Topologist: Check out this skirt! It has pockets!

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Cosmic Funnies
wallacepolsom
almost home

PR's Tumblrdome

Discoholic 🪩
Sade Olutola

Keni

Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
YOU ARE THE REASON
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

Product Placement
Show & Tell
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
tumblr dot com
AnasAbdin

seen from Germany
seen from China

seen from Türkiye

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Italy

seen from United States

seen from United States
@adjoint-law
Topologist: Check out this skirt! It has pockets!

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Tumblr users are playing a dizzying variety of games whose results are expressed as grids of green boxes
moffats two scripts under rtd2 were sabotaged so hard by his own obsession with cramming digital ghosts into things
boom and joy to the world both have extremely compelling concepts but get hijacked big time by rehashing this one thing he's already written about like five times it's so bad someone should have been editing that shit
something i've noticed that has become really annoying in the past 10 years or so is this fad of what i've been calling, for lack of a better word, "structural whataboutism." it's that thing where, when faced with a concrete, resolvable problem in your community, your answer is to blame it on a vast, unsolvable issue of structural inequality and then throw up your hands. "there's trash all over the ground in this corner of the park" becomes "well, that's where MEN OF COLOR congregate after their 12-HOUR GRAVEYARD SHIFTS and i'm not going to support a CARCERAL SOLUTION to a CAPITALISTIC PROBLEM. WE NEED TO ELIMINATE POVERTY AND THE SUBJUGATION OF THE WORKING CLASS" and it's like okay but sis. someone still has to go pick up the trash. we don't need a carceral solution, we need more trash cans. you're not going to eliminate poverty and the subjugation of the working class and even if ya did, there would still be trash on the ground. how any of this passes for radicalism within their peer groups i simply don't understand. it's radical laziness more than anything else
I was on a canoe trip once with a river biologist who worked for the county. After we found and removed a car tire, she started talking about the annual river cleanup her department organized. From a water quality or ecological standpoint, removing shopping carts, car tires, and other macro trash from the river really wasn't that important, she said. The real threat to the river was industrial and agricultural runoff.
"But!" she said:
People who see a clean, trash-free river are more likely support laws to curb more harmful "systemic" forms of pollution. People who participate in river cleanups take pride in their work--their river!--and become evangelists for protecting it.
Immediate action leads to systemic awareness, which leads to systemic change.
Literally this.
Saying "there's no point in doing something small until the big thing is fixed" is literally just the Glorious Revolution Rapture story all over again, and it's not helpful.
drafts @ interfluidity
We began with the US case, and the problem that the electoral system causes the politics of a diverse and pluralistic electorate to collapse to binarism. We "solve" that problem by looking e.g. to Europe, with its multiparty democracies, but again we see a kind of collapse to binarism, just at the level of legislative coalitions rather than overt political parties. But the effect is quite similar! In the United States, most voters don't feel like their values and interests are faithfully represented by either of the two political parties. We vote for candidates of one or the other based on some kind of calculus of which of the two coalitions will deviate less terribly. In multiparty parliamentary democracies, we vote for parties that do more clearly express an allegiance to values and interests close to our own. But we understand that in practice their behavior will be governed by coalitional dynamics that are difficult to predict. In both systems, we have learned that our values and interests will often be betrayed. In both systems, politicians discipline voters, rather than the other way around, by pointing out how much stronger their differences are with members of the other coalition than with the politicians whom they must hold their noses to support. The fact that the coalitions are so diverse internally — the Democrats and Republicans in the United States, the flock of governing parties in parliamentary democracies — cedes in practice to politicians in power tremendous freedom to pursue their own interests at the expense of the values and interests of those who elect them. After all, almost everything they do will please part and displease part of their coalition's voters. This freedom creates space for electeds to treat politics as an incumbency and seniority machine, or worse. It encourages them to pursue their personal interests, which are at best orthogonal to, and sometimes directly opposed to, the interests and values of the diverse factions that elect them. This case can be overstated. The electorate does still impose some constraint. In the US, politicians can't consistently make decisions that nearly all subfactions of their party would consider betrayal and expect to be reelected. In Europe, voters can credibly threaten to switch to parties that typically work in coalition with the party they would abandon, or else to an outside party whose ideology is so in sync with their own that they are sure a reorganization of the coalitions to bring the party in would constitute an improvement, without risk of ceding power to parties they find terrifying. The binarism into which both systems collapse loosens the constraint that voters can impose upon their electeds, but does not entirely eliminate it.
Multiparty legislatures elected under proportional representation are straightforwardly superior to US-style first-past-the-post two-party-ism, because at least voters can discipline electeds by switching to other parties within their coalition, or to parties whose growth would lead to a desirable reorganization of the coalitions. (American voters lack any real mechanism to discipline incumbent legislators, except perhaps for primary challenges, which bring pathology as much as remedy, given the unrepresentative subset of the electorate that participates in them.) However, proportionally represented parliaments suffer from the same core deficiency as American democracy. Coalitional politics complicate attempts by voters to hold accountable those they elect, and so diminishes their capacity to insist, effectively, that electeds vigorously advance their voters' values and interests. Professional politicians in both US parties, but also in the governing coalition of a parliamentary democracy, share incentives to maximize continuing job security, seniority, power, and personal wealth. Given the softness of the constraint voters are able to impose, that often means serving powerful economic interests rather than their voters, mucking around with procedure and jurisdictional boundaries, and otherwise not acting as faithful and vigorous representatives of the people whose values and interests they are charged to represent.
In both systems, politicians discipline voters, rather than the other way around, by pointing out how much stronger their differences are with members of the other coalition than with the politicians whom they must hold their noses to support.
😩
A more indicative extract:
Just as electoral systems can introduce pathology into how the values and interests of a diverse public become represented as a legislature, details of legislative institutions and parliamentary procedure can introduce pathology into how even an initially well-constituted minipublic produces outcomes. [...]
[...]"Let many candidates contest for office, and let whoever receives the most votes win!" sounds impeccably democratic, but this very procedure is what triggers the collapse of American democracy into binarism. I want to posit that a similar pathology haunts the most straightforward parliamentary procedure, "Let legislators propose legislation, let them propose and vote on amendments, let a final product become law if it achieves more than 50% of the vote!"

