oozey mess
YOU ARE THE REASON
blake kathryn
tannertan36
we're not kids anymore.
@theartofmadeline
Today's Document
Jules of Nature
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
RMH
pixel skylines
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Origami Around
Mike Driver
One Nice Bug Per Day
Kaledo Art
titsay
KIROKAZE
No title available
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
seen from Syria
seen from Ukraine
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from South Africa
seen from Malaysia
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from Türkiye
seen from Singapore
seen from South Africa
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
@gingermalone
"christian characters in movies are poorly written because the writers are atheist" "atheist characters in movies are poorly written because the writers are christian" stop fighting. all human experience is poorly written in movies because the writers are californian
Me this weekend
Happy Pride Month to my bisexual King Aka Leonard Mccoy
An Irish far-right streamer attempts to interview an antifascist. Sound on. [video]
Update from the Twitter account of the hero in that video:
Put in the tags the completely finished (whether cancelled or wrapped up on its own terms) TV series that has YOUR perfect ending, however you define that
Please don’t include huge spoilers for the specifics of the endings, and it would also make me happy if people don’t use this to talk about the shows whose endings they hated
I had a dream about Columbo at a drag show. This is what came from it.
I'm waiting for him to explain to me how his newfound love of drag allowed him to prove I killed my business partner
He got on tumblr and saw this confession.
“Life after menopause is exceptionally rare in animals. It can evolve only in creatures where grannies help younger family members survive. Only human, killer whale, and short-finned pilot whale females routinely live for substantial periods after they stop breeding. Like humans, killer and pilot whales have roughly twenty-five to thirty childbearing years, then can live another thirty or so. And as Ken’s just explained, some live a lot longer. Up to a quarter of the females in a group are postreproductive. These whales are not waiting to die; they are helping their children survive. As human children often benefit from their grandmothers’ attention, killer whale grandmothers boost their grandkids’ survival. A rather bizarre twist of killer whale society is that killer whale mothers remain crucial to the survival of their adult children. When older killer whale females die, their adult children start dying at high rates, especially males. Male killer whales who are under thirty years old when their mothers die suffer a tripling of the annual mortality rate compared to males in their age group whose mothers are still alive. Male killer whales who are more than thirty years old when their mothers die face death rates more than eight times as high as males in their age group whose mothers are still living. Daughters under thirty show no mortality increase after their mothers’ death. But daughters older than thirty when their mothers die have more than two and a half times the death rate of same-age females whose mothers are alive. Males’ handicaps of the extra drag of their huge dorsal and pectoral fins and the extra food required for their immense size (at around 20,000 pounds, males can be one-third more massive than females) seem to make them reliant on their working mothers for food. Females don’t have the males’ impediments, but while raising young, females may rely on food shared by their no-longer-breeding mothers. Adult females share essentially all the fish they catch, and more than half goes to their children. Adult males share their catch only about 15 percent of the time—usually with their mothers. While no one fully understands their strange death pattern following the loss of a mother, extreme parental care is likely at the root. Toothed whales are the world’s champion nursers. Short-finned pilot whales continue to produce milk for up to fifteen years after the birth of their last calf, likely nursing other females’ young. In bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins (further study might reveal others), some females never give birth. Denise Herzing dubbed them “career females,” because their role in society does not include motherhood. They might be infertile. They might be gay. But their contribution is crucial: they do a lot of babysitting. When Herzing entered the ocean with a visiting nine-year-old girl, “White Patches, the eternal babysitter herself, had never seen me babysitting a young human before. Her excitement vocalizations were audible and electric and she continued to swim around us, eyeing the human youngster attached to me.” (Researchers sometimes call babysitters “aunts.” That’s precisely who they often are.)”
— Beyond Words, by Carl Safina
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
Apparently someone got their car stuck on the light rail tracks at Mt. Baker. For those unfamiliar this is 35 feet up in the air
Fun fact! this is likely due to racism. Not the drivers, to be clear, but this is a not-entirely-unsurprising result of systemic racism in the greater Seattle area and the influence it has on infrastructure spending.
