Me, halfway through a gin and tonic: was this book actually suspenseful or was the murderess main character lying a lot and taking risks and giving me second hand anxiety-

★
RMH
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Jules of Nature

No title available
Show & Tell

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
Xuebing Du
official daine visual archive
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
No title available
tumblr dot com
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

titsay
🪼
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
h
will byers stan first human second
Mike Driver
icyghini twinkie

seen from Türkiye
seen from Venezuela
seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from Norway

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from New Zealand
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Belarus

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Chile

seen from United States
@scienceisabeautifulthing
Me, halfway through a gin and tonic: was this book actually suspenseful or was the murderess main character lying a lot and taking risks and giving me second hand anxiety-
On the subject of knowledge systems, I'm also always wanting to pull apart "science" as it is talked about into several aspects that need seperate treatment.
There's Science as an ideal: a way of approaching the world and learning about it. The idealization of observation and questioning, of coming up with theories but being willing to change them as you observe more.
There is Science as a practice: a way of implementing the ideal. Methodologies for observation, theory-building, and testing. The discussion of these methodologies which also seeks to analyze which are effective, how they can be improved, what their limitations are.
There is Science as a body of work. The accumulation of science-as-practiced, where many generations of work have built on each other and continue to analyze and relate to earlier work.
And there is Science as an institution, as an arm of the Academy. Who decides which approaches and perspectives are legitimate? Who does the observation, who pays for it? The academic project has historical roots deeply tied in imperialism: a philosophy of Knowing the world as part of the project of Owning the world.
Science as a body of work is deeply tied up in science as an institution - not because this fundamentally follows from the accumulated practice of science as an ideal, but as a matter of historical fact. This is the body of work we have.
All of these aspects are in conversation with each other - and with realms of life and society outside of "science" specifically. How exactly the ideal of science should be defined, has varied over history. The iterative effects of changes in methodology and philosophy accumulate in the body of work. The changing body of work changes the goals and outlooks of the academy. These aspects of science are not separable. But neither are they synonymous.
Very often, I see critiques of science-as-practiced rebutted with appeals to the legacy and legitimacy of science-as-institution. Meanwhile, critiques of science-as-institution are brushed off with appeals to science-as-ideal.
To understand the body of knowledge we have constructed, where it comes from and how it operates, we have to be able to address these aspects as distinct, and to build language of analysis for them individually, and for how they interact.
Victorian Needle Case, by W Avery & Sons
I want the pretty thing!! I am revisiting my opinion on needle cases just looking at the moth!!
Me, surveying my craft room aka my office: okay team we gotta pick ONE project to finish before we start a new one this is getting stressful-
I 👏🏻 finished 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 thing 👏🏻
Me, surveying my craft room aka my office: okay team we gotta pick ONE project to finish before we start a new one this is getting stressful-
Ok, but for real, one of the things that drives me a bit crazy is Western Washington, Oak prairies, and Douglas Firs.
So, "everyone" pictures western Washington as naturally being covered in evergreen forests made up primarily of Douglas Firs. (If they know what a Douglas fir is) They think everything over here was just old growth evergreens. Therefore, many, many people's first thought when getting into ecological restoration is "Plant more trees!!!" And they go out and they get a bunch of Douglas firs and they plant them. Because they're cheap, they're native, and they grow well.
(Do you know what our most common tree is? Do you know what tree has actually expanded it's range since colonialization? Do you know what tree pops up everywhere? Do you know what tree will just show up on it's own and is doing JUST FINE and DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP????? And has actually caused a decrease in biodiversity as it takes over and crowds out other species????)
America's picture of ecological wellness, at least when it comes to Washington state, is a thick, vibrant evergreen forest full of Douglas firs.
But! That's actually not the only ecosystem that was here before colonialization, and before the diseases that Europeans brought over killed a huge percent of the native human population. A huge swath of what people now call the I-5 corridor was prairie and oak savanna! We only have 3% of the historical extent of the oak savanna!
That means there's less of it left than of the old growth!
But the thing is that those prairies and oak savanna had been actively maintained by native peoples (and these ecosystems have greater biodiversity than the Douglas fir forests!!!) Until! The U.S. government banned intentional fire and actively suppressed naturally occurring fires! Which turned out to be A BAD IDEA.
