Vox.

[h/t The Kid Should See This]

It’s no coincidence that the word sumptuary sounds like sumptuous and consumption. Those words sum up the intent of most sumptuary laws: regulating what people could consume, for instance, by limiting the number of dishes at a feast. Often sumptuary laws focused on what people could and could not wear—limiting the use of fine fabrics, adornments, or even the kinds of necklines that could be worn, with a particular focus on extravagance.

Whatever their stated intent, these laws made it easier to identify which individuals had power in a society and thus helped to maintain the social order. They often prohibited poorer people from wearing finery that might confuse an observer about their station in life, and also forbade women from dressing like men (and thus perhaps enjoying their freedoms).

1. ANCIENT ROME: NO PURPLE, NO SAFFRON, NO TOGAS.

A series of laws in ancient Rome attempted to rein in extravagance in dress and codify clothes by rank. One law dictated that only citizens could wear the toga, with the color and bands on the garment determined by rank. During the period of Roman empire, the emperor was the only person who could wear the imperial color purple (the costly dye extracted by boiling thousands of snails), while only official seers could wear purple and saffron combined (saffron being another color created using costly dye).

Roman women’s clothing was also subject to law. Around 215-213 BCE the Lex Oppia dictated that, among other things, no woman could wear a dress of more than one color. Passed during the Second Punic War to curb excess, it was repealed a mere two decades later, in part because it proved difficult to enforce.

2. KOREA: COLORS THAT OFFER A CLUE TO ROYAL RELATIONSHIPS.

In most cultures, sumptuary laws helped distinguish nobility from commoners, but in some places they also helped define royal relationships. During Korea’s Joseon dynasty (1392- 1897), when kings had multiple wives and many children, the colors royal women wore helped define their relationship to the king. For example the colors of the wonsam, the ceremonial overcoat worn by royal and high-ranking married women, were strictly codified, with the empress wearing yellow, the queen wearing red, and the crown princess and concubines donning a purple-red color. A princess born to a king and a concubine (or women of a noble family or lower) wore green. These colors made it easier to determine rank from a distance.

3. ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND: APPAREL PROCLAIMS SOCIAL STATUS.

Recognizing who to bow down to was also at least partially the rationale behind sumptuary laws in Elizabethan England. Queen Elizabeth I decreed that only people above certain noble ranks could wear such luxurious textiles as silk, satin, and velvet. The queen’s law also regulated the size of neck ruffs and other fashionable fripperies. Such decrees were passed, the queen declared, to keep young men from falling into debt after buying luxurious clothing, but a growing middle class who could afford to dress like (and confuse) their betters may also have inspired the decrees.

4. PURITANS: NO FANCY CLOTHES FOR PEOPLE OF “MEAN CONDITION.”

Sumptuary laws surfaced briefly in colonial America, with some settlers wanting to legislate personal luxuries. The Puritans’ Sumptuary Code declared an “utter detestation and dislike that men or women of mean condition, educations and callings should take upon them the garb of gentlemen, by the wearing of gold or silver lace, or buttons, or points at their knees, to walk in great boots; or women of the same rank to wear tiffany hoods or scarves, which though allowable to persons of greater estates; or more liberal education, yet we cannot but judge it intolerable in persons of such like condition.” Fancy clothing was considered improper when worn by persons of “mean condition, educations and callings.” For the Puritans, it was important to both know your place and dress like it.

5. THE MIDDLE AGES: WEARING YOUR FAITH ON YOUR SLEEVE.

Throughout history, laws have been enacted to mark people who did not adhere to the majority religion. Such regulations have affected Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims alike. Although not necessarily designed to restrain excess, they meet a broader definition of sumptuary laws that includes restrictions designed to enforce the social order.

In 8th century Baghdad, laws stated that Christians had to wear blue and Jews had to wear yellow. In 1005, Jews living in Egypt were told to wear bells on their clothes. During the Middle Ages, communities of Jews living in Europe often proactively wore drab clothing because they did not want to appear ostentatious or incite jealousy among their Christian neighbors. Jewish leaders issued sumptuary guidelines that included avoiding clothing that might cause them to stand out. However, a series of medieval laws also required that Jews and Muslims wear their faith—sometimes literally—on their sleeves.

