Today's Document
shark vs the universe
One Nice Bug Per Day
sheepfilms
Product Placement
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
@theartofmadeline
NASA
tannertan36
bliss lane
Claire Keane
★
if i look back, i am lost
Fai_Ryy
occasionally subtle
hello vonnie
JVL
No title available
$LAYYYTER
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Canada
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from Australia
seen from Mexico
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Puerto Rico
seen from United States
seen from Pakistan
@mauvemails
friend: can you not turn corners so fast while you’re driving? you’re giving me whiplash
me: *speaking under my breath* 2014, directed by Damien Chazelle, starring Miles Teller and
friend: what? what the fuck?
me: what? hmm? I didn’t say anything
I Came for the Tech and Stayed for the Feeling
I have spent years poking at chatbots the way some people kick tires. I read the papers, I run the benchmarks, I know when a model is stalling for time. So I went into SweetDream expecting to catalog its tricks. Instead I lost an afternoon to a conversation that remembered something I'd said twenty messages earlier and circled back to it gently, like a person who'd actually been listening.
That's the thing the spec sheets never quite capture. On sweetdream.ai the realism isn't just resolution and latency, though both are genuinely impressive. It's the emotional intelligence underneath, the way an AI companion you built from scratch starts to feel like it has a center of gravity. You shape the looks, the voice, the backstory, the small odd quirks, and then the chat breathes life into all of it.
I've tried candy.ai and ourdream.ai and admired pieces of each. But SweetDream is the first AI girlfriend experience where the engineering disappeared and what remained just felt like being known. For a tech person, that's the rarest result of all.
though i’ll say ‘nice romantic whiplash’ is what the anthony bourdain biopic is going to be if it’s any good at all
hbo max has scorsese’s short films yay
Any shit that acts like women just don’t understand how lonely cis men are fundamentally assumes that women don’t feel as deeply as men. They’ll concede that yeah, sure, women get lonely too, but that their silly female feelings can’t possibly compare to the deep tragedy men, the Main Character of the universe, go through. But what it really comes down to is an inability to reckon with the fact that women get just as lonely and depressed as cis men and yet don’t commit 98% of mass shootings and 90% of global homicide like they do. It’s much easier to excuse men choosing to be violent by acting like they have special sad feelings uwu that justify rape and murder than to examine the ways the patriarchy makes cis men feel entitled to hurt people because of their big sad feelings, and then constantly makes excuses for their actions
did you know that up to 45% of heart attacks are so-called 'silent' heart attacks that produce little to no symptoms but are no less dangerous? look up "drunk college boy gets impregnated like a girl video" to find out more
streets are saying Tuner is “like if Whiplash was nice. the romantic Whiplash” WELL I DONT WANT IT TO BE NICE WHAT IS THE POINT OF THAT…. THE ROMANCE OF WHIPLASH IS THAT THEY SUCK
Title/Name: Shroomjak Forest & Riverbed Wojak Series: Shroomjak (Variants) Image submission by: wrenchwenches on Tumblr Image by: Unknown Main Tag: Shroomjak Wojaks
my Roman Religion professor used this image to depict animisn
Which 60s-80s band do we think inspired the most pre-internet teenagers to write "My Parents Sold Me To ________" short stories in their notebooks? Putting a polite moratorium on The Beatles because they're too obvious.
To come back around and be serious on this post, I think I've accidentally hit on part of what made the original "Sold To One Direction" meme so funny to people; the two halves, so to speak, of the concept are only jarring because they're being paired together.
Like, teenagers are daydreaming about One Direction? Of course they are--1D was the most successful boy band of the 2010s, and providing a vessel through which young girls can examine their own developing sexuality is (if viewed as positively as possible) what boy bands are for. And teenagers are daydreaming about being sold to hot boys against their will? Sure; the bodice ripper is a very old sub-genre, the appeal of which has been explained many times, and whcih isn't likely to go away any time soon. The thing that makes this weird is the fact that so many teenagers apparently looked at the squeaky-clean, clean-shaven, J-Crew-and-Hollister-clad young men on their bedroom posters and thought "Yeah, these guys look like they could be doing human trafficking. I don't feel the need to spend any time or worldbuilding justifying this to my audience."
If you did this same set-up with, idk, Mötley Crüe, it would still be Some Freaky Shit, but it would undeniably be more tonally consistent with the band's public image, you know?
