izzy's playlists!
occasionally subtle
tannertan36
Sweet Seals For You, Always
PR's Tumblrdome
No title available
RMH
blake kathryn
Misplaced Lens Cap
Love Begins
shark vs the universe
hello vonnie
ellievsbear
Sade Olutola
d e v o n
sheepfilms
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
i don't do bad sauce passes
NASA
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
seen from Türkiye
seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
@rosa-raine
i think there's potential for a pacific rim franchise installment where two people who are Not Drift Compatible At All have to figure it out anyway for plot reasons and end up doing the 36 questions that lead to love, except, like, instead of love it is piloting a giant robot
it goes poorly until question 14 ‘is there something you have dreamed of doing for a long time?’ and they both say punch a kaiju
evil pacific rim is just evangelion
Skip Google for Research
As Google has worked to overtake the internet, its search algorithm has not just gotten worse. It has been designed to prioritize advertisers and popular pages often times excluding pages and content that better matches your search terms
As a writer in need of information for my stories, I find this unacceptable. As a proponent of availability of information so the populace can actually educate itself, it is unforgivable.
Below is a concise list of useful research sites compiled by Edward Clark over on Facebook. I was familiar with some, but not all of these.
⁂
Google is so powerful that it “hides” other search systems from us. We just don’t know the existence of most of them. Meanwhile, there are still a huge number of excellent searchers in the world who specialize in books, science, other smart information. Keep a list of sites you never heard of.
www.refseek.com - Academic Resource Search. More than a billion sources: encyclopedia, monographies, magazines.
www.worldcat.org - a search for the contents of 20 thousand worldwide libraries. Find out where lies the nearest rare book you need.
https://link.springer.com - access to more than 10 million scientific documents: books, articles, research protocols.
www.bioline.org.br is a library of scientific bioscience journals published in developing countries.
http://repec.org - volunteers from 102 countries have collected almost 4 million publications on economics and related science.
www.science.gov is an American state search engine on 2200+ scientific sites. More than 200 million articles are indexed.
www.pdfdrive.com is the largest website for free download of books in PDF format. Claiming over 225 million names.
www.base-search.net is one of the most powerful researches on academic studies texts. More than 100 million scientific documents, 70% of them are free
Disco Elysium textures - VISUAL CALCULUS
I wasn’t gonna reblog, but this poor person’s eyes. They scream of pain and desperation.
It really bums me out when people refuse to draw fat characters fat. There are so many skinny and buff characters out there, so when you have a fat character, it's wonderful! Stop taking away their fat! There is nothing wrong with the fact that they're fat! There are so many resources out there to teach you how to draw all body types, yet some artists cling to the single one. You may not think you're doing this, but what it says when you take that aspect away is that you don't think fat people deserve to be seen as they are. You're telling your viewers that it's somehow incorrect that they're fat, that they aren't attractive, or that you needed to "correct" them to draw them. If you're going to put your skills, time, and energy into drawing these characters, you need to do the bare minimum and include their body fat. Even if your art is stylized, you can and should still learn how to include fat people in your art.
I'll even help you out right now! References are great for drawing, as it helps to know how the body works before drawing it. You'll want to have an idea of how weight is displaced and how long/short things should be. It helps to know what bones go where, what muscle attaches where, how folds of skin look under clothes, etc. Part of those references should include how fat sits on the body. Here are some amazing PDFs for you to use:
• Morpho - Fat and Skin Folds by Michel Lauricella is one of the best resources out there for drawing fat bodies. I'm sure you've seen it passed around before, and there's a reason for that. You can either download the PDF or view it on that site.
• Morpho - Simplified Forms by Michel Lauricella is a great beginners reference PDF. I recommend this to every artist who is just starting out. You'll have to download this one to view it.
• 2DA Torso by Michel Lauricella is a more in depth PDF about the torso and shows muscles and how they attach and move on the bones. This can either be downloaded or viewed on the site.
• Morpho: Hands and Feet: Anatomy for Artists by Michel Lauricella is exactly what it says! Hands and feet are often pretty difficult for artists. This PDF is a great resource. You'll have to download it to view it.
