so I watched the show ted lasso and I love him
untitled
𓃗
KIROKAZE

tannertan36
will byers stan first human second
Claire Keane
cherry valley forever
YOU ARE THE REASON

shark vs the universe
Fai_Ryy
Cosmic Funnies
No title available

PR's Tumblrdome
Stranger Things
tumblr dot com

Andulka
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Product Placement

No title available
wallacepolsom

seen from Slovenia
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Palestinian Territories

seen from United States
seen from Sweden
seen from Ireland
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
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@skellynova
so I watched the show ted lasso and I love him
Can anyone explain wtf is going on here especially a Korean speaker
someone on reddit explained 😭
That is one of the most astronomical fuck up translations I have ever seen.
this cured the nation
There's an awful trend in reading that's this CinemaSins kind of rejection of abstract concepts and suspension of disbelief, that makes people say it's bad writing when authors use descriptions that aren't immediately one to one with physical reality.
Like it's bad when a "tattoo is undulating" (as opposed to... "drawn in a wave like pattern on the skin"?), or when hair is "wet wheat from a late Summer field" (as opposed to "sort of brownish light yellow that dries lighter, but is not actual wheat stalks growing on someone's head but kind of reminiscent of the color and texture"?), or when when ice cream tastes like midnight at the fair" (as opposed to "ice cream flavour bringing back memories of undefined ice cream flavours that are individually popular but always tied to a memory of late evening at the fair ground and probably smelling vaguely like popcorn and sugar"?).
Please. We have to get back to understanding abstract descriptions that evoke feelings and memories and mental images or things we haven't experienced yet. This hyper utilitarian way of reading and judging text is killing fiction. it's robbing you of experiencing things you haven't actually personally experienced.
Your friend’s unpublished fic idea is kind of a dead wife
i also want to read this guy’s dead wife
^victim of the wizard who makes you forget that not everybody has your same infrastructure or technology or medical status
why was messi lowkey serving saddam hussein hiding spot
I won't ever get over the removal of headphone jacks, or micro sd slots, or cd drives. I won't. Fuck everyone and everything
2,300-Year-Old Saddle Blanket from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: this saddle cover was preserved in the frozen barrows of Pazyryk for more than two millennia
This elaborate saddle blanket dates back to about 400-300 BCE. It was discovered in the Pazyryk barrows, located in the Altai mountains of Siberia, where it had been preserved in the permafrost for more than 2,000 years. It's made of felt, leather, horsehair, and gold foil.
Above: the appliqués at the center of the saddle blanket
The central design features two identical appliqués, each depicting an ibex being pinned down by a griffin.
Above: close-up of the appliqués
The sides of the saddle cover are also decorated with circular pendants made of felt; each of these pendants is trimmed with leather, encircled by tufts of horsehair, and embroidered with a stylized depiction of a ram's-head. A pair of horned tigers can also be seen at the base of each pendant.
Above: the pendants that hang from each side of the saddle cover
This artifact is attributed to the Altaic nomads of Siberia, who formed part of the larger group of cultures that are collectively known as the Scythians (or Scytho-Siberian peoples).
According to the Hermitage Museum:
Saddles used by the ancient Altaic nomads differ from those used today. They had no wooden base and consisted of two leather cushions filled with reindeer and horse hair and sewn together on one side. Felt saddle covers were traditionally decorated with scenes showing a beast of prey tearing to pieces a herbivorous animal.
The Scythians were among the first cultures to begin using horses as mounts, and they invented one of the earliest forms of saddle. They were extremely skilled and accomplished riders, and their early mastery of mounted warfare enabled them to gain control over vast sections of Eurasia. That dynamic led to the development of a very noticeable "horse culture," with horses playing a critical role in many different aspects of Scythian life (and afterlife):
The horse was an essential part of Scythian life and was the most important and multipurpose animal used by the nomads. Initially, the Scythians reared large herds of horses mainly for their milk and hides, but eventually were among the first people to harness the horse as a mount.
