h
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
cherry valley forever
ojovivo
ellievsbear
we're not kids anymore.
𓃗
PR's Tumblrdome
Xuebing Du
wallacepolsom
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
d e v o n
macklin celebrini has autism
todays bird
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available
sheepfilms
occasionally subtle
No title available
Monterey Bay Aquarium
seen from Malaysia
seen from Ireland
seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from Taiwan
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Brazil
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Sweden
seen from Singapore
seen from Germany
seen from United States
@themoreyoulearn-blog
The ‘Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science’ got spruced up to go with last week’s scientific evidence post. Handy for critiquing the latest ‘superfood’ claim, or the most recent chemical scare story! Larger image & PDF download here: http://wp.me/p4aPLT-ap
Tourist Trips And Information For Iceland
Where To Eat In Reykjavik
JUST GAVE HER MY WALLET
Of course the ladies toilets are next to the ATM because CHICKS BE SPENDING, amiright fellas? Rhetorical question, of course I am. Hey can I borrow five bucks? I don’t have enough to buy lunch.
We be spending a penny, at least.
Where To Stay In Iceland
A Day Out In Reykjavik
Things You Need To Know When Visiting Iceland.
Since it's been a while (you know how the silly season gets) here is a little something I made in October. Think of it as an exploration on walking. (Thanks to pals Tori and Matt for taking part/helping make.)
Not quite ministry of silly walks, but on its way there.
THE GAME: You're walking into town. Name random body parts. Walk with them most forward.
Laughter guaranteed.
More macro critters and #bewhatyousee on its way. Watch out, 2015. Kapow.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You should never be afraid of taking influence from that which surrounds you. Nothing is original these days.
(We are post modernist revolutionaries, clearly.) And, we can be pretentious about it — did you hear about this theory called Mimesis?
NEVER FORGET! We are not robots, we are not automatons, we are not complete and utter idiots. WE ARE BECOMING.
Mimicry: this is learning. This is understanding. This is child's play and this is what we do to become better and we are better. We are better we are well rounded and we are stopping in the streets to find meaning for ourselves.
Did you lose your imagination?
"IT'S OKAY," SAID THE CALM, WEIRD VOICE IN YOUR HEAD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT SOUND A LITTLE BIT LIKE ME. "JUST STAND OVER THERE AND PRETEND TO BE THAT THING AND IT'LL ALL BE ALRIGHT."
Don't forget to make a picture, too.
Regards, Us what do games and silliness real good. #bewhatyousee
Violins And Romance
We pizzicato around each other, and it is a delicate dance.
I am plucking up the courage for one almighty orchestral hit.
An aphid I filmed using an iPhone 5S, modified with a laser pen lens. I was looking to photograph leaves in macro when I found this little stow away. The rumours are true — aphids are milked by ants for their sugary goodness, and female aphids can choose to clone over reproducing. Winner. They're also feisty — they use their back legs to kick predators and even destroy their eggs. There it is. (It's a really easy way to take macro footage/photos. See how I made that here.) Thanks @torijwatson for helping me edit!
Dream Snippet
I saw a man and a child hanging at the entrance to a wooden hut. Their faces were made of wax and they were arranged like puppets.
Top left: Normal iPhone lens. Top right, bottom left: Shop bought macro lens. Bottom right: Laser pointer, handmade macro lens.
If you've been wondering why these behemoths of the arachnid world have been making so many appearances lately, it's because autumn is mating season.
Should you have been fortunate/unfortunate enough to have one cross your path, chances are it was a male, recognisable by the giant palps attached to the head. Just like this guy who was fulfilling the creepy stereotype by hanging out above my head on the ceiling.
With the help of a rather tall man, I managed to grab the chance for some macro action. (See how to make your own macro lens for your smart phone here.) I didn't keep him more than 30 minutes or so, in part because he was obviously unhappy being trapped, but also because a massive house spider isn't the easiest thing to photograph — especially live and on the move.
Interesting fact: When one of these guys stops mid-scarper in the centre of your floor, it's actually because they've run out of steam and need a rest. So try and give them a break, if you can. (Pun accidental, but purposefully kept.)
Freaked out by the massive bulbs on their face? No biggy: The palps are for mating — they suck up sperm inside them to inject the females with. The fangs are located on the front of the face, hanging underneath, as you can make out below, bottom right.
Found one in the bath? It didn't climb up the plughole — it fell in. (The u-bend stops them from being able to climb up.) Since they're so big, it's likely their tarsi are too large for the tiny flaws in your bath, meaning they're unable to escape once they fall in.
