sheepfilms
No title available
Sade Olutola
🪼
AnasAbdin
DEAR READER
JVL
hello vonnie
wallacepolsom
Game of Thrones Daily
Cosmic Funnies
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Stranger Things
d e v o n
$LAYYYTER
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
NASA
Three Goblin Art
i don't do bad sauce passes
pixel skylines
seen from United States
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from Iceland
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Germany
@doreymifasolo
‘project hail mary is about the power of friendship’ ‘project hail mary is about hope’ ‘project hail mary is about accidentally becoming too important at work’ wrong wrong wrong you’re all wrong. project hail mary is about what it would take for a single man in his 30s to own a fully paid off beachfront property in today’s economy
Im sorry but Ryland Grace is the type of person who does math to try and figure out his sexuality and concludes he must be bisexual because his level of atraction to any gender is the same (zero. the level of atraction is zero. he's aroace)
@pscentral event 50: colours → project hail mary (2026)
PHM + PRIDE aroace
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
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 :(
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
Thank you for helping with this data collection. Please rb for as big a sample as possible!
🫶
I've been laughing about the Mark Hamill gaygay tweet for six hours
Ben grinding his teeth over this might be the funniest thing I've seen in years. Bro. You're seething over the Mark Hamill gaygay tweet.
Is nobody else going to mention the fact that Mark signs his name as Mar Camel???
Ryland Grace x Reader headcanons!
he leaves you
and out of the darkness - you you you you you
Modern day Loustat Jacob Anderson and Sam Reid for Entertainment Weekly
There's hope.
My co-teacher came up with an idea. She said to me: “I’m going to project a Shakespearean sonnet on the board that you have never seen before. They are going to watch you struggle through it, and they are going to see what it takes to authentically annotate something to attempt to understand it”. This was a good idea because it targeted a pitfall of my teaching: that I already know the answer— a predetermined answer I want my students to come to. Therefore, when I ask the class a question, they are aware that there is an answer in my head I want them to arrive at. This method can stifle students’ voice. So, I stood at the front of the classroom that day, feeling exposed, sight-reading Shakespearean sonnets. With most of the sonnets, I, with the help of the class, could only get to about 75% understanding and accuracy at best. But my confusion — my apparent struggle and frustration in understanding each new sonnet— was key for my students. They felt free to posit their interpretations and even to disagree with me. In each session, a student shared a thought or possibility that not only I had failed to see but was also ultimately accurate. One student couldn’t wipe the smile off her face when she figured out a metaphor that stumped both me and my co-teacher. “This was fun”, she and her classmate said to each other when the bell rang.
okay this is actually really annoying to me because the excerpt is great, and cuts off in such a good place, and the actual essay is. not so good.
There's some interesting stuff in the essay! There are the bones of good analysis, and I REALLY WISH THIS GUY HAD READ PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED
Sorry.
But y'know, it's an essay that comes to the conclusion that the ACTUAL problem is these DAMN KIDS and their LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING
And I'm like. Hey. Apparently in the first sessions that he tried this in, the kids were already coming to conclusions that he hadn't thought of. That they WERE thinking critically, and were succeeding at it in ways that shocked him.
And the ending note of this essay is 'maybe kids like being taught rather than being handed easy solutions'
NO, YOU IDIOT
They like being treated as people instead of objects! They saw you struggle, and by watching you struggle were no longer at risk of being shamed and degraded for not getting the answer right!
He even says in the essay "They felt free to posit their interpretations and even to disagree with me." Like, damn dude, that's kind of a self-report. So you mean that in general, in all your classes before this, they didn't feel safe to do so?
"But too often, I think, they are misinterpreting the silence for apathy or lack of engagement, and are not identifying it for what it really is: a lack of critical thinking." Oh, and not interpreting the silence as fear? That students might be keeping quiet and not answering questions because they're terrified of getting an answer wrong and having you embarrass them in front of their entire peer group?
This was a formative experience of my life - in 6th grade, Mr Nidey's class, there was a question on the Mongols asked in class. I don't remember the exact question but I remember being elated that I knew the answer, and throwing my hand into the air, and saying 'Genghis Khan' to the teacher. He responded by telling me I was wrong, going off on a rant about how I was always being disruptive and rude in class, and how sick of it he was. The answer, of course, was Genghis Khan.
Afterwards, there was a parent-teacher meeting where he apologized to me, but the damage was already done - and more importantly, he berated me in public, and apologized in private. After that, I never answered a question in class willingly until college.
This guy's essay is focused on how AI and gamified learning and teachers being coddling to their students is rotting kids' brains, and I couldn't disagree more. This isn't new, this isn't surprising, and it's been getting worse for decades. It has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with the industrial process of education.
No Child Left Behind normalized standardized tests at basically every age bracket, and conditioned funding on the scores on said tests. Teachers have been underpaid, underfunded, and overworked for generations, but now are even more likely to lose their jobs just for the sin of not 'teaching to the test'. Students have historically cheated on tests, not just to gain the benefits, but far more often to avoid the consequences. Failing a test can lose a child's free time to detention, failing a class can lose them their summer to remedial classes. They might be held back and watch all their friends disappear as their peer group moves on without them. They might be punished at home, from losing opportunities to being physically harmed.
