I'd rather be in outer space đž
Keni
trying on a metaphor
Aqua Utopiaïœæ”·ăźćșă§èšæ¶ă玥ă
ojovivo
Show & Tell
đȘŒ
taylor price
art blog(derogatory)
sheepfilms
Misplaced Lens Cap
Sweet Seals For You, Always
KIROKAZE
cherry valley forever
@theartofmadeline
Not today Justin
hello vonnie
No title available
occasionally subtle
đ
seen from T1
seen from Philippines
seen from France
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Romania
seen from Canada
seen from Montenegro
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Russia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from Germany
@spherespectrumsupporter
if you're an adult behaving immaturely i'm not going to "treat you like a child" about it because i have a lot of respect for children as an oppressed and vulnerable class of people. i will however treat you like an embarrassment. which you are being.
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
clearly he doesn't
what's particularly funny about this is that crows very notably flap a lot for their wingspan-- they rarely glide for longer than a few seconds and they basically never soar around on thermals the way birds of prey do. so this lil guy is definitely having fun doing something weird!
I love when you read the early implementations of some algorithm and you're like "this makes sense, it seems like a reasonable way to extract truth from the universe". Then you keep reading and it goes "modern implementations represent a significant improvement over the Shit For Brains Method, whose usage is confined to computer scientists cooking eggs on their laptops. This one has the number 9801 as a load bearing part of the algorithm, the guy who came up with it claimed his god gave him the idea."
It really reinforces the theme that reality doesn't care all that much if it makes sense to us.
I like this quote that deals with the same kind of idea
"what if someone regrets transitioning" if you are 18 or over in free country usa you can walk into any tattoo parlor and ask for a tattoo that will be on your body forever and ever and ever and they will give it to you with the understanding that if you dont like the result or you regret it later that's your fucking problem and not theirs
I didnât realize there were so many people getting destroyed by mattresses đ
I love these so much.
Some thoughts.
Kofi Tip jar
Is there literally any fucking reason for pemdas/bedmas to exist other than to give smug assholes shit to be pedantic about on the internet?
no, just write clearly
my controversial opinion is I donât think Zuko was confused by âmy first girlfriend turned into the moonâ
he was there during siege of the North. he infiltrated the spirit oasis. he has an uncle who studies spirits and the spirit world. he watched the sky go dark then the moon suddenly reappear like everyone else in the entire world did. and most importantly he watched zhao get eaten by a giant godzilla fish spirit.
his entire life since he saw that beam of blue-white light in the south pole has been âthis day has already been so goddamn weirdâ
The only really new information was that that was Sokkaâs girlfriend
Important opinion in the tags that I need to have be part of the post:
Also, Iroh was there? He literally watched Sokka make out with the moon spirit. And you want to tell me that a romantic sap like him would not have immediately told Zuko about this romantic tragedy? Please, Zuko has known about this for ages, he just knows that this is not an acceptable situation in which to say âyeah, I know.â
Sokka: âMy girlfriend turned into the moon.â
Zuko: âI know.â âYes.â âShe sure did.â âUh huh.â âTell me something new.â âAre we still talking about that?â âThatâs rough, buddy.â
[image: tags by samwisethebold: #itâs not that he doesnât get what sokka means #itâs that how on earth do you respond to that]
When you put it like that, this is actually a legendary display of tact on Zukoâs part
Strange racists and homophobes on the internet seem to have access to an alternate way cooler version of TV than me. "every white character on TV is in an interracial relationship" "every show has a gay couple in it" "main characters keep having to secretly be bisexual and nonbinary" "every show has gratuitous full frontal nudity" like damn promise?? What channel???
as a black gay person real like where y'all be finding this stuff pass the name
for real though, those DO NOT WATCH OR YOU'LL CORRUPT YOUR CHILDREN lists put out by conservative christian family groups is where I find all the stellar tv shows. Like, shit I didn't know half of those existed, thanks for finding them for me, gonna go watch 30 hours of gay tv now!
