I'm just here to have a good time

this staged affection, a mix of theatricality and intimacy, the couple holding still for a couple of moments and now immortalised in a very set sequence of embraces and kisses. there is a charm to it even when I can’t tell whether this was a genuine couple portait or just actors hired by the photographer.

let us start with the kiss on the cheek (eyes averted! oh the pose! these were taken between 1910-1940)

or the nearly opposite energy (how daring!) of the kiss or caress with direct eye contact (1910-1930)

and then the innocent – yet so flirty – classic of the park encounter! (1890-1920)

and oh, I am not done, look at this – the adoration of the woman! look at this expression, this pose, this decorum! (1910-1940)

and then some of my favourites from the more playful or direct category, enjoy (1910-1930):

Chimps are much admired for their tool use and for their problem-solving relationship with things as they find them...the orang is, let us say, not so replete with enterprise. Give an orangutan the hexagonal peg and the several shapes of hole, and then hide behind the two-way mirror and watch how he engages with the problem.

And watch and watch and watch--because he does not engage with the problem. He uses the peg to scratch his back, has a look-see at his right wrist, makes a half-hearted and soon abandoned attempt to use his fur as a macramé project, stares dreamily out the window if there is one and at nothing in particular if not, and the sun begins to set. (The sun will also set if you are observing a chimp, but the chimp is more amusing, so you are less likely to mark the moment in your notes. An orang observer has plenty of time to be a student of the vanities of sunset.)

You watch, and the orang dreams...when casually and as if thinking of something else, the orang slips the hexagonal peg into the hexagonal hole. And continues staring off dreamily."

here's mickey, goofy, donald, and chip & dale. yeah they turned mickey & friends into anime boys. they're an idol unit or something. they're technically not anime boy versions of the source characters, they have different names. mickey's guy is "Neo Michel". not michael, michel, like he's french. chip & dale are "Ruska Moncrief" and "Ranka Monk", they have different last names, they're not brothers anymore so that they can be yaoibait instead, anyways this post isn't actually about these guys I'm just setting the stage for the actual humanizations I wanted to show you

They also did monsters inc. And. Well it's obvious from the designs who mike and sully are. but you will also notice. the blonde one on the left. with glasses. monsters inc is kind of famously about just the two guys so they didn't really have a lot of other non-villain characters to take anime boys inspiration from, I guess, so, well,

From the second equation we get that cheeseburger plus fries-squared is five. Subtracting cheeseburger, which is six, from both sides, we get that fries-squared is negative-one. Math fans will know that there are two solutions to this; either fries are the "imaginary unit" 𝒾 or they are its negative, -𝒾. We'll do the rest of the problem with 𝒾, keeping in mind that at the end we should also take the complex conjugates as solutions.

Finally, we have that cup to the power of fries, minus cup, equals three. Replacing fries with 𝒾, and moving a cup to the other side, we get that cup-to-the-𝒾 is equal to cup-plus-three.

Now, the weird part about this is the cup-to-the-i. The problem with this is that complex exponentiation is technically not a thing. That is to say, there is no one function which is mathematically equal to "input-to-the-power-of-𝒾". In fact, there are infinitely many such functions.

Fortunately, due to reasons that take about six pages to explain (trust me I've done it), there is one particular function that many people have agreed is "the most reasonable one". This is not a mathematical notion, but a human preference. Seeing as this question was presumably written by a human, I am comfortable with using this function.

So, what function is this? Well, given a complex number r∠θ written in polar form (if you don't know what that means don't worry), where -π < θ ≤ π, then (r∠θ)^𝒾 = e^(-θ)∠ln(r).

Applying this to our problem a value r∠θ will be a possible solution for cup if e^(-θ)∠ln(r) = r∠θ + 3. Splitting this into real and imaginary parts, we get two equations: e^(-θ) cos(ln(r)) = r cos(θ) + 3 and e^(-θ) sin(ln(r)) = r sin(θ). We can graph these equations on Desmos:

let the value of the glass = z, for z ∈ ℂ:

z^(±i) = 3+z

let z = r·e^(iθ) for r,θ ∈ ℝ, -π < θ ≤ π

∴ z = r·e^i(θ+2πn) for all n ∈ ℤ

∴ (r·e^i(θ+2πn))^(±i) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

distribute powers (apologies for the use of ∓):

r^(±i)·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

convert to the same base:

e^i(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

split into real and imaginary components:

re: cos(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·cos(θ)

im: sin(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = r·sin(θ)

- it’s fun to be awake & in an upright position

- consciousness is a gift

They don't want people to understand that "the problem" they have is that the jeans aren't made for them. Manufacturers prefer for them to continue buying jeans they don't like and feeling like their body is the problem.