And the thing is, oaks support so many MORE species of insects and birds than Douglas firs, it's incredible. Oaks are a keystone species, and so many of the species that are struggling in this state are struggling in part because the DOUGLAS FIRS INVADED THE PRAIRIES AND OAK SAVANNAS and turned them into closed canopy evergreen forests with fewer species and less food for people and other animals.
Because the thing is that the oaks and the camas and the lomatiums and a bunch of other extremely cool plants that are super important to native bees, native butterflies, native birds, and native peoples, are adapted to fire.
Douglas firs (and scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry and a bunch of other invasive species that really want to take over the prairies) are not. So for many hundreds and thousands of years- since the last ICE AGE!- native peoples in this area have been intentionally maintaining open prairies and oak savannas by using fire to keep the Douglas firs from taking over and turning everything into a Douglas fir dominated closed canopy forest.
But when the people here were hit first by European diseases and then the U.S. banned intentional fires, Douglas firs started moving in from the surrounding forests. Their seeds are everywhere. They are pioneer species. They're widely adapted. They're fast growing. They transform every ecosystem into one ecosystem that they dominate. They're planted by the million each year! Because they're a great timber tree! But they're also literally everywhere else!
We have so many! SO many Douglas firs! More than any other tree species!
So tell me why people go out and plant EVEN MORE! Instead of, I don't know, something that actually supports way more species and is a much rarer tree and part of an ecosystem that has almost been wiped out, like, say, the Garry Oak?
Stop planting Douglas firs willy nilly everwhere! We have enough!
And I say this as a person who loves the forest! I grew up in the temperate rainforest! I personally adore all the understory plants that adapted to the deep shade of an evergreen forest. The cool, shady, humidity of a good forest is my personal ideal.
But the other plants and the animals that depend on them need space to grow, too.
And, even if you are personally in an area that was evergreen forest, I guarantee you it wasn't a monoculture of Douglas fir. That'll show up on it's own. A mixed species forest is a healthier forest that supports more animal life. There are so, so many Douglas firs. Please include other trees native to your area and setting.
In the Midwest we have the same issue but with eastern redcedar, both because of a lack of fires and a lack of large herbivores. Grasslands and prairies are some of the most endangered habitats in the US so it’s vital that they’re protected
Prairie is being converted to forest as trees expand across the landscape, at the expense of grassland species. Ranchers, conservationists a
Something else people don’t always think of is forest succession. I think more people are familiar with the basics, where your “weedy” plants lead to brush and eventually trees, but they don’t understand that the trees in a mature forest have a succession too that often takes 100+ years to achieve
In my area, where nearly all forests were clearcut, people usually think that a mature forest should contain primarily oak and hickory, which is what they see in the oldest forests around. Actually, that’s just a step toward the mature forest makeup of predominantly beech, basswood, and sugar maple that’s historically grown here — there just hasn’t been enough time since the last clearcut for those trees to grow
While many people recommend looking to natural areas to determine what to grow, that doesn’t always work if the places around you have been significantly disturbed — and if that’s how it’s been for as long as you can remember, then you might not even know if that’s the case. If you’re going to plant trees, look into what’s historically grown in your area, along with local keystone species, and find what fits at your site from those (and don’t forget the plants around the base of the tree!)
I thought 12 bulbs of garlic was a goodly amount but then I peeled it for pickling and it only fills half a salsa jar so clearly I was wrong
Me, dripping sweat: happy SSRI summer to those who celebrate
why am i dressed slutty you ask? to read classic literature alone in my room. mind your own business.
I think there are too many people throwing around that wasps can recognise human faces for something that has only been confirmed in one wasp species (and not even the species people usually seem to bring up)
Northern paper wasps (Polistes fuscatus) have been found to process the faces of other wasps as a whole, rather than just a collection of individual parts. This is called holistic processing, and it's the same way humans typically process each other's faces. This has been tested in a couple of other Polistes species and they did not process faces in the same way. This is very cool for Northern paper wasps! But crucially, processing each others' faces this way does not mean they process human faces the same. Recognising one another aids them due to their specific social dynamics, but recognising humans wouldn't present the same evolutionary pressures. In one study, their holistic processsing didn't even extend to another paper wasp species, but recognition of human faces has not been tested in paper wasps so we can't say one way or the other even if it looks unlikely
However, it has been tested in other species! Common yellowjackets (Vespula vulgaris) and Western honeybees (Apis mellifera) were capable of discriminating between human faces (although they had to be taught to do so as they probably don't do so naturally) and it seems they also have some capacity for holistic processing. Nevertheless, I feel like I see paper wasps brought up more often than yellowjackets when this fact comes up