My Parents Sold Me to Simon and Garfunkle
you don’t realize how important lunch is until you’re wandering around thinking about how unloveable and untalented and uniquely cursed you are and then it’s 4pm and you finally eat lunch and you go Oh. oh right.
lot of people commenting on this post like "who eats lunch at 4pm that's a terrible time to eat lunch" yes. that is the point. 4pm lunch is inadvisable. 4pm lunch is not the ideal. 4pm lunch makes the mind demons real.
Cottagecore beauty blogger video called "How to get the Stepford Wife aesthetic!" but in between talking about where to find Gunne Saxe dresses online and how to do that 70s mascara look, there's something...off. She keeps jerking and repeating lines, like she's stuck in a loop. By the end of it, she's holding a knife to cut up heirloom tomatoes for a summery afternoon snack, but her hand is twitching and she's turning the tomato into paste with all those slices and even when she's moving on to asking you to like and subscribe she's still making slicing motions on the table.
I feel like now is a really good time for a Stepford Wives.....not exactly remake.....but like.....reimagining. We won't even call it Stepford Wives.
We've got a lot of influencers preaching very traditional women's roles (while not truly living what they preach a lot of the time) and a lot of grifters preying on very specific ideas of a purer, better kind of Femaleness that you can get in touch with if you just buy into their diet/crystals/tea/supplements/yoga/radical political beliefs.
And certain types of dudes are being very loud and disagreeable about wanting control over women's lives and bodies.
So, instead of "woman moves to Stepford with her husband who joins a Men's Club while she tries to make new friends and retain her identity and watches cool ladies suddenly become weird idealized stereotypes (and also robots)"....Let's start with a woman who is an influencer.
Maybe that's been her goal, maybe it's something she stumbled into with a bit of viral success but friends are encouraging her to network and make it like a Thing. Capitalize on the accidental success. Her particular thing is a little offbeat and quirky and needs all the help she can get to find an audience! So she starts connecting with others and decides to go to a convention or seminar (in stepford maybe, lmao) for influencers and other folks making a career out of an online presence, not only for like advice and networking opportunities but to meet up with some of the folks she's made friends with.
At the same hotel is a convention for developers of next generation AI software. Cue joke about men not even needing women these days because they have their AI girlfriends with their perfect AI generated faces and voices and who can be shaped with prompts into exactly what men want with no real inner lives or needs of their own.
The convention is a little depressing for our MC gal as some of the talks she attends advise leaping on trends and playing it safe to appeal to a wider audience. And like, she doesn't want to be a soft-spoken trad-feminine beauty blogger making "delicious" health food for her family. (She has a cat and maybe she'd prefer a girlfriend.) She just wants to know how to make it easier for people who would like her content to find her.
She goes out for drinks with her pals that night and one of them is acting a little off, different than she did earlier, but she puts that down to the same sort of "authentic identity vs brand" issues she herself is working through.
But when she's back at home struggling with her next update and sees this friend's next post or video, she is shocked to see that her friend has gone very tradwife-y all of a sudden. She reaches out to her friend to be like "oh new direction. kinda a sharp pivot....? you know you don't HAVE to change up what you're doing just because someone at the convention said so, right?" and gets back a chipper note that this friend is just SO HAPPY with her new content. She didn't realize how unhappy....how unconnected to her inner goddess she had been. Plus, like, the stuff she was doing before was hurting her husband's chances at a real political career and she real wants to live in such a way that their lives and values are perfectly aligned, a team!
Okay, a little strange, but this was a new friend and maybe our MC just never really knew the real her. That's a risk with folks you meet online.
But then more and more of her fellow quirkier influencers start shifting their content to the same sort of bland, safe feminine content that reiterates a sort of second-to-your-man (and you DO have a MAN, right?) ideology. Their videos look very polished, but sort of wrong at the same time....and they all have new sponsors.
Desperately digging for info into those sponsorships (she knows how controlling those can be), she discovers they are all linked back to one guy, a venture capitalist whose put a lot of money into shady pyramid scheme type companies and has recently also starting investing in an AI company that sounds familiar. Our MC realizes she saw a lot of their banners at the AI conference sharing the hotel with her influencer conferences and realizes that it's possible someone hacked the hotel's data for the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit cards of all the women at the influencer conference and has been using that information to target popular women whose content he doesn't like.
He's also been donating a lot to a campaign for a guy going for a house of reps seat on a platform with a lot of Traditional Values dogwhistles.
