tkingfisher:

difty-dift:

eyerolls-the-view:

tkingfisher:

Oddly Specific Tarot: The Moose

Meaning: Unconquerable wrath. Natural disaster. Rage that can be neither contained nor reasoned with, only escaped. Large hostile ungulates.

Reversed: Canada.

ALT

@difty-dift

INCORRECT

Meaning: Unstoppable love. Collective healing. Adoration that can neither be extinguished nor refuted, only appreciated. Large hostile ungulates (<- that’s true tho)

Reversed: Canada (<-also true)

…this is so damn cute that I don’t even mind the schism it will cause amongst card readers a few centuries hence.

ms-demeanor:

anonymouscomrade:

fruityyamenrunner:

indelicateink:

depsidase:

painfully true

ALT

Imagine saying “where sweets are baked, not bought” about the decade that invented blue raspberry

It would be a really huge jump to go from homemade sweets in 1998 to this in 1999:

aromancy:

judasclementine:

arecaceae175:

breannasfluff:

dzamie:

teaboot:

hatingongodot:

hatingongodot:

hatingongodot:

“Why don’t people recognize Link in TOTK” bc everyone imagines the legendary swordsman to be built like Ganondorf and Link doesn’t bother correcting anyone bc being hailed as a hero is like on the bottom of his priorities, which are topped by things like “Bake one of every pie”

Rando farmer: They say that once the noble hero of legend passed by this very village! Isn’t that wonderful to imagine, genderfluid stranger?

Link, 5'6" with 2" heels and wearing a backless dress suspiciously stained with blood: no yeah that’s wild

“Wouldn’t they recognize him bc he’s with Zelda” Everyone interacting with Zelda was like “Wow, the princess!! The princess who saved Hyrule is here, talking to us! Plus some guy with three sets of pronouns who’s building a bomb but more importantly The Princess!! Wow!!”

ALT

Zelda keeps coming across spare genders she doesn’t need and Link follows behind scooping them all up off the ground like a starving trash possum

Someone uses an unfamiliar pronoun around Zelda, and she hears the item pickup sound come from Link

Every time this comes across my dash it’s gotten better.

THIS

Link loaned Zelda a set of he/him at one point and he called himself Sheik for about half a game.

(via hearthawk)

derinthescarletpescatarian:

beatrice-otter:

merfilly:

elizabethgoudge:

egberts:

companies really have got to be okay with stagnant profits. what is wrong with earning the same amount every year? why does it always have to be more? it’s not sustainable. there are only so many people on the planet you can profit from 😭

This is the thing. If there are only so many people they can profit from, and they demand to see profits go up every year, they will have to steal more out of the pockets of the little people each year, either by paying less, or by charging more. And that is the problem. Because that is exactly what is happening. And the rich get richer. And the poor are getting so poor that it is coming to a crisis point. They seem to have forgotten what happens at the crisis point though: people who have nothing to lose, will rise up and fight.

Cancer: a malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically (Merriam Webster)

See also: Capitalism

But also, “increasing profits every quarter” is a relatively recent thing. It’s new since the 1980s! In the 1980s, Reagan heavily promoted the economic theories connected with the Chicago school of economics. (“Reaganomics” is basically the Chicago school ideas dumbed down to fit in soundbites.) The Chicago school is, among other things, responsible for such wonders as “all regulation in the marketplace is always bad” “monopoly is good because it’s efficient” and “trickle-down economics.” When those ideas became mainstream, and were adopted wholeheartedly by Wall Street, they spawned the idea that the most important measure of a company was its stock increasing in value. Not how much business it was doing, not how well its customers liked and valued it, not how stable it was for the long-term. Is its stock increasing is the only measure of value.

Prior to that point, a business–even large corporations!–were valued more on how reliable they are. If I invest in this business, will it still be there five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now? Businesses were good if they were profitable and stable. Increasing profits was wonderful! But they understood that that is not infinitely sustainable, and that if you wanted to maximize long-term profits for individual investors and for the economy as a whole, you did not want flash-in-the-pan trendiness, and you didn’t want a business cannibalizing itself, you wanted a business that was stable and took good care of its customers so they’d keep coming back.

The reason that businesses have to grow forever to be successful now is that the people who own the businesses don’t make a significant portion of their money from profits. They don’t care about profits for themselves; those profits are chump change. They don’t make their money from the value of the business. They make their money from the increase of value of the business.