There's a lot that still needs studying on this topic, and what we do have points to some really interesting hymenopteran abilities that are not found in many other animals, but it does frustrate me seeing these things exaggerated and overgeneralised to all wasps/Hymenoptera and then presented as facts when there simply isn't evidence for that yet. I love wasps and I typically see this brought up to endear people to them, which I respect, but spreading misinformation for a 'good cause' is still unhelpful
References
Tibbetts et al. (2021) 'Individual recognition is associated with holistic face processing in Polistes paper wasps in a species-specific way'
Sheehan and Tibbetts (2011) 'Specialized Face Learning Is Associated with Individual Recognition in Paper Wasps'
Avarguès-Weber et al. (2017) 'Recognition of human face images by the free flying wasp Vespula vulgaris'
Dyer, Neumeyer and Chittka (2005) 'Honeybee (Apis mellifera) vision can discriminate between and recognise images of human faces'
Avarguès-Weber et al. (2018) 'Does Holistic Processing Require a Large Brain? Insights From Honeybees and Wasps in Fine Visual Recognition Tasks'
me, as a child lining up stuff in rows: now this is how you have fun
Updated Horse Rant
It's time I update my rant about our wild/feral horses.
According to the BLM there's currently 61,523 wild/feral horses in the United States. From that same source, there was a large removal of horses in 2021, 2022, and 2024, with over 10,000 horses being removed each of those years. Other removals vary from as low as 1,689 horses and as many as 16,971 horses (data going back to 2012). They claim that the herd sizes can double about every 4 years. This is a decrease compared to prior years. (Sorry, newest charts I could find only updated to 2023.)
Here in Nevada we have an estimated 37,426 horses, more than every other state combined (24,097 horses, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming). Let's compare those numbers to other animal populations here in Nevada: -Mule Deer: 73,000 (steady increase since 2014, but back in the mid 1980s the population was closer to 200,000) -Pronghorn: 35,500 (so just under 3,000 less animals than horses) -Elk: 13,500 (less than half of our horse population) -California Bighorn Sheep: 1,900 (WAY less than horses) -Desert Bighorn Sheep: 6,000 (over 30,000 less animals than horses) -Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep: 149 (it's amazing these animals are even still here) -Mountain Goats: 303 (so few!) -Moose: 130 (barely any) Know what's funny about all the animals I just listed? THEY ALL HAVE HUNTING SEASONS AND THEIR POPULATIONS ARE MANAGED. But somehow we can't do that for horses whose populations dwarf all of those species except for mule deer.
So why do these horses get so much hate?
The first thing to understand about the horses that are out on the range now is that they're domesticated horses. Domestication changes animals, and despite what mustang lovers will claim it's indisputable that domesticated horses are changed from their wild ancestors.
Horses went extinct here in the Americas around 10,000 years ago. Equus scotti were our original horses. They completely disappeared from the fossil record. The modern horse, Equus caballus, evolved in the Old World. They were domesticated around 6,000 years ago with some speculation as to where exactly this took place (it's possible and seems likely it happened in multiple places at the same time). From what I've seen it's believed that at least some of these horses originally descended from the horses we had here in North America that had crossed over the land bridge.
Native nations will share that they had horses before settlers arrived in the 1600s and the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 where modern "wild" horses are credited as coming from, but this can be explained by Spanish settlers who likely brought horses to the Americas back in the early 1500s. Fossil records back this up with three horse remains dating before the Pueblo Revolt showing evidence of wearing bridles, eating domestic crops, and having human-treated injuries. As far as I'm aware, this is the earliest evidence of horses in the states post-extinction. People will claim that pockets of horses actually survived the extinction but I haven't found solid evidence of that.
So the Americas evolved without horses present for a span of about 10,000 years. What changed in that time?
Well for starters, a whole lot of animals went extinct that probably hunted early horses. Dire wolves, North American sabertoothed cats, American lions, American scimitars, American cheetahs, shortfaced bears, and even humans used to hunt horses. Horses are also missing their competitors: ancient bison, the Hagerman horse (more closely related to zebras than horses), mammoths, camelops, llamas, oxen. No animal exists in a vacuum and having predators and competitors around helps keeps populations in check. In the span from the late Pleistocene to the early 1500s North America continued to evolve without horses present. Ecosystems changed, native wildlife evolved, and then settlers came and messed that up even more.
Not to mention back when horses originally roamed North America my state still had ancient Lake Lahontan covering a significant portion of the land. Now we're the driest state in the country (that's right, even drier than Arizona or New Mexico with much thanks to the rain shadow caused by the Sierra Nevada mountain range). We can't support the same life today as we did back then due to geological changes alone. A lot of our country was vastly different than it is today.
So what about when horses were reintroduced?
