Ken Kaminski
Stranger Things
Game of Thrones Daily

No title available

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
hello vonnie
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
h

Love Begins
occasionally subtle

Discoholic 🪩
$LAYYYTER

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Keni
Cosimo Galluzzi
Claire Keane
No title available
Sweet Seals For You, Always
tumblr dot com
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
we're not kids anymore.
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Switzerland

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Türkiye

seen from Thailand

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Italy

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
@ceeesaw
Ken Kaminski
i’m bisexual
Just remember. There is no such thing as a fake geek girl. There are only fake geek boys. Science fiction was invented by a woman.
Specifically a teenage girl. You know, someone who would be a part of the demographic that some of these boys are violently rejecting.
Isaac Asimov.
yo mary shelley wrote frankenstein in 1818 and isaac asimov was born in 1920 so you kinda get my point
If you want to push it back even further Margaret Cavendish, the duchess of Newcastle (1623-1673) wrote The Blazing World in 1666, about a young woman who discovers a Utopian world that can only be accessed via the North Pole - oft credited as one of the first scifi novels
Women have always been at the forefront of literature, the first novel (what we would consider a novel in modern terms) was written by a woman (Lady Muraskai’s the Tale of Genji in the early 1000s) take your snide “Isaac Asimov” reblogs and stick it
even in terms of male scifi authors, asimov was predated by Jules Verne, HG Wells, George Orwell, you could have even cited Poe or Jonathan Swift has a case but Asimov?
PbbBFFTTBBBTBTTBBTBTTT so desperate to discredit the idea of Mary Shelly as the mother of modern science fiction you didn’t even do a frickin google search For Shame
And if you want to go back even further, the first named, identified author in history was Enheduanna of Akkad, a Sumerian high priestess.
Kinda funny, considering this Isaac Asimov quote on the subject:
Mary Shelley was the first to make use of a new finding of science which she advanced further to a logical extreme, and it is that which makes Frankenstein the first true science fiction story.
Even Isaac Asimov ain’t having none of your shit, not even posthumously.
You know what else was invented by women? Masked vigilantes, the precursor to the modern superhero. Baroness Emma Orczy wrote The Scarlet Pimpernel in 1905. The character would later inspire better known masked vigilantes such as Zorro and Batman.
Got that?
Stick that in your international pipe and smoke it
I have literally been telling people this for over a year.
the first extended prose piece - ie a novel, was not, as many male scholars will shout, Don Quixote (1605) but The Tale of Genji (1008) written by a woman
The first autobiography ever written in English is also attributed to a woman, The Book of Margery Kempe (1430s).
The day may come when I find this post and do not reblog it, but it is not this day.
Women invented language while men were hunting. I mean…
Killer Whale using fish as bait to catch birds
In retrospect, I’m fairly certain my high school boyfriend’s personality was 90% trying to be Jim from ‘The Office’
Come on, fellas. Let's get it together.
It’s incredible how much women do behind the scenes. I know a realtor who relies strongly on his girlfriend’s charisma, beauty and personality to gain clients.
I’ve just been reading The Glass Universe by Dava Sobel, about the Harvard women who supported the bulk of astronomy research there over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While many of them did receive public and academic credit as well as pay - although the university always resisted making any of them faculty until the 1950s - almost all the male astronomers featured were married to accomplished women in their own right, many of them scientists, and you can bet their husbands weren’t putting them on all their papers.
Which has bled into the modern academic world, where many people are expected to do what was essentially a two-person job (filled by male academic + wife) by themselves, or while married to someone else trying to do the same thing. The lack of acknowledgement of women’s work fucks everybody over.
#people who want a return to the mythical prior era #when women did not work #do not want women to stop working #they want them to stop getting credit and pay for it
This reminds me of how early film history, it was always the male director’s wife who did the editing of the films, because the cutting and connecting of film strips was considered a lot like sewing. Of course, anyone who knows anything about film and editing can tell you it changes how good a movie is very easily.
Don’t believe me? Look at the differences between the famous Jaws as the public’s release of it (insisted upon by the female editor) and spielberg, the male director’s version of it (missing basic suspense methods, shows the phony shark too much, etc). Same goes for almost every tarantino film. Editing makes or breaks a film and even today, you can bet your socks editing “the invisible art” was pioneered and is still pushed by women.
^^^^^^ This is so true! And once film editing began to be recognized as an actual art form, women were shoved out of the editing room so that men could be artistic or whatever.
Also Tarantino referred to his favorite editor as being kind of like his mom or something and I swear to god the more I see of him, the less I like him.
