oozey mess
JVL
One Nice Bug Per Day
Peter Solarz
ellievsbear
tumblr dot com
todays bird
Misplaced Lens Cap
Product Placement
★
noise dept.
$LAYYYTER
we're not kids anymore.
⁂
No title available
ojovivo
Sade Olutola
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
No title available
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
seen from Denmark
seen from South Korea
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
@boss-duck
ao3 and youtube links!
Here's my ao3: https://archiveofourown.org/users/boss_duck/pseuds/boss_duck
I write mostly FMA stuff because it is my favourite.
And here's my youtube: www.youtube.com/@boss_duck
I post AMVs that I make.
I maintain that the best summation of my feminist beliefs are that men and women are not fundamentally different. There are a few quantifiable differences if you average out every woman and every man, but they are not qualitative. And most of them are socially constructed, and would be fixed if we started treating men and women the same. Neither is inherently smarter, neither is inherently kinder, neither is inherently more stoic or stronger or angrier or softer. Everyone is obsessed with the differences between women and men, with finding them and creating them and distancing themselves from the "other half". It's fucked up
all women should be more hairy and sweaty and eat more food and laugh more loudly. my stance as a feminist and also my stance as a lesbian pervert
You know how there's like some mathematician or something, who like did some useful stuff but is primarily known for overshadowing that work by going to great lengths trying to convince people to blow up the moon or something?
I wanna be like that but the hill I'm dying on is that the moon should be considered a planet
Stop tagging this about the Unabomber it's not about the Unabomber, it's about time we give the other fucked up mathematicians some recognition, it's about this fucking guy
OP you're right and you should say it. There are 9 planets in the solar system and two of them are in a binary planetary system. I will die on this hill.
EXACTLY. EARTH-MOON IS A BINARY PLANET SYSTEM. AND I WILL BECOME NOTABLE FOR MY FREQUENT POSTS TO VARIOUS TUMBLR BLOGS AND MY ADVOCACY FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE MOON AS A PLANET.
Now, dear reader, you might say: "But three of the Jovian moons and Titan are bigger than the Moon!". And to that I say yes, but two of those are bigger than Mercury also and people aren't usually upset about that. Plus all of those are satellites of bodies that are completely incomparable in scale.
Ganymede, the biggest moon in the solar system, is 0.008% the mass of Jupiter. The Moon is a bit over 1.2% of Earth's mass and a solid 27% of its radius. There's no other planet* in the solar system with a satellite anywhere close to the kind of similarity in size that the Earth-Moon system has.
You might also say "Fine but it's literally called 'The Moon' so that's a bit silly". To which I say that I've been calling it that to be more easily understood but it would be extremely easy to switch to calling it "Luna" which is what most people do when they encounter situations where saying "The Moon" creates ambiguity - like when writing sci-fi or a nontrivial amount of astronomical research.
In conclusion, lumping Luna in with the satellites of other bodies is unhelpful because it is geophysically distinct from most of them, and orbitally distinct from all of them. Luna is a planet and it's rad that we can see one so clearly in the night sky.
[*No, Pluto is not a planet, but yes Pluto-Charon is totally a dwarf planet binary]
I'll integrate this into my belief system but only because it's funny
hello???? hello??????????? have we walked into the twilight zone or something??????????? yes, the moon is a percentage (a percentage almost exactly) of earth’s mass, but that doesn’t magically make us a binary system! the barycenter is still well within the diameter of earth! what next, are you going to say that since deimos and phobos orbit mars, they’re actually a trinary planetary system?? you fucking better not!
Hi, I'm an astrophysicist, I am well aware of the IAU (International Astronomical Union) definition of a planet. It is a definition that is relatively controversial and doesn't really make a lot of sense - it was mostly written to prevent the list of planets from getting too long as we discovered more dwarfs. This definition does not include anything to do with barycentres - I'll get back to that.
