
romaâ
Not today Justin

@theartofmadeline
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
NASA
cherry valley forever
Today's Document

Origami Around
trying on a metaphor
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
dirt enthusiast
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her



#extradirty
Mike Driver
KIROKAZE

çĽćĽ / Permanent Vacation
seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Italy

seen from Philippines

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Mauritius

seen from United States

seen from Indonesia
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from TĂźrkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
@herbofgraceandpeace

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
so what you're gonna do is you're gonna trim the top off a bulb of garlic, using the knife's edge to take off the tip of every individual clove, that's important. you're gonna place the garlic face-up in a square of tinfoil, drizzle with olive oil, wrap completely in foil, place in baking tray, repeat with a copious amount of garlic bulbs. you're gonna put that baking tray in an oven set to 375-400°F, for 30-50 minutes, until soft and browned. you're gonna toast some good bread, slather generously with butter and honey, maybe a tiny lil bit o' salt. and then. you're gonna SQUEEZE. OUT. THAT. ROASTED GARLIC. onto the butter honey toast. and you're gonna eat it. food stolen directly from the plate of the gods. that's what you're gonna do.
the garlic. it beckons you
It occurs to me that "1920s gangster doing a cooking show while holding you at gunpoint" is an untapped market.
We've had normal cooking shows. Now we need period piece cooking shows in character.
The mind is not merely receptive, in the sense that it absorbs sensations like so much blotting-paper; on that sort of softness has been based all that cowardly materialism, which conceives man as wholly servile to his environment. On the other hand, the mind is not purely creative, in the sense that it paints pictures on the windows and then mistakes them for a landscape outside. But the mind is active, and its activity consists in following, so far as the will chooses to follow, the light outside that does really shine upon real landscapes. That is what gives the indefinably virile and even adventurous quality to this view of life; as compared with that which holds that material inferences pour in upon an utterly helpless mind, or that which holds that psychological influences pour out and create an entirely baseless phantasmagoria. In other words, the essence of the Thomist common sense is that two agencies are at work; reality and the recognition of reality; and their meeting is a sort of marriage. Indeed it is very truly a marriage, because it is fruitful; the only philosophy now in the world that really is fruitful. It produces practical results, precisely because it is the combination of an adventurous mind and a strange fact.
- G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas
can't spell vowels without wolves
#aaaooooouuuuuuuuuu....
Hey. Heyhey. Do me a favor real quick.
If you don't already know you have issues doing so, squat down real quick. Bend your knees all the way and touch the floor. Just make sure you can do it. Okay? For me? And then stand up all the way and make sure you can balance on one foot.
Like. You don't need to blow it into some huge thing. Just. Make sure all your bits and peices still work the way you think they do.
Can you turn your head to look behind you without twisting your shoulders? What about standing on your toes? If you sit down on the floor can you get back up without using your hands?
If there was ever a tumblr post worth sending to your mom, it's this one.
Just saying, bodies are a use it or lose it kinda thing.
okay so every time I see this post crop back up in queues and notifications I end up thinking about it. Because I made the post and even I'm still doing the thing where I read the post about maintaining range of motion in my delicate meatsuit and I nod and hmm and think yeah that's a good idea and then dont move from where I'm curled up shrimp style staring at the nightmare rectangle.
So like. Thinking real hard about moving doesn't count as moving. Major bummer. Anyways. Joints.

