posting the spotted hyena vision diagram again
real
macklin celebrini has autism
art blog(derogatory)

Origami Around

ellievsbear
Sweet Seals For You, Always

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Claire Keane
almost home
occasionally subtle
hello vonnie
Fai_Ryy

No title available
Xuebing Du
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
we're not kids anymore.
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
icyghini twinkie
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

if i look back, i am lost
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from India
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
@pikkulintumae
posting the spotted hyena vision diagram again
real
wow you have dogshit taste (remembers im trying to be nicer to people who like different things) uh i mean, it's beautiful how the breadth of human experience is so wide it encompasses those with good taste and those with dogshit taste
It was a Tuesday in 1981 when the San Francisco police kicked in the door.
Inside the small apartment, they expected to find a hardened criminal. They expected a drug kingpin. They expected resistance.
Instead, they found a 57-year-old waitress in an apron.
The air in the apartment smelled sweet, thick with chocolate and something earthier. On the kitchen counter, cooling on wire racks, were 54 dozen brownies.
The police officers began bagging the evidence. They confiscated nearly 18 pounds of marijuana. They handcuffed the woman, whose name was Mary Jane Rathbun.
She didn't look scared. She didn't look guilty.
She looked at the officers, smoothed her apron, and reportedly said, "I thought you guys were coming."
Tags quoted from Previous:
#i didnt reblog the first time #because i wanted to verify this #and now that i have? hell yeah brownie grandma
Can you please share how you verified, and give alternate sources, so we can maybe quiet the accusations of "A.I. slop" in the comments?
I'd be only too happy to do that. I was suspicious to start, too. It seemed a bit on the nose to have the weed brownie grandma named "Mary Jane," but also, that's a very common combination in a certain place and time, so I thought it was worth the extra effort.
What I did was find sources that made the claim (in this case, that a woman named Mary Jane was a medicinal marijuana activist in California, USA in the 1980s and 90s.) I checked the dates to get some certainty those sources aren't AI slop, then checked that the sources are generally reliable.
Then I followed useful details about the place and time, and other people involved, to explore it more fully.
The first thing I did was search for "Brownie Mary" and see if that turned anything up at all. It turned up a LOT of results. Predictably, some of them were recipes, but not all of them.
Next up, I checked sources and dates. Wikipedia can be dodgy for academic use, but their policy on LLM-generated input is very clear: they don't want slop. I started by reading that page and then went on to read others.
The Atlas Obscura article is from 2018. I found another one from SFWeekly from 2017.
Both of those are decent sources - Atlas Obscura gets a High factual reporting rate from MediaBiasFactCheck, and while MBFC doesn't have a rating for SFWeekly, the verbiage in that article is very close to what GastroObscura has. (Also to what the post itself has, right down to the choice of pull quote.)
Now, we can stop there and feel pretty confident that articles published before the wide availability of LLMs are not, in fact, LLM generated.
...or we can go deeper, and run this all the way back to source.
I spotted references to a Chicago Tribune imterview of Mary Jane Rathbun, published in 1993.
My search string of "Chicago Tribune 1993 Mary Jane Rathbun" hit it in the top 3 results. That article includes some fun new details: she wore a cannabis leaf shaped pendant to her trial!
She also objected to being portrayed as a cuddly grandma up against The Man, so I must retract my flippant tags, above.
The evidence now strongly points to Brownie Mary being a real woman who really went to court for giving AIDS patients weed brownies. But can we get closer? I've now seen several mentions of a 1980 attempt at convicting her too.
The articles have mentioned Sonoma County and a nonprofit called the Shanti Project, so let's hook onto that and see what we get.
Searching for "Mary Jane Rathbun Sonoma County 1980" gets me an article from a law firm; that mentions the prosecuting attorney by name, and points to a book: Lust for Justice: The Radical Life & Law of J. Tony Serra, by Paulette Frankl. It even has an excerpt!
