Twice a year in Hawaii the sun passes directly overhead and objects cast no shadow. It’s a phenomenon called “Lahaina Noon”

Origami Around
taylor price

tannertan36

Janaina Medeiros
Acquired Stardust
Misplaced Lens Cap
AnasAbdin
art blog(derogatory)

@theartofmadeline
Stranger Things
Sweet Seals For You, Always
NASA
Sade Olutola

Game of Thrones Daily
Today's Document

★

blake kathryn
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Not today Justin

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Croatia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Greece

seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
@jogothy
Twice a year in Hawaii the sun passes directly overhead and objects cast no shadow. It’s a phenomenon called “Lahaina Noon”

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
Um actually scrub daddy is my comfort character and it physically and psychically hurts me to see you chop him up and eat him after freezing and cracking him up with liquid nitrogen while naked with big boobs?
dont worry abt it, you just keep reading your lines and well take care of the rest. you'll be a star.
Ill be a star
One time when i was a kid my dad microwaved a banana and then put maple syrup on it at like 11pm. When i asked him what he was cooking he just offered to make me one too.
What if we used genetic engineering to make the next several generations like 80-90% female. Women get more sociopolitical power as a class and less fear of assault, men a more privileged status in terms of dating. A solution to both sides' problems.
they slayed

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 highly recommend finding yourself a clingy (healthy) lovey dovey partner who's always super excited about you. life is too short to spend it with someone who acts like showing love is a chore.
😭😭😭😭😭
pets do that.
get yoself a human who acts like pets do?
maybe human pet guy was onto something.
Does anyone know any male characters I can cosplay as a 5'3" guy?
Here are my ideas so far:
Canon-height Wolverine
A scaled-down version of a character that other cosplayers can stand next to so they look taller
A child of some sort
Two VERY small characters in a trench coat
An oversexualized female character with obviously fake tooters
A background Star Wars alien
????
A different guy. Like a costume of somebody else who is not in costume
Banana
any Tim Roth character
Baki but you'd need to get insanely jacked
how did this blow up on twitter
how just how btw i just want to say it'q NOT my art (i got it from pinterest and can't have the credits) sorry
I'm just saying, if you're going to worldbuild magic being a "raw, primal force, akin to and interweaving with nature itself" you gotta explain to me why animals don't use it
what if animals do use it, however their lower intellect compared to humans means it can only be used for very specific low-level things, like a beaver lodge being bigger on the inside, a bear growing to 20 feet tall when threatened, or a songbird creating a hypnotizing melody that instills joy or some other feeling. maybe a few aquatic species like dolphins or Octupi have build advanced magical shit deep underwater. ATLA kinda did this with the badger moles and sky bison being the original benders.
The average straight monogamous person will expect their partner to never talk to half the world population ever again out of jealousy then turn around and genuinely ask you to specify "ethical polyamory" because otherwise they can't help but assume the worst
What the fuck is ethical polygamy? It's cheating if it isn't consented to. It's controlling if you don't all have equal say in the situation. Cheating/controlling and polygamy aren't the same. I may be misunderstanding what that term means, but I swear to God, I'm sick of people calling polygamy "consensual cheating". That's not cheating!!! I'm not even poly, I don't even like the idea, but respecting people is not hard! It's definitely not difficult enough to warrant all this bullshit people say. Oh my god, I'm so mad.
what's "consensual" isn't black and white, and certain things that are technically "consensual" can still be bad. The most obvious example of this in poly relationships is the classic one partner pressures the other to do an open relationship that they agree to only because they want to make their partner happy, but aren't actually comfortable with. Like Will and Jada Smith. However, even relationships that are poly from the beginning can be unethical due to just unclear rules. What if someone joins a polycule because they're just interested in one member whose attention they'll try to monopolize. What if someone has random hookups they don't share with their partner but like, they're explicitly not exclusive so they can justify it.
I know you said "cheating/controlling aren't polygamy" but like, a lack of standardized culturally ingrained rules does make those things harder to avoid