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
Rereading Lady Audley's Secret was absolutely the right choice. After struggling through Trollope and Dickens, I was afraid I'd burned out my ability to read Victorian prose, but Braddon's prose is so much clearer and more vivid and flows so much better that it seems to come from another century.
Her descriptions hit just the right balance for me; they're vivid and detailed, but still have a sense of motion to them--instead of stopping dead to describe the surroundings, she mentions details as you move through the scene, and it flows so much better.
She does that thing where she starts with several chapters following a bunch of different people, but when she does it, I'm invested in all the storylines. My friend Robert Audley is here, and he's so lazy and lovable and so vividly drawn so quickly. I know that this style wouldn't work for everyone, but I'm so happy.
Keukenhof Gardens, Lisse, Netherlands
ola_monola
Sense and Sensibility - A commentary by Emma Thompson
the "rip ___ you would have loved ___" meme is inherently more fun with ancient characters. rip clytemnestra you would have loved morse code. rip theseus you would have loved the airtag. rip callisto you would have loved wearing shorts.
rip Icarus you would have loved parachutes
why would you rip his parachute đđđ
some people will be like "ah yes, purity culture comes from the puritans, which were fanatic Christians, so purity culture comes from christian doctrine, and the two are basically synonymous", and then unknowingly praise Christians for expression the counter-christian ideas of... grace and forgiveness and not needing to be perfect.
alright people throw the term around a lot but what I've generally seen people to mean by "purity culture" is:
the belief that sex dirties you (even if you're married, it's just considered okay to be impure then)
therefore anything to do with sexuality should be hidden or avoided
something that is dirtied or damaged cannot be fixed again
an implicit or explicit understanding that pure things are more valuable than impure things
therefore the highest priority is maintaining purity. if you fail, boo hoo.
and this attitude is present in a lot of christian communities, but it's still wrong.
christian doctrine is:
sex is good and sacred, reserved to a man and woman in marriage.
it should be concealed to express it's sacredness, not dirtiness (this is open to cultural variation.)
redemption, salvation, forgiveness, etc. God makes things that were once bad, dirty, and broken into things that are good, pure, and whole.
human beings, from the most virtuous to the most evil, are unconditionally loved by God and more valuable than anything else on earth
the highest priority is having a good and close relationship with God
I also see people trying to counter it with what I'll call "impurity culture"
sex is dirty, but that just makes it edgy, interesting, and cool. any restrictions and standards are for squares
things that are pure should be dirtied and the dirt flaunted everywhere in celebration
something that is dirtied cannot be made pure again
dirty flawed things are superior to pure things, which are basic and boring and need to be transcended
the highest priority is deviating from purity, which is where you get your uniqueness and therefore your value from
"The devil always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of oppositesâŚHe relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.â
-- C.S. Lewis

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
the thing about Taylor Swift is first of all, that sheâs always gonna kind of fall for whatever lie the culture has cooked up about romance and sex and (to a lesser extent) womanhood. a mature, adult relationship will involve sex, and involve it fairly early on as a way to test chemistry? sheâs gonna prove that sheâs mature and adult. youâre not supposed to want love too much, supposed to be casual and cool and have some hook-ups in your twenties? sheâs gonna throw herself into that. itâs responsible to move in together before marriage as a trial commitment thatâs not actually committed? well, if everyone agrees itâs best practice, sheâll do that too. but the second thing about Taylor Swift is she never totally buys the lie. she has an iron core of romanticism and finely attuned moral instincts which means sheâs never able to fully deceive herself into believing the lie, even as sheâs doing her best to live it. she wants something more, and settling for something less feels wrong. and the third thing about Taylor Swift? sheâs an incredibly good artist, so in service to making the best art possible, eventually, she always tells the truth. she wonât just put a happy face on and deliver the party line, at least not for very long. sooner or later, she writes a devastatingly specific song that says, âhey, I did that thing everyone said would make me happy. and it didnât. it felt awful.â
âLetâs be weirdos togetherâ is true couple goals and the objective fact is that Romeo and Juliet are the ones who invented it, like in modern times we hear âit wasnât a love storyâ this, âthey would never have actually lastedâ that, âit was just lustâ here, âthey only loved an ideaâ there, BUT if you actually read the text, Romeo starts spewing nonsense about pilgrims and saints at the moment they first meet (rather than, you know, introducing himself) and Juliet not only takes his little speech and immediately runs with it, buying into it and continuing it with total ease, but also completes it to form a perfect sonnet, and if that isnât soulmates who match each otherâs freak stuff, idk what is.
at work they're showing us how to use AI tools like Copilot to help in our day to day tasks.
I have many reasons why I will not use those tools, going from lack of accuracy, lack of ethics, and a higher waste of energy.
But my main reason is this:
I will do things the hard way. I will learn how to do things the hard way.
Because AI is a subscription. And when the world is dependant on AI, they will raise the price of that subscription.
And when the company I work for decides that paying for AI is too expensive for their bottom line, they will remove it.
But I will still know how to work.
the return of the king will fix me
@laurelin-of-valinor @cultivating-wildflowers @swinging-stars-from-satellites
the way the series makes it as obvious as possible that they were each other's soulmates
They did this joke so many times and it ate every single time