The Fourth Lateran Council, convened by Pope Innocent III in 1215, decreed that Jews and Muslims must wear clothing that set them apart. This decree resulted in a variety of laws in France, Italy, Spain, and England requiring visible identification such as a badge, a hat, or a band. For Jews it was usually a badge, most often yellow, but also white or red.

In 1275, after England’s Edward I issued the Statute of the Jewry [PDF], Jews had to wear a yellow badge in “the form of two Tables joined” to symbolize the Tables of the Law.

Some of the discriminatory fashion dictates could be quite specific. In 1397 Queen Maria ordered Barcelona’s Jews to wear only pale green clothes with a circular patch of yellow cloth that had a red circle in the center.

6. THE RENAISSANCE: FASHION DEFINES RESPECTABILITY.

During the Renaissance, European sumptuary laws regulated many aspects of a woman’s dress—from the cut of her sleeve to size of her buttons, as well as the body parts she had to cover. According to a law passed in the Italian city of Orvieto, a woman’s décolletage could not descend past a certain point—“two fingers’ breadth below the suprasternal notch on the chest and the same in the back.” There was naturally some controversy about the best way to measure this.

Women were generally admonished to dress modestly and cover their hair, whether it be with a caul, a henin, or a wimple. Yet the time period’s fashionable elaborate headgear—sometimes a few feet tall—was designed to attract attention.

Prostitutes were not subject to sumptuary laws in the same way that governed extravagant clothing, as their profession relied on their ability to lure clients, but they were often assigned colors, specific items of clothing, and adornments as a way to distinguish themselves from other women. Such rules could differ from city to city, which may have created some confusion for travelers. In Venice in the 1300s, prostitutes had to wear yellow. In Milan, they wore a black cloak, and in Florence, they were required to attach bells to their hats.

Prostitutes also generally had to abstain from one fashionable item. In 12th century Arles (modern France) prostitutes were not allowed to wear a veil, the sign of a respectable woman. In some cities, tearing off a woman’s veil was tantamount to accusing her of being a prostitute. Doing so could result in a serious fine and possibly a duel to defend the woman’s honor.

All images via Getty unless otherwise noted.

In 1958, Belgian artist Pierre Culliford, who went by the name Peyo, illustrated a comic in the magazine Spirou that featured a diminutive supporting character with blue skin that assisted the hero Johan in his quest for a magic flute. Johan was soon overshadowed, with readers demanding more of the curious sidekick and his friends. By 1959, Culliford had a strip focused exclusively on Les Schtroumpfs, or The Smurfs. A little over two decades later, his creation became an international sensation with Hanna-Barbera’s animated series. Debuting in 1981, it ran for nine seasons.

Like any children’s commodity, it wasn’t long before similar works began to spring up. In the case of The Smurfs, both Hanna-Barbera and producer Freddy Monnickendam decided that if anyone was going to emulate their success, it might as well be them. Accordingly, Snorks—essentially the story of underwater-dwelling Smurfs with breathing tubes—premiered on NBC on September 15, 1984.

Snorks may be the best-remembered of The Smurfs knock-offs, but they were hardly the first. The fall 1981 season also brought Trollkins, a bizarre hybrid that existed somewhere between The Dukes of Hazzard and The Smurfs, about a society of tiny creatures imperiled by outside forces; an adaptation of the video game Pac-Man, airing in 1982, picked up on this narrative thread, with Pac-Land under duress. So did Monchhichis, about tree-dwelling monkeys threatened by the Glumpkins.

Each of these stories revolved around pint-sized creatures who wished to live in peace, while larger, belligerent persecutors attempted to exploit or destroy their existence—a framework used to great success with Smurf village and its problems with the human villain Gargamel.

By virtue of being more crassly imitative, Snorks was something different. Like The Smurfs, the characters enjoyed using their own noun to season their speech, “snorking around” their undersea kingdom or commenting on “totally snorky” incidents. While they came in different colors, their body type was generally the same: bulbous.