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
if someone dislikes LLMs due to objections about data centres or privacy then they should be enthusiastic about local models that ameliorate those concerns, but if they dislike LLMs on aesthetic grounds or worries about unemployment or wanting stronger copyright restrictions then local models make the problem worse.
Of the people I have least sympathy towards are Little Old Grandmas who just Can't Pay the Property Tax and has to move out of her Sentimental Family Home with only several million dollars of appreciation to tide her over. Just the worst ratio of whining to suffering among the gentry. Spend a week sleeping on the streets and then explain why you need lower property taxes
It is somewhat of an actual problem in my area that Little Old Grandmas on fixed incomes in houses that pre-pandemic would've sold for $40k are now being assessed at $150k, and their property tax bill has gone from $800/year to $2000/year. This increase is partly due to the increase in valuation of their home, and partly due to the property-tax levies that voters keep voting in to pay for things that the state and federal governments won't pay for, such as schools and road maintenance.
Of course, this could be solved with a graduated property tax, where value above $amount is taxed at a higher rate, but that is antithetical to the principle of flat taxes, which is sworn to by the party in power.
I really want to get through to you that I am not sympathetic to the old woman here. She has received over $100,000 that she did not work for and now has to pay taxes on that. She could solve the tax problem by moving. Real, actual problems with housing are the domain of people who might become homeless.
The nearest place she can afford to purchase with this $100k is two hours thataways, which means it's two hours from her doctors, two hours from her support networks, two hours from anyone who knows her and can check in on her when she doesn't show up to church on Sunday. Her car might be able to drive to church, but anymore, the nice girl down the street picks her up and drives her. She gets Meals on Wheels so she doesn't need to drive to the grocery store. Her car has not been started in three months. She can't see that it has two flat tires.
She would be better served by moving to a nursing home. She cannot afford a nursing home that matches her care needs.
If she loses her house to a tax sale, she will become homeless.
The $100k in value that she has received paradoxically makes her poorer, analogously to a welfare trap.
Hmmm. I do not think that is true. I do not think there are many areas in the United States where someone with a fixed income but also $140k in the bank cannot afford to live anywhere in a 2 hour radius. I think maybe you should meet some more homeless people
I mean, what part of the logic are you missing? If the old lady's house has increased in price to the point where she can no longer afford to live there, unless this was some very unique circumstance to her specific house or her specific neighborhood, then it's because the entire region's housing prices have increased.
Maybe she lives in the richest part of the region and can still afford to buy something in the poorest part, but those kinds of people don't tend to live in the situation described, i.e. dependent on friends, family, and neighbors.
I bought my house in 2020 and, since then, it's appreciated in value by over 30% which, on paper, has made me a whole lot richer but, if I were forced to sell my house because I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't be able to buy another one in my area because they'd all be unaffordable. There are poorer areas in my region I could move to but, if I already lived in one of them, I'd have to move a long way away in order to find something I could afford.
Ultimately, whatever your net worth, you need a place to live and that place to live has to relate to your overall support network, whether that's your family, your church, social workers, meals on wheels, or even your place of employment. The wealth in your home is only truly accessible if you have another housing option available. If you don't, then you're going to blow their any gains trying to get housing again and, at best, be no better off than you started.
So I am pretty firmly in agreement with @phaeton-flier that little old grandma's who are "suffering" from high property values isn't an actual problem: this framing completely ignores renting. If an older person living off social security can't afford property taxes, just sell the home! The proceeds of a $1M home will pay $5k rent for 17 years, which can afford you a place to live in literally any city in America.
Or, in Mississippi numbers (which better matches the above example of a $150,000 home), a home sale will easily pay $1k rent for over a dozen years.
And that's assuming you never spend your actual income on rent! As someone else in this post mentioned, seniors living on "fixed incomes" is pretty much a myth anyway: whether they're primarily living off their 401k or their social security checks, both of those payments appreciate year over year.
That being said, for those who still believe Little Old Grandmas have a right to live in their exact same home until they die... That's a solved problem for the most part. Every state, as well as the federal gov, has a plethora of tax benefits for seniors. Many states (including MA and CA) specifically have a tax deferral program for seniors where seniors pretty much never pay property taxes until they die, and then their tax payments are recovered via the sale of their home when they die.
Why are you arguing in favor of forcing people to sell to private equity and then rent? A boomer refusing to sell, dying in their home, and then their kids or grandkids inheriting it, is like the only way any young person could possibly own a home.
Inheritance is the least equitable way to run a society. Estate taxes are the most progressive form of taxation, ensuring that the wealth of previous generations are distributed amongst all of society rather than wealth just passing to the kids of those with wealth.
Also, what private equity? Less than 1% of single family homes are owned by institutional landlords. 99% of the time, this hypothetical Little Old Grandma is just selling to a younger family.
What younger family has the requisite $3 million to buy a home? I'm aware it's not all corporate landlords but random upper middle class people with savings they're investing in a second or third house to rent, resell, or sit on until housing goes up an even more absurd amount represent a significantly stronger proportion of buyers than a hypothetical young family looking for a permanent home that somehow both has multiple millions of dollars and needed people to be forced to sell just so they can get a place to live.
