I was gonna read near the pool to cool off for a bit while I wait for my adhd medication to kick in and it took about 20 minutes of trying to choose the most productive book to read before I realised the flaw in the plan. Woops

Janaina Medeiros
Peter Solarz

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Today's Document
YOU ARE THE REASON

Product Placement
Cosimo Galluzzi

★

No title available
One Nice Bug Per Day

shark vs the universe
noise dept.
tumblr dot com
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
styofa doing anything
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
occasionally subtle

roma★
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from France
seen from Netherlands
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Argentina
seen from Argentina
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 United States
@rebellum
I was gonna read near the pool to cool off for a bit while I wait for my adhd medication to kick in and it took about 20 minutes of trying to choose the most productive book to read before I realised the flaw in the plan. Woops
I’m sure it’s already been said but the concept of the paleo diet is so stupid. like for one thing modern crops don’t look like plants that were being eaten in the pre agricultural Paleolithic era. meat is less changed, but,
grains: were tiny shitty seeds
nuts and seeds: were smaller and shittier and sometimes more toxic than what we eat now
fruits: often tougher, seedy, less juicy, lower in edible flesh, sometimes toxic
leafy greens: tougher and sometimes more toxic
tubers: smaller and less tasty. and you guessed it. sometimes toxic
meat: less often acquired from well fed and healthy animals, i.e. tougher, less fatty, less tasty
and then this is supposed to be the Most Natural, Healthiest way to eat? taking inspiration from an era when people were eating shittier more poisonous food and dying more often of starvation and malnutrition. lifespans were lower. Ok. why are we trying to emulate this
like, hunting/gathering still works, but it’s a Lot Of Work. people treated and cooked the foods to get toxins out, to make it more palatable. and they didn’t have watermelons!!! agriculture and selective breeding led to way more delicious and calorically dense foods. damn. be grateful.
Did you know there's a gap in my baseboards? I sure didn't!
Fortunately she's easy to lure out, because hers is the greed described in the bible. She knows her name but the problem is that verbal recall is never, ever going to be as valuable as a warm, humid hole (because ofc the dishwasher was going when this happened), so I had to lure her gluttonous ass out with a reptilink.
Anyways, I'm stopping at the dollar store for a pool noodle after work because this hole needs filling and I would prefer to be the one to fill it- not the damn lizard.
THWARTED! I have THWARTED her nefarious plan of going back in the hole!!
this video has been going around for a while but the English subtitles didn't match the energy of the spoken French at all. i had to fix it.
reblog to spread this version
I just put a reminder in my phone for over a year from now that I want to make a cool video montage of wolfquest to celebrate its 20th year anniversary
"For decades, wolf researchers believed ravens followed wolf packs to find food. Every biologist who flew aerial surveys over Yellowstone saw the same thing.
Wolves moving across the snow with ravens overhead, black shapes trailing the pack like a shadow with wings. The assumption was simple. The ravens were following the wolves. The wolves would kill. The ravens would eat. A study published in March 2026 using GPS transmitters on wolves, cougars, and ravens in Yellowstone proved the assumption wrong.
The ravens were not following the wolves. They were remembering where kills had happened before and flying over those locations looking for new carcasses. The relationship between the two species is real. The mechanism is not what anyone thought it was.
Bernd Heinrich, a University of Vermont biologist who spent years studying ravens in Maine and Yellowstone, first documented the scale of the association. His data showed ravens present near wolf packs 99.7 percent of the time during winter in Yellowstone. Not occasionally. Not frequently. Essentially always. On Isle Royale, researcher John Vucetich observed the same pattern from the air.
Every wolf pack had ravens with it. The birds were just always there.
The numbers at kill sites are staggering. The average number of ravens documented at a Yellowstone wolf kill is thirty. The maximum recorded at a single carcass is 135.
A wolf pack brings down an elk in the Lamar Valley, and within hours over a hundred ravens have materialized from across the drainage to feed. They do not wait politely. They land on the carcass while the wolves are still eating. They grab chunks of meat and cache them in the snow and in tree crotches for later retrieval. Research estimates that ravens can consume up to forty percent of a carcass, which means a wolf pack that kills a seven-hundred-pound elk may lose nearly three hundred pounds of it to birds.
That loss is so significant that one study proposed a theory that reshapes how we think about wolf pack size entirely. If a pair of wolves can take down an elk, why do wolves hunt in packs of four, six, eight, or more? The per-capita meat return decreases with every additional mouth. A pair gets the most meat per wolf. The answer may be ravens. Two wolves cannot eat fast enough to outpace a hundred ravens stripping the carcass simultaneously. A larger pack can post guards, feed in shifts, and physically dominate the carcass long enough to retain a greater share of the kill. Wolves may hunt in packs not because they need more teeth to bring down prey, but because they need more bodies to defend the kill from birds.