By the 7th century BCE, the Scythians were already master horsemen and controlled a vast corridor of land that stretched across southern Siberia, from the Black Sea to the fringes of northern China. This expanse of land was greater than the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which the Scythians outlasted.
The Scythians produced many horse-related artifacts that have been discovered at sites throughout Eurasia, but this saddle cover is one of the most elaborate and most well-preserved examples of that tradition.
Above: the saddle cover from Pazyryk
Two other artifacts from Pazyryk have previously been featured on my blog -- a 2,300-year-old plush bird and an elaborate horse headdress.
Sources & More Info:
Hermitage Museum: Saddle Cover
World Archaeology: Do the Clothes Make the Horse? Roles, Statuses, and Identities in the Pazyryk World
University of Washington: Artifacts from Southern Siberia/Pazyryk
Expedition: The Textiles from Pazyryk (PDF)
Cambridge University Press: The Origins of Saddles and Riding Technology in East Asia
Routledge: Pazyryk Culture Up in the Altai
University of Leicester: At Home, with the Good Horses (PDF) (this is a really great paper)
Im always like "i will not add my two cents. i will not add my two cents" but i cant lie the pennies are getting sweaty in my hand
Suddenly struck with a need to explain to you how boat pronouns work (I work in the marine industry).
When you're talking about the design of the boat, you say "it".
When the boat is still being built, your say "it".
When the boat is nearing completion, you can say "it" or "she".
When the boat is floating in the water you probably say "she", unless there is still a lot of work to be done (e.g. no engine yet) then you say "it".
When the boat is officially launched and operating, you say "she". If you continue to say "it" at this point you are not incorrect but suspiciously untraditional. You are not playing the game.
If you are referring to a boat you don't really know anything about you may say "it" ("there's a big boat, it's coming this way"). But if you know its name, it's probably "she" ("there's the Waverley, she's on her way to Greenock").
If you are talking about boats in general, you say "it" ("when a boat is hit by a wave it heels over")
If you speak about a boat in complimentary terms, it's "she" ("she's a grand boat"). If you are being disparaging it may be it, but not necessarily ("it's as ugly as sin", "she's a grotty old tub").
If she has a boy's name, she's still she. "Boy James", "King Edward", "Sir David Attenborough"? The pronoun is she.
If it's a dumb barge (no engine), you say it. But if it's a rowing boat (no engine), you say she.
I hope this has cleared things up so that you may not be in danger of misgendering floating objects.
Hit "view post" and lost it
highly recommend keeping a small portrait of a historical figure who met a grisly end on your work desk. for perspective.
me: oh thomas cromwell, we're really in it now. every day i get emails.
the postcard of thomas cromwell i keep on my desk: i was on committees with the duke of norfolk. and they beheaded me.
me: yep. good point.
me: cromwell. cromwell this post has got too big and famous and people are starting to misunderstand me on it.
the postcard of thomas cromwell i keep on my desk: oh no! you achieved too much fame and status? and now people are misrepresenting you? should we strip your lands and title? have you been beheaded?
me: YES ALRIGHT FINE
I told my little nephew that I'd wave at his airplane when it flew over my house today, and he very calmly and politely explained that it wouldn't be possible to see me due to the limitations of human vision. I said he just had to squint real hard, and he took a deep breath and went into the toddler version of "see, what you're not understanding–"
have you reopened the wound? will you reopen the wound? when will you reopen the wound?
i learned that actor Danny Trejo has the most on-screen deaths of anyone in Hollywood history, with 65. Followed by Christopher Lee (60), Lance Henriksen (51), Vincent Price (41), Dennis Hopper (41), Boris Karloff (41), and John Hurt (39). (x)
Yet poor Sean Bean is stuck with the reputation for dying in every movie. Unfair.
Give him time, he still has many years of dying yet to come.
Also there’s the question of density vs quantity. If you make a hundred movies and die in 50, and someone else makes 30 movies and dies in 30, the first one has died more, but the second one has died more often per movie.
It’s the DPM ratio that really counts, IMO.
65/402 16% Danny Trejo 60/282 21% Christopher Lee 51/259 20% Lance Henriksen 41/211 19% Vincent Price 41/205 20% Dennis Hopper 41/204 20% Boris Karloff 39/209 19% John Hurt 33/117 28% Sean Bean
I’m so proud of the statistical side of tumblr for coming through on this.
here are some more cats 🍓