Brought to Hanna-Barbera by Smurfs production house SEPP International, producer Freddy Monnickendam, and his collaborator Nic Broca, the Snorks had an unusually elaborate backstory. According to their lore: In 1643, a ship was overtaken by pirates and began to capsize, though the captain managed to save himself from drowning by finding an air pocket. As he struggled to stay afloat, he took notice of a tiny sea kingdom in the water that appeared filled with humanoids, but with odd features—including a snorkel protruding from their heads. When he got back to dry land, he implored people to believe his story; the Snorks, in turn, told their descendants about the giant they had once encountered.

The Snorks series appears to be set in contemporary times. In the series, Snorkland occupants Allstar Seaworthy and Casey Kelp eat kelp burgers, use sand dollars for currency, ride seahorses for transport, and try to avoid the wrath of Governor Wetworth, a salty saltwater politician. Tooter Shellby, the Urkel of the ensemble, could only communicate via sound effects, which often sounded like he was operating a whoopie cushion.

Critics, who usually had nothing but contempt for the Saturday morning lineup of the 1980s, didn’t expend much venom on Snorks. Writing for the Tallahassee Democrat, Ellen Klein noted that the snorkel-spouting creations did an admirable job of educating preschoolers on the benefits of cooperation.

“The Snorks don’t drive fast cars or get involved in cosmic battles between good and evil,” Klein wrote. “The cartoons are non-violent and non-sexist, and simple enough for a toddler to understand.” The series itself was “not brilliant,” but “inoffensive.”

On the heels of such high praise, Snorks stuck around for a total of 65 episodes, airing on NBC and in syndication from 1984 until 1988.

Despite Monnickendam’s involvement with both the Snorks and The Smurfs, the obvious crossover event never materialized. The closest Hanna-Barbera ever came was a 1984 Saturday morning preview special titled Laugh Busters, which featured a number of their established and debuting animated series. While both groups of little people were featured, they didn’t share any scenes together. Viewers did, however, get a consolation prize: Mr. T met Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Mixing high-end/low-end style isn’t exactly a new concept in the fashion world, but Balenciaga has taken the aesthetic to new—and slightly ludicrous—heights: As CNN reports, the French luxury brand has designed a blue tote bag that’s drawing comparisons to IKEA’s famously inexpensive and durable 99-cent shopping bag. Their version costs $2145.

It’s unclear whether or not Balenciaga actually drew sartorial inspiration from the popular Swedish furniture retailer, but the resemblance between their “Arena” tote and IKEA’s utilitarian “Frakta” carryall is unmistakable: Both bags are oversized, crinkly, and bright blue, with both short and long handles and plenty of storage space.

The difference is in the details: IKEA’s bag is made from a synthetic material, polypropylene, and its handles are emblazoned with the retailer’s logo. Balenciaga’s tote is crafted from “glazed leather,” and bears a gold-stamped logo (and costs 2145 times as much as its reusable counterpart).

Balenciaga is selling its blue bag at high-end department store Barneys. But whether the concept of a luxury, IKEA-inspired bag makes you feel amused, angry, or simply poor, the situation is proof that customers from all income brackets can appreciate a roomy, ultra-practical tote.

“We are deeply flattered that the Balenciaga tote bag resembles the IKEA iconic sustainable blue bag for 99 cents,” IKEA commented, according to TODAY. ‘Nothing beats the versatility of a great big blue bag!” (Although an affordable price point never hurts, either.)

[h/t CNN]

Score a sweet tax return? Resist the impulse to splurge on new stuff, and instead, shop around for a new bank account to stash your money in. That said, evaluating which checking or savings accounts have the highest interest rates, the lowest fees and charges, and the best perks can be a laborious process.

Luckily for us, WalletHub did the hard work for us: In search of the best offers, the personal finance website perused 50 popular online-only checking accounts, along with 480 savings and money market accounts from 233 online and branch-based banks and credit unions. According to them, the ones listed below can help penny-pinchers make the most of their savings.

One note: WalletHub limited their choices for best checking accounts to online-only ones, and many of their best savings account selections were also digital. If visiting a physical bank branch is still at the top of your priority list, those suggestions may not be the best options for you. However, keep in mind that by eliminating the cost of maintaining physical locations, online banks are able to provide customers with higher interest rates and lower or fewer fees—meaning they’re a good choice for those looking to avoid extra costs and grow their savings.