If you thought these guys were prepping for the winter by sneaking in, you'd be mistaken. These guys are permanent residents, having adapted to the conditions of living inside houses for thousands of years. As it happens, if you set one free outside, you're not actually doing them a favour. Similarly, spiders that have adapted to live outside would not last long in the house.
This macro edition is all about myth busting. Let's talk about eating: Spiders don't actually eat by sucking their prey's blood. It is, in part, similar to how a fly feeds, in so far as the digestion happens on the outside. Orb web spiders will catch their prey, wrap it in silk, vomit on it to soften and liquefy it, and then chew up the more solid parts and drink the liquid.
Spiders can be social? Yep, apparently they can. At least, the Avondale spiders are — they live in huge groups, averaging around 100 spiders. Curiously, these guys are the ones they used in Arachnophobia, since they're not only huge (around the size of your palm) but also pretty safe and placid to work with. However, bulldog ants couldn't care less about keeping the peace; it's been observed they take no prisoners when it comes to ousting and killing these spiders, all in the name of territory. (Thanks New Scientist.)
I can't say I'd be delighted to see another one of these chaps above my head before I turn out the light, but I'm certainly cool with them hanging about the flat. Here's hoping they manage to escape the cat whilst out on their jolly jaunts.
Occasionally, an incredible urge takes over you. It begins with your eyes and ends with your feet, your fingertips, your face.
DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE?
Some call it empathy: You are looking into —and drawing out— the emotion of something else, to feel it yourself.
Others call it imitation: You do not personify an object, you merely copy it.
It’s even been dubbed plain mimicry. A parrot knows nothing of what it repeats. It does not understand words. This is child's play.
Is it dance? Is it art? Is it the desire to change oneself?
Maybe you are not happy being who you are. You question life, reality, the essence of the self.
This is not sport. (It might be.) This is not merely a game. (There is only one rule.) You cannot call a spade by any other name but a spade. (There is just one moniker for this phenomenon.)
We, the ineffable, know it’s true name. This, friends, is #bewhatyousee. Thank you for playing.
Ice Ice Baby — The Ice Bucket Conundrum
I have not been nominated for the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. This isn't a call out for nominations; I am not lamenting that I haven't been chosen, nor would I necessarily turn my nose up should I be, but rather I'm fascinated by the myriad of opinions — everyone seems to have something to say — and want to understand the thing.
It has raised around £48M (at the time of first draft), but it has been criticised for taking money away from other causes. It has engaged people's creativity and unity, but it has been criticised for being about seeking attention. Even Stephen Hawking has done it. (Well, sort of.)
It has caused a surge in ice sales, sparked pleas for Water Aid donations given the wastage of clean water, inspired a rubble bucket challenge — a Palestinian journalist's homage to the original challenge, seeking to share awareness — and people have become injured participating. (No deaths, apparently, although it's not certain.)
Shut It Down
When I first came across Lincoln Humphries' broadcast, where he declines to take part in the challenge, it was on Facebook and accompanied by the comment, "newsreader completely shuts down the Ice Bucket Challenge with style". Admittedly, at this stage most of the challenge videos I'd seen barely mentioned the cause, and so people were critical — reminiscent of the #nomakeupselfie backlash.
His suggestions to donate blood, adopt a pet, and shop at charity shops — instead of wasting fresh water — were all pretty fantastic, but why are some people so keen to "shut it down"?
In terms of backlash, as far as I can see, there are some thought-provoking criticisms.
Taking Money Away From Other Charities
Whether you prefer to see it as sharing the love or view ALS as taking money away from other charities, there's the awkward question about whether or not this going viral has prevented other (in some people's opinions, more worthwhile) charities from receiving donations.
What makes a charity more worthwhile is something that breaks into an almost market norms vs. social norms discussion — would financial investment be better placed into the bigger killers or the lesser-known, therefore lesser-funded, organisations? Which organisation needs more awareness? How far will your money go when donated to a larger or smaller campaign? Is money better donated to a worldwide cause, a western one, or a developing world issue? Basically, whose lives do you value more? Which illness is worse? Who is most deserving? (That all sounds awful.)
"80,000 hours founder William MacAskill say[s], 'Donating money to the best developing world health charities will reach at least 100 times as many people than if you donate to developed world health causes.'" — I fucking love science.
— from ifuckinglovescience.com
Julia Belluz's infographic, based on USA stats, at least indicates a few things — which campaigns are most successful at fundraising (or popular), is one interpretation. It gave me pause to see where people donated most versus which diseases kill us most. (Especially given the lack of understanding demonstrated at the news of Robin Williams' death; suicide was the fifth largest killer on the board, only a small number short of breast cancer, and yet bottom in terms of donation.)