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
Teeheehee, off to do my little schemes đ
Teeheehee, on my way back home from doing my little schemes đ¤Ş
all STEM students should have to take humanities courses, and all humanities students should have to take STEM courses
@caesarsaladinn I had a whole discussion with a history major who was extremely confident that smallpox is a âcommon childhood illnessâ with a very low death rate. Therefore, she believed that historical smallpox outbreaks were either massively exaggerated or used as a cover-up for something else (since âsmallpox isnât that bad.â) I eventually asked if she was possibly confusing smallpox with chickenpox, at which point she said, âarenât they the same thing?â
The English language really whiffed on that one. Should have called it largepox or at least regularsizepox.
The whole "-pox" making system could use some work. Are we doing sizes? Animals? Get it together.
One of the less deadly variants of smallpox was called cowpox, and the fact that dairy maids who contracted it tended to avoid the worst affects of smallpox is part of the development of vaccination
Cowpox is actually a separate (but very similar!) virus!
There's a lot of confusion about different "poxes" in this post (which wasn't my intention, and now I feel bad), so here's a general overview (also, obligatory apology for messiness, this was written at like 1 AM):
Smallpox:
Smallpox, caused by variola virus, was a massive problem historically. It existed in the Western hemisphere for thousands of years (genetic evidence of smallpox has been found in Egyptian mummies from â1500 BCE, but it was probably around long before then), and it was introduced to the New World during the Columbian exchange, which had devastating consequences for indigenous populations (which were already suffering from colonialist violence, which made epidemics much worse than they already would've been). Historically, smallpox had a case fatality rate between 30-50%, and survivors were often left disfigured or permanently disabled (you've probably seen pictures of smallpox scars, but smallpox can also cause blindness and other complications). Importantly, smallpox only affects humansâit has no animal hostsâwhich is why it's one of the few infectious diseases to have been completely eradicated. As of May 8, 1980, it officially no longer exists outside of certain designated American and Russian laboratories. (There are, however, concerns that it could be used as a bioweapon, which is why the government still stockpiles smallpox vaccines and antivirals. I wrote my bioethics term paper on this exact issue, and incidentally, it's one of the major reasons why I believe that STEM majors should take ethics courses!)
There were two strains of variola virus: variola major and variola minor. Variola major was much more dangerous, with a much higher mortality rate; variola minor typically didn't cause severe disease. Fortunately, infection with one strain conferred immunity against the other. Both strains are now eradicated. (People sometimes confuse variola minor with other viruses like cowpox and horsepox, but they're different things.)
There were four clinical forms of smallpox: ordinary (classic smallpox, associated with the rash you usually see in pictures), modified (less severe, often occurred in vaccinated people who got infected anyway), malignant (caused a flat rash instead of the usual pustules, associated with immune dysfunction, almost always fatal), and hemorrhagic (caused severe bleeding, and also near-universally fatal.) All of the non-ordinary forms could be difficult to diagnose because they looked so different from typical smallpox. The less serious "modified" form was often confused with chickenpox, and the hemorrhagic form was sometimes assumed to be a completely different disease. Occasionally, historical sources will refer to hemorrhagic smallpox as "black pox," with or without an understanding that it's caused by the same virus as ordinary smallpox.
Other relevant viruses:
Cowpox, caused by cowpox virus (an orthopoxvirus similar to smallpox) causes mild disease in cows, humans, and several other animals. Infection with cowpox virus confers immunity to variolaâEdward Jenner noticed this relationship and used material from cowpox lesions to inoculate people against smallpox.
Vaccinia virus, another orthopoxvirus, is the source of the modern smallpox vaccine. It's closely related to both cowpox and horsepox (weirdly, it's actually closer to horsepox), but it's distinct enough to be its own species. Infection usually causes mild symptoms, and, of course, confers immunity to smallpox.
Chickenpox is an entirely different thing. It's caused by the varicella-zoster virus, which is a herpesvirus, not a poxvirus at all! Infection with varicella-zoster does not confer immunity to smallpox or any other poxvirusâchickenpox is from a totally different family.
So why are the names so weird and confusing? Why is everything about all of this so weird and confusing?
