don’t make a promise you can’t keep

starry · multifandom · idiots to lovers, pilots, star stuff, power couples · tracking #userflores, please tag me in things! · @tonyscottchord is my tc sideblog

[starrybouquet]

harm and mac: a series ↳ JAG 2.15 Rendezvous

[helenvaughans]

[dogposts]

[lemonqueentm]

I might like strattland. A little.

[planeposting]

Plane boy high come ask questions

[bathroamer]

I fly very frequently and yet know very little about planes. I have 2 questions:

1. How much do pilots actually need to physically maneuver the plane? Like, is autopilot substantially a thing?

2. Given differing regional safety and industry laws, are there noticeable differences in plane fandoms based on where people live? Like, are EU plane nerds more likely to go gaga over X type of plane compared to, idk, Japanese plane nerds?

[planeposting]

Two very interesting questions!

1. There are kind of... levels. Generally the smaller the aircraft the more likely you are to be manipulating it purely with physical controls. On most large aircraft nowadays, the controls are kind of like what's in your car, where the control column/sidestick is just simulating interacting directly with the controls and the computer is ultimately doing the work. Depending on the control philosophy, it might be made to feel very realistic (Boeing) or operates more like a game controller where all your inputs are interpreted heavily based on phase of flight (Airbus).

Autopilot is very much a thing and has gotten even more advanced now that we have things like GPS. A modern aircraft can be commanded to follow a set path, such as a particular instrument approach, and it'll do that no problem. But there are also different levels of autopilot. For example, in a simple heading mode the pilot changes what heading they want the plane to follow and the plane will automatically bank in a safe way to achieve that. In some cases, like in descending without a glideslope, managing the various autopilot modes and thrust settings to keep on profile is a skill in and of itself.

The main times you'll see manual control is during takeoff and landing. Takeoff is always a manual thing, though you might engage the autopilot pretty soon after to keep your climb steady. Landing is interesting- autoland has existed since the 1960s but is almost never used.

When landing, your approach will be precision or non-precision. A non-precision approach can be flown with the help of autopilot but it is ultimately up to the pilots to follow the guidance, stabilize the approach, and then disconnect autopilot at the cutoff point and land visually. A precision approach requires some sort of landing aid like an Instrument Landing System, which shoots out two beams on the ideal path to the runway and so long as the plane is flying at the intersection of those beams you are safe.

The most basic ILS approach is a Category I, which is kind of similar to the nomprecision approaches. It has a certain cutoff point where you need to see the runway and land visually, but this can be closer to the ground. Category II requires more precise ILS equipment and extra qualifications, and allows you to go even closer to the ground before seeing the runway. A Category III approach is an autoland and has even more stringent requirements. Ironically, then, the approach with the least automation (a simple visual approach) is the easiest! The others don't exist just to make life easier, but to enable landing in bad conditions without sacrificing safety.

As for the other question!

2. The aviation industry is incredibly, unbelievably global. It kind of has to be. If you wanted to fly a route from the USA to South Africa with a stopover in the UAE, how would you even do that if everybody's laws were different? So we've kind of agreed on a set of basic rules, set out by the International Civil Aviation Organization, to govern what countries should be doing regarding aviation law.

This goes all the way from "Hey, you should probably have a government organization that decides on and enforces aviation laws" to outlining the basic rules of what airlines are allowed to actually do. For example, if we just allowed companies to fly any route they wanted, you'd quickly see the local carriers of less affluent countries outcompeted by random foreign companies expanding into every market they see fit, being basically ungoverned by local laws. We all kinda decided that was probably a bad thing, so airlines are only allowed to fly routes to and from their own country (including stopovers and such).

I don't think there's really that much difference, then, beyond people generally knowing or caring more about aviation in their own country. For example I live near YYZ so I have an inordinate love of the Dash-8 lmao. But I also don't really chat with aviation fans from all over the world often, and there are also so many different things to nerd out about (routes, passenger experience, economics, safety, mechanics, automation, piloting, models, the people who want to fuck planes and are always telling me all the unasked for details of how they would fuck the planes...)

So if anybody has any anecdotes that could answer this question better please do share 🫡

[proudtoehaver]

“I was on a strict diet during Episode VIII, and she was like, ‘Kid, get into that fridge and take some chocolate bars. I have many there.’ And I did,” he recalls. “I failed my diet because Carrie Fisher told me to. And it [felt] great.”