Whilst there are bigger killers than ALS, it's worth pointing out that the fewer sufferers there are, arguably, the less incentive there is for pharmaceutical companies to invest in a cure.
Moral Licensing
William MacAskill's article, "The Cold Hard Truth About The Ice Bucket Challenge", suggests that this campaign is guilty of "funding cannibalism". He shares, "Because people on average are limited in how much they’re willing to donate to good causes, if someone donates $100 to the ALS Association, he or she will likely donate less to other charities... So, because of the $3 million that the ALS Association has received, I’d bet that much more than $1.5 million has been lost by other charities."
It comes down to moral licensing — since you've done one good thing, you can chill out on future goods, hence the phrase, "my one good deed of the day". (When did we decide to limit our good deeds to one a day, anyway?) And this brings us back to the original question, which charity is more worthy of your money? It is a deeply personal decision, and one that cold economics might not answer for you when soul searching.
For every ice bucket video out there, there's likely a nay-sayer who thinks another cause is more important. Yet, to counter this, many are dual donating to highlight another cause as well.
Wasting Water
Another criticism of the campaign is the waste of clean water. Matt Damon's video, accepting the challenge, highlights how privileged we are (in the Western world) to be able to run a tap and fill a bucket of clean, drinkable water, only to waste it. He chooses instead to use toilet water, which he also points out is actually cleaner than the water most people in the developing world have access to.
Mashable has even gifted us with a list of alternatives to water, which sort of leads to the next debate — the hijacking the ALS campaign for alternative causes. (Not a critique of the challenge in itself, but another interesting question that has come from it.)
Is It OK To Commandeer A Hashtag?
Macmillan Cancer Support have been accused of hijacking the #icebucketchallenge hashtag, which began with their retweeting of an ice bucket challenge video and has since seen thousands of people take up the challenge for their cause, raising them enough money for them to fund a Macmillan nurse for one year.
Hashtags certainly aren't owned by anyone — since the conversation is designed to be open — but it raises a moral question. (One that the ALS charity were trying to answer by trademarking the challenge, but have since ceased.) Indeed, Unicef even ended up working with Cancer Research UK to have erroneously donated pledges sent to the right place due to thousands of #nomakeupselfie snafus — people who texted "DONATE" instead of "BEAT" sent their money to the wrong charity. (It isn't the same problem exactly, but it shows a sense of ownership within a viral campaign.)
Is it fair to say that if it's a movement, not a campaign — the essence of going viral — that it's fair game? Perhaps, since it is arguably not owned outright, we must accept that this is how innovation works: You can't control something viral because people can, and will, take it and propel it and make it their own. Is The Death Of The Author at play here? (If a reader becomes an author, does an uploader become a co-owner/co-creator?) At what point does the internet take over and simply own something? The nature of the challenge allows people to innovate, but does that discount a moral argument to stay true to the original cause?
The Money You Donate Doesn't Fully Go To ALS
If it were true about the money, I'd be unhappy with the situation. But, taking a deeper look into this article, it seems it's not as cut and dry as that.
Politicalears.com worded their title, "ALS Foundation Admits That 73% Of Donations Are Not Used For ALS Research". The figures detailed in the article show that, as of January 2014 (figures from before the hashtag went massive, so not exactly an admission), 32% went to public and professional education, 27% went to research, 19% went to patient and community services, 14% went to fundraising, and 7% to administration.
So far, so not a big deal — that spending breakdown existed before this phenomenal amount of money was raised, and spending will likely be different going forward, given such a huge amount to deal with. Besides, it looks like it wasn't too bad a breakdown, right?
Fortune.com states, "ALSA has measured up fairly well in trying to meet those expectations [of watchdog groups, who rate and accredit charities based on how they spend their donations]. According to Charity Navigator’s latest report, for instance, ALSA earned the highest four-star rating, in part, for spending 72% of its fiscal year 2013 revenue on programs and services; 11% went to administration costs while fundraising expenses ate up 16%."
Politicalear also make mention of the six-figure salaries of the big wigs in charge, which are gasp-worthy and massive, but this is the standard for most charities — another debate entirely, you might argue. How many pennies of your pounds go directly to the cause you intend is also a concern applicable to all charities. (That's not to say they shouldn't be kept in check.)
Narcissism And Counterculture
So, why so much hate? Do you get angry the instant you see another video in your feed? Do you know why? I only began looking into ice bucket challenge criticism because so many people seemed against it. And, it mostly seemed that folks were irked because everyone was doing it or because it was clogging up their feed. I started wondering if people had only sought to criticise it merely because it was so popular — a kind of backwards confirmation bias.