Also it's only "equitable" because you are counting a boomer with less actual money than you but a house that's theoretically worth millions as part of the rich, who it would be equitable to take the "wealth" from. Under the system you're describing, it's totally reasonable to pass around multimillion dollar home between a bunch of otherwise destitute people and then charge all of them more money than any of them have, until they sell to someone rich (or someone middle class who went into extreme debt, which is also bad), and somehow this is more "equitable" despite an already wealthy person ending up with a home that could've gone to people that have no other way to afford one, purely because mathematically, the point at which they owned the homecaused them to become defined as rich despite their actual money not increasing, which definitionally made it "equitable" to take money from them that they theoretically but not actually have.
Of the people I have least sympathy towards are Little Old Grandmas who just Can't Pay the Property Tax and has to move out of her Sentimental Family Home with only several million dollars of appreciation to tide her over. Just the worst ratio of whining to suffering among the gentry. Spend a week sleeping on the streets and then explain why you need lower property taxes
It is somewhat of an actual problem in my area that Little Old Grandmas on fixed incomes in houses that pre-pandemic would've sold for $40k are now being assessed at $150k, and their property tax bill has gone from $800/year to $2000/year. This increase is partly due to the increase in valuation of their home, and partly due to the property-tax levies that voters keep voting in to pay for things that the state and federal governments won't pay for, such as schools and road maintenance.
Of course, this could be solved with a graduated property tax, where value above $amount is taxed at a higher rate, but that is antithetical to the principle of flat taxes, which is sworn to by the party in power.
I really want to get through to you that I am not sympathetic to the old woman here. She has received over $100,000 that she did not work for and now has to pay taxes on that. She could solve the tax problem by moving. Real, actual problems with housing are the domain of people who might become homeless.
The nearest place she can afford to purchase with this $100k is two hours thataways, which means it's two hours from her doctors, two hours from her support networks, two hours from anyone who knows her and can check in on her when she doesn't show up to church on Sunday. Her car might be able to drive to church, but anymore, the nice girl down the street picks her up and drives her. She gets Meals on Wheels so she doesn't need to drive to the grocery store. Her car has not been started in three months. She can't see that it has two flat tires.
She would be better served by moving to a nursing home. She cannot afford a nursing home that matches her care needs.
If she loses her house to a tax sale, she will become homeless.
The $100k in value that she has received paradoxically makes her poorer, analogously to a welfare trap.
Hmmm. I do not think that is true. I do not think there are many areas in the United States where someone with a fixed income but also $140k in the bank cannot afford to live anywhere in a 2 hour radius. I think maybe you should meet some more homeless people
I mean, what part of the logic are you missing? If the old lady's house has increased in price to the point where she can no longer afford to live there, unless this was some very unique circumstance to her specific house or her specific neighborhood, then it's because the entire region's housing prices have increased.
Maybe she lives in the richest part of the region and can still afford to buy something in the poorest part, but those kinds of people don't tend to live in the situation described, i.e. dependent on friends, family, and neighbors.
I bought my house in 2020 and, since then, it's appreciated in value by over 30% which, on paper, has made me a whole lot richer but, if I were forced to sell my house because I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't be able to buy another one in my area because they'd all be unaffordable. There are poorer areas in my region I could move to but, if I already lived in one of them, I'd have to move a long way away in order to find something I could afford.
Ultimately, whatever your net worth, you need a place to live and that place to live has to relate to your overall support network, whether that's your family, your church, social workers, meals on wheels, or even your place of employment. The wealth in your home is only truly accessible if you have another housing option available. If you don't, then you're going to blow their any gains trying to get housing again and, at best, be no better off than you started.
So I am pretty firmly in agreement with @phaeton-flier that little old grandma's who are "suffering" from high property values isn't an actual problem: this framing completely ignores renting. If an older person living off social security can't afford property taxes, just sell the home! The proceeds of a $1M home will pay $5k rent for 17 years, which can afford you a place to live in literally any city in America.
Or, in Mississippi numbers (which better matches the above example of a $150,000 home), a home sale will easily pay $1k rent for over a dozen years.
And that's assuming you never spend your actual income on rent! As someone else in this post mentioned, seniors living on "fixed incomes" is pretty much a myth anyway: whether they're primarily living off their 401k or their social security checks, both of those payments appreciate year over year.
That being said, for those who still believe Little Old Grandmas have a right to live in their exact same home until they die... That's a solved problem for the most part. Every state, as well as the federal gov, has a plethora of tax benefits for seniors. Many states (including MA and CA) specifically have a tax deferral program for seniors where seniors pretty much never pay property taxes until they die, and then their tax payments are recovered via the sale of their home when they die.
Why are you arguing in favor of forcing people to sell to private equity and then rent? A boomer refusing to sell, dying in their home, and then their kids or grandkids inheriting it, is like the only way any young person could possibly own a home.
I know that “fwiw” means “for what it’s worth.” I know that. But every time I read it, my brain translates it to “fwom what I wemembew”
Folga wooga imoga womp

