[lonelyteenagerdotmp3]

for those who don't know, tumblr URL tricks:

URL.tumblr.com/archive opens archive

URL.tumblr.com/tagged/<tag> shows particular tag

URL.tumblr.com/tagged/<tag>/chrono shows tagged posts from that particular tag in chronological order

URL.tumblr.com/day/YYYY/MM/DD shows posts from that date

URL.tumblr.com/random shows random post from the blog

for the links to open, your blog must be visible on web, to do this go to accounts -> visibility -> switch both the options on

and for the tags searches, if the tag is like #space stuff that is there's a space between the words of the tag by which you're searching insert a %20 for every space that's there in the tag, so it'd be like URL.tumblr.com/tagged/space%20stuff for the tag #space stuff

[penny-anna]

okay, for those interested, here is a full timeline of how we got to Count Binface:

1977: Star Wars is released, featuring, of course, Darth Vader

(Pictured: Darth Vader)

1984: Director Todd Durham releases his Star Wars parody movie, Hyperspace, featuring Darth Vader inspired villain Lord Buckethead.

(Pictured: Hyperspace poster featuring two Jawa-esque aliens flying through space in a shopping trolley.)

1987: Hyperspace is released on video in the UK, under the new title Gremloids.

(Pictured: Gremloids cover in the style of the original Star Wars poster, featuring Lord Buckethead.)

To promote the film, Mike Lee, the owner of the distributing company, ran for parliament as Lord Buckethead. He ran in Margaret Thatcher's constituency, Finchley, in order to get on TV. Lord Buckethead was representing the Gremloids party.

(Pictured: Lord Buckethead on TV with Margaret Thatcher.)

1992: Gremloids is re-released. Lord Buckethead rides again, this time against prime minister John Major in Huntingdon. (Here's a fun fact about Huntingdon: I was born there! :D) 87/92 Buckethead seems to have leaned pretty hard into the space supervillain thing, with campaign promises including 'demolish Birmingham to build a spaceport'.

(Pictured: Lord Buckethead on TV with John Major. Other notable candidates include Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party.)

2017: comedian Jon Harvey, having recently watched Gremloids and learned of Lord Buckethead's candidacy for parliament, decides it's a great bit. He runs against Theresa May in Maidenhead. 2017 Buckethead seems to have a wackier and also more political approach, with campaign promises ranging from nonsense like 'nationalise Adele' to gesturing at actually sensible policies with stuff like 'lower the voting age to 16 and restrict voting after age 80'.

He also made an appearance on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. As with his previous incarnation, he was a member of the Gremloids party.

(Pictured: Lord Buckethead dabbing on stage with Theresa May.)

2018: Director Todd Durham asserts his legal ownership of Lord Buckethead. Jon Harvey opted not to go to court over Buckethead and handed over the reins. Todd Durham extended an invitation to anyone who wanted to be the 'authorised' Lord Buckethead.

(Pictured: the new Lord Buckethead.)

2019: Lord Buckethead, now played by journalist David Hughes, stood against Boris Johnson in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. He ran for the Monster Raving Loony Party, the UK's pre-existing gag candidate party. He ran with a similarly silly manifesto as the 2017 incarnation, but with a bit less of a political edge. His promises included 'All doorways to be increased by 1 foot (30 cm) in height' and 'Nigel Farage to be sold for parts'.

(Pictured: Lord Buckethead and Count Binface square up.)

Meanwhile, Jon Harvey in his new persona Count Binface, also ran against Boris Johnson. Buckethead and Binface face off! Binface ran as an independent with a manifesto once again blending silly and semi-serious promises such as 'nationalising model railways' and 'giving £1 trillion a week to the NHS'. This was also I believe the debut of his promise to 'move the hand dryer in the men's toilet at Uxbridge's Crown and Treaty pub to a more sensible position'.

(Pictured: Count Binface presenting the offending hand dryer, inconveniently close to both the sink and the urinals.)

He has a point.

2021: Count Binface runs for the position of Mayor of London for the first time, with promises such as 'London to join the European Union'. He notably finished ahead of far right party UKIP.

2023: Count Binface runs in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election following Boris Johnson's resignation. He once again gets more votes than UKIP.

May 2024: Count Binface once again runs to be Mayor of London, debuting his now iconic 'build at least one affordable house' promise. Notably, he finished ahead of far right party Britain First.