There are also so many artists on here, Twitter, or ArtStation that have passed around tutorials as well! All it takes is a quick search to find helpful information. Your art will greatly improve as you study and use references!
in my sophomore year of college this guy made these items which quickly became a craze across campus. i myself bought one of his sweaters, which says “GOOD AND DEAD” across the chest and “ARM PAIN” along the sleeves. he showed up at 11 pm on a bicycle to deliver the goods in the dead of winter, wearing a metal t-shirt tucked into khakis. his facebook screen name is an indecipherable series of symbols. i have no authentic way to credit him but i want to share his art with you.
UPDATE! i was able to identify the artist as daniel guinness. he gave me permission to keep these images up and to include his email address [email protected] if you would like to buy one! please support his art :)
SECOND UPDATE! i have received word that dan is not currently making the sweaters! he was able to get a fulltime position somewhere, let’s all cheer him on!!!
Sapphic af
(The Countess and Susanna in “The Marriage Of Figaro” by Mozart)
Ajsjdjd i recenrlt tracked down one of my favorite articles, and even though i first read it years ago i still think about and use the conclusions i drew from it to this day
https://www.wired.com/story/what-you-call-a-color-depends-on-how-you-use-it/
Categories for colors are remarkably stable across languages and cultures. New research may finally explain why.
It's such a fascinating idea, that we value warm and cool differently. That the background, the frame of our world, the cool colors, is less described in color than the objects of our interest.
That we talk about colors that are more friendly to us, closer to our experience, something we even created, with more detail.
The natural earth that we walk upon, we do not as easily describe using a superficial cool color description and rather opt for function. Function over form, interwoven with how we see the world. A blanket we weave, a tool we create, we are more likely to ascribe it a value that balances form with function, color as well as insulation; whereas the aesthetics of the greater world are more incidental to its importance.
That the very first color divisions we created, were based not just on wavelength, but an intangible familiarity, almost tied up with how we interact with them. To say something was [warm color term] was not just to describe it, but to invoke a closeness to it that is separate from any cool color one.
That to this day, things like warm and cool, hot and cold, light and dark, hold context of liveliness and friendliness and intensity beyond their initial meaning. That that was baked into our perception of everything, not just ourselves!
It makes me think about how the Mayans wrote comics, and the speech bubbles that represented Anger and yelling, they were fringed with fire.
Anger: dynamic, yes, but ultimately fleeting entity, appearing and disappearing like fire against the backdrop of the ancient world changing perpetually around us
And it reminds me of a book i'm reading; in the book Braiding Sweetgrass, there is a chapter dedicated to the Native American language Potawatomi (and others), and how the distinction between environmental and created objects/beings is coded into verbs. Everything outside of immediate human creation is dynamic, not said as a noun but as a verb. A tree exists as a verb until it is turned into a table.
Value in its own existence, not as something that can be described flatly and superficially. "To be a Bay." Color be damned, when a bay is so much more than what it looks like!
And the Tsimane, they described the natural objects by their function, something dynamic and interconnected with everything, and the manmade ones by their color; unlike the english speakers, which were more likely to make no distinction.
Have we lost something there in our western lives, just as we've created a language that equates manmade objects with nature itself? What happened to change that?
Aso something to think of is how there's not a full overlap between warmth and human objects; we create overwhelmingly "warm" objects, but many warm objects like animals and fruits are created by the great, cool world. The frame of our existence is inherently equal to us, creating its own stuff we can use and need, the green of a forest occasionally bursting with the warm color of fruits and flowers for us and the animals! Just as we, dynamic beings, burst with our own creations! A mirrored creative force that we live amongst. The warmth of creation equated with the warmth of generosity.
There's so much to think of, both in understanding the way we interact with art, and the world, and each other, just using the conclusions of this article. How universal and interconnected color, warmth, volume, movement, function, everything, truly is.
This really reminds me of an excerpt from an article I read a while back, talking about how Korean, as a language, is a very sensitive and nuanced language and it hides my emotions and preferences within the words I choose to speak out loud. This bit explains that phenomenon in colors, where in Korean simply describing something as "white," or "yellow," "black," cannot be the same as describing it as "yellow and matted like a dog, "grossly pale and thin," and "depressingly dark."
