A powerful warlock that uses most of his energy to bother one streamer
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
will byers stan first human second
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

⁂

Product Placement

Andulka
Jules of Nature

Discoholic 🪩
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Cosmic Funnies

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

blake kathryn
🪼

@theartofmadeline
No title available
trying on a metaphor
Sade Olutola
cherry valley forever
hello vonnie
No title available
seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
seen from Brazil

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Spain

seen from Singapore
@devynitelydevyn
A powerful warlock that uses most of his energy to bother one streamer
I'd much rather see one thousand "graphic design is my passion" canva book covers and scribbly ms paint covers and poorly scanned colored pencil covers than a single AI generated book cover
It's so weird to me when people are like 'but that will cost the government money!' So what? They're the government, they're supposed to be spending money. What, you want them to take your tax dollars and then do nothing with it? Lock it all up in a big government vault and just look at it? Why are you so scared of giving a third grader lunch or a homeless person a house.
I actually passed away quite a few years ago, but I'm a very private person and never told anybody.
making art is so fucking hard. wheres that defunctland quote
Accidentally clicking on an AI assistant feels like clicking on a link that’s going to give you a virus.
One of my brothers has this thing where he likes to be included on sibling movie night but he will not sit down or actually join us, he’ll just wander around the house and periodically show up to lurk in the doorway or lean on someone’s seat
And *I* have this thing where I always always know when he’s there, because every time he’s not wandering around like the ghost of jacob marley and isn’t immediately visible it’s because he’s stopped moving to watch the film from directly behind me, which makes the back of my neck tingle like a dog sensing an earthquake
Which has on more than one occasion resulted in me interrupting the movie to tell him to just sit the fuck down and stop lurking in the shadows, Jesus Christ, it’s like I’m being haunted by the memory of ancient sins
Which has in turn been shortened to just “ancient sins”, every time I feel him doing it again
So to summarize, sometimes when my siblings and I get together for a movie night, we’ll all be sitting in the dark in complete silence until my ass deadpan announces “ancient sins” and a 90 pound 5’11” Slenderman looking motherfucker emerges from the shadows behind me like a jumpscare incarnate in Batman pajamas pants and informs me that we are out of orange soda
I will be 70 years old and I still will never have gotten over the time the Mythbusters used a rocket powered steel wall to - and I use this word as literally as possible - vaporize an entire car into red mist
https://youtu.be/Nl8xTqTUGCY
If you haven’t seen this episode of Mythbusters I feel so bad for you because “What car?” remains to this day as a defining moment of my adolescence and my entire life
That was a near-religious experience
I made a gif of it for those of you who cant watch the video in your country. Or if you know you just want to stare at it mesmerized like me
Oh wow they sure did vaporise that car into red mist
@identifying-cars-in-posts?
1994-1996 Ford Aspire
(formerly)
I’m partial to the “Can a Snowplow Split a Car in Two” one. The answer was “No”, so they naturally ramped it up. Which led to this
A rocket powered, sharpened steel wedge slicing a car (with its engine!) in two, right down the middle
@identifying-cars-in-posts what’s this one?
1988-1989 Honda Civic
(formerly)
Me: Okay improv class somebody give me an occupation. :)
Class: Dentist!
Me: okay, so in this scene you are going to be a dentist. :)
Child 1: WHY DID YOU STEAL MY TEETH!
Child 2, on the floor, sobbing: I’m so sorry! I sold them on the dark web. I’m in so much debt from medical college.
haven't done my work but i did draw myself not doing my work. and the specter. not sure how this helps
You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.
Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”
Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.
I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones.
Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.
Hey btw, this goes for the Panera lemonade thing too. I’m already seeing articles with headlines like “Caffeinated lemonade turns out to contain caffeine”, which is a truly incredible level of spin, seeing as the issue is that Panera fucking killed people. Their products were so deceptively labeled that multiple people who were actively attempting to carefully monitor their caffeine intake still mistakenly drank a lemonade which had more caffeine in it than any energy drink on the market. Do not let a handful of carefully crafted PR one-liners about “underlying conditions” and “what did they think charged meant” turn the narrative on this into a wankfest of victim blamey bullshit. The facts of the case are utterly damning, and the money and effort that Panera is pouring into smearing the victims is as appalling as it is predictable.
no, no, hold on, what did they think charged meant? what lead them to think that?
here’s a real photo of some charged lemonade dispensers from about a year ago i found online
apologies for the bad quality, but you can clearly see that next to the charged lemonades are just. normal drinks. iced tea. lemonade that doesn’t give you a heart attack. and that banner above it, well, it just says up the energy. “Well it also says caffeine in the banner-” how many of you read the last terms and conditions you agreed to? how many of you check the privacy policy of every single website you visit? how many of you see some new gimmicky lemonade that’s next to the normal lemonade, and the normal iced tea, and the normal green tea, and assume that it’s anything but a normal drink? Can you even see the labels on the machines that say how much caffeine is in there? Fuck no, the picture quality is shit, but if you didn’t look closely in person, you wouldn’t see shit either. But would you look at all? Or would you just choose a nice flavor and call it a day? Would you read the terms of service? Or would you just click the check box?