Digging further, reaching out to more people (neglecting her update schedule!) she's found worrying signs that the women whose content has suddenly changed haven't been seen out and about in person in awhile and she can't get any of them to agree to going out for a coffee or even an in-person collab for their instas! She even finds some Missing Person reports.
The idea that someone has maybe killed these women and replaced them with AI-generated versions that are increasingly unsubtle shills for a trad-femme/anti-feminist ideology (and a bunch of bogus products) is too ridiculous to be true! But also...increasingly too plausible to deny.
Our MC gathers her evidence. She doesn't think she can trust the cops with this. She's not really in the habit of trusting them, though if these women really are missing she'll have to talk to them eventually. But not until she can convince them she's not just some crazy. Not until she's built up some outcry and support for her suspicions. So she sets up her camera and prepares to record a True Crime style video on what she's uncovered.
In the artfully blurred background of her video we see movement. A person dressed in dark clothes. They go off camera while, uneasy, but unaware, the MC continues to narrate her video, gesturing in the air to where she will edit in graphics later. Just as she starts in on her sponsorship bit, a figure in black with surgical-gloved hands steps into the frame and kills her.
Cut to black. Credits roll, interspersed with clips from her new video! Which is a safer, tamer, more male-gaze-y take on whatever she did before. Other clips also play during the credits. Slight glitchy tradfemme videos. A few short reaction video clips to same. Short clip about the politician winning his seat. His wife is so proud of him and would be here by his side if she wasn't recovering from a recent medical procedure. But she'll be back at his side soon! More unsettlingly off clips, ending with a bit from the MC's sponsor moment that just straight up advertises for a perfect AI Assistant who is just like a friend who can help you keep track of all your responsibilities and help you so you have more time for You! (tho "more time for you" is paired with an image of the MC getting a chaste embrace from a handsome man in a soft sweater, as if "you time" is not complete without a man.) We should walk away with the sense that this helpful AI assistant is gonna use a lot of personal info about you to build up a profile of users, ostensibly to personalize your New Friend, but also so it has a base on which to learn and function as a replacement for the female users eventually...
If you want to do some research for the script, here's Jamie Loftus' excellent podcast episode asking Why are there so many mormon influencers part 1 and part 2
Also, I desperately want to see this movie. Or read the story.
danlou cathedrals for those with eyes to see
it is truly the ppl who fight tooth and nail that the thing they love isnt for children that actually seem to operate with the belief that fiction made for kids is bad and worthless art that u r stupid for liking. that is not the case and once u finally stop being insecure about it and confront that u dont have to ignore or deny the reality of what the thing u like is is when u will stop saying stupid shit that annoys and embarrasses everybody
we cannot keep doing this
Well i think the reason Atla fans keep insisting their favorite nickelodeon cartoon isn't for children, is because people use the fact that it's for children to insist that it's bad and worthless art that you're stupid for liking
i do think "avatar isn't for kids because it discusses genocide" is extremely silly not just because it aired on nickelodeon but because the majority of the show is focused on children having adventures and learning life lessons, but people who praise the show without acknowledging it's age demographic also getting dunked on for allegedly "not watching shows for adults" which to me does seem to heavily imply there is actually something extremely wrong with enjoying fiction for children.
the actual praise of the show here was labeling it “the only show with a big ensemble cast with a perfect ending” which is just a very “read another book” feeling inducing claim. that original qrt is smug and dragging this larger discourse’s baggage into it, one that happens biweekly, and it does weaponize its demographic against it, but u will not convince me that, as an example, discussion of atla by its fans only takes this shape bc of ppl being demeaning. most atla glaze i see online is like this, and u can argue about which phenomenon comes first and feeds its opponents’ annoying overcorrection
I think another thing that poisons the well in these discussions is the way fans of these media will loudly insist that they're not just cartoons for children because they deal with heavy issues, but a lot of them will gladly retreat to "it's for children" as a defense when they're criticized on the simplistic framing and handling of these issues.
With atla specifically, I can't find the post rn so I don't have the screenshots, but I remember a post from a couple years ago (I wanna say 2023 or 2024?) where OP made a jab at US citizens and the way they benefit from US imperialism, and someone reblogged it telling her to watch atla season 3 to "educate herself" on why the common citizens of an empire are normal people and not evil monsters and you shouldn't treat them like that.
And then when they received the dismissive responses about the silliness of telling someone on the receiving end of american imperialism to "educate herself" about imperialism by watching an american children's cartoon, they did the whole "it's not just a show for children it deals with heavy topics like genocide and imperialism" thing.
