Tonatiuh, the Sun, drinks the blood of the Teteo in order to gain the energy to begin his daily revolutions. Here, the divine blood, adorned with jade and turquoise, flows into him, on the day Nahui Ollin, Four Movement, which is the day the sun was born. by Corazon Mexica. insta link
Tonatiuh, 'Turquoise Lord,' was the 5th and present sun in the Aztec view of the cosmos and the fierce sun god of several other Postclassic Mesoamerican cultures, including the Toltecs. It was thought that only the regular offering of hearts from sacrificial victims would nourish Tonatiuh so that he had the strength to reign supreme in the skies and battle each night the forces of darkness. For many, the sun god is the central figure on the Sun Stone, perhaps the most famous of all Aztec art pieces, where his tongue appears as a sacrificial blade thirsty for blood.
Names & Associations
The idea in Mesoamerica of a sun god with martial qualities goes back to the Classic Maya figure of K'inich Ajaw. For the Zapotec civilization (500 BCE - 900 CE) in the southern highlands of central Mexico in the Valley of Oaxaca, Tonatiuh was Copijcha (aka Cocicho). The Toltec civilization, which flourished in central Mexico between the 10th and mid-12th century CE, closely associated Tonatiuh with Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent god, and his manifestation as the morning star aspect of the planet Venus.
To the Aztecs of ancient Mexico (c. 1345-1521 CE) Tonatiuh was also known as Cuauhtlehuanitl ('Ascending eagle') and Cuauhtemoc ('Descending eagle'). His calendar name was Nahui ollin, 4 Motion, he was patron god of the 19th day Quiahuitl (rain), and 4th of the 13 Aztec Lords of the Day with an associated 'bird' sign of the quail. The sun was associated with gold and, for the Mixtec, made of turquoise, hence Tonatiuh is sometimes known as 'Turquoise Lord' (as, confusingly, is Xiuhtecuhtli, the Aztec god of Fire). Tonatiuh was a fierce and warlike god and it is suggestive that the Aztecs called the cruel and ruthless conquistador Pedro de Alvarado none other than Tonatiuh.
The Aztec Creation Myth
The Aztecs believed that the cosmos had already gone through four stages, each with its own sun and beings. The present era for the Aztecs was that of the 5th and final sun, Tonatiuh. The god had been born from the sacrifice of Nanahuatzin who threw himself into a fire at Teotihuacan and thus became the new sun. There was an immediate problem that Tonatiuh could or would not set himself in motion across the sky without a blood sacrifice. Now stepped in Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, for the Aztecs the planet Venus as the menacing morning star. He angrily threw his atl-atl dart at Tonatiuh in order to set him on his orbit, but the sun retaliated by throwing a dart right back. This missile hit Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli right in the forehead, instantly transforming him into stone and the god Itztlacoliuhqui, a deity associated with ice and cold. The rest of the gods realised that only a sacrifice would set the sun in motion and so Quetzalcoatl removed their hearts for that purpose. The offering worked and Tonatiuh was on his way.
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli had not left the scene permanently, though, and every 584 days he rises from the eastern sea to do battle with Tonatiuh once again. For this reason, Tonatiuh had to be strengthened via the sacrifice of humans so that he could feast on their hearts, just as he had first been nourished by the hearts of the gods. It was imagined that the sun was swallowed each night by the earth-fertility goddess, Tlaltecuhtli, and then regurgitated by the toad-like monster the following morning. Sacrifices ensured his successful return and victory each night against her and the forces of darkness.
Warriors were closely associated with Tonatiuh because it was their duty to ensure a steady supply of sacrificial victims for him. The spirits of dead warriors, too, were conducted to the next life by Tonatiuh. In addition, given the sun's vital role in ensuring the well-being of the cosmos and the Aztec ruler's position as chief warrior, Tonatiuh had his own sacrificial altar during coronation ceremonies. In times of great strife such as famine, droughts, and war, Tonatiuh could receive the huge number of bloody sacrifices that the Aztecs have become infamous forever since.
- π»Link to all Hexbear comms https://hexbear.net/post/1403966
- π Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube](https://live.hexbear.net/c/movies
- π₯ Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread https://hexbear.net/post/6148937
- β Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread https://hexbear.net/post/6145795
- π³οΈββ§οΈ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread https://hexbear.net/post/6210835
- π New Weekly Improvement thread https://hexbear.net/post/6206988
- π§‘ Disabled comm megathread https://hexbear.net/post/6211093
- β Parenting Chat https://hexbear.net/post/6207612
- π Anime & Manga discussion thread https://hexbear.net/post/6011723
reminders:
- π You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- π Hexbearβs algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- π Sorting by new you nerd
- πΆ Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
- β€οΈFoundations of Leninism
- β€οΈAnarchism and Other Essays

Wayland
nerd answer
XOrg was a load bearing dependency that put the desktop space in a stranglehold. GNOME folks spearheaded the transition to wayland but they weren't the only ones.If you're referring to things like
xdg_decoration
or server side decorations that would not have solved desktop inconsistency between apps built with different toolkits. Either the app toolkits themselves have to make an effort to fit in different environments that they choose or they look off.GNOME has also been spearheading the accessibility stack of wayland with members proposing wayland protocols like newton and also having the only fully accessible screen reader currently (though KDE should have caught up by now and also consider a11y as a top priority).