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
there are people who don't like lord of the rings?
Yeah I mean i just wasn't really a big fan personally.
Tolkien's writing style in the books involves going off on a lot of long-winded side-tangents about things that don't matter to the story or come up in any way later, which makes them an absolute slog to get through. The hobbit did this much less, and i do like that one, but the LOTR books could probably be condensed by about half and not really lose anything I'd care about, and i don't have attention span for three full chapters of characters going on an uneventful hike through the woods because Tolkien has to explain the geneology of every tree and rock they walk past.
The movies improve this in many ways. Film is a much more information-dense medium than text, so descriptions that took half a chapter can be covered by a 15-second landscape shot and like 2 lines of dialogue. I will at least sit through the movies whereas I can't even make it through any of the books in their entirety (apart from the hobbit). But my problem with the movies is just that I don't think any of the characters are that interesting, aside from maybe Sarumon.
I like the pretty set pieces. But only like 2 characters actually undergo any development, Aragorn and Pippin, and Aragorn is effectively a stock character, the disgraced royal burdened by the sins of his ancestors finds the strength to reclaim his throne while demomstrating personal nobility, having a lot of action scenes, and trying to self-sacrifice multiple times. It's generic. Given its inspirations from scandanavian and celtic myth and history, i'm even inclined not to give it the usual "it created the trope so it gets a pass" treatment. Pippin has more unique development and is probably my second favorite character, he is at times legitimately entertaining to watch. But in movies 1 and 3 he's a completely plot-irrelevant comic relief side character who just doesn't add much to the story.
And those are the 2 characters I like. Gimli and Legolas are just warriors in their own little buddy cop movie, it's fine, it's entertaining at times, but it's not something i really care about. Boromir was in like 3 scenes and clearly going to be corrupted from minute one, Frodo and Sam are, respectively: Tired but resigned to his fate, and in over his head but there to support his friend no matter what, at the beginning of their stories, and they're still exactly that at the end. Sauron is a nothing villain, you don't even see him outside of a flashback, Feodin and Faramir are kinda cool but their roles are really minor if you actually look at it, and Gandalf is, well even i can't hate Gandalf but he alone is not enough to make me like the movies
When Harry Met Sally turns 36 — July 12, 2025
So the thing about When Harry Met Sally, which you probably know as "the movie with the orgasm scene" and possibly as "the ur-text of the modern romantic comedy" and which Nora Ephron herself came to be slightly annoyed about being primarily known for — it's a 1989 movie about people who graduated from the University of Chicago in 1977, which means it's a movie about a very specific cohort that a lot of people have forgotten existed, which is: people who were born around 1955, missed the actual sixties entirely (you were 13 in 1968, which is the wrong age to have done anything), graduated into the Carter economy, and spent their twenties in the disco-into-Reagan transition that nobody has a good name for because nobody wants to claim it — and the movie is completely about this, it's about what happens when you're old enough that the sexual revolution is just ambient background radiation you grew up in rather than something you fought for, so you get all the license and none of the politics, which means you get to be cynical about sex in a way that would have been unthinkable to someone ten years older and embarrassing to someone ten years younger.
Harry is a political consultant. Sally is a journalist. They are bourgeois in a very particular late-70s/early-80s upwardly-mobile way — the movie is set in New York and the New York is the New York of Ed Koch, not the New York of the 1970s fiscal crisis, it's the city on the way up, and their apartments look like it, their careers look like it, their whole problem is a rich-people problem which the movie never once acknowledges as such because in 1989 this was just what movie people looked like.