(I took some liberties with the translation, but these are color descriptions in Korean, and they are all one word)
This language has hidden my likes and dislikes, my opinions and thoughts into singular words - just saying one thing without any context reveals my preference for it.
evolution of perception
right to left - in game, artbook, new merch
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1755), Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
When did Death Note get a live action gay porno
i know an engineer-type dude who said fiction bored him, because fiction is mostly-formulaic and tropey, and you can generally guess what’s gonna happen next, and yada yada
so his solution for this problem was… to solely read serial web novels in languages that (1) he did not speak, and (2) for which there was no actual translation, fan or otherwise
apparently, the combined forces of “trying to figure out WTF is going on via the power of Google Translate" + “cultural differences in storytelling conventions” + “the inherent randomness of where the hell amateur authors are gonna take their plots”—those all mashed up to make stories that were unpredictable enough to keep him guessing all the time
then he described to me this totally batshit-sounding Hungarian story he’d been obsessively reading once a week for years
and god i think about him all the time. like. that is the most wild way to process fiction that i have ever heard of, but also, i’ve gotta admire the sheer chaos energy of it
like i tried to tell him suspense isn’t about having no fucking clue what’s going on, it’s about having expectations subverted in novel and interesting ways that nonetheless accord with one’s understanding of the story’s universe, etc
and he’s just like “no. suspense is when i cannot guess what is happening next, full stop. quantum physics is a suspense novel”
I don’t agree with this man but I respect his position.
It’s like this…
You’re fourteen and you’re reading Larry Niven’s “The Protector” because it’s your father’s favorite book and you like your father and you think he has good taste and the creature on the cover of the book looks interesting and you want to know what it’s about. And in it the female character does something better than the male character - because she’s been doing it her whole life and he’s only just learned - and he gets mad that she’s better at it than him. And you don’t understand why he would be mad about that, because, logically, she’d be better at it than him. She’s done it more. And he’s got a picture of a woman painted on the inside of his spacesuit, like a pinup girl, and it bothers you.
But you’re fourteen and you don’t know how to put this into words.
And then you’re fifteen and you’re reading “Orphans of the Sky” because it’s by a famous sci-fi author and it’s about a lost generation ship and how cool is that?!? but the women on the ship aren’t given a name until they’re married and you spend more time wondering what people call those women up until their marriage than you do focusing on the rest of the story. Even though this tidbit of information has nothing to do with the plot line of the story and is only brought up once in passing.
But it’s a random thing to get worked up about in an otherwise all right book.
Then you’re sixteen and you read “Dune” because your brother gave it to you for Christmas and it’s one of those books you have to read to earn your geek card. You spend an entire afternoon arguing over who is the main character - Paul or Jessica. And the more you contend Jessica, the more he says Paul, and you can’t make him see how the real hero is her. And you love Chani cause she’s tough and good with a knife, but at the end of the day, her killing Paul’s challengers is just a way to degrade them because those weenies lost to a girl.
Then you’re seventeen and you don’t want to read “Stranger in a Strange Land” after the first seventy pages because something about it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. All of this talk of water-brothers. You can’t even pin it down.
And then you’re eighteen and you’ve given up on classic sci-fi, but that doesn’t stop your brother or your father from trying to get you to read more.
Even when you bring them the books and bring them the passages and show them how the authors didn’t treat women like people.
Your brother says, “Well, that was because of the time it was written in.”
You get all worked up because these men couldn’t imagine a world in which women were equal, in which women were empowered and intelligent and literate and capable.
You tell him - this, this is science fiction. This is all about imagining the world that could be and they couldn’t stand back long enough and dare to imagine how, not only technology would grow in time, but society would grow.
But he blows you off because he can’t understand how it feels to be fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and desperately wanting to like the books your father likes, because your father has good taste, and being unable to, because most of those books tell you that you’re not a full person in ways that are too subtle to put into words. It’s all cognitive dissonance: a little like a song played a bit out of tempo - enough that you recognize it’s off, but not enough to pin down what exactly is wrong.
And then one day you’re twenty-two and studying sociology and some kind teacher finally gives you the words to explain all those little feelings that built and penned around inside of you for years.
It’s like the world clicking into place.
And that’s something your brother never had to struggle with.