The ravens pay for their meals. Heinrich documented in his book Mind of the Raven that ravens serve as an early warning system at kill sites. Ravens are more vigilant than wolves. They perch in trees overlooking the carcass and scan the horizon in every direction. When a grizzly bear approaches, or a rival wolf pack, or a mountain lion, the ravens see it first. Their alarm calls alert the feeding wolves to the incoming threat before the wolves' own senses detect it. The wolves get airborne sentries. The ravens get an animal with the jaw strength to open a frozen elk carcass that no raven beak can penetrate.
That is the core of the mutualism. The raven cannot open the hide. The wolf can. The wolf cannot see a threat approaching from a mile away while its head is buried in a rib cage. The raven can. Each species fills a gap in the other's capability, and the result is a partnership so consistent that L. David Mech, the most published wolf researcher in the world, wrote that each creature is rewarded in some way by the presence of the other and that each is fully aware of the other's capabilities.
The play behavior is the part that makes biologists uncomfortable because it implies something beyond transactional mutualism. Wolves and ravens play together. Not at kill sites. Not during feeding. During downtime. Yellowstone observers have documented ravens diving at resting wolves, pulling their tails, and flying away. Wolf pups chase ravens across meadows. Ravens steal sticks from pups and hold them just out of reach. The interactions look like the cross-species equivalent of two bored kids messing with each other because there is nothing else to do.
Doug Smith, the retired lead biologist of the Yellowstone Wolf Project, had watched this relationship from the air for decades. Wolf researchers have believed forever that ravens follow wolves, he wrote after the 2026 study was published. Every wolf researcher has seen it. I have seen it routinely from the plane while wolves are chasing an elk in Yellowstone Park, numerous times. Ravens are just always there. This is an age-old observation. But it has never been rigorously tested until now.
The 2026 study, which used 2.5 years of GPS data from transmitters on wolves, cougars, and ravens simultaneously, revealed that ravens were not tracking wolf movements in real time. They were patrolling known kill sites. A raven that fed at a wolf kill in a specific drainage in November would return to that drainage repeatedly over the following weeks and months, flying over the exact location where the carcass had been, checking whether a new kill had appeared. The ravens were not following the wolves. They were following the memory of where wolves had killed before.
That distinction matters because it changes the raven from a passive follower into an active strategist. A bird that follows a wolf pack is reacting. A bird that memorizes kill locations across an entire landscape and patrols them systematically is planning. The raven is not tagging along. It is running a surveillance network across hundreds of square miles of Yellowstone, checking sites where food has appeared before, and showing up fast enough when it appears again that every observer since the 1995 reintroduction assumed it had been following the wolves the whole time.
The wolf and the raven share almost identical geographic range across the Northern Hemisphere. Everywhere wolves live, ravens live. The association is not a Yellowstone novelty. It is a continental relationship between two of the most intelligent species in North American wildlife, running continuously across boreal forest, tundra, mountain, and prairie, built on meat, memory, and a mutual awareness that neither species has ever needed to be taught."
Sources: Heinrich, B. "Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Adventures with Wolf-Birds." / Stahler, D. et al. (2002). Animal Behaviour. / Mech, L.D. "The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species." / Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Living Bird, 2020. / Bozeman Daily Chronicle, March 2026.
these things are fucking weird
TUMBLR FIXED the FUCKING APP I CAN TAKE SCROLLING SCREENSHOTS AGAIN
it’s so hard for me to listen to heartbroken/angry breakup songs by straight men bc no matter how good the song is i’ll be like i’m not sure if i fully believe you. let’s hear her side of the story.
this ALWAYS happens to me with Serbia. i'm always like my boy i know you're the problem i just can't prove it yet
patterns left by woodworms on driftwood
PLEASE search "beetle gallery" and look at images. The patterns larval beetles leave behind under the bark of trees while feeding are so so beautiful
Rolling Homes: Handmade Houses on Wheels by Jane Lidz (1979)
im being so serious when i say this but we need to bring back the "my genitals are none of your business" "if gender is whats in my pants then my gender is some loose change" mentality from the late 2010's because too many people on here are openly flirting with exclusionary people who spout enbyphobic rhetoric. stop caring about what people's agabs are you assholes. they literally mean nothing. they're not a zodiac sign or indicative of people's character. you are not wholly pure or wholly evil because of your assigned sex. you're just a person.