The Katz's scene is the thing everyone remembers and it's so heavily mythologized (the "I'll have what she's having" line is carved into the booth) that it obscures what the scene is actually doing, which is a pretty aggressive argument about heterosexual miscommunication delivered in a register — woman publicly simulating orgasm in a deli to prove a point to a man about whether he would know — that in 2025 would read as either radical-feminist didacticism or cringe, but in 1989 was mainstream romantic comedy, this was the Thanksgiving movie, this played in Peoria. The frankness is the artifact. Nobody would make that scene now. Not because it's offensive but because it's too arguing, it's too interested in making a structural point about sex to be allowed inside the genre anymore — the rom-com as it evolved through the 90s and early 2000s (which WHMS basically invented as a genre) systematically removed the sociological content and kept only the meet-cute-to-wedding scaffolding, which is why the Katz's scene feels weirdly unlike the movie it's from if you only know it from clips.
The other thing is that Ephron was writing Rob Reiner's love life — Reiner had just gotten divorced, was depressed, kept telling Ephron horrible things about being a single man in his late thirties in Manhattan — and Ephron took his material and a bunch of her own material and made it into a movie that's structurally a Woody Allen movie (split-screen phone calls, walking-and-talking in autumn Central Park, the Gershwin, Jesus Christ the Gershwin) but with the Allen persona surgically removed and replaced with what is essentially Rob Reiner's therapy, performed by Billy Crystal doing Rob Reiner. Think about that for a second. The film that launched modern romantic comedy is a Woody Allen cover version performed by a director who was working through his divorce via his female friend's screenplay. The whole thing is a hall of mirrors and the mirror at the center is Reiner's loneliness, filtered through Ephron's ear for how men and women actually talk to each other, filtered through Billy Crystal's delivery, which softens Reiner's native abrasiveness into something female audiences could tolerate as a romantic lead.
What the movie argues — and this is where it's dated in the most interesting way — is that men and women can't be friends because sex always gets in the way, and it argues this as if it's a controversial claim that requires 95 minutes of screen time to establish, which tells you how much ambient optimism about post-revolution gender relations was still in the water in 1989. The premise of the argument is that the sexual revolution was supposed to have solved the friendship question — if sex isn't a big deal anymore, why can't men and women just hang out? — and Harry's position is that it didn't solve it, it just made the unsolvability less discussable, and the movie ends by agreeing with him, which is a fairly dark conclusion dressed up in a New Year's Eve kiss. The structural pessimism about heterosexuality is the actual engine of what reads as a feel-good movie, which is probably why it aged better than its imitators — the 90s and 2000s rom-coms inherited the scaffolding and threw out the pessimism, and without the pessimism the form is just machinery.
Another thing: the movie is obsessed with telling the story of how a couple met — the old-couple interviews interspersed throughout are a genius structural device that accomplishes about four things at once (tonal punctuation, thematic underlining, sociological documentary texture, and a running argument that every couple's story sounds stupid when you tell it, which is the movie's actual thesis about itself) — and this device was specifically mining the Studs Terkel-era appetite for oral history, which was a 1970s cultural product that was mostly dead by 1989 but whose aesthetic Ephron grabbed on the way out. Nobody would shoot those interviews now. They'd feel too slow. They'd also feel too real — they have the texture of actual documentary because Reiner shot them with actual couples first and then had actors redo the best ones, which is why they feel weirdly authentic compared to everything around them.
The movie is thirty-six years old. The characters, if they existed, would now be seventy. Their children, if they had any, are older than the movie's main characters are. The sexual revolution they were in the tail-end of is now something that happened in the deep past. And the genre it founded has largely collapsed under the weight of its own conventions, which is maybe just what happens when you strip-mine a specific sociological moment for a genre template and then run the template for thirty years past the moment.
Or maybe the genre collapsed because streaming killed the mid-budget adult comedy and this has nothing to do with the content of the movies at all, which would be a boring explanation but probably the correct one.