All of which is to say, it turns out that if you treat students like human beings, like equals who are just as important to the process of learning, instead of like objects that you stuff information into so that they can regurgitate it on the test, it turns out that they're far more likely to be engaged! IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT THAT
About that unkind evaluation Javadi gave of the Pitt crew... I dunno if the writers have any intention to revisit it, but there was something wildly discrepant that NEEDS addressed.
If you are going to work in the field of mental health, you cannot be judgemental and empathetic at the same time.
Javadi has the book knowledge, passion, and know-how for mental health advocacy. It's clear she is good at being a voice for those who are voiceless. But when it comes to the people she works alongside every day, she lets her judgement take the reins. You don't want to turn out like your coworkers? EVERYBODY has got their stuff, even you. I think she is so used to standing her ground with her parents that she does not stop to consider her own deep-seated biases because she was raised to be "right." She's the one that "knows it all." And I hate to say it, but her popularity online probably only feeds into her self-image as the expert.
Javadi should be confident. She has a lot to be confident about. But confidence without humility is arrogance. That's the Javadi I am afraid we will see more of.
Ren Faire girlfriend, history museum boyfriend
this is all of us. when goose is life.
you may be thinking that some of the reactions to the tumblr update are unfounded or panicky. but i meant what i said: this will fucking destroy any artist on this site.
for your reference, i tracked down one of my original posts; which had a notes section that looked like this:
and here is what it looks like now:
holy shit. by my math, that is not even two percent of the amount of aggregate notes my writing actually has. i am not able to see any of the literal hundreds of replies, comments, or tags.
maybe this is a bit presumptuous but i consider myself to be fairly popular on this site. i still remember the first time a large blog "picked up" my work - how quickly all of a sudden i was getting seen. notes on my poetry jumped from like 10 to 300 to 3k. overnight. that was the magic of tumblr, and the incredible writing community i found here.
but now if i answer any of my fellow writers, if i say please go check this out or even if i add additional context to my own work - the artist is removed completely from their own content.
do you want to reply to an "ask game"? do you want to reply to a story prompt? do you want to just make a funny joke with your friends? well, that sucks - you might be depriving them of literally 98% of their notes.
it isn't about clout chasing. it is about giving creators control over their own materials. even a silly post deserves to be connected directly with the person that thought it up.
the tumblr feedback form is currently crashed for me, but when it's up, everyone please go (politely! calmly! like you're walking in a burning building!) tell them what you think. in the meantime: @staff @changes like... i am begging you. literally just set up a suggestion box for ideas on how to monetize tumblr, surely one of us can help you.
The Death of the Digital Ecosystem: Why Decoupling Notes Destroys Tumblr
@changes (Edit: I already sent this to Tumblr Support under the feedback option. I encourage everyone to send feedback on how bad this feature actually is).
For years, the total note count on a post served as a universal metric of a piece of content's impact. Whether a user liked the original post or a reblog fifteen branches deep, that engagement flowed back to the source. This ensured that the original artist, writer, or editor received the full credit for the viral success of their work.
Under this new system, engagement is trapped within the specific reblog a user happens to see on their dashboard. If a massive, high-traffic blog reblogs a piece of art from a small creator, every like and reblog that occurs through that larger account stays with them. The original creator is left with a stagnant note count on their own dashboard while their work generates thousands of interactions for someone else.
Erasure of Creator Visibility
Instead of seeing one post with 10,000 notes, a creator may now have to hunt through dozens of different reblog chains to find where the conversation is actually happening.
If the notes no longer flow back to the original post, the creator loses the ability to see who is enjoying their work, what the tags say, and how the community is responding.
On a platform where engagement often dictates visibility, splitting that engagement into tiny, unlinked fractions makes it significantly harder for original works to gain momentum compared to the high-reach blogs that reblog them.
Incentivizing the "Big Blog" Monopoly
This system rewards accounts that have already established a large following at the direct expense of the smaller accounts that actually produce the content. It transforms reblogging from a method of sharing into a method of acquisition.
When a reblog functions as its own independent post with its own note count, the incentive to click through to the original source disappears. The platform is transitioning from a collaborative ecosystem into a standard social media feed where the person who posts the content last—not the person who made it—reaps the rewards.
Impact on Collaborative Conversations
Tumblr’s unique culture is built on the reblog chain: a chronological, evolving conversation. By allowing users to like or reblog "any part" of the chain as an independent entity, the platform is breaking the narrative thread.
If engagement is siloed into specific branches, the incentive to add to a conversation is replaced by an incentive to simply own a piece of the engagement. This change doesn't encourage conversation. It encourages the commodification of individual posts within a chain, making it harder for the original voice to ever be heard over the noise of the rebloggers.
The Disincentive to Create
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this update is the psychological toll on the creative community. When the platform actively diverts credit and engagement away from the source, it destroys the motivation to share original work at all.
For many, the reward for posting is seeing how far their work travels. If that travel is now invisible or attributed to others, the labor of creating becomes thankless.
This system makes creators want to share nothing. If the platform is built to harvest a creator's effort for the benefit of curator blogs, the logical response is to stop providing the raw material. I am one leaning into this category. Without us creators, the curator blogs have nothing to curate.
By making it harder to protect and track one's own work, the platform is effectively telling creators that their presence is secondary to the conversations happening around their work: conversations they may no longer even be able to find.
robby snapping at everyone this season.... if he even LOOKS mels way frank is gonna finally kill him
And the scene would mirror the way Robby chewed Langdon out for blowing up on Santos. The drama. The angst. The parallelsssss
