the abyss stares back

theta • bi, nb, and intersex • Sámi • they/he biology major, obsessed with all things botany, mycology, ecology, and marine bio. STEM and leftist shit + occasionally i become mentally ill abt doctor who again also i’m 25

[larval-tear]

transitioning for fetish reasons

[guerrillatech]

[kedreeva]

if you, like me, are hesitant to enjoy what kinda sounds like "relaxes food standards" on the surface, I'm happy to report that this isn't "everyone can do what they want with your food supply without oversight" but rather a case where in NYC you had to have a permit to sell food and a second, superfluous permit to sell frozen desserts. This action simply removes the need for the second permit, rolling it into the first permit in order to help small businesses. Yay!

[tanoraqui]

Mayor Mamdani Announces "OPEN for Small Business," Over 50 Reforms to Slash Red Tape and Increase Support for Small Businesses

Mayor Mamdani Announces "OPEN for Small Business," Over 50 Reforms to Slash Red Tape and Increase Support for Small Businesses

[important-cat-pics]

[handsomeboymodelingschool]

[hotvampireadjacent]

[coughloop]

[johnnycrass]

u can be actively suicidal on here and people will tag it with their fandoms

[tobiasdrake]

A detail I find really interesting about Chell, GLaDOS, and Wheatley's first confrontation in Portal 2 is when Wheatley starts gloating about taking over the facility. "I did this! Tiny little Wheatley did this!"

And GLaDOS interjects like, "You didn't do this. She did all the work!"

I find that interjection fascinating because. Like.

GLaDOS doesn't actually know anything about what happened behind the scenes. She lost track of Chell and Wheatley after Wheatley opened up a wall panel and they bolted off together into the facility's inner workings. She doesn't see them again until Chell falls for her fake door trap, at which point GLaDOS is unpleasantly surprised to discover that Chell's disabled the turrets and neurotoxin in the meantime.

She has no evidentiary foundation to base that accusation on.

This is also before GLaDOS recognizes Wheatley as the Dumbass Core, so it's not based on an assessment of him.

The only explanation it leaves is that it's based on her assessment of Chell. Despite GLaDOS's enmity towards Chell, the one thing she rarely goes after Chell for is her intelligence.

When she does, it's an admission of her high standards for Chell; Like when the fake door trap works and GLaDOS concedes, "I didn't actually think that would work. I already built a much better, smarter trap up ahead for when this one fails." That's a backhanded insult. It's calling her dumb, but in a disappointed way rather than an affirming way.

Chell tests very well. Between the two games, GLaDOS has developed a strong understanding of Chell's aptitude for critical thinking and problem-solving in stressful situations.

And so she takes it on faith, just from what she knows of Chell, that Wheatley is stealing Chell's credit.

[voidpengin]

tags by @phidelta

[typical-bird]

go fly my scarab i guess

[mollymux]

happy pride month this game is from 2011 and this is found in GlaDOS’s chamber

[neverwonderneverremember]

i can't eat breakfast because they stopped making good youtube videos

[jimpluff]

[justgarb]

Evening time is Toga Time.

I have a roman pattern tunica I've sewn from two large matching towels. Sew them together on the pink.

So every evening when I get off work, I get myself a shower and slip into my luxurious towel tunic rucked up over a belt. I walkabout outside (to the delight and distress of my neighbors) then it's inside for sitting-dry-time where I eat candy or junk food and drink something decadently fruity while listening to music and enjoying the company of my lovely mutuals on this webbed site.

It is once again Toga Time. Join me, Fellow Romans, for I have just returned from the public Baths and I seek your delightful company

[dni-archive]

[abysslll]

[itsladykit]

Motion Picture Association of America.

[waywardworldhopper]

Entertainment Software Rating Board

[polychaete-of-the-day]

Polychaete of the day is this tangled mess (affecionate). Some kind of spaghetti worm.

Photo by thetidepooler

[tobiasdrake]

A detail I find really interesting about Chell, GLaDOS, and Wheatley's first confrontation in Portal 2 is when Wheatley starts gloating about taking over the facility. "I did this! Tiny little Wheatley did this!"

