halcy

"done is better than perfect. now fucking do it."

[dknightlight]

Posting this iconic piece of media that I just NEVER found online isolated except in an archived reddit thread

[contemptible-scoundrel]

Ccan i hit?

I would parry every blow?

[wavetapper]

shirt that says I ♡ Leftist Infighting About Children's Cartoons

[wavetapper]

how the fuck does this have 10k and nobodys started shit in the notes. congrats guys you are so normal

[chilewithcarnage]

nightmare surveillance shit aside, this is so fucking funny

[melonisopod]

[ryo-maybe]

You really should reconsider man

[i-say-spooky-you-say-scary]

AI companies

[cosed]

there is no temptation greater on earth than that of museum gift shops

[huariqueje]

Lelies  22   -   Margot Olde Loohuis

Dutch, b. 1973  -

Oil on canvas , 80 x 120 cm

[hypotenussy]

the number 1 rule of fanfic is have fun and be yourself. the number 2 rule is the average healthy adult male can lose roughly 2 liters of blood before dying.

[thecharmingquirksofothers]

incredible prev tags

[abyssalz0ne-nsfmc]

okay so boring answer is technically none/as soon as an injury occurs, because your bodys response to an injury is to pull blood away from accessory muscles and towards your core/middle of the body. that plus the fact that the bodys fight or flight response typically kicks in upon injury and takes precedence over horny, youre probably losing the erection pretty quickly.

but there are of course exceptions, which brings us to the fun answer, around 700ml–1L of blood lose. if you want more stats, typically an erection uses up to 130ml of blood. this is obviously dependent on things like size and presumably other factors as well, but on average youre looking at 60–130ml. for reference, the average blood donation takes 400–500ml, or like 2 cups, and most people (assuming they dont normally having difficulty with it) can get it up just fine soon after donating.

[thirdity]

“There are many things that I do not know because I photocopied a text and then relaxed as if I had read it.”

— Umberto Eco, How to Write a Thesis

[scottpartridge]

Nighthawk, acrylic on panel

[digitalkiddo]

If you're writing anything involving cons, scams, heists, or morally questionable characters who are very good at lying, here are some free resources I've been using for research. Saving you the "why is this in my search history" anxiety.

1. The FBI's Famous Cases & Criminals archive (fbi.gov/history/famous-cases) has detailed breakdowns of real fraud cases, Ponzi schemes, and confidence operations. The language they use is clinical and precise, which is perfect for getting the procedural details right.

2. The FTC Consumer Sentinel Network publishes annual reports on the most common fraud tactics in the US. Great for understanding how modern scams actually work and what makes people fall for them.

3. The Smithsonian's American Art Museum has a free digital collection of forgery case studies. If your character forges documents or art, this is gold.

4. Court Listener (courtlistener.com) is a free legal database where you can read actual court transcripts from fraud trials. Want to know how a real con artist talks under oath? This is where you find out.

5. The Internet Archive's collection of old newspaper crime sections. Search for "confidence man" or "swindle" in papers from the 1920s through 1960s and you'll find incredible real stories that would feel too dramatic for fiction.

Bonus: The Psychology of Fraud section on the Association for Psychological Science website has accessible articles about why people trust, how deception works cognitively, and what makes someone a convincing liar. Essential reading if you want your con artist characters to feel psychologically real.

Reblog to save for later. Your WIP will thank you.

[diablo-sera-tops]

hey don't cry. blorbo coughing up blood

[diablo-sera-tops]

blorbo writhing in agony ok? don't cry

[diablo-sera-tops]

blorbo screaming so much their voice becomes hoarse and weak and the pain still won't stop

[diablo-sera-tops]

blorbo unable to close their eyes and avoid the visceral sight of their own body

[diablo-sera-tops]

blorbo suffering unimaginable pain and being powerless to stop it ok? ok

[gayhoediaz]

“it sounds like you’re justifying their actions-“ i am. they’re a fictional character. i’m okay with anything they do all the time. hope this helps.

[some-stars]

this shit from the comments is unironically so fucking sad to me. this is where we’re at now? “aren’t books supposed to have morals?” genuinely let’s all just pack it in and go home, we tried the whole “experiencing life and art at a greater complexity level than an eight year old can handle” thing and it didn’t work out, somebody break the news to oscar wilde, we’re done here. “books are meant to teach you something.” christ.

