yip yip yip yip yip yip

Also those backgrounds make me feel alone.

Some have called "they pay me in woims" Sluggo's catch phrase. It's not. He said it once, and folks on Bluesky loved it so much they say it all the time, especially in response to the Nancy Comics by Ernie Bushmiller account. Here's the original "they pay me in woims" from February 22, 1978:

And, another mention of woims from September 13, 1949:

And the Woims Wednesday (aka Woimsday) image that gets posted almost every week because of the popularity of the word:

NO you absolutely WANT your PLASTIC SURGERY procedures to be done by a PLASTIC SURGEON.

As in someone who is specifically trained in it and does it every day.

Someone who is not specifically trained in pleasing cosmetic results and not actively practicing pleasing cosmetic results is how you get horrifying cosmetic results

The "plastic" in "plastic surgeon" did not get here to mean "cheap and fake."

Plastic, the word, predates plastic, the material. The material was named for its noteworthy quality.

"Plastic" means "shapeable." Workable, moldable, malleable, et cetera.

When the first reconstructive surgeries were being pioneered in the 19th century, working absolute miracles like restoring whole faces to girls and women who'd caught fire tending to their kitchen stoves, among a multitude of other devastating conditions, it was this miraculous reshaping that gave the surgery its name: plastic surgery, the shaping surgery.

Time passes, and plastic, the material, is developed, and goes from fantastic modern wonder material to byword for cheap imitation; plastic, the surgery, expands from reconstruction to aesthetic finicking, Barbie is introduced with her unrealistically-proportioned plastic body, and the phrase "plastic surgery" goes from indicating "the reshaping surgery (what a marvelous thing)" to "the fake face/fake tits/fake nose surgery (how vulgar and deceitful)."

Same phrase. Entirely different connotation.

Just sayin'.

(Moorish Idols are reef fish and naturally will seek shelter in the nearest nook or cranny if they get scared.)

I decided to flip the book around and pressed it against the glass. Fish lost it

Swam away then came back with MORE FISH

I accidentally trained a fish once through playing.

Let me explain.

The small-time aquarium I worked at about 4 years ago had a decent sized female Sheephead. Sheephead are bright red with the males sporting a black head, and get big. I’m talking almost 1m long at full maturity (and may or may not transition from female to male depending on the number of males present). Point is, even though not fully matured, this Sheephead was a bit of a heavyweight in her kelp forest tank with a length of about 1ft making her the resident Biggest Dog In The Yard. And she absolutely knew it. She would bully her tankmates if she wanted to steal their food.

The thing about this Sheephead- let’s call her Red- is that she had one heck of a ‘tude. Red was known to splash aquarists whenever they fed the tank, and at almost a foot long with a wide tail, her splashes had quite a bit of heft and would soak you from the torso down. We were advised to bring a towel or two to protect ourselves from most of the drenching. When it was my go-around to feed Red’s tank, I was fairly new to the little facility, but I had been warned in advance of Red’s penchant for food thievery. I noticed she would follow my hand movements, so I slowly moved to drop her food in a far corner, and fed her tankmates directly from my hands or by tong if they were too deep. I always made sure Red had plenty to eat, but I didn’t want her to associate the food with bad behavior, so I treated her to a bit extra food whenever she didn’t steal food. One day, she made a beeline to the surface so fast that she did a small jump, her entire head breaching the water. She wasn’t bothering her tankmates or doing anything remotely dangerous- and full disclosure, it was cute seeing a fish jump for joy- so I laughed and gave her another piece of food.

Naturally, positive reinforcement led to her connecting the dots that jumping at the surface, even the tiny jumps she was doing, meant she got more food.

This started to become an everyday occurrence, whenever I was assigned to feed Red’s tank. She would jump, just enough for her head to pop out, then she’d wait patiently for me to give her the treat she CLEARLY earned. It even got to the point that she’d open her mouth and I’d drop the food right into those massive jaws- this was preferable to her Kenghis Khan-ing her way through a shower of chopped squid like the Tasmanian Devil, as there was less risk of her accidentally (or purposefully) biting a tankmate that got too close. Red became a polite eater for the first time.

It wasn’t until I noticed she followed me around outside of feeding time that I realized Red was playing with me.

"Some 6,000 years ago in the northern reaches of modern Latvia, a young woman died. Afterwards, a group of early humans buried her in an ancient, sacred place along a lakeshore. They carefully lowered her small teenage frame into the ground, gently placing a stone ax, 28 flint flakes, 15 blades, and a stone scraper beside her. Stained with ochre, the stone implements were part of her last rites. This young woman remained there thousands of years, until, when archaeologists discovered her along with more than 300 others in the 20th century. The site, known as Zvejnieki cemetery, is one of Europe’s largest Stone Age cemeteries.

Research conducted at Zvejnieki has often challenged longheld assumptions about gender roles in prehistoric Europe. For instance, the young woman interred in burial 211 described above is one of several women and children buried with stone axes at the site, upending the notion that axes only belonged to Stone Age men. Now, a new study published September 10 in the journal PLOS One again upends gender stereotypes, demonstrating that women and children were just as likely to be buried with stone tools as men. The woman in burial 211 alone was laid to rest with a staggering 45 different stone objects. 

(...)

This flies in the face of a decades-old stereotype that Stone Age women didn’t use stone tools as frequently as men. The women were too busy cooking, crafting, and caring for the family to bother with the stone tools used by men in hunting and building. Or so the outdated story went.

“Our findings overturn the old stereotype of ‘Man the Hunter,’”  Little said in a statement. Historically, this stereotype “has been a dominant theme in Stone Age studies, and has even influenced, on occasion, how some infants have even been sexed, on the basis that they were given lithic tools.”