-John Boyega on Carrie Fisher

[fuocogo]

This is the Carrie Fisher post of body positivity reblog for a chocolate bar from her fridge

[destinationtoast]

Cultural Insights of Our Own: Lessons From a Newly Decoded Digital Archive

Interplanetary Journal of Cultural Studies

Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 322-340

Abstract

The recently decoded Internet Archive includes the digital artifact called “Archive of Our Own” (AO3) from early third millennium Earth.  AO3 is unusually well backed up and therefore is presumed to contain some of the most significant -- perhaps even sacred -- texts of the time.  In this paper we present our preliminary analysis of AO3 metadata, including new insights about the literature, gender and sexuality, religion, and scientific understanding of this historical era: 

I. LITERATURE. We describe the cultural centrality of figures such as the Winchesters and Reader.  We explore how they featured heavily in every dominant literature genre of the era, including Fluff, Angst, Hurt/Comfort, and Oral Sex.  

II. GENDER AND SEXUALITY. We review the overwhelming evidence that male-male relationships were the most culturally significant sexual and romantic relationships, but we also show that it was a culture with an unusually broad set of sexual and gender roles.  In particular, we highlight the unusual tripartite conceptualization of gender as including alpha, beta, and omega roles; we note the apparent prejudice against betas, illustrated in the prevalence of “no beta we die like men” and similar protest slogans. 

III. RELIGION. We describe a newly discovered religious taboo: doves were a common sacrificial animal of the time, but they were forbidden from being eaten.  

IV. SCIENCE. Finally, we present new insight about alternate universes.  While previous scholars hypothesized that the scientists of Earth may have developed a correct early theory of the multiverse by the late second millennium, our analysis of AO3 presents evidence to the contrary.  As late as the early third millennium, prevailing theories postulated highly specific universes, such as a universe in which everyone is in high school, or a universe contained within a coffee shop.  

Taken together, these historical insights show that further investigation is warranted into the valuable documents stored within AO3, perhaps even going beyond the metadata to examine the full texts.

[destinationtoast]

This is now available on AO3, complete with academic paper styling and an extra chapter of footnotes explaining the jokes/sprinkling in a few fandom stats. :)

[tylrgalpins]

The Parent Trap (1998) dir. Nancy Meyers

[kurtislutzart]

Another Star Trek pixel art piece from a little while back!

[mimosa-sexypeople-contests-2026]

Tumblr Sexyman Contest 2026 Final Round

Senshi (Dungeon Meshi)

Ryland Grace (Project Hail Mary)

Mr. Ant Tenna (Deltarune)

Remaining time: 1 day 1 hour

Tenna art by @9Aaaalt29 on twt

[prozdvoices]

i mean.......you know my vote ;)

[clearancecreedwatersurvival]

yet another reason to vote senshi: his english voice actor is a valued tumblr citizen!!!!!!!!

[mimosa-sexypeople-contests-2026]

Does…

Does he know about this? Should I be scared?

[psych-is-the-name]

that IS his voice actor

[mimosa-sexypeople-contests-2026]

…fuck

[musashi]

Hey can you guys reblog Cheeseburger so he can take a sunbeam nap on lots of blogs. No other reason I just want you guys to see him.

[musashi]

So, Cheeseburger died on November 21st after an unfairly short battle with an unfairly rare cancer that is rarely seen in cats. I only got to spend a month with him after his diagnosis, and losing him has been the greatest heartbreak of my entire life so far. He was my best friend and my soul cat, and he was there for me when I was completely alone, for twelve long years.

I made this transparent PNG the night he died in preparation for one of the many ways I was going to memorialize him--a surface rug in his likeness that I planned on laying directly in the line of his favourite sunbeam. And I uploaded that PNG here, because this is the website where people post their cats.

I was not expecting the reception I got. Many people have pointed out that this post has more reblogs than likes, and how insane that is in 2025 when reblog culture is at an all time low. I didn't even talk about the fact that Burger passed away in the original post, it wasn't a tearjerker reblog bait or anything like that. People just loved Burger that much, in the same way I fell in love with him at first sight. He was such an ugly kitten.