Best Savings Account: Salem Five’s eOne Savings

Regional banks tend to have lower or fewer fees across the board, and online savings accounts tend to yield higher interest rates—which may be why WalletHub’s choice for best overall savings accounts is eOne Savings, an online savings account offered by Salem Five, a regional New England bank. It’s reportedly one of the highest-yielding ones on the market, as it offers a 1.1 percent APY, or annual percentage yield. (The average APY for savings accounts is often lower than 1 percent.) Plus, there aren’t any monthly fees or withdrawal fees.

Best Checking Account for Rewards: Bank5 Connect’s High-Interest Checking Account

If you’re a fan of perks, go with the High-Interest Checking Account offered by online bank Bank5 Connect. Its APY is only 0.76 percent, but for every $2 customers make in debit card purchases, customers receive one point. These points can be redeemed for gift cards, travel, or merchandise—which, at the end of the day, equates to about 0.5 percent cash back. As for fees, there’s no monthly fee or ATM withdrawal fees.

Best Online Checking Account: Consumers Credit Union’s Free Rewards Checking Account

WalletHub’s choice for best online checking account is offered by a credit union instead of a bank, which may be appealing for those looking to divest from big banks for personal or political reasons. Consumers Credit Union’s Free Rewards Checking has an APY of up to 4.59 percent, plus it doesn’t charge monthly fees, nor does it require customers to maintain a minimum balance. You will, however, have to make at least 12 debit card purchases per month to score the best return. To join Consumers Credit Union, simply make a $5 one-time donation.

Best No-Fee Online Checking Account: Bank of Internet’s USA X Checking Account

Fees are the bane of every account holder’s existence, but customers who sign up for the Bank of Internet’s USA X Checking don’t need to deal with monthly maintenance fees, ATM withdrawal fees, or overdraft fees. The Bank of Internet also reimburses customers for domestic ATM-owner surcharges, making it convenient (and free) to grab cash on the go.

WalletHub’s full rankings for best online checking accounts and best savings accounts are available online.

A new app promises to make you just a little less embarrassing at your next round of karaoke. Vanido, which is billed as a “personal singing coach,” provides daily lessons and real-time feedback to help improve your voice and your ear, as The Verge reports.

When you first sign up, the app—free on iOS with an Android version in the works—determines your vocal range, tailoring exercises to your natural vocal abilities. After that, the app assigns practice activities that involve various singing techniques, including chest voice, head voice, and foundational skills—though it doesn’t actually explain what those categories mean.

Fortunately, users don’t necessarily need to understand those categories to complete the tasks. Similar to playing the music video game Rock Band, notes appear as colored bricks that move across the screen. When they cross over the line, you have to hit that note, which you hear through your headphones simultaneously. A continuous orange line representing your voice illustrates which note you’re singing, helping with adjustments.

However much you might want to turn this into performance boot camp, Vanido limits practice time. You can only take up to three lessons a day, although you can repeat them as many times as you’d like.

After a few days of trying the app, I have, disappointingly, not gained the vocal range of Whitney Houston. In fact, I can’t really tell if I’ve improved at all, even though the app records and scores every note I sing into my phone.

It’s hard to tell how well you’re doing based on your “VANI XP” level. And along with the score from each complete lesson, the app includes an encouraging note, meaning that I can’t really tell if I’m “doing great!” or if the app is just trying not to wound my pride. Based on how horrifying my voice sounds coming through my headphones, it’s the latter.

Still, being able to see my pitch and exactly how far I’ve strayed from the note makes my lack of skills into a challenge to overcome, rather than simply an embarrassing disappointment. Each completed exercise feels like winning a game. I would often go back and repeat the same lessons immediately to get a better score. I looked forward to practicing every night, even though I refused to do it before everyone in my apartment was safely asleep.

Hopefully, doing all of these exercises means that someday my voice won’t be quite so embarrassing. One day, maybe the app will even give me enough positive feedback to convince me to let someone else hear me sing.

[h/t The Verge]

All images courtesy Vanido