And GLaDOS interjects like, "You didn't do this. She did all the work!"

I find that interjection fascinating because. Like.

GLaDOS doesn't actually know anything about what happened behind the scenes. She lost track of Chell and Wheatley after Wheatley opened up a wall panel and they bolted off together into the facility's inner workings. She doesn't see them again until Chell falls for her fake door trap, at which point GLaDOS is unpleasantly surprised to discover that Chell's disabled the turrets and neurotoxin in the meantime.

She has no evidentiary foundation to base that accusation on.

This is also before GLaDOS recognizes Wheatley as the Dumbass Core, so it's not based on an assessment of him.

The only explanation it leaves is that it's based on her assessment of Chell. Despite GLaDOS's enmity towards Chell, the one thing she rarely goes after Chell for is her intelligence.

When she does, it's an admission of her high standards for Chell; Like when the fake door trap works and GLaDOS concedes, "I didn't actually think that would work. I already built a much better, smarter trap up ahead for when this one fails." That's a backhanded insult. It's calling her dumb, but in a disappointed way rather than an affirming way.

Chell tests very well. Between the two games, GLaDOS has developed a strong understanding of Chell's aptitude for critical thinking and problem-solving in stressful situations.

And so she takes it on faith, just from what she knows of Chell, that Wheatley is stealing Chell's credit.

[voidpengin]

tags by @phidelta

[dragon-in-a-fez]

so much of the "research" on "phones bad" is just statisticians congratulating themselves in a circle

[dragon-in-a-fez]

example: I am right now reading an article on "phubbing", which is apparently the term for ignoring people you're with in order to pay attention to your phone. we'll slide right past the claim that this is a normal word people use.

the authors have developed a "phubbing scale" and demonstrated that it has strong correlation with the existing "maladaptive technology use" scale. from this, they conclude the "phubbing scale" is a valid and useful metric.

the "maladaptive technology use" scale, if you go and read that paper, has shown strong correlation with the "problematic smartphone application use" construct.

have you caught the problem yet? nowhere has it been proven that scoring high on any of this is actually bad for you.

imagine someone told you "if the ground is wet it probably rained recently". then you talked to someone about rain and they said "if it rained recently there were probably clouds". yeah okay sounds reasonable. then all three of these people told you their research proves clouds, rain, and wet ground are all signs of demonic possession in giraffes. you'd be like hold up, I think you lost me somewhere

[ollievion]

I don’t need a study to know using my phone makes me feel like shit

[dragon-in-a-fez]

do different things on your phone then. I'm guessing you haven't written off paper as a technology just because tax forms make you want to cry

[weeknightbrutal-deactivated2026]

It's fair to be skeptical of research into problematic mobile phone usage on the basis that while some studies have shown it to be correlated with anxiety, insomnia, and depression, correlation is not causation and it is difficult to establish a causal relationship when studying this kind of problem. It's also fair to be skeptical of psych research in general due to the problems that are pervasive in the field.

But being not just skeptical but confident that you've debunked all the extant research on the basis that...the dumb statisticians never even bothered to check if this was actually bad for you LMFAO IDIOTS is just plain anti-intellectual though.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

> spend 5 years getting a PhD in youth and digital media

> express annoyance with a common failing of academic writing in your field

> get called anti-intellectual

[dragon-in-a-fez]

now reading a paper where the researcher:

asked students to volunteer to take a "screen-free challenge" where they didn't use electronic devices in class for a semester

recorded students' views on the challenge at the end of the course, and found that most of the students who participated had positive views while most of the students who didn't participate had negative views

completely ignored that this might just mean "people who thought something was a bad idea didn't do it", and instead concluded "the screen-free challenge leads to more positive views on the learning experience"

I'm getting whiplash from all the looking into the camera I am doing here

[allore]

Just to clarify, they only recorded the students’ views at the end of the study?? They didn’t ask the students what they expected at the beginning or ask why they participated??

That seems like such a basic step to mitigate your #3!

[dragon-in-a-fez]

the thing you have to understand is that "screens bad" research gets published so easily you can basically make every research mistake ever invented and be fine