The IAU definition of a planet has 3 parts:
1. Object in orbit around our Sun
2. Object has reached hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. it's a sphere, not a potato)
3. Object has cleared its neighborhood around its orbit
Both Earth and Luna satisfy 2. I will accept that 1 is debatable, but the crux of my argument is that Luna is the size of a terrestrial planet (yes, ~1% of Earth's mass, but still huge and of roughly the same order of magnitude as Mercury, which is a mere ~5% of Earth's mass) and exceptionally large relative to its orbital partner compared to any other "satellite", a factor the IAU does not account for.
It's important to note that 1 literally does not permit binary planets - even if both bodies are identical, one must be the "moon". This is major criticism of the IAU definition. It also doesn't account for exoplanets or rogue planets, but that's another story.
3 is where this definition falls apart. You could easily argue that most of the planets in our solar system fail depending on how you interpret it, because it's so fuzzy. The Earth fails, because there's a planet-sized body chilling out in its orbit (Luna), Jupiter fails because it has huge quantities of asteroids trapped in its Lagrange points, etc.
In the latter case, we say that because Jupiter is determining the motion of these bodies, it still counts. For the Earth we simply ignore Luna and say that the rule is more about stray bodies than orbital partners. But by the same logic we can say that for Luna we ignore the Earth, and Luna passes.
So I would argue that the IAU definition is bad, but if you fixed it so that it allowed binary systems to exist, it would readily define Luna as a planet in my view (if you deleted the Earth from the solar system and left Luna, it would unambiguously meet the criteria).
Now let's talk about barycentres.
The barycentre of two bodies in orbit is just their overall centre of mass. People often point to the external barycentre of the Pluto-Charon system to indicate that they are binary dwarfs. However, this is a poor metric in my view, because it's highly dependent on orbital distance.
The centre of mass of the Earth-Luna system is inside the Earth at present, but if Luna simply orbited further away, the barycentre would be in the empty space between them, with nothing about the two bodies individually, or the qualitative nature of their orbits, having changed. In fact, given enough time and pretending the Sun won't consume both bodies in a few billion years, Luna would actually drift far enough away due to tidal interactions for this to happen - it would be silly for it to suddenly be a planet one day when it wasn't the day before.
To answer your question, no. I would under no circumstances argue that the martian moons are planets. They are minuscule space potatoes that are not even large by the standards of asteroids. If Mars were close enough in mass to them for the system to be considered plausibly trinary, it would be far too small to even qualify as a dwarf planet (and there's no way such a system would be gravitationally stable to perturbation by Jupiter regardless).
@hereticalteapot Thank you so much for laying this all out! I totally agree. Something that's motivating to me is the fact that Luna is more gravitationally attracted to the Sun than to Earth- and by that definition is orbiting the Sun, not the Earth. This is not true of any other "moons" in our solar system except some which are not even large enough to become spheres- so this is another way in which it is different from the moons in our system.
It's really frustrating to me when people lash out and say "You're wrong because there's a definition, for the love of god look up the definition" about a topic where I think it's clear my point is that I KNOW the definition and I disagree with it. And that's allowed! Definitions are made up! "Planets" are made up, and I think we should make them up differently!
All the things in our solar system are just different kinds of rocks dancing to each other's gravity- they're all affected by each one's gravity, even in tiny ways. They do not fall neatly into subcategories "planet" and "not a planet" - we made this distinction up because we wanted it. We noticed that some of the bodies in our solar system seemed much more important and dominant than others and we wanted a name for that. But the planets don't know that- they don't have an inherent major distinction between them, nor are they obligated to. When we wanted to come up with a way to clearly decide which bodies were planets, we had to make something up.
What we made up is a little bit vague, and even if it were extremely clear cut, we could still debate whether it was a reasonable or intuitive or useful definition.
In science we have lots of definitions, and they aren't handed down by god, they're made by people, and they are made to be useful, and when they aren't useful or reasonable, they can be and should be and are changed. Knowing which things fit which definitions is part of science, but another part of science is thinking critically about whether things SHOULD be defined, how they should be defined, whether definitions need to be changed, and other things like this- and that's messier than just knowing facts. But that's science.