There are multiple reasons for this, so bear with me.
Historically, a "pox" was any disease that caused a bumpy rash of pustles/blisters. Chickenpox, smallpox, and the other "poxes" all cause superficially similar rashesâthus the similar names. (Even though we know now that chickenpox comes from a completely different family, this wouldn't have been apparent before the dawn of modern medicine.)
Smallpox was given that name to differentiate it from syphilis, which was known as the "great pox" when it first appeared in Europe. (Fun[?] microbiology fact: There are debates about the origins of syphilis, but the most common theory holds that it originated in the New World, and Christopher Columbus brought it back to Spain. In that way, it's kind of the inverse of smallpox.) Historically, smallpox was also known by a variety of other names in different European, Asian, and African cultures. Again, this gets murky, because historical physicians sometimes struggled to distinguish between similar-looking-but-different diseases.
Other poxviruses are often named after the animals in which they were first identified. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, though, and it can sometimes be misleading (for example, monkeypox virus was first discovered in laboratory monkeys, but it more often affects rodents and other small mammals. The disease formerly known as "monkeypox" was recently renamed "mpox" because the name wasn't accurate.) Also, some poxviruses aren't named after animals at all! It's a weird and inconsistent system (but a lot of virus names are kinda weird and inconsistent).
Related to the above: We don't even know where the name "chickenpox" comes from. I mean, we know it was called a "pox" because it causes a pox-y rash, but we don't know where the "chicken" part originated. There are multiple theories about this, none of which are definitive. The disease itself has nothing to do with chickens.
Basically, a lot of the weirdness is a result of historical naming practicesâpeople identified and named these diseases before modern virology existed, and those names stuck, so now we have similar names for superficially-similar-but-ultimately-different viruses, and names whose origins have been completely lost to time. Later, virologists muddied the waters further by naming newly-discovered poxviruses after the animals in which they were first seen, even when these animals aren't natural hosts or reservoirs of those viruses. It's a mess! And, again, all of this is complicated by the fact that some of these diseases were very hard to diagnose (or distinguish from one another) before modern medicine existed. Now, we can sequence viral DNA and figure out what's actually going onâwhich viruses caused which symptoms, whether those viruses were closely related, and whether being infected with one disease conferred immunity to anotherâbut historical doctors and scientists didn't have those tools, so they were doing they best they could with very limited information, and that led to a lot of weirdness in terms of how these viruses were named and classified. Our current system inherited some of that weirdness, so here we are.
TL;DR: Poxvirus names are messy. Smallpox is caused by variola virus, which has two strains: variola major (the more severe one) and variola minor (less severe). Cowpox and vaccinia are different viruses in the same family, and being infected with one of them confers immunity to smallpox. Chickenpox isn't a poxvirus at all, but a herpesvirusâit just happens to cause a pockmark-y rash that looks superficially similar to smallpox pustules (and mild forms of smallpox were historically confused with chickenpox).
(P.S. none of this is super relevant to the average person, so don't feel bad if you didn't know any of it. Unless you are a history major inventing new conspiracies about smallpox, in which case you definitely should feel bad.)
Sources & further reading under the cut!
Unrelated but there should be more âart appreciationâ and âfilm appreciationâ type courses for non majors.
I would love to take a âsports appreciationâ class. Tell me what all the straights find so entertaining lol
We will all die someday. But not from smallpox. Think about it.
We are also more likely to die from the consequences of STEM scholars Not knowing enough sociology and history and Art, or from the consequences of Business scholars knowing neither enough science nor enough humanities, than we are to die from the consequences of Humanities Scholars not knowing enough Science, but it is nevertheless important (for Society as a whole working as well as possible, through people being appropriately appreciative of academics as a way to holistic problemsolving, and to prevent fraud and quackery and conspiracy-ideologies), for everyone in a decisionmaking Position and ESPECIALLY for academic researchers and teachers-for-older-youth, to have a functional/adult understanding of the very basic principles of the Things they're NOT an expert in.