rip to all the “fuckyeah___” blogs that carried our society at one point </3
we are in the midst of a true Real One
Dude the fact a COELACANTH blog is the one that survived when the rest died off……..
tumblr dot com

Love Begins
Cosmic Funnies

Origami Around
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
Sade Olutola
cherry valley forever

PR's Tumblrdome

oozey mess
Noah Kahan
macklin celebrini has autism
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
h
RMH
Fieri Frames
The Bowery Presents

#extradirty
art blog(derogatory)
untitled

if i look back, i am lost

seen from Malaysia

seen from Cyprus

seen from Hong Kong SAR China

seen from Italy

seen from Netherlands

seen from Malaysia
seen from Belgium

seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine

seen from France
seen from Brazil

seen from Bangladesh

seen from Singapore

seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Bangladesh
@beautifulcrescendo
rip to all the “fuckyeah___” blogs that carried our society at one point </3
we are in the midst of a true Real One
Dude the fact a COELACANTH blog is the one that survived when the rest died off……..
mint Oreos are the Andes mints of the cookie world
May he plow the Lord’s fields in heaven
Dave Brandt was probably the longest running no-till farmer in the state; he'd been running his land no-till since 1971. He experimented with fertilizers, cover crops, and different irrigation techniques and he'd been doing all of that for a very long time.
The guy was an institution all on his own; look at this.
The “A” profile in his soil is now 47 inches deep compared to less than 6 inches in 1971 and acts like a giant sponge for water infiltration and retention.
From 1971 through 1989 David used an average of 150-250 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre to grow his corn crops. After adding peas and radishes as a cover crop mix, he cut his nitrogen needs in half and was able to get it down to 125 pounds per acre.
When he added multiple species and became more aggressive with his cover crop mixes, he was able to achieve an additional drop in applied fertility. His starter fertilizer is now just 2 lbs of N, 4 lbs of P, and 5 lbs of K. His corn crop now only requires 20-30 lbs of N throughout the entire growing season. He requires no fertility for his soybeans, relying on fertility gained solely through his cover crops. He uses only 40 lbs of 10 N – 10 P – 10 K for his small grains.
Ten years ago (source study published 2019) David stopped using any fungicides and insecticides. This occurred at a time when fungicide and insecticide use has increased significantly with the average commodity farmer.
Four years ago he stopped using any seed treatment, including neonicotinoids.
His cash crop yields have been increasing by an average of 5% annually for the past 5-6 years, with far less fertilizer and no fungicides, insecticides or seed treatment.
What started as a basic heavy clay soils when David purchased the farm in 1971 have been officially re-classified by Ohio State University soil scientists as a highly fertile silty loam soil.
I know I've said it before, but--that first point, there, about the "A" profile of his soil? Every time I think of it, I am taken aback with genuine awe.
So this is a picture of the soil horizons. The O profile/O horizon is stuff like fallen leaves, sticks, and so on, which are biodegrading into the A profile. A fair amount of soils might have no O profile at all.
If you are a gardener, the A profile is what you're concerned with most of the time; it's what we also call "topsoil." Your seeds germinate into it, and shallower plants might root into it alone without ever reaching the B profile. Worms and other small delvers live in it. It's what you're amending, what you're testing, what you're tilling, what you're trying to fill up with good microorganisms to work with your plants and provide you with food or flowers or cover.
I see this quote around sometimes, attributed to radioman Paul Harvey: Man — despite his artistic pretensions, his sophistication, and his many accomplishments — owes his existence to a six inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.
Without the topsoil, bluntly, we starve. And there are other problems, in places with a lack of it; without the topsoil, when the rains come, the water strikes hard soil. Hard soil doesn't accept water easily, so instead it pools and runs downhill. That action makes flooding, makes flash floods, makes standing water that carries disease, it contaminates the water table. Cholera is a huge problem in places with a low A profile that receive too much water at once.
We are seeing topsoil depletion across the US. I can't speak for other countries, but the heavy-tilling agricultural habits we've adopted here have obliterated inch after inch of our topsoil; in the 1800s the average depth was fourteen inches! Today it is six. Many suburban lawns have even less. This has knock-on effects we don't even consider on the day-to-day (for instance, there's some suggestion that the lower amounts of various minerals in vegetables and fruits today in comparison with earlier decades might be because of the lower amount of minerals in the soil for the plants to take up into themselves).
And this gentleman took soil that had been that abused and not only returned it to what it had been before the aggressive, destructive European agricultural policy had its way, but trebled that earlier depth.
His land protects the land around it from flooding. His land grows plants less susceptible to disease, because of all the various stressors and pressures those plants aren't confronted with. His land almost certainly has a considerably higher concentration of microorganisms and it would follow that we'd also see greater diversity of macroorganisms thereby.
Honestly, it just takes my breath away.
do you ever think about how a series of tiny choices like "I guess I'll watch that show" can like totally and entirely change huge aspects of your life
My anxiety, depression and ADHD interacting
I heard they literally did this for an hour, stoned out of their fucking minds
Incredible
God I cant help but giggle at skits like these 🤭
This was the 8 minute mark
"it's all in your head" correct! unfortunately I am also in there
I love sanders sides because it is, fundamentally, the story of a man learning to love and accept all the different parts of himself, but all the parts of himself are gay and stupid and he is also gay and stupid
The two true sides to myself: gay and stupid.
I checked the date on the original post and it's December 11, 2021. That was the day after I came home from college, immediately after the semester where I had a breakdown that collapsed my health into chaos and dissolved my identity and goals.
