Daemmyra

[Daemmyra @daemmyra]

@bryndensraven For episode 7 HOTD, were there happy Daemon and rhaenyra scenes? 🙏

[Daemmyra @daemmyra]

@suzannxqr @AbidMohamm28931 @RedTeamReview It might be a promo and they might not show it.

[Daemmyra @daemmyra]

@ladymultifandom Hi, do you know if there are happy moments in daemnyra scenes for their fans in episode 7? 🙏Thanks

[Desire @desirejnk]

@antoxlauren Según puede ser en la misma escena leí por ahí en una cuenta daemyra

[Daemmyra @daemmyra]

@RedTeamReview Oh no they are fighting 😢😢 😭 Thank you for the response.

[RedTeamReview ✪ @RedTeamReview]

#HouseOfTheDragon Episode 7 just dropped for us and goddamn I'm trying to process how to even give a non-spoiler tease for the whole episode. I'll dish one out in a few days after I watch it again but...

The only thing I can tease right now is that Helaena fans, you guys will be eating good. It'll be bittersweet but you'll eat. And don't worry, that window is still closed

I don't know if George read a rough draft when he wrote Toxic Butterflies and maybe I need to see Episode 8 to get the whole of his complaint but I'm starting to kinda see where THAT is heading. It really will depend on where Episode 8 goes with her to see if George's comments were justified but so far I can kinda see where the story is heading

Keep in mind that some of George's complaints were absolutely valid but maybe not for her? Maybe? Again, I need to see 8 to get the full picture

[Matt Neglia @NextBestPicture]

Me all throughout Season 3 Ep. 7 of #HouseOfTheDragon

Those of you who love to whinge and say "nothing happened," I dare you to try saying that next Sunday #HOTD

[JJ @bryndensraven]

I received an early screener to episode 7...and its absolute fucking PEAK. You guys are not ready. I promise you, you are not ready.

[Daemmyra @daemmyra]

@GraceRandolph Were there Deamon and Rhaenyra scenes?

[Daemmyra @daemmyra]

@VoiceOldtownYT Are there good Daemon and Rhaenyra scenes?

[Adam Boxer @adamboxer1]

To @andyburnham and @LucyMPowell,

There are lots of problems and things to worry about with the introduction of a new technical route at age 14.

As mentioned in the article (and flagged by union bosses) there are substantial workload and resourcing implications. Schools don't have lots of slack, and we will be teaching our current curriculums full time as soon as September hits. When will we plan and resource a whole bunch of new technical pathways? Which workforce will teach them, and with what physical infrastructure? How will schools figure out which ones to deliver? How will they be examined?

Announcing this in the holidays is traditionally considered a poor move. The Tories were big for it, Labour have consistently done it in the first week back to school to match The Grid, and broadly it is anxiety inducing and not very fun for anybody.

I have more substantive issues though:

Focusing on your local area's job market somewhat renders the entire project of social mobility dead. The point of schools and education is to take students beyond their horizons, not constrain them within it. Yes, we want students to gain employable skills, and yes, from a purely utilitarian perspective it makes sense for those skills to be local ones, but we cannot lose track of the fact we want students to be *universally* employable, and to communicate to them that the world is their oyster and they can do anything they want.

Channeling students into vocational routes at age 14 is - in my opinion - far too young. As much as you say you want parity between the two routes, you won't have it. There is literally an entry in Urban Dictionary for the term "BTEC" to mean a crappy knock-off. The current GCSE regime we have is the best we have ever hand in terms of its rigour, robustness and richness and all students should have the right to access it and carry its credentials with them for life.

In the past when we have done stuff like this, it is always "other people's children" who end up doing the technical routes. High performing and middle class schools will magically end up with fewer children in technical routes, and poor performing schools will shovel their toughest students (who are statistically from lower socio-economic backgrounds) into them. This is what happened last time, and it will happen again. It will not help social mobility, and it will ironically decrease employability. Yes, this child might be more likely to be employable as a bricklayer (which, to be clear, is fine), but they will be less employable as a data manager, software engineer, accountant, events planner or retail manager (which, to be clear, is not fine).

It's definitely the case that there is a small % of students in a small % of areas that might need different approaches to what we currently have. But it is a logical fallacy to take that small % and extrapolate it to a nation-wide policy change.

I would strongly urge you to look at the reams of research that have already been conducted in the area, and established that - potentially alone in the west - our education system is doing pretty damn well. We have a flawed but strong curriculum, improving behaviour and standards across the board and a workforce that is ever more engaged with the research base. After decades of two- and three- tier systems, we have state schools that are now proving that disadvantaged students can leave school with astonishingly high academic qualifications.

Let's not row that back.

(PS there are plenty of people with rich experience and expertise in this area [who aren't me]. These people are deeply invested in getting the best life outcomes for our students, they aren't fusty old Govian academic snobs. I am always happy to try and help you find them.)

https://t.co/23yk1IE7Y0

[💭 @daemonthinker]

Matt Smith facts, for the uninitiated:

•phobia of chewing gum
•Keanu Reeves super fan
•chocolate "addiction"
•made bow-tie sales spike by 94% in 2010
•thinks he should have been diagnosed with adhd as a child
•used to be a footballer & DJ
•can learn lines by rapping them

[💭 @daemonthinker]

my favourite s3 press moment is still Emma trying to compliment Matt while he pretends not to be in the room

[Yashar Ali 🐘 @yashar]

NEW

Suri, Katie Holmes’s daughter, who was abandoned by her biological father, Tom Cruise, legally dropped the last name “Cruise” at some point, per a new report from Page Six.

Suri Noelle is the name she used to register to vote.

Good for her.

A reminder: Tom Cruise believes that having any sort of connection to Suri will impede Scientology and could possibly cause him to become sick or injured.

He also believes that by remaining connected to her in any way, he is committing a suppressive act, is a danger to Scientology, and is therefore a danger to the future of humanity.

This is all because her mom was declared a suppressive person, an enemy of Scientology.

As a result, Suri is considered PTS, a potential trouble source.

(Link to story in post below)

[nini🐉 @thepinkm0tel]

this bts of ep5 s1 having fabien with hair clips, matt with the short wig and milly behind them is everything

[nini🐉 @thepinkm0tel]

at the end of the day the hotd cast is really my family so i would lie if i said this didn't make me emotional, see them going away one by one really hits hard especially if you knew them since the very beginning and this goodbye to fabien hurted a little bit too :(

[westerosies @westerosies]

Fabien Frankel receives praise and kind words from Ryan Condal, Matt Smith, and Freddie Fox for his talent and incredible portrayal of Ser Criston Cole in #HouseOfTheDragon.

[matt smith thinker 💭 @thinkmattsmith]

“fabs, dear boy, what would i do without you? my great friend.” 🥹

matt smith praising fabien frankel in a new video behind the scenes of house of the dragon

[Cris HOTD SPOILERS 🇺🇦 🇵🇸 @Hornsounderr]

S3 finale might be the LONGEST of the season

I fucking cheered 🍻