This is an excellent post to keep in mind when you see another recent post criticizing the current trend of dystopian sci-fi and going on about how sci-fi used to be about hope and wonder. No. It used to be about men. And now it’s not.
everything would be much easier if ya’ll started Kondoing the media you consume
ask yourself “does this spark joy” everytime you watch something and if the answer is “no” drop that on the spot and go on with your life
Dimon in the Rough
In his annual letter to shareholders, distributed last week, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon took aim at socialism, warning it would be “a disaster for our country,” because it produces “stagnation, corruption and often worse.”
Dimon should know. He was at the helm when JPMorgan received a $25bn socialist-like bailout in 2008, after it and other Wall Street banks almost tanked because of their reckless loans.
Dimon subsequently agreed to pay the government $13bn to settle charges that the bank overstated the quality of mortgages it was selling to investors in the run-up to the crisis. According to the Justice Department, JPMorgan acknowledged it had regularly and knowingly sold mortgages that should have never been sold. (Presumably this is where the “stagnation, corruption and often worse” comes in.)
The $13bn penalty was chicken feed to the biggest bank on Wall Street, whose profits last year alone amounted to $35bn. Besides, JPMorgan was able to deduct around $11bn of the settlement costs from its taxable income.
To state it another way, Dimon and other Wall Street CEOs helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis when the dangerous and irresponsible loans their banks were peddling – on which they made big money – finally went bust. But instead of letting the market punish the banks (which is what capitalism is supposed to do) the government bailed them out and eventually levied paltry fines which the banks treated as the cost of doing business.
If this isn’t socialism, what is? Yet it’s a particular form of socialism. Millions of homeowners who owed more on their homes than the homes became worth didn’t get bailed out. Millions of workers who lost their jobs or their savings, or both, didn’t get bailed out. No major banker went to jail.
Call it socialism for rich bankers.
It’s a gift that keeps giving. Dimon took advantage of the financial crisis to acquire Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, vastly enlarging JPMorgan. America’s five biggest banks, including Dimon’s, now control 46% of all deposits, up from 12% in the early 1990s.
And because they’re so big, Dimon’s and other big Wall Street banks are now considered “too big to fail”. This translates into a hidden subsidy of some $83bn a year, because creditors who face less risk accept lower interest on deposits and loans.
More socialism for rich bankers.
After the financial crisis and bailout, Congress enacted a milquetoast version of the Glass-Steagall Act, a banking law from the Great Depression that bankers killed off in the 1990s. The replacement was called the Dodd-Frank Act.
Ever since, Dimon has pushed to weaken Dodd-Frank.
When Obama’s regulators wanted to extend Dodd-Frank to the foreign branches and subsidiaries of Wall Street banks, Dimon warned it would harm Wall Street’s competitiveness.
This was the same Jamie Dimon who chose London as the place to make highly risky derivatives trades that lost the firm some $6bn in 2012 – proof that unless the overseas operations of Wall Street banks are covered by US regulations, giant banks like his will move more of their betting abroad, hiding their wildly-risky bets overseas so U.S. regulators can’t see them.
More recently, Trump’s bank regulators have heeded Dimon, and rolled back Dodd-Frank.
Dimon was also instrumental in getting the big Trump tax cuts through Congress. They saved JPMorgan and the other big banks $21bn last year alone.
Dimon was paid $31m last year. He is estimated by Forbes to be worth $1.3bn.
Ironically, a few weeks ago Dimon warned that income inequality is dividing America. He said that a “big chunk” of Americans have been left behind, and, announcing a $350m program to train workers for the jobs of the future, lamented that 40% of Americans make less than $15 an hour.
True, but $350m over five years isn’t even a drop in the ocean for the Americans left behind.
Wall Street bonuses totaled $27.5bn last year, which is more three times the combined annual earnings of all American workers employed full-time at the federal minimum wage. That’s more than 600,000 low-wage workers.
If Dimon were serious about the problem of widening inequality, he’d use his lobbying prowess to help raise the federal minimum wage. He’d also try to make it easier for workers to unionize, and to raise taxes on the super-wealthy like himself.
But, of course, Dimon isn’t really concerned about widening inequality. He’s not really concerned about socialism, either.
Dimon’s real concern is that America may end the kind of socialism he and other denizens of the Street depend on – bailouts, regulatory loopholes, and tax breaks.
These have made Dimon and his comrades a fortune, but they’ve brought the rest of America stagnation, corruption, and often worse.