[napalm-waistcoat]

[bioloyg]

@astromachinations I actually need this on the post

[azspot]

“Because the truth is, tech doesn’t have an image problem. It doesn’t have a message problem. It has an intention problem. What’s wrong with the axe murderer who broke into my house is not that he hasn’t successfully persuaded me to buy into his narrative. What’s wrong is that he’s trying to kill me with an axe. Similarly, when you launch a product that’s designed to put millions of people out of work, block access to sources of verifiable truth, replace human creativity with slop, and lower the barriers to every sort of atrocity, the problem isn’t that you haven’t told the public a good story about those things. The problem is that you are trying to do them.”

— The 40 Most Rage-Inducing Problems in Tech

[toasthaste]

according to An Immense World, apparently giant squid eyes are, like, UNREASONABLY large, even for something their size living at those depths. the next largest eyes on earth, blue whale eyes, are less than half the size, and swordfish, who live at similar depths as giant squid and have the largest eyes of any fish, have eyes that could fit inside a giant squid's pupil.

eyes hit serious diminishing returns wrt resource costs vs vision quality as they get bigger, so the question became: what the FUCK do giant (and colossal) squid need to see so badly that they couldn't see with swordfish-sized eyes that's justifying that massive energy cost? that nothing else in the deep ocean needs to see so fucking badly??

turns out the one strength eyes that big really have over much smaller eyes is: seeing large glowing objects in water deeper than 500 meters from an appreciable distance.

sperm whales are the primary predator of giant squid. sperm whales don't glow. BUT! water that deep is full of bioluminescent creatures-- these creatures light up when bumped into. something a sperm whale's size is continuously bumping into those critters, it's just surrounded by a glowing field all the time when it's swimming at those depths, visible from a distance-- if you have the right eyes-- as a massive glowing shape. so basically the only reason to have eyes the size of soccer balls is if you live in the deep ocean and your life depends on having a heads up when a hungry sperm whale lurking around

and also I gotta say, the imagery... the huge lurking threat betrayed only by the ambiguous glowing shape of its movements through the water, is really evocative, if spooky deep-sea games aren't already using that to make things extremely ominous then they should really start

[odyver]

alright I've got to do some quick math to explain attitudes towards AI to my boss.

we're looking to create an AI policy, and when we were talking about this, my boss (older millennial) was genuinely shocked to hear that younger people do not (seem) to view AI positively (a la the recent commencement speakers being booed)

please rb for larger sample size!

Question 1/3

What is your age, and do you feel AI is a net positive or net negative in our lives today?

under 18, AI is a net positive

under 18, AI is a net negative

18-29, AI is a net positive

18-29, AI is a net negative

30-45, AI is a net positive

30-45, AI is a net negative

46-60, AI is a net positive

46-60, AI is a net negative

over 60, AI is a net postive

over 60, AI is a net negative

Remaining time: 3 days 21 hours

[odyver]

Question 2/3

How often do you visit or interact with museums/archives (whether in person or online)?

Frequently (multiple times per month)

Often (multiple times per year)

Occasionally (a couple times per year)

Rarely (once every couple of years)

Never :(

Remaining time: 3 days 21 hours

[odyver]

Question 3/3

If you saw a museum was using AI in exhibits, marketing, research, etc., would you be more or less inclined to visit that museum?

under 18, more inclined

under 18, less inclined

18-29, more inclined

18-29, less inclined

30-45, more inclined

30-45, less inclined

46-60, more inclined

46-60, less inclined

over 60, more inclined

over 60, less inclined

Remaining time: 3 days 21 hours

Thank you for helping with this data collection. Please rb for as big a sample as possible!

🫶

[liefdesbriefjes]

after being mutuals for a certain time tumblr should give you a coupon for a free trip to hang out with them

[banchie]

i've been phasing the phrase 'google it' out of my vocabulary and going back to 'look it up'. fuck you youve lost your generic trademark privileges

[gallusrostromegalus]

seconding these tags by @ragsy: #if the social consciousness has decided that duckduckgo is the Only Othet Search Engine#might i suggest 'go duck yourself'