I'm a huge proponent of public transit, rail in specific, and I'm very glad that the greater Seattle area is finally starting to see some solid light rail infrastructure sprouting up in the form of the 1 and 2 lines, but that in no way stops me from critiquing the decisions made in planning and implementation.
Light Rail, in it's colloquial form here in the US, is basically always a compromise solution. It's cheaper than subways, can make good use of existing right-of-way around freeways, and can function as a kind of low-capacity commuter rail in the subways while behaving more like a tram or streetcar in downtown areas. It is crucially, however, not a streetcar, nor is it a commuter rail. Streetcars make frequent stops and are optimized for dense areas with lots of traffic. Commuter rails are larger and stop lest frequently, optimized for bringing suburban residents into city centers. Commuter rail should, however, be independent of street traffic so it can travel at higher speeds. For this reason, most of the Link light rail system in seattle is actually not at-grade (street level), but on either elevated or sub-grade track. Downtown, the lightrail actually functions as a low-capacity low-frequency subway system in what used to be the bus tunnel (we don't have time, but yes it was stupid). Everywhere else, it's up on elevated tracks that largely follow the freeway system.
There are three stations, all immediately south of that Mount Baker elevated station, where the Link actually runs at-grade. These stations run through the historic low income immigrant neighborhoods of southeast seattle. Here, the trains are forced to stop at red lights, interact with crossing and left-turning traffic, and even cross through terrifyingly narrow pedestrian islands. They could have built elevated track here, as they did everywhere else, but they didn't. they didn't want to spend the money. I have personally watched light rail cars carrying hundreds of people have to wait two full minutes for cars turning left in front of them, delaying trains so like, 5 people could drive there. Once it reaches the end of this low income immigrant-dominant neighborhood, however, the Link returns to it's above-grade status, with Mount Baker being the first elevated stop. You want to know how this woman, who claims she was misdirected by her GPS, probably ended up here? I would bet anything she tried to make a turn at the intersection just before the stop and got confused. The intersection, for reference, looks like this:
I'm not saying it's an easy mistake to make, but given the number of people who drive through here every day, it's honestly not that surprising that someone, especially someone who is from out of town, or someone who is used to shared streetcar lanes, would eventually make this mistake. When you're dealing with a city of hundreds of thousands of people, it's only a matter of time before a mistake like this happens. but it is only possible for it to happen because of the decisions made in the planning process, and one of those decisions was "we can save money if we make everything worse in that part of town where all the foreign poors live", and so they built the thing at-grade, instead of keeping it elevated like everywhere else.
and yes, those tracks are in the middle of a four lane road, and no, there is no way to get to any of the at-grade stations without crossing at least two lanes of traffic on a very busy avenue. and those tiny little pedestrian islands are not only terrifying to walk on, but a man in a wheelchair was clipped by a passing train car a while back because his chair didn't really fit through the tight turns well and one of his feet was sticking slightly out when the train passed by. This is not a problem at like, any other stops in the Link system. Just here. Just in this neighborhood. And it's a fucking disgrace.
not only was the section of the 1 line built at grade for the purpose of cutting costs, it was directly appealed by a citizens initiative. The Save Our Valley movement (SOV), after not being taken seriously by Sound Transit, sued for race based discrimination and an unfair distribution of public works funding resulting in discriminatory safety hazards, which were argued to be at odds with protections provided by the Civil Rights Act. And guess what. the claims were dismissed anyways. the court dismissed them on grounds that congress could ONLY regulate "intentional discrimination" per the civil rights act and was not authorized to regulate "discriminatory effects", that while the at-grade construction of the light rail line would likely have a disproportionate effect on the minority-dominant area of Rainier Valley, there wasn't any grounds that it was done with racial intent. which, given that the ONLY reason the claims were dismissed was that the discrimination argued couldnt be proven to be intentional, is, ironically, pretty clear evidence of intentional race based discrimination when Sound Transit went ahead with the at grade construction of the Rainier Valley section of Line 1 anyways
Accidentally refreshed my dash before I could reblog the post I wanted to reblog, but it's legitimately funny how many "walkable cities bad" talking points are just 1) assuming that "walkable" means "CARS ARE BANNED FOREVER AND EVER NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO EVER USE A CAR" and 2) then going "and how do you plan to deal with [problem that only exists due to infrastructure that prioritizes cars] without cars????"