Anyways, it's really special to me that so many people have reblogged my best friend. I made this PNG to memorialize him in a completely different way, and you all wound up doing just that in ways I never even imagined.

Thank you. Wherever he is, I know the sun is shining.

[byelacey]

it's illegal to not say "oh big stretch" when your dog does a Big Stretch

[sg1]

Stargate SG-1, 03.22 Nemesis

[smileyobrien]

for @cdr2002 :)

[antlered-vixen]

I am so tired of short-attention-span, trim-the-fat culture. All writing advice these days is for how to write like Chuck Palahniuk. "Cut 'think', cut 'feel', cut 'wonder' - only action, only pushing forward, show and move and move and move." What if I could emulate this style, and still don't want to? What if I want to write like Henry James, with three paragraphs of introspective musings between each dialogue line? The music advice is, "make it shortform, make it Tik-Tok compatible, make it punchy, hit the refrain as soon as possible." What if I want that 10-minute prog rock piece? What if I want that symphony? What if I want it slow and luxurious and lazy? Movies. Series. Poetry. Bodies. Everything is "trimmed trimmed trimmed trimmed, stripped bare, you have three seconds to win me over, make it airport chic." I don't want to win you over, then, I guess. I want the fat left it. I want the pleasure and the indolence and the indulgence. Fuck this art-advice that's always "your art needs Ozempic."

[orangepinkandgreen]

Chuck Palahniuk is one of the worlds best authors of all time there was absolutely no reason for him to be mentioned in this post lol. Have you even read RANT? If you think his writing is anything like how people write on tiktok you clearly haven't read his work.

[kedreeva]

His name absolutely belongs mentioned in this post, as he's the one who gave the advice that OP is directly talking about:

Which is advice written directly by Chuck Palahniuk about how to write like Chuck Palahniuk, which is a style that OP doesn't want to emulate.

Popularity ("one of the world's best authors") isn't necessarily the same thing as writing well. Eragon was popular. I couldn't make it past the first few pages because it was poorly written. Anne McCaffrey told beautiful stories about Pern, but I always found her writing itself to be dry and difficult to swallow. Steven King is hugely popular, but his writing can also be dry at times. James Patterson has his name on a lot, a LOT, of popular stories that.... Well. Aren't really his, or at least weren't actually written by him. Would I take advice from any of them about how to write? No, probably not, unless it actually suited my style.

It's common right now for TV series to have 8-12 episode seasons, when we used to have 22-24 episode seasons. To tell the story in the shorter period of time, a lot of the "fat" gets trimmed, but if you've ever cooked meat you know that the fat is where the FLAVOR is. I desperately miss 22-24 episode seasons. I miss the trope episodes that don't particularly affect the plot. I miss that style of storytelling, and it's largely been sacrificed for the go go go trim the fat style OP references.

And the thing is, their advice isn't necessarily bad advice. But the message often comes out like OP says: "this is the only good way to write, and if you do x or y or z, it's bad writing."

And that's not necessarily the case. Maybe it's writing you don't like, and that's fine! Not every piece of writing is for every single person. But there are people who enjoy styles that aren't necessarily popular. That don't do what that advice orders them to do.

And those other styles, the slower and more expensive are fun and good and popular with many people still. The advice to cut things out is only good advice if that's the style you're looking to emulate. OP clearly isn't. And clearly there are plenty of people who agree that that style is not for them, either.

[rahleeyah]

Chuck doesn't belong in the post bc op (and poster above) have fundamentally misunderstood what he's advising lmao he was saying don't use the words "he thinks" not bc he wants writers to "only write action" and trim the fat - he's advocating for removing simple snappy "thought" words and instead FILLING the writing with details that show the reader what the character thinks/loves/believes, and why. His advice is don't say "she loved him" but add in details that show love without taking the short cut of only using the one word love. He wants the writing to be fat!!! To bulge with the sensory details of love instead of being trimmed down to the word itself. His quote has been taken entirely out of context here. Chuck was advocating for writing more, writing slower, adding more details. The quote the screenshotted text is taken from literally ends with "in short - no more shortcuts":

[stealingpotatoes]

pinterest reposters i no longer have extensive beef with you for i have been informed of a much worse threat to the court of lady normalgirl: people who put my art through AI filters and THEN repost it to pinterest

[mentally-homeless]

[the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99]

Obligatory