Time for my routine redraw of Anakin but this time with bonus lighting

Product Placement
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

shark vs the universe
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

Love Begins
taylor price
No title available
i don't do bad sauce passes
Sade Olutola

roma★

blake kathryn
h
Monterey Bay Aquarium

Kiana Khansmith
occasionally subtle
tumblr dot com
sheepfilms

@theartofmadeline

#extradirty

Origami Around

seen from Singapore
seen from Türkiye
seen from Thailand
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from France
seen from Russia
seen from Indonesia

seen from Indonesia

seen from France

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Mexico

seen from Ecuador

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Saudi Arabia
@anakinfruit
Time for my routine redraw of Anakin but this time with bonus lighting
Age verification laws are moving beyond porn sites and social media. Soon, your operating system could be required to know how old you are.
I just saw a video title on YouTube that said something like “Why is glass transparent?” And that’s an interesting question and I’m sure it’s great that the video exists but my first thought was like “Because glass is terrible, obviously.” Because it’s unwieldy and let’s out warmth and needs to be heated to hundreds of degrees to be shaped and turns into hundreds of tiny daggers if you drop it. Why the hell would we bother with that if it didn’t have some magical quality like being totally transparent despite being solid? Glass is transparent because if it weren’t, we’d use something else.
looking through my “me” tag and this is apparently what I was thinking 3 years ago
If you’re still curious we did not start working glass for its transparency. It was most likely started as a sanitary concern. Glass is easy to clean with soap and water, once it’s cleaned out you can use it again for anything and no germs or flavor from the previous meal or drink will remain.
Other materials at the time, namely clay, would absorb flavors and germs meaning that if you ate beef off a clay plate your next meal with that plate could have beef flavor and microbes common on cow meat on it. That would leak out seemingly at random no less. Heck imagine a sick person coughing into their soup bowl and then months later their germs hiding in the clay would pop out to infect whole new people.
Also the earliest human use of glass we know of is for its sharpness. Pre-historic people would use volcanic glass as sharp knives for food preparation. Also beads. Pretty much any new substance humans get their hands on for most of our history we immediately try to make into beads.
The fact that it could become see through was a side benefit.
this is amazing and I’m really glad I reblogged that old bullshit post because I got to learn this
the fact that "eco" and "ethical" are two separate concerns in the global north, and that "eco" is a much more popular concern, with many "eco" products being made in actual sweatshops, is a big part of why i am The Joker
if you think this is an exaggeration or splitting hairs where it doesn't matter:
i used to work at a Local Organic Produce store that's popular with the lefties in my city who are interested in food justice. i quit for a lot of reasons, mostly the boss, but something i will always remember is one of our suppliers coming in to drop off produce, being told her check wasn't ready, and her laughing and responding it didn't matter -- even a low bank account was more than enough to pay the migrants who picked her produce. i am not filling in any blanks here. she said this.
after quitting, this was a common story i told people about my time there. some then became annoyed at me, acting like i was a wokescold trying to undermine the store's "eco" mission with unrelated "ethical" concerns. but, like -- if food justice isn't for the people making food, who the fuck is it for?
like, don't get me wrong. my contention here is that the things go hand in hand, and that something which is unethical isn't actually eco. after all, humans are a part of the fucking ecosystem, and if a product can only be made by unsustainably exploiting humans, then it's unsustainable. doesn't matter which chemicals were used in making it, or whether or not animals were factory farmed.
they *cannot* be separated. a product cannot be either eco or ethical — it must be both. a product that is made through human suffering cannot be eco for the reasons you said; a product that causes human suffering by contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem cannot be ethical. it must be both and we must insist on both
Blackout poetry exists on a dual axis from "banal" to "insightful" on the input side and "kind of deep" to "incredibly fucking dumb" on the output side, and while taking something banal and producing something kind of deep is well and fine, for my money taking something insightful and rendering it incredibly fucking dumb is where the real art is.
#i stuck the word 'banal' in there twice specifically so that 'anal' would be low hanging fruit#but i genuinely did not anticipate 'banana' --@prokopetz
A lot of people don't know about why lawns are so disliked outside of how they are a waste of water, so here:
carbon emissions put out by lawn mowers (and other devices like leaf blowers). Lawn mowers produce significantly more greenhouse gases per hour of use than cars, and majorly contribute to smog.
Fertilizers get into bodies of water and cause algae blooms, converting all the diverse water plants to homogenous green slime.
Pesticides kill fireflies, bees, and all sorts of other beneficial insects, and many can kill or harm fish, birds and even humans.
Herbicides can have negative effects on the wrong targets too, but they are also causing common agricultural weeds to evolve resistance faster, increasing our dependence on pesticides.