I hate to say it folks, but my fondness for the "Luna is a planet" argument might not just be because it's silly and I like to be silly. It might be a really convenient training ground for thinking about definitions which are social constructs in other contexts. Like race, sex, gender, disability, economics. These things, like planets, are made up. They are very real, don't get me wrong! They are real because we made them up! But what, exactly, they are... we decided it. And we could decide differently. We have that power. If you don't like something because it doesn't fit a definition- that's not really an argument against it. Because the definition could be changed. Should it be?
This is all great points and you're so right.
Also for any barycenter definition fans - the barycenter of Luna and Jupiter is within Jupiter. I think we can all agree Luna is not a moon of Jupiter.
Something else to note is that IAU bylaws require a new definition to be voted on to be circulating for at least a year in the scientific community. The one voted on in 2006 was drafted the same day. Also, the vote was specifically and carefully planned such that most of the planetary scientists who were only there for specific parts of the conference relevant to their fields had left already. It was rigged and in violation of their own bylaws, so I think its well past time we stop listening to this absurd definition.
What the absolute fuck I can't believe election rigging is part of this story lmfao
Alexander Abian blogging from the dead
Prev I would really like you to explain what you meant by some of this because I think I'm not aware of some physics you're referring to. But. On the other hand. I am SLIGHTLY afraid to ask.
i am Incapable of putting things into words in any reasonable manor so instead i have drawn a handy diagram
Well. I guess that helps.
I really liked this Agatha from today's page so I finished coloring her under the word balloon
hobbit love on new year’s eve
tried something different idk if i like or not
before you stab someone: THINK!
how can you make it Tender?
how can you make it Homoerotic?
how can you make it Implicitly intimate?
how can you make it Noticeably a metaphor for sex?
how can you make it Kind of gay?
you've heard of death of the author, now get ready for death of the audience: where instead of basing your reaction on a thousand uninformed opinions online, you actually read the text and engage with it
girl help there's people on this post who can't actually read my text
#the way that this is literally how death of the author works lmao
OKAY i'm fucking sick of people who can't read leaving these comments so here we go, we're gonna read Barthes together. hold my hand
Barthes' 1967 essay The Death of the Author (La mort de l'auteur) loosely takes the form of a literary history: he relates the changing attitudes of criticism towards the text and of literature towards criticism down to his day. He is interested in what writing is, and thus, what a book is: "a tissue of signs," which the critic claims to be able to interpret. But Barthes argues that once the necessity of connecting the author to the book is removed, the critic has no work to do: "Once the Author is gone, the claim to 'decipher' a text becomes quite useless." This is a rejection of both the supremacy of the critic and the intentions of the author.
When Barthes says "critic," he doesn't mean "anyone who has encountered the text," however. He differentiates the critic from the "reader":
the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination.
For Barthes, the reader's understanding of the text is supreme because it weaves together the "tissue of signs" into a coherent whole, producing a singular interpretation. He concludes by advocating for the overthrow of the critical establishment in favor of individual interpretation: "to restore to writing its future, we must reverse its myth: the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author." In other words, in order for us to allow readers their own experiences, we must stop prioritizing the critic -- not the reader, but the critic -- and instead allow the reader to engage the text.
We're gonna un-Barthes Barthes now, okay? Stay with me. Here's the context:
Barthes was responding to a stifling and rigid environment in which criticism was the sole province of the academic expert. As part of the deconstructionist wave, he wanted to upend the traditional hierarchy that dictated how a text should be understood and what it was for, instead prioritizing language and reaction.
He got his wish. We live in a world of reaction.
Gone is the tyranny of the formal critic; gone even is the formal literary education of the reader. Our "tissue of signs" is no longer the text, but an infinite mirrored hall of reactions to reactions to reactions in which the text diminishes into a vanishing point, as the Author once did on Barthes' literary stage.
We do not need to resist the tyranny of the academy. The academy has been destroyed. Adjunctification, the widespread corporatization of universities, the resulting devaluation of college degrees, the devastation of humanities departments in widespread shutdowns, and now the revocation of billions of dollars of government funding have left the academy on its knees. Public trust in academic expertise has declined so sharply that people on this very hellsite will tell you that if someone has an advanced degree in a specific field, that actually makes them less trustworthy.