(Pictured: Count Binface with Rishi Sunak. Also pictured: Monster Raving Loony Party candidate Sir Archibald Stanton with a ventriloquist's dummy.)

July 2024: Count Binface stands in the general election, running in Richmond and Northallerton against prime minister Rishi Sunak. He debuts his promise to cap the price of 99p flakes at 99p. This is his most successful election to date with 308 votes.

(Pictured: Count Binface with Andy Burnham. Also pictured: independent candidate Robert Pownell, dressed as a fox for his own reasons.)

June 2026: Count Binface stands in the Makerfield by-election against Andy Burnham, (recently) former Mayor of Manchester running for parliament with the intention of standing in the Labour Party leadership contest.

(Pictured: Count Binface on BBC's Newsnight.)

July 2026 (this week): Count Binface announces his intention to run against Nigel Farage in the upcoming Clacton by-election. He is briefly the only other candidate in the race and by the time other candidates announce themselves the narrative of 'Nigel Farage vs Count Binface' has already bedded in. And then it was now, and then I don't know what happened.

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

For clarity's sake, Robert Pownall is dressed as a fox because he's an anti-fox hunting campaigner, and also he will be standing in the Farage Vs Binface election. So that's fun

[probablybadrpgideas]

fantasy games often have odd cosmic forces, with things like "Good" or "Life" existing as simple, distinct forms of matter or energy.

switch it up by doing the reverse! In your fantasy universe various stuff is NOT simple. Iron? Not actually a fundamental elemental substance, just a kind of thing you can make from ingredients, like bread. Electricity? A catchall term for the distinct phenomena of radiant mana, G-beams, and sparkle migrations.

­

[duckbunny]

Are you suffering from the Alectopause? Do you want necromancy and doomed romance and the question of what it means to be yourself? Do you like it when the unending grief becomes hubris? read Salts of Mercury

[benbedford]

#i am seven chapters in and already ready to shake the protagonist by the shoulders yelling WHAT ARE YOU DOING WHAAAT AAARE YOUUU DOOOING#looking forward to much more of this to come#vervain's narration is so much fun to read#salts of mercury

Vervain is doing reasonable and proportionate and above all well-planned things in chapter seven and at all other times.

[his-own-kingdom-deactivated2026]

“I believe he (Rochester) is considered a just and liberal landlord by his tenants: but he has never lived much amongst them.”

(Jane Eyre, Chapter 11)

“The villagers affirmed Mr. Heathcliff was near, and a cruel hard landlord to his tenants”.

(Wuthering Heights, Chapter 18)

[princesssarisa]

An always-important clue to whether the wealthy, complex male lead is ultimately a good person or a bad person – how he treats the tenants.

[askthesongstress]

“He [Darcy] is the best landlord, and the best master,” said she [Darcy's housekeeper], “that ever lived. Not like the wild young men now-a-days, who think of nothing but themselves. There is not one of his tenants or servants but what will give him a good name.” (Pride & Prejudice, chapter 43)

[princesssarisa]

There seems to be a bit of a trend nowadays… maybe related to the increased conservativism about gender roles in fandoms, or maybe not… of taking a popular heroine whom people love to relate to, especially if she’s a bit of a misfit or unconventional in some ways, and framing her as actually being privileged and in need of deconstruction, while another girl who serves as (one of) her foil(s), who hasn’t traditionally gotten as much sympathy, is framed as the real relatable misfit.

From what I’ve read about The Other Bennet Sister, it sounds as if Elizabeth Bennet gets this treatment in the efforts to build up Mary. Now, I’m all in favor of giving attention to Elizabeth’s flaws, because they’re very important to her character arc and to the entire plot of Pride and Prejudice, and yet the fans do sometimes overlook them in favor of just adoring her and using her as a self-insert. (I was guilty of that myself when I first read the book in high school.) But “being mean to Mary” is not one of those flaws. And if (as it sounds like it does from what I’ve read) The Other Bennet Sister portrays Mrs Bennet as favoring Elizabeth over Mary, that’s nonsense! Mrs. Bennet prefers Mary to Elizabeth. The omniscient narrator tells us that Elizabeth is Mrs. Bennet’s least favorite of her daughters (at least until the end when she marries the richest man), which implicitly means that she favors Mary at least a little bit more.