Wayland is good, I don't fault Gnome at all for that. To their credit, GTK programs are visually consistent. But I don't like using their DE, it looks like a phone/tablet UI shoehorned into a desktop use case. Too much white space. They hid the File, Edit, etc. dropdown menu inside the hamburger menu, and also hid the window list/dock. There's no "tray" for programs you want running but out of the way like messengers, file share clients, and music players. You can't have files or widgets on the desktop, it has to stay empty for some reason?
It's entirely possible for Gnome to apply a Qt theme to Qt apps, it's been a while since I've used it but they haven't in the past. KDE applies a matching GTK theme to GTK apps. There's still the difference that Qt apps retain the File/Edit/etc dropdown instead of putting it in a hamburger menu. And it's generally better that way. Any sufficiently powerful program, even GTK ones such as GNU IMP retain that menu too, the hamburger is too limiting.
nerd answer
Apps written with libadwaita* the distinction is important because GTK and Libadwaita are not the same thing. Libadwaita is a platform theme for GTK while GTK is a cross-platform toolkit for creating graphical apps.
The decision was to get rid of small clickable areas and crowded UIs. The emphasis was placed on not overwhelming the user with different options and place the most useful features of the app first and foremost and remove the others.
That's not what happened exactly: let's use GNOME files (Natilus) for example, the hamburger menu looks like this (as of GNOME 48):
The visual space taken by the menubar was not necessary for the program to function when most of the needed actions of the user could be placed into a smaller place.
It's because there is no cross-desktop tray implementation, what we have is kstatusnotifier and appindicator which both have issues with their implementation. There is a system tray via an extension maintained by Ubuntu.
GNOME sees tray icons as a design anti-pattern since there are other APIs to do background activity such as MPRIS for music/audio and dbus services. GNOME apps also aren't as bloated as proprietary apps like Discord and Steam that heavily rely on their tray icon (they will straight up not close without using them)
You use GNOME files "starred files" to create file bookmarks. This is also a design anti-pattern because your open Windows would block the desktop files and widgets meaning that you have to spend a step to move away your windows to see your desktop (MacOS has to resort to this as well as KDE).
It's better to have widgets in the top bar (via quicksettings menu or other place) so that they're almost always visible (besides in full-screened windows). It's also better to use things like localsearch (the file indexing service) and app's dbus services in overview.
The Qt adwaita theme is discontinued and was primarily used by Flatpak and Fedora. GNOME doesn't really want to spend time forcing Qt to comply with GNOME's design language because 1: it's all surface level with setting widget appearances and 2: they aren't responsible with changing how the app works and behaves.
That's KDE's decision, but the libadwaita apps still look out of place. I believe they do it because GNOME applications don't have a minimize and maximize button and KDE needs those for its desktop.
That's your opinion, GNOME's apps dont need a menu bar anymore since they have chosen to be designed more tightly (only expose features that your users really need and dont bother with the rest).
GNU IMP doesn't follow the GNOME design language and is also an incredibly large and complicated program even just by general standards. Most (in fact all) GNOME apps are no where near the level of complexity of GNU IMP and they are designed not to be since it's not part of GNOME's core design language. GTK is not libadwaita and the GNOME HIG.
I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with having a minimal UI for the Gnome apps, although it does limit how powerful they can be. But the dropdown menu is a very efficient use of space, so is the traditional MATE/KDE/Windows window list, I don't think there is really anything to be gained from hiding these behind another click. There's also the fact that if you're using any powerful programs (photo editing, video editing, 3D modeling, or even a fully-featured media player or office suite) those programs are necessarily going to have a dropdown menu regardless of what toolkit they are built with. So now you have two flavors of programs on your computer, those with dropdown menus and dense UI, and those with hamburger menus and white-space-heavy UI. Personally, I'd rather just have dropdown menus (and dense UI) for all programs for consistency.
I'm not really a Gnome hater or anything, to me it just seems like a less efficient way to use your computer at the benefit of having a shinier UI. It makes perfect sense for those who aren't big computer people and just want something simple and phone-like, but most people are already familiar with Windows-like conventions such as min-max-close, taskbar, start menu, etc. I appreciate their adherence to standards and doing things "the right way", I just don't really get why they think a desktop benefits from a phone UI.
gnomey
FWIW you can latch things like the window list and desktop icons back into GNOME via community maintained extensions.I'd push back on the "phone ui" because it was never meant to copy phones or be touch friendly but to have a responsive design that works well on a good enough range of screen sizes. There is a GNOME Shell port to mobile devices called Phosh if you're interested and it is very different from GNOME desktop proper.
The Common user interface standards of Windows are just that, standards, and they were first set a long time ago. GNOME hasn't broken these standards on a whim. Desktop metaphors are always evolving and GNOME is keeping up with that evolution.
I do think libadwaita is capable of producing very complex software like media creation tools and complex editors but we just haven't seen it yet since libadwaita is still maturing and those programs are generally just very difficult to design especially when you move away from CUI (menubars and such). Its lucky enough that these complex programs usually just take up the whole workspace as the sole window.
I like your words magic man
(I use wayland cause I like how hyprwayland looks. I have 0 clue about the debates of dependencies. )
Hyprland is bad, made by a Polish crypto-nazi [1][2]. The codebase is also terrible and confusing (it doesn't actually implement any features outside of what an able-bodied white guy with a lot of free time would need).
Use GNOME or KDE instead, I implore you to do so for the sake of using projects that actually care about all their users.