"what genitals do you have?" Is sexual harassment regardless if its from a security guard or a chronically online furry
crotch phrenology
Crotch phrenology.
Unrelated. Yesterday I found out that child sexual abuse material is legal in Japan, but gay marriage isn't.
I am fascinated with the concept of soul mates where when you meet your soul mate the world changes or theres a sign of predestination. Like, you're born with a tattoo of the first words you'll say to eachother, or you'll suddenly see in colour now.
Like, if its visible, how does that influence acceptable forms of love? Can it be one-sided? What happens if like, an uncle meets their new niece, and they experience the soulmate bond? What happens socially then? Is it seen as inevitable? Or are they forceably separated? If its visible, how does that affect homophobia, if its immediately obvious to anyone that youre soulmates? How does this vary across cultures? Are there cultures which see it as its own special category outside of romance? What happens with the tattoo if someone's soulmate somehow doesnt communicate in any words? What happens if you never meet your soulmate? If one of you dies at age like 10 after you meet eachother in achool? How is aromanticness treated? (Tbh I could very well see arophobia as literally not changing at all, since ppl already think of aromantics as 'pitifully broken'). Are there certain legal protections or exemptions for soulmates? Can someone get a restraining order against their soulmate? What are the subcultures like of people who reject the whole concept of soulmates?
The majority of the Earth’s rodents: How do you survive environments with practically zero oxygen, feel no pain, and live for decades when none of the rest of us can???
Naked mole-rats:
As I am currently working in the antique/vintage "industry" an annoying fact has come to my attention...some sellers think antique and vintage are interchangeable words.
Firstly, though only tangentially relevant, their textbook definitions refer to specific things: antique is used to describe the age of furniture and domestic items, while vintage specifically refers to the age of wine.
But for those of you shopping for old books, home decor, clothes, toys, etc., here are some glossary terms so you can discern whether a seller is informed, clueless, or just plain old lying.
Antique
At least one hundred years old, or close enough. The copy of Anne of Green Gables pictured above was published in 1935, making it nine years shy of being a "true" antique but to the savvy collector it still passes.
Vintage
At least twenty years old, and rarely any younger than that—if it wasn't at least twenty years ago, the nostalgia for it likely hasn't kicked in and it's probably still in circulation. The sewing magazines pictured above range from the 1960s to 1970s.
Vintage "Style"
A brand new item that either reproduces or mimicks an old-fashioned appearance. This is a fair business practice as long as the seller is open about the fact that their product is brand new. Two of the tins pictured above are recent* reproductions of discontinued product containers. The one is the center is a legitimate antique.
Antiqued (verb)
Similar to "vintage style" but with more effort in that an item has been made to look very old, rugged, and weathered, often including faked patina or purposely faded coloring. The above photo is of a 1970s decorative wall spoon that was painted to look a hundred years older—antique styles were a huge influence in the '70s.
Retro/Retro Style
Not a reliable indicator of age, but of current nostalgia. If you see this on a product it is likely referring to something unique to its time period, especially short-lived things like toys, jewelry, clothes, and graphic design styles. Currently this word is used heavily on items in the 1980s–2000s range, but also iconic 1950s–1960s styles. The fast food toys picture above are from the late '90s to early '00s.
Other Labels
"Victorian" frequently, and inaccurately, used to label anything pre‐1940s and post-Medieval, rendering it absolutely meaningless in most cases.
"Y2K" gets tagged on anything from 1990 to 2009. This is inaccurate as y2K is literally in the name, "year 2000." Should only refer to the futuristic pop styles unique to 1999–2001.
"MCM" and "mid century" have also lost meaning. Both are derived from a specific late 1940s–1960s furniture and interior design style known as mid century modern, but are frequently misused to describe any item or style ranging from the 1930s–1980s.
"Art deco/nouveau" these are just style names, not indicators of age. Both styles have also had multiple comebacks, so be aware of that if you are looking for genuine antiques.
"Is any of this writing related?" Sure, if you want it to be. I just wanted to talk about words and history, and hopefully help some folk not get ripped off online. Also, don't blindly trust sellers just because you trust the site. Even sites with good reputations can't weed out every phony.
Entire post dedicated to the lady selling Smurf toys from 1980 as "antiques."
Thanks for reading!
———
*If you consider the '90s "recent."
All photos were taken by me.
If anyone's wondering, the literal definition of "Victorian" is something produced between 1836 and 1901, the years of Queen Victoria's reign. There is no such thing as "Victorian-style," in terms of actual antique items, because many different styles in various different areas were popular during the Victorian period. "Victorian revival" is a legitimate term, though, referring to a style popular during the 1960s – 1980s and maybe a bit into the 1990s