Likewise, in the recent slew of defenses for Amy in Little Women, there seems to be a slight trend of seeing Amy as the underdog in her family and Jo as the more privileged one. The Greta Gerwig movie gives her the line “I’ve always been second to Jo” - granted, I haven’t gotten that far in my current reread of the book, but I don’t remember Alcott’s Amy ever being or feeling second to Jo. I’ve also read the argument that both of the March parents favor Jo over Amy, because they both share more warm and affirming conversations with Jo, while their on-page interactions with Amy are fewer and sometimes more critical. But I sincerely don’t think Alcott meant to paint Amy as the less-favored child. On the contrary, her narration paints Amy as a girl who’s always been doted on and “petted” by her family because she’s the youngest, and who is popular at school and in the community too, and that this is why she’s conceited and showy as a child - not because she’s desperately seeking attention. If this is more told than shown, and if Jo shares more heartwarming moments with all her family members than Amy does on-page, I think it’s just because Alcott gave special focus to Jo because she modeled Jo after herself. Not because she wanted us to think Jo was everyone’s favorite.

And then there’s the Wicked fandom. I always thought one of the keys to that musical’s popularity was that audiences related to Elphaba as an underdog, and I thought it was understood that Glinda is a privileged brat with a redemption arc. But since the movies came out, there seems to be a trend of viewing Glinda as the relatable underdog who is always outshone by and rejected in favor of the unique, special Elphaba. Just because Elphaba has magical talent while Glinda doesn't and because Elphaba ultimately wins Fiyero’s love. But if you can’t see that in every single other way, Elphaba is the underdog while Glinda is the privileged one, you must have slept through 90% of the plot!

If anyone else can think of other examples of this trend, I’d like to know!

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

okay. breathe. listen to my voice. can you tell me five things in this room you can fuck?

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

okay great. now list me four things in this room you can kill.

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

beautiful. there you go. okay. now: tell me three things you can impose unjust taxes on.

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

almost done. can you list two things you could shove in a pipe and smoke?

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

last one: one thing you could use as a makeshift weapon?

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

why are you still crying

[sixpenceee]

China’s rice terraces are absolutely stunning. This is located in Lóngshèng County, Guanxi.

[atlas822]

It’s like a topographical map

[atrusovaartist]

acrylic, canvas 40*50 cm «Lighthouse of the Northern Sunset» 2025

[jetix]

Aleksander Nordahl

[justalurkr]

Truncated text of tweet from MrPitBull, Mar 11, 2026:

She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.

Yale University, 1969.

Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.

Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"

The faculty answered firmly: No.

Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.

Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.

So she started looking.

She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.

There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.

The professors had been wrong.

But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.

Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.

But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.

It wasn't random. It was systematic.

Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.

Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.

Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.

She needed a name for what she was documenting.

In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.

In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.

The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.

Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.

For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.

Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.

Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.

Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.

Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:

Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.

Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.

Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.

And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.

Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.

The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how authors are listed, who receives awards, who gets left out.

[prokopetz]

You wouldn’t think that flamingoes are extremophiles just from looking at them. It’s like somebody tried to build the vertebrate equivalent of that fungus that lives inside nuclear reactors, and ended up with a gangly pink dinosaur with a spoon for a face.

[calloutnevvegas]

For everyone in the comments asking how flamingos are extremophiles:

Flamingos can survive in low oxygen, high altitude, high temperatures, low temperatures, high alkaline, they can and will drink boiling water and they can be completely frozen at night and still get up the next morning

Don’t fuck with flamingos

[revretch]

….. Didn’t know most of that

[iamthekaijuking]

Huh… so that’s why zoos don’t put them somewhere warm during winter.

[revretch]

Oh yeah, this leaves out what I *did* know about them–they can also survive hypersalinity. That is, water so salty it kills practically everything else–water so salty it burns your skin.

American flamingos just drink that shit

[bogleech]

(animal death) this is a real undoctored photograph (*though the body was stood up for the shot) of a dead flamingo on the surface of lake natron, a lake so salty and so alkaline that it’s naturally carbonated like soda and would eat through your stomach lining if you drank from it.

When this photo went viral years ago, most people assumed this poor flamingo must have been killed by the lake.

It is actually the lake where 75% of its global population are hatched. This is a photo from the same lake:

[assuming-dinosaur]

Some species of flamingo actually subsist almost entirely on a diet of bacteria! In other words, there is a species of dinosaur that eats only bacteria and lives in lakes so toxic they would kill almost anything else—and it is best known to the average person as a kitschy lawn decoration.