Watering lawns does waste a lot of fresh water.
Lawns replace areas that once could have contained 100+ plant species with monocultures of frequently invasive species. Butterflies can't find host plants this way. Bees can't find food. Thousands of insect species rely on specific plants for food, and no other plant will do. A huge amount of the land is taken up by these wastelands.
Lawns also create dead, compacted, lifeless soil that is hard to grow other things in or near. The root systems of turf grasses are not robust enough to allow water to penetrate in. No matter how much nitrogen and phosphorous you dump on a lawn, it will still be lacking in the organic matter needed to create lush, absorbent dirt.
Dirt is supposed to be full of fungal mycelium. Scientists have discovered recently that the vast majority of all plant species are dependent on a network of symbiotic fungi attached to their roots for 80% of their phosphorous needs and 90% of their nitrogen needs.
Yes, this means that when you put a fungicide on your lawn, you've just nerfed that plant's ability to absorb nutrients by up to 90%. And you've also devastated its ability to absorb water, because plants are partly dependent on their fungi to get water out of dirt.
But fungicide isn't the only problem. Every plant in a natural environment is attached to multiple species of fungus, and most fungi are attached to multiple species of plant (though some are specialists). Trees literally use this system to send nutrients to other trees. We discovered recently that trees in deserts in California can survive extreme drought because they're attached to fungi that can break down rocks and extract water from the rocks.
If you don't have a good variety of plant species and rotting leaves and sticks and stuff, it doesn't matter how much fertilizer you put on it, your soil isn't "healthy" because it's not alive.
Vegetation that has been cropped extremely short doesn't hold in water, so a heavily maintained lawn is likely unnaturally dry for your climate, and a flower or bush in the middle of a lawn without tall grasses, shrubs and weeds nearby is getting pounded by the sun much harder than it's meant to handle.
Yeah, gardening isn't hard, most native plants are falling all over themselves to grow, it's just that the standard suburban backyard is ridiculously hostile to life.
Of course at this point you may be wondering
"What do I do instead?"
Well, here you go:
Stop weeding, spraying and fertilizing. Seriously. Stop it!! Stop it!! Chemical intervention in your lawn traps you in a vicious cycle of creating problems that need to be solved with more chemicals.
"Weeds" are a perfect example. Plants commonly considered "weeds" are adapted to take over areas that have been cleared out of other plants. Many "weeds" are actively harmed by the fungi that other plants depend on, meaning they can ONLY thrive in disturbed or devastated areas. The harder you work to eliminate biodiversity in your yard, the harder nature is going to bomb your yard with weeds.
By the way, google the "soil seed bank." Seeds can stay dormant in soil for years or even decades. If you want a "weed-free" lawn, get ready to apply herbicides for the rest of your life.
Mow less often. You really can't go wrong with this one.
Don't try to grow grass where grass doesn't want to grow. Lots of shade? Try moss. Extremely dry? Try drought-adapted plants. See what wants to grow there and let it do its thing.
It's fine to have a lawn area that you actually use. But if no one walks or plays on a stretch of your lawn, it should be something else. A wildflower patch, a stand of prairie grasses, some large shrubs, a grove of trees.
By the way, the idea that shrubs or flower beds are higher maintenance than lawns is wrong. The neat thing about native species is that once they've gotten settled, you literally just do nothing.
People think flower beds are high maintenance because people almost always underpopulate them. They think that there should be big spaces of mulch in between each plant. In a full sun flower bed that's actually filled to capacity, you shouldn't be able to see the ground. If your plants aren't babies anymore and there's still space, more plants.
if you live in an area that was once forest, PLEASE, plant some trees, and not just one tree. Trees are somewhat like guinea pigs, actually, they don't want to be alone. They send each other nutrients through their roots and screen each other from wind damage.
By the way, the "mature spread" of a tree as told on websites means when you plant it by itself. Trees can generally be planted 6-10 feet apart and be perfectly happy, they'll just grow taller and straighter instead of spreading out. (Look at pictures of forests.) HOWEVER large trees like large oaks should really be 25+ feet from structures and septic tanks
(Trees pop up by themselves in lawns. Constantly. Search for them in a woodland biome and you will likely find baby oaks and maples and other cool guys.)
Trees introduce competition for light into the areas you plant them, helping eliminate the "weeds." You know how fast your lawn grows up and gets weedy when you don't mow it? Yeah, that's partly because it's getting a CRAP TON of sunlight dumped on it with reckless abandon.
A shade garden gets "weedy" WAY slower, and unlocks all sorts of gorgeous flowers that don't thrive in a full sun garden. Fallen leaves serve both as compost and mulch. If you live in the right area for it and have room, you cannot go wrong with trees.
Also also:
Because lawns are such hard packed earth with a very thin layer of greenery and roots on, they are TERRIBLE at rain absorption and cumulatively a suburb full of lawns WILL flood more often and/or quickly than one with more 'natural' gardens like those derin has described