Like "and when you go grocery shopping how do you plan to carry 8 bags full of groceries home without using a car?". Well turns out that "going to the store every 2 weeks to buy 8 bags full of groceries which you have to carry home in one trip" is not like. a universal feature of grocery shopping. The act of grocery shopping doesn't usually take that form unless you live in a place where the nearest grocery store is a 45-minute drive away.
I don't even live in a particularly walkable city but I have a couple grocery stores close enough that my grocery shopping mostly takes the form of "popping in to buy a handful of things on my way home a couple times a week"
Reblogging this manually. Op doesn't want credit for fear of being terminated.
In 2026, the chicest thing a gay actor can do is never explicitly come out as gay but also make it abundantly clear that he is. Coming out is too modern. Staying closeted is too old fashioned. But this method merges contemporary freedom with Old Hollywood glamour and allure, and it weeds out the dumbest people who truly don’t get it. I call it the Pascal Method.
Taylor Swift does this
no she doesn’t
You clearly don't go here or to queer history and signaling, or both, enough to have this conversation and I'm not going to explain it to you. You could have asked questions, you could have done even a modicum of research. You didn't and you made yourself look ignorant. Goodbye.
This was on a post discussing shit parents doing a new satanic panic. Valid points all around but. But I’m crying. This is the funniest lie ever, no parody I could come up with this will be this funny. Nonbinary Julius Cesar
It's him, Julius xi/xir
camila mendes for www magazine (x)
Camila Mendes is having one of the biggest years in her career so far. A major summer blockbuster, the second feature film from her production company, and wedding planning are all on the roster for 2026. This month, Mendes steps into the sprawling world of Masters of the Universe as the sword-slinging Teela alongside Nicholas Galitzine, Idris Elba, and Jared Leto. The project is a stretch from her days as Veronica Lodge in #Riverdale, which catapulted her into mainstream recognition nearly a decade ago. Mendes makes movies for “the girls and the gays,” she states lovingly, but her star power is only going to get bigger and brighter with Masters. “I’ve never been a part of something of this scale,” she says of the project.
🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈
The Muppets s01e01
Fozzy getting hit on by lots of twinks
Happy Pride Month
Ten years later, this bit still slaps. They made a great pun and realized they could be nice/inclusive with it too.
Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me
"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"
people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me
Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.
........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.
I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.
Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?
Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.
Hi, Op here. The post is making fun of the twitter op for moving the goal post.
And it does use less energy when you don't have to drive to get somewhere and can walk a block. If you want to do big shops, you still can, if you use a cart or cargo bike. I also never said cars should be banned in this post
Also, I am a disabled person, I cannot drive.
The idea that it takes less energy for everyone to walk a block than it does for some people to get in the car is ableist.
Not everyone is the same.
I understood the original post, thanks. I was simply stating that energy is a limited resource. And that life for everyone looks different. I never said you said cars should be banned, the original twitter post was asking about a life without cars. You can't be like "omg this person is moving goalposts" and then be like "well no one said you couldn't have a car" and like...... not see how you're then moving the goalpost
You know, the crazy thing about the walkable cities I've been to is that they've also been the places with the most electric scooters or mopeds or bikes being used.