And in Ozymandias' place, we have the reader.
The reader consumes a variety of "content" and regurgitates its reactions in a variety of "posts." It transmutes text into more text which further readers wriggle eagerly through, refining what might have had meaning into a rarefied fertilizer of emotion and echo. What it leaves behind becomes the literary history for new strata of reactions, nostalgia, and imitation.
This is the audience: an ouroboros of interpretation, a rat king of readership. It has no end but itself. Ultimately, it needs no text to function. In this world, the truly radical act is to disentangle yourself from the other worms and rebuild the edifice of meaning. This may require you to do such tasks as "read the actual book," but because we no longer have the support -- however oppressive -- of literary criticism to inform our reading, we must also learn how to read, explore the historical context on our own, and recover both the facts and the symbols from which the text is woven.
That is what death of the audience means: not a rejection of the critic in favor of language, but a rejection of endless language and infinite readers in favor of fact, history, and skill.
It's a pun, by the way: "La mort de l'auteur," spoken aloud, recalls Le Morte d'Arthur, a 15th-century collection of Arthurian legend which marked the turn away from the Middle Ages and into a nostalgic Early Modern period which valorized them. The Author becomes the mythic King; as myth, he can be severed from fact and dismissed.
Fact has now itself become the myth.
Fucking read.
There's just something about finally reaching a breaking point after you've been in a depressed, rotting funk for a while, and you suddenly look around and just are like... "You live like this, bitch? Damn, I don't know how to fix everything, but I can at least fucking clean."
And you just. Scrub. And scrub. And scrub. And cry. And scrub. Like cleaning all the gunk out of the microwave will also clean out all the gunk in your heart. You can still take out all the things you're feeling on the gross things. You can even scream at the dirt as you clean if you want.
And it's not a magical fix-all cure where once the room is sparkling and clean, your depression is magically gone. But holy fuck, it is so much better, even so.
Wonder Woman ⭐️ Save me big strong Amazon princess, big strong Amazon princess save me 🛐
Technically true.
He got the job.
He takes his job seriously.
Prof Rad over on youtube dubbed the Wolf Hunter comic (click here)!
Go check it out and give them some support! :) (also the end killed me haha) ₍ᐢ•ﻌ•ᐢ₎
The farmer sheared the sheep, and it was used to make a gift for Wolf Hunter, so…
Wolf Hunter goes to the village markets.
Wolf Hunter and his conga line of sheep.
Wolf Hunter was looking for them for a while.
Not a werewolf.
The disappearance. 🐑
The worst snowman.
I hope everyone who said transmascs, transneutrals, and trans men are protected from direct legal attacks understand how the FDA warnings aren't surprising. Like at all.
(Here's two of them: TomboyX and Untag)
Binders have been under scrutiny forever. One day they cause breast cancer; the next they collapse both lungs if you wear it for more than three hours. They hide the body gave you even though at the same time, they *should* be hidden. Just not like a boy.
According to TERFSs, binders are part of the tranny agenda to indoctrinate young girls into mutilating themselves. Trying to cement binders as medical devices rather than gender-affirming apparal is literally nothing but ROGD rhetoric treating transmasculinity as a plague ruining future housewives.
By their logic, *all* shapewear, including those made for women, should need FDA approval. TomboyX doesn't even sell binders. They're sold as compression bras and the site mentions trans and gnc ppl. You don't see sports bras marketed towards cis people qualified as medical devices.
The obvious loop holes would be to either go the Underworks direction, which requires time and many FDA approvals, or to wipe any mention of trans ppl from the sites designed to help us. It's just another attempt to make the US forget transmascs exist.
And for anyone who needs a reason to care other than this, many tgirls I know have used high compressions bras, trans tape, and even binders to boymode for their safety. Treating them like medical treatments enforces that transness is a mental illness for the entire community.
Quick addition that I should have included: this also affects a lot of intersex ppl, which is equally important whether trans or cis. Would love people to RB with this!