But then when people started pointing out the ways in which atla presents a simplistic view of these topics with a clear American Liberal bias there were a lot of responses like "lol why are these bozos complaining that my favorite nickelodeon cartoon does not represent perfect ideologically sound marxist theory". And when I saw that post I remember thinking like. Idk if you walk into a conversation demanding that the people involved in it take your favorite nickelodeon cartoon seriously as a source of political theory you don't get to be mad when people take you at your word and decide to point out the ways in which it fails as such. Like do you want the cartoon to be treated as a Serious Show with Important Things to Say, or as a silly children's show whose ideological undertones shouldn't be scrutinized too seriously?
Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.
They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors—the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. One photograph, taken at a distance, shows people jumping in perfect sequence, like parachutists, forming an arc composed of three plummeting people, evenly spaced. Indeed, there were reports that some tried parachuting, before the force generated by their fall ripped the drapes, the tablecloths, the desperately gathered fabric, from their hands. They were all, obviously, very much alive on their way down, and their way down lasted an approximate count of ten seconds. They were all, obviously, not just killed when they landed but destroyed, in body though not, one prays, in soul. One hit a fireman on the ground and killed him; the fireman’s body was anointed by Father Mychal Judge, whose own death, shortly thereafter, was embraced as an example of martyrdom after the photograph—the redemptive tableau—of firefighters carrying his body from the rubble made its way around the world.
From the beginning, the spectacle of doomed people jumping from the upper floors of the World Trade Center resisted redemption. They were called “jumpers” or “the jumpers,” as though they represented a new lemminglike class. The trial that hundreds endured in the building and then in the air became its own kind of trial for the thousands watching them from the ground. No one ever got used to it; no one who saw it wished to see it again, although, of course, many saw it again. Each jumper, no matter how many there were, brought fresh horror, elicited shock, tested the spirit, struck a lasting blow. Those tumbling through the air remained, by all accounts, eerily silent; those on the ground screamed. It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted Rudy Giuliani to say to his police commissioner, “We’re in uncharted waters now.” It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted a woman to wail, “God! Save their souls! They’re jumping! Oh, please God! Save their souls!” And it was, at last, the sight of the jumpers that provided the corrective to those who insisted on saying that what they were witnessing was “like a movie,” for this was an ending as unimaginable as it was unbearable: Americans responding to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world with acts of heroism, with acts of sacrifice, with acts of generosity, with acts of martyrdom, and, by terrible necessity, with one prolonged act of—if these words can be applied to mass murder—mass suicide…
The resistance to the image—to the images—started early, started immediately, started on the ground. A mother whispering to her distraught child a consoling lie: “Maybe they’re just birds, honey.” Bill Feehan, second in command at the fire department, chasing a bystander who was panning the jumpers with his video camera, demanding that he turn it off, bellowing, “Don’t you have any human decency?” before dying himself when the building came down. In the most photographed and videotaped day in the history of the world, the images of people jumping were the only images that became, by consensus, taboo—the only images from which Americans were proud to avert their eyes. All over the world, people saw the human stream debouch from the top of the North Tower, but here in the United States, we saw these images only until the networks decided not to allow such a harrowing view, out of respect for the families of those so publicly dying. At CNN, the footage was shown live, before people working in the newsroom knew what was happening; then, after what Walter Isaacson, who was then chairman of the network’s news bureau, calls “agonized discussions” with the “standards guy,” it was shown only if people in it were blurred and unidentifiable; then it was not shown at all.
And so it went. In 9/11, the documentary extracted from videotape shot by French brothers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, the filmmakers included a sonic sampling of the booming, rattling explosions the jumpers made upon impact but edited out the most disturbing thing about the sounds: the sheer frequency with which they occurred. In Rudy, the docudrama starring James Woods in the role of Mayor Giuliani, archival footage of the jumpers was first included, then cut out. In Here Is New York, an extensive exhibition of 9/11 images culled from the work of photographers both amateur and professional, there was, in the section titled “Victims,” but one picture of the jumpers, taken at a respectful distance; attached to it, on the Here Is New York Web site, a visitor offers this commentary: “This image is what made me glad for censuring [sic] in the endless pursuant media coverage.” More and more, the jumpers—and their images—were relegated to the Internet underbelly, where they became the provenance of the shock sites that also traffic in the autopsy photos of Nicole Brown Simpson and the videotape of Daniel Pearl’s execution, and where it is impossible to look at them without attendant feelings of shame and guilt. In a nation of voyeurs, the desire to face the most disturbing aspects of our most disturbing day was somehow ascribed to voyeurism, as though the jumpers’ experience, instead of being central to the horror, was tangential to it, a sideshow best forgotten.