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
How do you know you're not Asexual? Maybe you just haven't met the right nobody.
by Andrey Samarin
thinking about how colombo's "one more thing" gimmick is basically interchangeable with phoenix wright's "objection" gimmick, but they imply different models of masculinity and different relations to the law
she’s right
that’s her. the Task Manager

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I sit alone in an unfurnished room for several hours, locked in meditation. After several days of silence, my eyes snap open.
"I just passed the Bechdel Test"
I think if you have food allergies or intolerances you should gain the ability to eat other things instead. Like sure maybe I can't eat alliums or brassicas, but I can eat tree bark and small pebbles.
found some incredible internet sentences yesterday in this account by a redditor with autism who delivers a blow-by-blow description of what his oxytocin nasal spray does to his autism, but only for about 3 hours at a time
just so we’re clear, because i think someone could get that impression from these tags, oxytocin is NOT a drug. oxyTOCIN (hormone, the subject of this post) and oxyCONTIN (opioid drug) look very similar and sound very similar but they are not even vaguely related despite nearly being anagrams
it is not an opioid or a painkiller. oxytocin is a hormone and neuropeptide that is involved in the way mammals form social bonds with each other. it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, so when you take it orally, it ONLY affects your body, it does not affect your brain. thats why it’s in nasal spray form in these posts. in obstetric medicine, oral or IV oxytocin is used during labor to increase uterine contractions, because in the body it is also involved in childbirth (both the physical act of giving birth and in boding with your baby/tolerating the people around you while you are in labor)
researchers have noticed for a long time that oxytocin levels in autistic people are generally very low, which in my opinion is exactly what autism “feels like” in social situations: ie, you are ambiently aware that hugging, physical touch, conversation either intimate or smalltalk level, and just being in proximity to people you care about should feel nice, everyone else seems to be having a good time, and they cant all be faking it. so what’s my problem? why does it stress me out so badly to be around people i actually want to be around and whom i trust and love? what am i MISSING that other people have? well, it might be the oxytocin for a lot of us. again, the studies on autism are 99% on “curing autism in children” and no one is interested at all in running research on improving quality of life in autistic adults, so the research we have on this is really stupid. but it offers some insight. autistic children given oxytocin nasal spray seem to respond with what you would expect from increasing someone’s low oxytocin levels: less social stress, better verbal fluency around people, better mood around people, etc.
everyone calling this “creepy” and “mind control” needs to really, really reexamine how they relate to their personalities, self-image, and their diagnosis. there is nothing coercive or deceptive being done here, to anyone. this guy ordered oxytocin on his own, administered it to himself on his own, informed his family he was going to do so, and then observed and reported the results. you are allowed to treat your own dysfunctions with medicine and then experience the effects. you sound like Christian Science maniacs saying stuff like “if god wanted me to walk he wouldnt have broken my legs in the first place” and letting their children die of sepsis and vitamin deficiencies because it’s God’s Will. you can actually do whatever you want, forever. when you do something of your own agency, guess what, that’s your personality now. that’s you doing something of your own free will. framing the alleviation of subjectively distressing symptoms (like social anxiety, anhedonia, depression and apathy!!!) as some sort of betrayal of your core tenets of Being Autistic At All Times is so regressive and self-defeating i dont even know where to begin. even if you dont personally experience autism as a disability or inconvenience, which is fine too, you are allowed to improve your conditions anyway. you are allowed to take blood pressure medication. you are allowed to take insulin if you cant make your own. it doesn’t “erase who you are as a diabetic”. jesus christ
the first malware deliberately including mentions of "forbidden content" like biological and nuclear weapons in it's code to throw of AI agents analyzing it has been spotted
^ The Javascript comment block at the start of a file containing malicious code.
it would be so awesome
it would be so cool

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
americans love doxxing their home states more than anything. we hear the name of our home state and everything goes black and we wake up 10 minutes later, having reblogged no fewer than 8 posts featuring the name of our home state
By @emilyscartoons
imagine a town where every family has children until they have a boy then stop. what is the average proportion of girls to boys in the town? assume the chance of having a boy and a girl are equal, and there are no other options. show your work
Of course, when a family wants to "have children", they place an order with the Stork Co. Children Factory, and an unmarked crate is express delivered to them within minutes. It has a 50-50 chance of containing a boy or a girl, and nobody knows which until it's opened.¹
(¹ I made this detail up, but it has no effect on the families' girls-until-boy strategy, or the baby gender probabilities, and therefore no effect on the answer.)
Driving back and forth between houses costs money, so the Stork Co. Children Factory has decided it will do all its delivering in batches, on house at a time. The delivery van will show up at the Jones's house for five minutes, during which the Jones family can order as many babies as they want: instant delivery! Then the delivery van will go to the Smiths's house, and so on.²
(² I made this detail up, but it has no effect on the families' girls-until-boy strategy, or the baby gender probabilities, and therefore no effect on the answer. I mean, so long as the Smiths can place an order arbitrarily fast. Good luck, Smiths!)
After visiting all N houses in the town, dispatch asks the driver (who is a stork btw) what proportion of girls to boys were delivered. The stork realises he wasn't paying attention! He just handed out the crates without looking to see what was inside. He doesn't even remember how many crates each house got!³