The “female editor” for Jaws was Verna Hellman Fields, who cut many other notable films, including American Graffiti along with Marcia Lucas.
Tarantino’s “favorite editor” was Sally JoAnne Menke who edited all of Tarantino’s films until she died.
Because naming and credit is important, especially when you’re talking about women not getting credit and recognition of their work as named individuals.
If you want to know more about women in early filmmaking (emphasis American) and the sociology of how different roles were divided, gendered, and re-gendered in the first decades, I highly recommend Women Filmmakers in Early Hollywood by Karen Ward Mahar.
There are a number of other books to follow that, but it’s 2am and I’m tired so hit me up later for them.
You know what happens when women type? They EDIT. It is a service they are expected to provide invisibly - not to let a mistake or imperfection show to their husband’s audience, but also not to intrude upon his sense that this is all his ideas and his labor. Wives are the unacknowledged story and script doctors, and often co-authors for so many supposedly male-authored works.
Also, I second Women Filmmakers in Early Hollywood. Mahar was my history prof for three or four courses and she is incredibly knowledgeable and engaging.
Speaking anecdotally, there are a good number of rockstar PhD candidates in my program who are only able to put in the hours that they do because their wives function as personal assistants/editors/housekeepers/chefs while they finish up their degrees. I’m not knocking the folks who choose to do this, but the labor of their silent partner is rarely acknowledged and it’s just assumed that they’re preternaturally talented or dedicated. I’ve rarely (never) seen this dynamic reversed, and I’m in a field with a fairly equitable gender ratio.
Thisssssss
“with two aching fingers, my wife typed out the whole manuscript. In addition, she has done all those little chores…”
Everything about this is a masterpiece: the girl that says “wow” and the girl that says “hi” shyly and bill awkwardly lifting his hand to say hi to them I’m cracking THE FUCK UP
Tbh this is one of my favorite things that's ever existed & I love it
me: My highlighter is on point
Ledor: I'm not wearing any, I'm just sweaty from the cocaine
The best thing coming out of Black Panther is the renewed calls for the release of jailed Black Panther members who’ve been incarcerated for decades. The FBI’s terrorism unit had labeled them “black identity extremists”, claiming that activists fighting police brutality posed a violent threat.
An incomplete list of Black Liberation political prisoners (Black Panthers and other groups) still inside:
Joe Joe Bowen, born 1946, in prison since 1971
Veronza Bowers, born 1946, in prison since 1973
Sundiata Acoli, born 1937, in prison since 1969
Chip Fitzgerald, born 1949, in prison since 1970, denied parole 17 times.
Fred Burton, born 1946, in prison since 1970
Mumia Abu-Jamal, born 1954, in prison since 1982
Ruchell Magee, born 1939, in prison since 1963,
Ronald Reed, born 1950, in prison since 1970,
Jamil Al-Amin, born 1943, in and out of prison from the 1970s to the 1990s on a series of suspicious charges, currently incarcerated
Rev. Joy Powell, born 1962, in prison since 2006, eligible for parole in 2045
Freddie Hilton, born 1953, in prison since 2002
Robert Hayes, born 1948, in prison since 1973
Russell Maroon Shoates, born 1943, in prison since 1972, held in solitary confinement for 22 years
Tony Hawk lands a 900 at age 48!
🐐🐐🐐
This is my “Grow Like a Vine” Spread
If you’re like me, you want to learn everything and have all skills and try to pursue all things at once. I made this spread to help focus in on just one skill or trait to develop at a time. The idea is that when you have a baby plant, it requires more care and attention to survive and grows very quickly when it is well cared for. Once it’s fairly strong, then it’s time to let it grow at its own steady pace along with all the other things you’re working on and move on to the next until your garden of skills is happily and peacefully growing.
1. What skill/trait should you focus on? This is your seedling.
2. How should you approach this? Do I plant from seed? Do I take a cutting and propagate? Is there a class I can take? Should I make a schedule and work on this for ten minutes a day? Is it a more passive trait that I need to work on through metacognition all day?
3. What do you need to set yourself up for success? Plants need to be set up in the right conditions to thrive. They need to be placed where they get the right amount of sunlight and the right humidity. They need the right soil. What conditions do you need to set for yourself to thrive?
4. What is the outcome/what will this help you reach? I won’t call this the “end result” because your vine should keep growing and reach further and further. What does this skill/trait help you reach if you nurture it?
storenvy | instagram | ko-fi
Ropes + photography by fred-rx // model: Gorgone // Swiss Alps 2015
Learn to defend against a bigot grabbing your hijab from behind!
In this post-election hate-crime spike, self defense is more important than ever. Practice this move until it becomes muscle memory and teach your body to react before thinking.
(via Zee Abdulla)
Signal boost. Anyone know if this would work equally as well if he grabbed with his other hand? I feel it wouldn’t, but it’s still better than nothing.
If the attacker used the other hand, then the woman wearing the hijab could use the opposite arm than is shown. SO PRACTICE BOTH SIDES.