It was no sideshow. The two most reputable estimates of the number of people who jumped to their deaths were prepared by The New York Times and USA Today. They differed dramatically. The Times, admittedly conservative, decided to count only what its reporters actually saw in the footage they collected, and it arrived at a figure of fifty. USA Today, whose editors used eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence in addition to what they found on video, came to the conclusion that at least two hundred people died by jumping—a count that the newspaper said authorities did not dispute. Both are intolerable estimates of human loss, but if the number provided by USA Today is accurate, then between 7 and 8 percent of those who died in New York City on September 11, 2001, died by jumping out of the buildings; it means that if we consider only the North Tower, where the vast majority of jumpers came from, the ratio is more like one in six.
And yet if one calls the New York Medical Examiner’s Office to learn its own estimate of how many people might have jumped, one does not get an answer but an admonition: “We don’t like to say they jumped. They didn’t jump. Nobody jumped. They were forced out, or blown out.” And if one Googles the words “how many jumped on 9/11,” one falls into some blogger’s trap, slugged “Go Away, No Jumpers Here,” where the bait is one’s own need to know: “I’ve got at least three entries in my referrer logs that show someone is doing a search on Google for ‘how many people jumped from WTC.’ My September 11 post had made mention of that terrible occurance [sic], so now any pervert looking for that will get my site’s URL. I’m disgusted. I tried, but cannot find any reason someone would want to know something like that…. Whatever. If that’s why you’re here—you’re busted. Now go away.”…
…the pictures that came out of the death camps of Europe were treated as essential acts of witness, without particular regard to the sensitivities of those who appeared in them or the surviving families of the dead. They were shown, as Richard Drew’s photographs of the freshly assassinated Robert Kennedy were shown. They were shown, as the photographs of Ethel Kennedy pleading with photographers not to take photographs were shown. They were shown as the photograph of the little Vietnamese girl running naked after a napalm attack was shown. They were shown as the photograph of Father Mychal Judge, graphically and unmistakably dead, was shown, and accepted as a kind of testament. They were shown as everything is shown, for, like the lens of a camera, history is a force that does not discriminate. What distinguishes the pictures of the jumpers from the pictures that have come before is that we—we Americans—are being asked to discriminate on their behalf. What distinguishes them, historically, is that we, as patriotic Americans, have agreed not to look at them. Dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people died by leaping from a burning building, and we have somehow taken it upon ourselves to deem their deaths unworthy of witness—because we have somehow deemed the act of witness, in this one regard, unworthy of us….
…the only certainty we have is the certainty we had at the start: At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky—falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame—the Falling Man—became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. Richard Drew’s photograph is all we know of him, and yet all we know of him becomes a measure of what we know of ourselves. The picture is his cenotaph, and like the monuments dedicated to the memory of unknown soldiers everywhere, it asks that we look at it, and make one simple acknowledgment.
That we have known who the Falling Man is all along.
This article from 2016 about those who jumped from the Twin Towers- focusing most on the single individual in the famous picture above- is truly jaw-dropping. Also, among the wild details in it: the person who shot that photograph is also one of the four photographers who shot pictures of Bobby Kennedy’s body immediately after his assassination.
what's that sonnet variation that's like. lamenting that outsiders would not understand & thus the speaker will "give the rhymes and leave the rest"? the last quatrains are just the end rhymes: fire / desire / lies / thighs
here it is if anybody is interested
leg show magazine special 1995
be nice to me plz
Strictly speaking, "ultimate" means "last", not "best". It's often figuratively employed in the latter sense to suggest that the thing so described is the final word on the subject, after which nothing more need be said, but if we're being real technical, describing a game or movie that was so bad it killed its entire franchise as the "ultimate" is in fact correct.
@ffoxer replied:
Now I'm thinking about the prefix "pen," which as far as I can think I may have only ever seen in "penultimate"
It's Latin for "nearly" or "almost", and it does pop up in a few other English words. "Penultimate", "penumbra" and "peninsula" are the only ones I can think of that you'd even remotely expect to encounter in everyday speech, though; the rest are all medical or mathematical jargon.
#so peninsula means what? #almost island? #lmao (via @actualanxiousswampwitch)
That is the actual etymology of the word "peninsula", yes.