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE

Flamingos can survive in high altitudes, hypersaline conditions, and caustic lakes.

Source: ‘All flamingo species have evolved to live in some of the planet’s most extreme wetlands, like caustic “soda lakes”, hypersaline lagoons or high-altitude salt flats.’

They can survive water so alkaline it burns human skin.

Source: ‘More than a million lesser flamingos breed in Tanzania’s Lake Natron, for instance, a lake fed by hot springs with water so alkaline that it can strip away human skin (one pioneering flamingo researcher named Leslie Brown spent months in Nairobi General Hospital after burning his legs wading out to observe where the birds nested).’

They can drink water at near-boiling temperatures.

Source: ‘They can drink water at near boiling point to collect freshwater from springs and geysers at lake edges. If no freshwater is available, flamingos can use glands in their head that remove salt, draining it out from their nasal cavity.’

The lakes they inhabit can freeze overnight, and the flamingos can survive once it thaws in the morning.

Source: ‘The birds may seem to epitomize the tropics, but they also live in the Andes, 15,000 feet above sea level, where they rest on lakes that freeze around them overnight.

“You’ll see them sitting there like snowballs, frozen on ice,” Dr. Arengo said. “And as the temperature warms up, they thaw out, fluff themselves up and go about their business.”’

The photo is indeed from Lake Natron, taken by photographer Nick Brandt. The content of the lake chemically preserves animal corpses that die there. You can see more photos of this here.

It is also true that 75% of Lesser Flamingos are hatches on Lake Natron.

Source: ‘The lake’s landscape is surreal and deadly—and made even more bizarre by the fact that it’s the place where nearly 75 percent of the world’s lesser flamingos are born.’

Some species of Flamingo eat cyanobacteria or algae.

Source: ‘Flamingos have very specialised diets. And their food is responsible for their famous pink colouration. The two species in Planet Earth II eat a lot of floating microscopic algae, which contains carotenoid pigments, the same types of chemical that make carrots orange. These pigments turn their feathers pink, orange and red – without them, flamingos would be white.’

[adaginy]

… @todaysbird ??

[todaysbird]

yeah they’re just like that

[juney-blues]

information that is also important

[vanessagillings]

Oh, to be a tiny mermaid to escape the heat

[distilled-prose]

yo, @mermaidenmystic

[bluemuffin-draws]

Endurance runners

Part 2 of this

[melonsharks]

agoraphobia /ăg″ər-ə-fō′bē-ə, ə-gôr″ə-/

The fear of wide open spaces, crowds, or uncontrolled social conditions.

[uninterestedemby]

AGH MY BABY IM CRINE

[20centurymusic]

Visit Original Link

Kate Bush - Running Up That Hill

[specialagentartemis]

my petty gripe about anachronism in historical/fantasy/spec-fic worlds is attraction language.

We’ve all heard the “should you use modern queer labels or not” argument but honestly even when people go “true, they wouldn’t use the labels ‘aromantic’ or ‘asexual,’” so often the characters describe their experiences as “I never felt romantic attraction” or “I don’t feel attracted to anyone” in ways that makes me go. You are stilllllll thinking about this in an extraordinarily modern online way. That 19th century steampunk detective man will NOT be angsting about having never felt romantic attraction, he would be angsting about being unable to feel moved by the beauty or charm of a woman, or something. And I do think that “attractiveness” language is different from the identity-level idea of experiencing attraction—Sherlock Holmes does not talk about not experiencing attraction, but when Watson says “What a very attractive woman!” Holmes responds “Is she? I did not observe.” (And then Watson calls him an inhuman automaton and calculating-machine and Holmes calls Watson’s judgement biased). Never swayed by the attractiveness of a man or woman, never desirous of marriage, never charmed by the delights of love, all of these feel like some of the variety of ways that someone in this milieu might describe an ace- or aro-spectrum identity more than “never felt attraction” does. Mostly because, like the terms for aromantic and asexual themselves, nailing down an exclusively attraction-based definition of a-spec identities is a relatively new and extremely post-AVEN thing. And yet in fiction everybody knows to articulate their experience as feeling sexual/romantic attraction. And I always want to go nooo how would THIS character think about it?? Not how you think this character SHOULD think about it, how would THIS person in THIS context articulate their feelings?