The wealth these people have is measured by how much more their stocks are worth now than when they bought them. That is, how much the business has grown. If someone owns a bunch of $1,000 stocks that they bought for $990 each a year ago, and a bunch of $100 stocks that they bought for $10 each a year ago, those $100 stocks are a better investment. Most of their money comes from stock trading, and securities and loans that are based on the strength of that stock portfolio. A stagnant business is a waste of money because it’s tying up money that you could be putting into more profitable businesses.

So your $100/stock company is far safer than your $1,000 stock company in the above example. Because your $1,000/stock company is almost stagnant and risks collapsing because investors might pull out to invest in a faster growing company. That company survives by becoming more valuable, which usually means increasing profits, and it doesn’t matter if those profits are in the tens of thousands, or the millions, or the billions – what matters is that they go up as much as possible so the stock price doesn’t collapse. When profit increases slow down, the company is at risk. Companies that are happy with regular profits don’t get big enough to really affect the economy because high-level investors see them as dead weight. Companies that are large and want to be happy with regular profits will die.

This is why late stage capitalism is a problem. It’s not a just question of Bezos and Zuckerberg and soforth being arseholes. It’s the inevitable conclusion of how money and value works in a system like this. (The assholery of billionnaires is still relevant re: their ability to affect government policies and regulations, direct international wars, etc., to worsen the problem, but again they are dangerous because they make the system worse; the system is the problem.)

grox:

Thats the bitch whos violating the migratory bird treaty act kill her

(via birdycreatures)

hexagonal-wizard:

7ft-tall-shadow-creature:

beahives:

But what if it was all a dream

This is more unsettling. I know it’s there. I know it should be there. I know this pristine landscape is hiding its horrors like teeth.

yea I’m not gonna lie I don’t like this.

(via velociraptrix)

escuerzoresucitado:

a choir

(via velociraptrix)

tyjrose:

Am I hot? No. But do I have a sparkling personality? Also no

(via cipheramnesia)

whitesunlars:

my one (1) complaint about the barbie movie is that they showed the only horses in Barbieland being horse head on stick toys when really there should have been a representation of the direct doll to horse girl pipeline of barbie pegasus. 

i’m not saying a cgi horse. i’m saying a giant plastic barbie pegasus. 

Or at least the equally powerful original model, 1994 Barbie High Stepper robot horse that really walked. She was giant and thus the queen of my toy horse collection. I feel like she is THE millenial Barbie horse.

(via hadeantaiga)

roach-works:

adhoption:

cronepunk:

dovewithscales:

likeadevils:

so i have a mildly popular “reblog and put in in the tags” post going around and its. very clear how many people don’t know how to interact with a tumblr post

so, first of all, tumblr’s culture has changed a lot in the past couple years. there’s a genuine community effort to not start any drama, and ironically a lot of the current hostility is an effort to keep things calm. there’s also a change in how people interact with posts, so if you haven’t been here in a while please skip down to the tags/replies/reblog with text section.

for newcomers: you should be reblogging posts about as liberally as you would like something on twitter. if you only like stuff, people will think you are rude/a bot. you’ve probably heard people talk about “cultivating your dash,” and thats because this platform is 100% centered around your dashboard. trending matters less, unfollowing and blocking in order to shape your dash into it’s best form is widely accepted, the majority of the content you’ll find and interact with will be because of your dash, and the only way to put things on your dash is to reblog them. tumblr users are deeply distrustful of algorithms and have largely turned off the “see posts your friends have liked” function (i recommend you also turn of the various algorithms in settings → general settings → dashboard preferences).

so, once you’ve reblogged a post, there’s three ways to add content to it. the tags, replies, and reblogging with text. all of them have different connotations

the tags: an inside voice. originally they were meant for organizing your blog (and they’re still used for this), but they’ve also morphed into a way to share thoughts that aren’t funny/insightful enough for non-followers to be interested in. when in doubt, put your comment in the tags

replies: basically talking to your friends in class. your followers have no way of finding your replies (they don’t pop up on the dash, nobody gets notified except for the original poster) so chances are, only the person who made the post is gonna see your comment. it’s for quick one-offs that you’re okay with other people overhearing, but really is only made for one person. they’re like a public dm

reblog with text: an outside voice. you’re getting up on a stage in town square and entertaining people. make sure it’s funny or insightful— bottom line, add something new to the conversation. you should use this the least

general rules of thumb: 

• when in doubt, reblog. people will judge you if your blog is only personal posts and you only interact with other content by liking it.  
• the only things people will judge you for reblogging are personal vent posts. leave a like to give a little virtual hug
• if a post is asking about your personality/opinions (i.e: tell me what’s the last tv show you watched, that kind of thing) put it in the tags 
• also if you see a nice edit, gifset, or art, reblog and say something nice in the tags! it’s that nice sweet spot of common enough that no one will notice but uncommon enough to make the artist’s day

Finally real advice for new users. This is a solid guide for how to make the transition from Twitter to Tumblr.