We can run the book down too, just for fun (now we have a primary source.) My favorite used book site has a copy for $1. Amazon gives a view of the back cover, too:
...wow. I should see if my library has that!
The excerpt on the site has a mention of a candelight vigil held for her death in 1999. It took some hunting past things I'd already read and a bunch of shops giving written tributes, but I found a news report about that, too.
There's a lot of information out there, and it's worth digging into. Otherwise it's altogether too easy to think something real and worth knowing is just another bit of slop.
Thank you.
Signal boosting for the Truth.
As I said in the tags previous to this, A.I. is damaging to our culture not only for producing slop, but also for spreading mistrust of the truth.
Reblogging not just for the awesome history lesson but also the beautiful display of step-by-step fact checking and source researching in this age of AI slop
Bugs...
starting a collection
Well, well, well. If it isn't the consequences of someone else's actions that I am directly impacted and severely affected by
couples outfit idea
I dont think the fact most people on tumblr admittedly don’t have sex is embarassing or bad or whatever obviously however what I do think is if you’ve ever let someone’s bizarro opinions on sex on here get to you it’s kind of important to remember that they likely have quite literally no idea what they’re talking about
The what post
Can anyone tell me what episode of ghost adventures has Zak asking the ghost to beep once if it's a man and twice if it's a woman and it beeps a million fucking times? I'm going insane and I need to know
I’m not Christian, I don’t go to church anymore, and my pastor died, but when he was alive I’d sometimes go to his sermons and I remember one time he said “it feels good to hate, but we know that it isn’t allowed, so when we’re told that we’re allowed to hate someone we get so excited that we forget we’re supposed to love”, and if my humble atheist ass might borrow some church talk I’d like to perhaps submit that
Anyhow sometimes on the day to day I feel disgust or revulsion and I have to ask myself “is this a danger to anyone at all or am I just looking for something I’m allowed to hate” and a solid 98/100 times it’s the latter so once again thank you pastor D
So-called "free thinkers" when their friend has to pee
had a dream that there was this new tiktok trend called "scrubbing" where people would take images of fictional characters and put them in images of bathtubs and drag around transparent pngs of soap and brushes with their tiktok art tablets and like liquify tool their hair down to mimic giving them a shower. and people would get into flamewars in the comments of every single video over the types of soap they picked and if the images had decently removed backgrounds and if they got soap in their eyes. and it got onto the news because it turned out everyone doing the trend was doing it compulsively like they physically couldn't stop and each video was a solid few minutes long because they were just collectively obsessively recording themselves fake-showering these fictional characters and arguing about it online
for the record I have never used tiktok and like explicitly in the dream I learned about it secondhand from a discord server so there's that also which is funny I think
String identified: a a a tat t a t tt t ca "cg" ta ag cta caact a t t ag att a ag a taat g a a t t tt at tat a t t a t c gg t a . a gt t aa t ct g t t a t c a t ag a ct acg a t gt a t . a t gt t t ca t t t g t t a g t c t ca c't t a ac a a t g ca t t cct cg t a-g t cta caact a agg at t t c a tt a ct t a a at t ca a c t' tat a c t
Closest match: Mya arenaria isolate MELC-2E11 chromosome 1 Common name: Soft-Shell Clam
It kind of fucks with me that somebody killed ötzi the iceman because ötzi himself is like whatever but the silent presence of human hands that drew back the string of the bow that shot the arrow that killed him is crazy. the idea that there were various people involved in that situation and while one of them has had his last hours painstakingly reconstructed and studied to no end, the others now only exist insofar that an arrowhead had to get into his shoulder somehow. imagine killing someone and then suddenly your entire existence is only a vague shadow implied by the fact that you killed them. much to consider
Testing the mummified bone marrow of ötzi to figure out his ancestry whole time there’s definitely another person, maybe more than one, standing in the room with us but I can never see or speak to them because I only know them through the assurance that they were there too in the form of one single arrowhead. I hate prehistory so much it’s unreal
I hate it too tbh