For the love of god if your native language is different from the majority language of the country you’re living in don’t raise your baby speaking the local language. Either have each parent speak to them in a different language or only speak your native language at home. The kid will be okay. Get your native language in their head. You may think you’re helping them in the long term giving them the local language but no. When they’re an adult they’ll wonder why you never taught them your language. They can and will learn the local language in school. They’ll be okay. Produce more bilingual children. They are good for society.
And also, being bilingual helps with executive function. Not all kids have to reach the same language development at the same time as everyone else, it’s okay to have your kid speaking in more complex sentences a month or so later than the “normal” kids.
I've studied the science linguistically but I'd like to put that aside. PLEASE teach your kid the native language. It can go so much deeper than "wondering why", it can create a schism-like pain when you know there's a heritage you have but all access has been cut off. Yes, ALL. If you're fortunate enough to visit the country of your native language but dont teach your kid, they will be miserable, quiet, and alone, and go through difficult phases of hating that heritage because the ladders were cut for them.
And in the United States, this starts young. I've seen teachers tell a Kazakhstani parent that she should tell her kid to speak English INSTEAD. The kid was 2 and a half. A friend's five year old told him "Dad this is America we dont speak Chinese". If you don't teach your kid your native language this country will wrest all pride and heritage from them by force. An occasional visit or two to the home country will not stop the bleeding.
The pain of not speaking the language of my heritage is something I don't wish on anyone. And that language is one of the most spoken in the world, imagine if your native language is rarer. What happens? What happens?
I was an ordinary native Hindi speaker until I was 6, and my Year 1 teacher contacted my parents. Don't speak anything but English to her, because she's already behind.
and my parents listened, not because they had no pride in their heritage, because they were unsure immigrants in a racist country raising a child 5000 miles from home. White people explain their ways are best. So it goes.
My all time favorite Hozier song is "Butchered Tongue" about the pain of Irish Gaelic being brutally stolen from them and how clinging to it and trying to revive what they have left is a deeply personal coming home within their hearts.
And I think often of the poem by Alice Te Punga Somerville from her book "Always Italicise: How to Write While Colonised."
Kupu rere kē
My friend was advised to italicise all the foreign words in her poems.
This advice came from a well-meaning woman
with NZ poetry on her business card
and an English accent in her mouth.
I have been thinking about this advice.
The publishing convention of italicising words from other languages
clarifies that some words are imported:
it ensures readers can tell the difference between a foreign language
and the language of home.
I have been thinking about this advice.
Marking the foreign words is also a kindness:
Every potential reader is reassured
that although obviously you’re expected to understand the rest of the text,
it’s fine to consult a dictionary or native speaker for help with the italics.
I have been thinking about this advice.
Because I am a contrary person, at first I was outraged —
but after a while I could see she had a point:
When the foreign words are camouflaged in plain type
you can forget how they came to be there, out of place, in the first place.
I have been thinking about this advice
and I have decided to follow it.
Now all of my readers will be able to remember
which words truly belong in Aotearoa and which do not.
One note from an Irish person with decent Irish. It is generally just called Irish/the Irish language in English. Referring to it Gaelic is a good way to land yourself in a bit of hot water with Irish people (though there's more nuance to it than most Irish people know)
The most word most Irish people know/use is Gaeilge, being the used in both An Caighdeán Oifigiúil (Standard/school Irish) and Connaught (primarily Conamara). Gaelainn is the word used in Munster, while Gaelic is used in Ulster
I think it's important to note that Butchered Tongue draws an explicit parallel between Indigenous American place names and Irish ones, between the loss of Irish and the loss of the hundreds of Native languages in what is now the United States.
As a child, it was the place names Singin' at me as the first thing How the mouth must be employed in every corner of itself To say "Appalacicola" or "Hushpukena, " like "Gweebarra" A promise softly sung of somewhere else
Theo the Christmas Dachshund
suddenly realized i haven't seen a single tumblr post about yesterday's ECJ ruling (that all EU countries must recognize same-sex marriages conducted in another EU country, even if the country in question does not have legal same-sex marriage). this is huge and feels like people on here would be more enthusiastic about it
European Union countries must recognize the lawful same-sex marriages of EU citizens conducted in other member states, the bloc's top court