I can appreciate that walking, even a block, is extremely difficult for some people. Are you able to appreciate that cars aren't the only form of locomotion invented by people? And that, in fact, a walkable city is more amenable to your disability, because mopeds can be parked a hell of a lot closer to the front entrance than a car, meaning you can do your chores and walk less.
Like, honest question, if driving a car is easier than walking a block, what do we do on the many common days where the parking situation forces us to walk at least a block anyways?
How do you think I should put a rollator on the back of a moped? Really, truly, I'd love to hear this.
To answer your honest question: I park in accessible parking, if there isn't any available I either do not go or I use my rollator to make frequent stops.
I'm not going to tell you what a rollator is, because I want to see if your ableist self can go look it up and then figure out how dumb you sound attempting to suggest that cars aren't important vehicles to add access.
If you want me, and other disabled people, to treat these discussions as if they're not in absolutes, you need to accept that sometimes cars are needed for accessibility without constantly trying to gotcha us and make us look stupid. You don't know everything about disability, I don't either. All disabled experiences are different. And you will always be ableist until you start your conversations from a place of "what are your limitations and how do you functionally manage them" as a personal question that requires dedicated nonjudgement to counteract societal judgement.
Not being able to do the thing you wanted to do because the two accessibility spots are already full doesn't sound very accessible to me! Wouldn't it be nice if fewer disabled people needed to drive, freeing those spots up for someone like yourself?
At absolutely no point has anyone in the discussion mentioned zero cars, except for you. The original post only mentions it as "people who hate cars". I hate cars. I still recognize their value, while wishing I personally didn't need one. You can still have your car! I've been in a lot of walkable cities and communities. They all have cars! You can do the big shop if you want. Possibly, you will have to walk a little farther due to parking being more constrained. And this is a net negative for you specifically. Probably. Maybe your walkable community winds up like many of those in Florida, where golf carts are a perfectly fine way to get around. There are many options to consider!
Increased options for accessibility are a net good, even if those options don't suit yourself. You will always be ableist if you center only yourself and your own disabilities.
Cars add access, you are correct. This is, in fact, the entire point of them. No one denies this. The issue, is that city planning so heavily weighted towards folks with cars, only adds access for the people fortunate enough to afford them, at the expense of the folks who cant. On the balance, where do folks with disabilities tend to land?
So yeah, having fewer cars and more accessible infrastructure is, paradoxically, going to reduce access for some people. There's a balance to be struck. Most people are aware of that! In small communities, delivery becomes more affordable and commonplace because it can be done on bike. How many delivery fees does your monthly car insurance cover?
The way you completely ignored that you can't put a rollator on a moped and my thinking mobility concerns requiring a car isn't just me being stupid.
All I have ever said is that this position, that cars are necessary for some people only ever shows up after the person speaking has tried to call a disabled person stupid. You all position us as morons and idiots for saying that our mobilities require cars, trying to prove that they don't and by the time we get to "some disabled people require cars for mobility," you all act like we were the ones who pretended that's not true. You exemplified that in your responses here.
Never ever said anything to the contrary. Only you did.
You're moving the goalpost and ignoring point 1. You were the one who tried to gotcha me. You don't get to turn around and pretend that I'm the irrational one here trying to force the world into an absolutist understanding devoid of nuance.
The only one calling anyone names here is you.
Why would I go out of my way to insult you by trying to explain what you can and can't do with your rollator? Moreover, why are you insisting that I patronize you in this manner? It seems like you would prefer me to be condescending over having a nuanced discussion about accessibility. Why is this? All I'm asking is for you to have a little imagination of what a walkable community can look like. So, what does a walkable community that works for you look like? Is there truly no way for you to conveniently transport a rollator other than by car?
I will say, I've seen folks tow children and groceries with an electric bike or a recumbent trike. Able-bodied folks, granted. But if this option doesn't work for rollators, it certainly does work for many other disabled people who don't require rollators, yes. And this frees up the roads and the parking for you, yes?