Is the reaction linked with counterculture and breaking away from the popular opinion? Reacting against the bandwagon effect? Counterculture is no bad thing — going against the mainstream has sparked various innovative and interesting movements. (And from that, art, change, and more.) But, counterculture against something that, at its heart, is philanthropic seems nonsensical — contrary for the sake of being, well, too cool.
Sure, the culture of celebrity is bigger than ever. If we perceive people's ice bucket challenges to be narcissistic, specifically about vanity and attention, then it seems a natural reaction to dislike them. When people post videos — no matter how creative — and don't even mention the cause, it appears to be about coveting kudos. Such bandwagoning is unattractive.
But, what harm if it's a video (inventive or otherwise) that just pays it forward (to ALS or elsewhere)? Narcissistic or not, charity has been given, which is good, right? Perhaps it's the mixture of altruism and celebrity that leaves a poor taste in people's mouths.
Is Altruism Worth Less When We Tell Everyone About It?
Is that money less valuable when everyone knows you donated it? Does that act become rendered less charitable with every like and share you get? Is an altruistic act less altruistic when we tell everyone about it? Perhaps it goes back to the old adage that there is no selfless act; by doing something selfless, you still gain something — even if it's privately feeling good. The more celebrity the cause or individual video gets, the less each effort means, because fame appears to cancel out the philanthropy.
Does that stems back to pride (which isn't too far from arrogance and peacockery) being labelled an ugly quality? Cynicism often comes first when we see a celebrity or politician doing good. The question is, then, why should charity be something private?
A Lesson From The Past
Humble brags. Selfies. Ice bucket challenges. Maybe that's exactly what 21st century charity needs — pride, unashamed delight, charitable vanity, and viral unity. Certainly, that's partly the way this cause has raised so much money and awareness. And, whether or not it inconvenienced your Facebook feed for a few weeks (we're moving so fast nowadays that a day of it was enough for some people), perhaps positivity — rather than cynicism — should become our knee-jerk.
Charity wasn't always seen as more palatable, or worthwhile, in private. The era in which Britain was, arguably, most giving also saw philanthropists openly celebrated for their efforts; it was a time when charity was applauded loudly and proudly, affording do-gooders a chance to make their mark in history too. It was also an epoch where many long-standing charitable organisations were developed, "e.g. the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)."
Although this age of beneficence could be criticised for being about chasing legacy, the means by which philanthropists did so benefited those less fortunate — today, fame comes by much less munificent means. And that's not to say that every Victorian do-gooder chased legacy first. Maybe our cynicism needs a revolution, a 180. We often dislike it when fame comes from doing good — it's unseemly — but we applaud it (or, in some cases, simply consume it) when it comes from most other means.
Feeding The Age Of The Skim
It's worth pointing out (and fair play if you've stuck with me this far) that counter to the above point, perhaps viral action will damage charity in the long run. Given concerns that we're engaging less and less in a deep and meaningful way — particularly in this link-bait age — apathy for these movements may shortly follow. If moral licensing is a legitimate concern, even massive viral campaigns of the future may fail to break through to our hearts and wallets. Maybe we need to slow down, engage more, and put the hard work back in. In terms of charity, perhaps we need to value and celebrate effort over viral infamy and the future selves of others over Zeitgeist.
Finally, Because Awareness
Would you have even thought about ALS had it not been for this campaign? I've looked at the cold maths, I've considered moral licensing, I've seen water wasted and the water shortage highlighted. I've considered where the money goes, whether it's narcissism we really hate, and whether altruism is worth less when celebrated. Not one of these discussions would have taken place, here certainly, without that first bucket of ice being playfully poured over Peter Frates', all in the name of fighting a good fight.
I've tried to write this blog in a way that doesn't guide opinion, yet I couldn't help but end the latter half of it with my own personal sway. Overall, it seems to be about this — the conversation, the awareness — that's important. I've doubtlessly missed angles worth exploring, but this latest viral craze has made two things very visible to me:
— That ALS is a terrible thing, and regardless of the maths or the infamy, I can't find it in me to feel negative about the awareness and money raised.
I can't not be moved by Anthony Carbajal's video.
— That the way we look at charity may well need changing, from looking at whose lives we view as throw away and how deeply we engage with altruism, to taking our current obsession with fame and putting it, finally, to good use.
It looks like stone.
Going Macro II — iPhone Hack: Housefly
It's the little things, right?