In particular, artists need you to reblog. A reblog helps them get seen. A like doesn’t help them at all.

And I would like to add image descriptions and audio/video transcriptions can really help increase reblogs. Please remember to make your posts as accessible as possible.

most of this is fine but I’m completely sick and tired of people saying you can’t comment on your own blog unless you’re sure it’s something funny or insightful, and if in doubt not to do this and use their ‘inside voice’ instead.

the website is designed for people to reblog and talk to each other. people have invented the whole misuse of the tag system out of some weird repression which is part of the same trend as not reblogging at all.

please, go back to using your outside voice, folks. speak freely on your blogs. don’t feel pressured into mumbling under your breath because the cool kids made you fee like what you have to say wasn’t important enough. this is supposed to be the place where you can be yourself.

the reason people used to be scolded for commenting was because posts used to be indented for each subsequent reblog, eventually turning the post into

||||something

|||||that looked

||||||like

|||||||this

which obviously annoyed the crap out of everyone. posts generally don’t look like that anymore except on certain blog styles, but the stigma against commenting remains because this is the social anxiety site and also because we all like to have strong opinions on who gets to talk.

seriously, comment on everything you want to, especially if you have something nice to say, or more context to add, or a different perspective to share. it can lead to interesting conversations, and all the best posts on here are a collaborative effort. if people don’t like your addition, they can just block you or reblog an earlier version of the post, or make fools of themselves trying to fight with you and then you can block them. it’s completely fine.

raiasintended:

adventures-in-poor-planning:

adventures-in-poor-planning:

Today I saw a pic of a baby cowbird next 2 its nest “parent” and it was so much bigger!!!!! Which is the sort of thing that gets normal people upset about the injustice of nest parasitism but makes *me* worry if baby cowbirds get bird dysmorphia

This (from Cornell Labs via Merlin) is the pic I was looking at. It’s just a little baby but it’s so much bigger than its “parent”!!!! Do baby cowbirds feel isolated? Do they understand they’re a different bird, or are they just a really bad sparrow?

hey, good news! ecologists have been studying this very thing! it seems young cowbirds have some kind of innate sense that leads them to sneak out of their foster nest at night to hang out in grasslands where they—more often than not—meet other cowbirds and learn more about what they really are.

(via a-polite-melody)

just-evo-now:

im reading a book about the geology of northern california and this guy is so so angy about the coast range

“a nightmare of rocks”

“if all rocks resembled these, the science of geology could never have been developed”

“chaotic jumble of broken and disordered rocks”

“nasty looking green serpentinite”

This guy hates California rocks the way Charles Darwin hated marine iguanas.

(via hadeantaiga)

mossworm:

This article documents the severe and ongoing specimen neglect I witnessed over 12 months working at Florida State Collection of Arthropods. FSCA actively solicits donations, then picks and chooses what specimens to care about based on individuals’ personal favorites. The rest are left to rot.

Please take a look and consider sharing this, it’s extremely important for people (especially in science, taxonomy, natural history, museum curation, etc) to know how and why scientific material is being lost.

Neglect of a Museum’s Collection Could Cause Scientific Setbacks

According to sources familiar with the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, many specimens are deteriorating.

Undark Magazine

(via roach-works)

kragehund-est:

kragehund-est:

the average person’s understanding of the “squirrel” could stand expansion. most people think of grey squirrels and red squirrels. urge them to think a little harder and they might come up with chipmunks and flying squirrels, while asking “i mean, do those really count?”

prepare yourselves.

first up, red squirrels and grey squirrels (classic):

chipmunks (nightcore ass animal):

african pygmy squirrel (the smallest Squirrels):

thirteen-lined ground squirrel (fancier than you):

prairie dog (insanely intelligent and social):

marmots/groundhogs (the Biggest squirrels):

flying squirrels (how does she do it):

Indian Giant Squirrel (And why he ourple😂):

there are 200+ species of squirrel out there their family is one of, if not the most diverse of the rodents

Sciuridae, because they scurry every day.

Also let it be known that prairie dogs have language with adjectives. They can describe “man with blue hat walking through the colony” to each other.

(via todaysbird)

stinkybrowndogs:

Everyone look at this pathetic beast right now

It is called a “Segugio Italiano” and it’s the stupidest dog I’ve ever seen I need 10

You can’t trick me, this is a dachshund with stilts.

(via woofsters)