Also please note the position of her arm on his. It’s not on the elbow but just above it. That is will be important for the submission. The grip on her hand is important as well. It looks like she is using a monkey grip where the thumb stays with the fingers of the hand instead of wrapping around. It protects your thumb from being broken and can be a stronger grip in general.
But yes, practice practice practice practice
Btw, if you click on her name, Zee Abdulla, in the post it takes you to her Facebook where she has another video for a defense for a front hijab grab.
women have a hard time refusing a coffee order that someone got wrong because they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and people are surprised that we get manipulated during the very vulnerable and threatening atmosphere of sex with men
Fêtes galantes / Paul Verlaine ; illustrations de George Barbier, 1928.
Typ 915.28.8680
Houghton Library, Harvard University
death proof
Why do stars have four “arm-twinkles” that look like a cross coming out of the star?
Short answer: They don’t!
Longer answer: It’s actually light diffracting around the four arms (called spider legs) holding up the secondary mirror of a telescope! For the stars above it’s four spider legs from the stars because the Hubble Space Telescope took these images and its secondary mirror has four arms holding the secondary - for other telescopes the diffraction could be different depending on how the secondary mirror is held up.
Here’s apicture of the Hubble’s secondary mirror design:
Three of the four “spider arms” are visible and I drew red lines next to them so you could see what they look like.
(Image credit: NASA and ESA )
While they’re at it, they could point out that almost all the colors in space photos are faked too
“Faked” is a huge simplification of that. Actually most of the space images you see are detections of colors the human eye can’t see… like x-ray, gamma or radio wave light. By converting these colors into pictures visible to the human eye we aren’t lying… we are allowing ourselves to actually see and study the universe - not to mention make a massive fraction of the invisible reality totally visible to the average person. Uh, you’re welcome? ;) :P
It’s even more complicated than that. Some of the images are not “true color” even though they are actually taken in visible light. Let me explain with an image I made:
This is an image of M101. It *looks* like a true color image, but it’s not. That is because it is a composite of these two images:
The top one is an exposure taken through a B (”blue”) filter while the bottom one is taken through a “V” (”visible”) filter. The B band is centered on 445nm or blue wavelengths whereas the V band is centered on 551 nm or yellow/green wavelengths. These two images when overlaid would not make an easily viewable image, so I made the V image orange so they became complementary colors.
But! It gets more complicated still. You see, when you take an image through a telescope, the CCD (your “camera”) always produces an output in greyscale. The greyscale image’s appearance can be further altered by changing the way the counts on the CCD are displayed as values on your computer screen.
This here is a linear stretch. It would look very different with a histogram equalization stretch, while still actually being the same image.
You can only get color images by combining two or three different greyscale images, and dyeing them different colors. Sometimes, you take an image through a red, green, and a blue filter, and then when you combine them, it roughly approximates a “true color” image. However, as you have control over the intensity and contrast of each component color, the resulting image can be made to look differently.
Two ways of making a composite.
Sometimes you want to combine images taken through filters that focus in on specific spectral lines. Sometimes these spectral lines are in the same region of the color spectrum. For example, the famous Hubble “pillars of creation” image actually contains two red spectral line components, one due to hydrogen, and one due to sulfur. To make the composite image easier to read, one of these red wavelengths was recolored blue.
The image would basically be mostly red if they didn’t do this.
And of course, as @antikythera-astronomy said, there are always false-color images of light wavelengths we cannot see, such as this radio image of mine:
So, what does this all mean for images being faked or not?
The Answer: None of the images of space taken by telescopes are what they would look like to your eyes, but that’s okay, because what is the point of a telescope if it just mimics what your eyes see?
The human eye cannot distinguish colors at all for low surface brightness objects such as galaxies or nebulae. If you ever look through a personal telescope at a galaxy, what you see is a faint smudge. That first galaxy whose image I posted? I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and it looked like a blurry grey blob with faint grey spokes. Even if you were in a spacecraft blazing your way through the Orion Nebula, you wouldn’t be able to see its colors. The surface brightness is just too faint.
Even though none of these images is a “true color” image, none of them are faked either, because each is actually visualization of a scientific measurement. They are merely ways we can use our computers to present to us the results of measurements of photon counts, wavelengths, and position on the sky, it’s like changing the scale on a graph, or a map. It’s not fake, just…different. Hopefully this has been…enlightening.
Oh god I am horrible.
Well said and great pictures!