Lawns are also more prone to erosion because the root systems of turf grasses, as mentioned, are terrible at infiltrating deep into the soil, so don't hold it together the way a more robust and complex root system would
Trees are very good for biodiversity and wildlife AND can provide nice shade for a human on a hot day
i gotta whisper cause i can't be too loud, my girls in the next room....
Something something queer events
By Natalia Lopez De Anda
This is what happens when you sneak up behind a shark and surprise it.
Every time an author reassures readers that the smut is skippable I sigh a disappointed sigh. This is not a reassurance. Why would anybody who likes smut want to read smut that was only included as an afterthought and has no impact on the narrative? Insulting. Just don't write it at all if you're not going to make it matter.
#on the one hand I understand that some people don’t want to read smut
Like 85% of tumblr users hate and loathe embarrassment based comedy with every fiber of their beings, but never in my life have I ever seen an author reassure their audience that the embarrassing scenes are skippable.
Lots of people dislike tragedy but never in my life have I ever seen an author reassure the audience that the death and grieving scenes are skippable.
Stop trying to pass off self-censorship as “accommodation.” Stop trying to pass off pandering as “inclusivity.”
Your audience can smell your fear, and it smells rancid.
Photographer Debbie Parker captured this lightning strike in West Virginia. - Author: sco-go
so i went to track down the source of this image to see if there might be a before/after, and instead what i found was... a similar but different image???
this is the original, as reported in the june 29th 2022 edition of the moorefield examiner, linked here and also here. supposedly this still was taken from an iphone video, which makes sense. notice the motion blur on the lightning strike, and how the red/orange tones in the tree are blown out. the version shared by OP is comparatively much more evenly exposed. at first i thought it might be a separate still from the same video, but the closer you look the more conspicuous differences you notice.
for instance, this is NOT the same bush:
note as well that OP's version has the tree utterly unaffected by wind, where the original is clearly experiencing a strong gust:
there's also the fact that OP's version has more space on the bottom of the frame, which creates a more visually pleasing and balanced composition. but then, what about all that other stuff in the foreground at the bottom right? it's nowhere to be seen:
so, clearly OP's version has been shopped, probably with AI ("set extension" tools were some of the earliest functional implementations of generative image tech to hit the adobe suite iirc). stare at the doctored version long enough and you start noticing all sorts of weirdnesses. like what's going on here exactly?
why are these some of the only tree branches that occlude the path of the lightning bolt? it kind of looks like the tree only has branches on one side, the side facing away from the camera, in order to maximize the photographer's visibility.
but here's what gets me. OP's post still credits the original photographer, which is how i was able to track down the source image in the first place. if not for that credit, i'd have just assumed this was a real photo and moved on like everyone else. to be clear, i don't think OP is responsible for the modification. virtually all popular nature photography is already heavily doctored within acceptable limits, and anyway it's such an innocuous picture, so it's easy to imagine how something like this might slip under the radar. but it is a shocking example to stumble upon of how easy it can be for a real thing to have its sharpest edges sanded off without anyone noticing. i don't know what if any conclusions to draw from it (this is hardly a new phenomenon, the picture itself isn't particularly important, and again they still credited the original photographer) besides, i guess, to do a little digging on sources when the image in question DOES matter.
This is why Pride is not just a party. It's a joyful celebration, but it's also a pointed and colourful two-finger salute to a world that stood back whilst so many of us died. And we'll never go quietly, never again.
one of the funniest conversations I ever had with my ex was when they were still getting used to Celsius and asked me "what's 20 degrees?" and instead of converting it, I said "it's the highest your dad will ever let you set the thermostat and when you say you're cold he tells you to put on another sweater, we're not made of money" and they went "oh, 68"
the fact that this reference was that fucking precise was something they went on to tell people about for years.
I bring a real 'actually people who are pregnant do deserve some special consideration because they are effectively at least temporarily disabled if not permanently after some complications' vibe to the party that a lot of people don't seem to like
Hello person having transgender thoughts but convinced they aren't trans because they don't have the requisite amount of dysphoria they think they need
Hi I transitioned without even thinking I had dysphoria. Like later in hindsight I can go "oh that's probably what it was" but for the first year of my transition I was straight up like "I like being a guy but I like being a girl WAY more" and you can do that!! There is no prerequisite amount of suffering needed to make yourself happier.
Gonna include these tags cuz they're good
I hope you get your favorite food this week and your favorite drink and your favorite 2k dollars
I'm sorry there's no magic in this post I'm just talking. I hope good stuff happens to people online I hope good things happen to all of us