This post is me at rock bottom, and that makes it so much funnier
What do you believe in now?
self preservation through love
chupacapra
Chupacabra as well
i like it too much i put them on my tv
Troy Bolton | High School Musical (2006)
More than half of companies that have done away with DEI policies or scaled them back say it was political pressure or public scrutiny that
No you guys you have to read to the part where they reveal one of the most common reasons the companies are bringing them back:
Toothacre also notes some irony in one of the common reasons companies are bringing back DEI policies. “Thirty-three percent said it was harder to hire diverse talent. What did they think was going to happen when they eliminated all of their DEI initiatives? And so they inadvertently created an environment that said, ‘Hey, we don’t care if you are comfortable here or not,’” she said.
Note that about 75% of all the responding companies say that their policy on DEI initiatives is ultimately driven by the bottom line. Do not ever expect a company to behave like a human person; at their cores, corporations are creatures of pure profit. Exceptions to the norm are typically privately owned rather than publicly traded and even then you're basically at the mercy of the collective judgment of a super rich guy or, worse, family with varying levels of generational insulation from any perspective held by someone who has to work for a living.
Anyway. Back to the article. A solid third of companies that rolled back their DEI initiatives are already bringing them back (33%). 21% of that total are doing it "quietly" by sneaking back the submission forms, changing the language, and hoping no one notices they caved, and 12% are openly admitting they made a mistake (like companies normally do when they alter policy). Of the rest? Only 40% of all companies that destroyed DEI initiatives aren't currently discussing or considering any new DEI investment. The remaining 27% of companies that cut back DEI are in various stages of internal discussion about restoring DEI initiatives.
Y'all, people are pushing back. One third of these DEI coward companies reported collective pushback from employees strong enough that they had to take notice. Two thirds of the total companies experienced noticeable consequences of rolling back DEI investment—and for the most part, these consequences weren't coming from boycotts. (These were least likely to be cited as consequences at 9% of companies reporting, but certainly capable of nailing a company in the profits — ask Target.) but from people doing the hard, uncomfortable, risky feeling work of speaking up at their workplaces, turning down job offers or quitting and saying why, changing jobs or organizing unions or agitating for these roles to come back. Workers, who collectively have much more power within a company than customers, are leading the charge here. Thank you, worker-organizers!
I'm a government consultant and a HUGE chunk of our work in the past few months has just been editing agencies' DEI initiatives to include different language that can fly under the radar while not changing the organization's policies or priorities. We're not getting rid of DEI, we're just disguising it.
It's still a horrible use of taxpayer money, because every word change and policy tweak takes a laughable amount of time and effort, but yeah this article doesn't surprise me at all. The only danger now is how long the new wording will be safe until conservatives decide that it's also offensive and we have to switch it up again
What are they looking at?
fuckkk yes home depot please sell me big red button I want big red button so bad
You know the Grimm version of Snow White makes more sense than most versions if only because in that version Snow White was like 7 years old.
Like imagine you find a 7 year old in the woods and she’s like my mom is gonna kill me because I’m prettier than her and she’s not kidding. You know this queen is that sort of person. So you and your roommates adopt the kid and tell her don’t talk to strangers. And she keeps talking to strangers and getting poison combs stuck in her hair and whatnot.
Like yeah that’s kinda stupid but also she’s seven. She likes apples.
Also imagine it from the hunter’s perspective. The queen tells you this bitch is prettier than me I need you to take her out in the woods and kill her. And then you see who you’re supposed to kill and it’s a 2nd grader. Like how are you supposed to react to that sort of situation? Kill a human child? No. Because you’re not a brainless evil minion you’re just some guy dealing with a cartoonishly evil monarch. Of course you let her go.
Bad look for the Prince of course. Even if she did age while she was in that glass case. He saw a dead woman and just decided to keep her. And once she stopped being dead he was like we’re married now
He did cause the evil queen to dance to death in red hot shoes though. That was kinda cool.
With the acknowledgement that I'm grasping at straws, is it ever directly confirmed that the Prince wasn't also 7?
See, I think that still works.
You are the guardsman assigned to protect the eight-year-old Prince. You are currently in the middle of the forest because he absolutely had his heart set on "going hunting", and the royal second-grader should definitely not be traipsing around the woods on his own. You let him go a little on ahead and he comes running back talking about how there's a dead girl in the clearing and there's no-one else around and he wants to take her home because she's really pretty, Hans, and she's all alone!
You let him drag you to said clearing and okay, that is one angelic-looking dead child alright, and on the one hand the quality of her clothes and the craftsmanship on the coffin (who builds a see-through coffin?) speak to potential Consequences if you simply carry her off, but also for the amount of vines that have grown on the coffin she looks extraordinarily un-decayed, so you should probably get the court alchemist's opinion on that, and there's no way he's going to come all the way out here in his embroidered velvet curly-shoes. And also this kid is technically assigned by God as your natural superior, or something.
So fine. You hoist the coffin onto your shoulder (it's not like the Prince can do it. He's eight.) and head back toward the castle, Prince chattering blithely all the way. And then you turn your ankle on a rock and suddenly there's a thump and a cough and a lot of shouting from inside the coffin and you have now become a key player in a tense political incident with the next kingdom over.
You should probably ask for a raise.
"Dangerous"