This is what deceptive marketing look like. This is what corporate indifference and greed looks like. If Panera didn’t want to get sued, maybe they should’ve increased the contrast between the green and the labels. Maybe they should’ve increased the font size. Maybe they should’ve made the word caffeine more prominent. There were a thousand ways to avoid the harm caused, and they did none of them.
Just saw this addition, and I really appreciate the breakdown, because this really goes to the heart of the way that corporations pantomime helplessness in these situations.
When I was in law school, we studied the hot coffee case and a number of other cases like it in the context of so-called “tort reform” laws. One thing that came up quite frequently as we dug into the actual lawsuits was that corporations adopted a sort of “well, what were we supposed to do about it?” attitude as part of their strategy to shift the burden of harm prevention onto their customers.
McDonald’s wanted their coffee to stay hot for longer in the cup so that customers with long commutes wouldn’t have their coffee go cold, and they wanted it to stay hot for longer in the brewer so that it would stay fresher and they wouldn’t have to throw out as much coffee over the course of the day. Their argument, when you really got down to it, was: “It’s an unreasonable burden on our business to not serve a dangerous product!” In class, our professor posed the question, is it? And within minutes, we’d come up with dozens of other solutions that they could have applied to their stated problems which would not have had the same risk to consumers: they could get better insulated cups; they could get cups with better lids, to reduce the risk of spills; they could add the sugar and milk for customers before serving them, so that people would not need to open their coffee in order to add them; they could offer a cardboard holder with single coffee orders as well as multiple coffee orders, so that consumers would not need to hold their coffee in their lap; they could let people bring their own insulated tumblers like Starbucks does; they could brew smaller amounts at a time so that there would be less risk of it going off before it could be used; they could buy brewers with better insulation; they could include warnings about the temperature that state that their coffee is served significantly hotter than normal coffee; and on and on and on. Once we got going, it was clear that there were so many things that the companies in these cases could have done to prevent these accidents.
Panera could have changed the color of their signs, or increased the font size. They could have used the word “caffeinated” instead of “charged”. They could have not served their caffeinated drinks right next to their non-caffeinated drinks. They could have not offered free refills beyond a lethal dose of caffeine. They could have reduced the caffeine content to a level that was more in line with what people might reasonably expect from a caffeinated lemonade, instead of putting the same amount of caffeine as three Red Bulls in a single drink. Failing that, they could have marketed it as one of the most caffeinated drinks being sold anywhere in existence, instead of prominently claiming that it had “as much” caffeine as their coffee, without making it clear that that measurement was by volume, not by serving. I could keep going.
Never let these companies convince you that there’s nothing that they could have done. I’m not a restaurant management expert or a professional graphic designer, and even just off the top of my head, I can come up with dozens of easy things that they could have done differently that might have prevented these tragic deaths, if they had cared the slightest bit. Imagine how much better they could have done if they’d devoted any of their immense product development budget to safety. Imagine the people who might still be alive today if they’d bothered.
Dudes rock
so today a public health official guy came into my class to give a lecture on disaster awareness and he was talking about house fires and mentioned that the reason people most likely die during a house fire is because they refuse to leave their pet inside or they go back to get their pet. and right when he said this my friend immediately turned his head and looked at me and in that moment I had the most complete and genuine acceptance take over my body. I would 100% in front of my family and Jesus himself walk straight back into some raging inferno that was once my house to go get my fat cat. I nodded back
the best part of this post is reading all the tags from animal people who would also go back to save their pets. like no hesitation. walk backwards from heaven straight back into hell. someone even said they would go back for their fish. amazing
If you are a person who would walk into a blazing inferno for your animal, and your pet has free movement around the house, here’s a training exercise that could help save you both:
1) Set off your smoke alarm or play the sound on your phone (if your home has no smoke alarms, pease get some!)
2) stand BY THE FRONT DOOR to hand out treats
Do this a couple times and then keep it up NO EXCEPTIONS. Accidentally set the alarm off cooking? Treats by the door. Smoke alarm sound on TV? Treats by the door. Changing your smoke alarm batteries twice a year like you’re supposed to? Give them a test run and your pets get treats by the door.
Most dogs and cats will clue in VERY quickly that hearing that specific sound means go to the front door and wait for treats.
If there’s an emergency and even if you leave by another way, you will still know the most likely place your pet(s) is and can direct first responders to help.
You can also do this for any other kind of emergency alarm. My friend had both her cats trained to go to the front door for a tsunami siren.
Don't get married; just dress like this to go grocery shopping
Right wing manipulation tactics explained
this is an epic exposure of how propaganda functions.