I think I know how this works.
For personal context, before I went to the '98 Burning Man festival, one of the things I'd read from a couple different journalists was that "everybody" runs around naked. Which, fine by me, I'd already spent a lot of time in clothing-optional spaces, I'm not fanatic about it but it's nice.
So I got there early and set up a public shade structure on one of Black Rock City's main roads and spent most of each afternoon just watching the crowds go by. I don't remember seeing more than one actually naked person the whole week. I think a topless woman passed by my intersection maybe every half an hour, sometimes once an hour. So why in the hell were people, normally pretty smart and observant writers, coming away with the impression that everybody was naked?
Then I remembered an unrelated passage from Joel Garreau's great book about the history of the outer-ring suburbs, Edge City. Mall developers told him flat-out that they tried to keep the crowds in their malls less than 5% black. Not because they themselves were racist, but because they had determined, experimentally, that if more than 5% of the people in the mall are black, the median white shopper will wrongly describe the mall as at least half black, as mostly black. And not a few of them would describe it, at 6% black, as a mall where "only black people go." Why?
Because, emotionally, they were still upset over the last one when the next one came into view.
Same as the journalists describing Black Rock City as all naked. Same as the right-wing religious culture warriors describing television as entirely mixed-race and gender non-conforming. Not because it's even vaguely true, we know that, but because they haven't gotten over their discomfort over the last one by the time the next one comes along. The anger, not the stimulus, is the part that's continuous, so their mind lies to them that it's "all" the thing they can't get over.
Similar effect for the presence/proportion of women in things, by the way: https://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/how-17-equals-496-the-amazing-multiplying-women.htm
Whatâs the solution then? Or if thereâs no solution, should we make things even queerer and more diverse?
I say we keep making things queerer and more diverse just in case
Im not sure how to contact the science side of tumblr but i have a bit of a physics question. My brother and I were talking about how magic could hypothetically exist in a scientific context for his world and we got carried away with concepts. We ended up with the question of:could moving at a negative speed (like setting a speed value to negative somehow) let you time travel backwards? And if so, what are the other weird physics side effects? Specifically, would doing so turn all other parts of you "negative" through math multiplication? Mass, matter, other details, etc.
I was looking at all of this through the lens of an amateur game programmer so im curious how the real physics line up.
The paths in spacetime that matter can traverse are called "timelike" curves. They have a well defined notion of causality.
On the other hand, there are some other curves called "spacelike" which are impossible to traverse for matter. They would appear as "moving backwards in time" for some observers, "moving faster than light" for others.
Intuitively, that's why you can't access a spacelike curve: you would need to accelerate until you travel faster than light, which would require infinite energy.
A hypothetical particle that traverses spacelike paths is called a tachyon. They always move faster than light. But now tachyons have the opposite problem: they wouldn't be able to move into a timelike path, because they would need an infinite amount of energy to slow them down.
One way to get tachyons in your theory would be to give them imaginary mass. Obviously the physics makes no sense here, but mathematically that's how things work out. So, in a world where you were able to multiply your mass by i at will, you could move between timelike and spacelike paths, which would allow you to travel back in time, but that would also break causality.
TLDR: the keyword you are looking for is Tachyon.
*trying to pitch public transportation to Americans* itâs like a legal form of texting while driving
people will say âtheyâre only friendsâ and then show me two people who would crawl through broken glass to hear the other laugh once. two people who have memorized each otherâs coffee orders, fears, childhood stories, and emergency contacts. two people who would haunt each otherâs houses as ghosts. be serious.
Just an FYIâthe original intention of this post was to challenge the way people say only friends, as though friendship is somehow lesser than other forms of love. As if being deeply known, cherished, and chosen by another person could ever be a small thing. Normalize profound platonic love. Some of the most fulfilling, transformative, and enduring relationships we will ever have are friendships. đ«¶đŒ
I crave more mountains
fantasy: the kingdom has been ruled by one family for 10,000 years
science fiction: a new species evolved in 30 years