Our ecosystem was still a pretty different place even compared to back then thanks to colonization. Settlers brought invasive species, stopped indigenous groups from practicing their land management strategies this nation has evolved with, and killed many native species. Here in Nevada we used to have gray wolves, lynx, and grizzly bears, for example, who all likely would have hunted horses. Even if the predators don't hunt the animals directly their presence alone can lead to lower birth rates and more movement, which helps prevent areas from being over-grazed. We also didn't have livestock, plants like cheatgrass, and we didn't break up vital habitat animals depend on and migrate through. Nevada is mostly government owned open land. Horses are able to thrive thanks to that combined with a lack of predators. It's no mistake that we have more horses roaming our state than any other state by such a large margin.
But what's the big deal? Why does it matter how many horses there are?
No habitat can sustain unlimited growth.
Here in my state some species are threatened by horses and other livestock. Which, quick aside, wild horse advocates are quick to point at the finger at livestock while ignoring the fact that horses are livestock animals and thus part of every criticism they have of livestock. But I digress.
One issue is the spread of species like cheatgrass, which is worsening our fire season. It out-competes native grasses, it grows densely and dries early in the season, its shallow roots don't help our ecosystems compared to native plants that help the soil, and it survives the wildfires it contributes to. It's also a low-quality forage for livestock, and the seeds can cause issues for pets. Advocates for horses will say horses control cheatgrass by eating it. The problem is horses also can help spread cheatgrass (this is not a problem unique to horses).
Trampling native grasses or overgrazing them is another problem. Our native sand rice grass (formerly "Indian rice grass") is vital for sage grouse and other wildlife. It requires undisturbed soil with mycorrihizal fungi (fires can also harm these habitats). Even if the horses don't eat the grass, their presence alone can make the habitat unsuitable for this rice grass. Unlike cheatgrass, rice grass isn't spread in a horse's feces.
There's also just issues with direct competition. Here horses only really have one predator: mountain lions. That's not enough to keep their populations in check, especially since mountain lion populations aren't that high compared to the horses (around 2,200 mountain lions across the 7th largest US state).
So what's the solution? Depends on who you ask.
Some people are fine with the round-ups. We pay somewhere around $141.8 million for round-ups, captive care, and adoptions. Keep in mind that's taxpayer money. A lot of critics say this causes unnecessary stress for the horses, causes injury or even death, and causes hierarchy problems and can even harm biodiversity. If you've ever seen a holding facility they're pretty sad dirt lots, too. Adopting out the horses is a hard process. Many are convinced all the horses go to meat slaughter.
Birth control is another option. As with any option, there's criticism with this method as well. Costs, efficacy, the fact that it's a temporary solution, and some will argue this unfairly affects biodiversity. It also doesn't remove existing horses from the range, just stops them from reproducing, so this doesn't solve any current overpopulation problems. It's hard to dart enough horses especially when you consider that any contraceptive isn't going to be 100% effective. The darts have to be placed right by volunteers who also need to keep record of which horses have been darted. It's a lot of work.
Now my hot take? Eat the horses. Our wild/feral horses are currently protected by law so hunting/eating them is out of the question. But laws can change. We could start treating them like our other native wildlife and issue tags for them (and then that money can go back to wildlife conservation). Horse meat is eaten in other parts of the world. Horses were hunted by man longer than we were riding them. Horse meat was legal in the past in the US. So I don't know, people have big feelings about horses and it's unlikely to happen anytime soon if ever, but that's my unpopular opinion.
HUGE developments in the big silly baby wearing fluffy pajamas fandom:
Oregon Zoo 05/30/26: This flouf is one of 15 healthy California condor chicks to hatch at our conservation center this season. A new record! #Condorable #KeepCalmAndCarrion
When I was a child there were
22
of these magnificent ancient creatures still alive on this world. and I was aware of this at that age because nearly half of them were in a very secretive building on a hilltop near my house, in a last ditch effort by conservation scientists to breed and raise babies.
fifteen. Just born. this season. I cry tears of joy.
You did it. You're doing it. Keep fighting for a future, everybody- it's working.
The hotter it gets and the more inhospitable my yard becomes to plant and animal (me) life, the more I want to be outside planting things. Paradox??
Planted a mix of chamomile and black eyed Susans in my mailbox bed, here’s hoping the black eyed Susan establish because I’m really not a fan of this seasonal planting life
The plant in the back left isn’t dying, the phlox has just done it’s time and is chilling
A lavender friend!!
Transplanted some MORE black eyed Susans and fennel today - goal is to thin out my Large Pot Collection some this weekend and prepare for planting some of the mountain mint I started in them instead.
I really love the blackeyed Susans but wow I had so many germinate and now I’m trying to find places to put them that I can live with for years.