wip

I like when fic length/book length/movie length is its own punchline

Let’s fucking go

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.

only 62 more frogs until we hit 8,000 species described. the moment we've all been waiting for

there are an average of about 150 new amphibian species described per year so I remain hopeful that 2026 will be the year of 8,000 frogs

I do love that somebody tagged tumblr's own frog scientist on this post. chop chop dr scherz, we've got 62 more frogs to discover and you're the only frog scientist any of us knows

GUYS amphibian species of the world is still at 7,994 species of frog BUT amphibiaweb is at 8,008 species of frog, and do you know who is a co-author on the 8,000th species of frog there???? TUMBLR'S OWN FROG SCIENTIST DR SCHERZ

Marjorie & C. H. B.Quennell, Everyday Things in Archaic Greece (London: B. T. Batsford, 1931).

Wait, wait…. Is that seriously it? How their clothes go?

that genuinely is it

yeah hey whats up bout to put some fucking giant sheets on my body

lets bring back sheetwares

trust the ancients to make a fashion statement out of straight cloth and nothing but pins

Wrap Yourself In Blankets, Call It a Day

That last one looks dope

Squares and rectangles: easy to weave!! No cutting means no hemming.

And easy to construct, you don’t have to have complicated seaming and patterning to turn fabric into clothing!

Has anyone already reblogged this with saris? It’s cool how many cultures have similarities like this hidden in plain sight.

fandom approaches male characters from a watsonian perspective and female characters from a doylist perspective

by virtue of being made up constructs everything about fictional characters only exists as far as what is told about them, and yet underdeveloped male characters are assumed to have rich inner lives that the writer have simply not tapped into - when they actually did not give them any - and it's therefore up to fans to rescue the character from the writer's assumed negligence and explore him themselves through headcanon-ing the shit outta them picking up small bits of characterization and expanding from it, whereas female characters are taken at extreme face value: if the writer did not give them an inner life then she doesn't have one period, even within the universe of the story where everyone is a living breathing person, and it's not worth exploring. even when the small bits of context and characterization about her insinuate something interesting about inner world and leave room to spin an interesting backstory and motivations there seems to be no interest in fandom to do so.

today someone asked me what my favorite even-toed ungulate is… god, who could decide?

this was ignorant of me to post. of course its the muskox

MEGAGOAT

Give us room to grow and see how we flourish.

I've recently been doing a lot of reading about what makes the Romance Genre™ the Romance Genre™ and as it turns out the most important thing a story needs to be a romance is that the couple have to be unambiguously happily together in the end. That's it. Apparently, if this isn't true of your couple in the end then your story cannot be of the Romance Genre™, then it's just literary fiction. And this is actually such an insane revelation to me like I can't stop thinking about it because it explains why so often when I've attempted to read Romance™ and 9 times outta 10 I'm annoyed because I feel like these characters get together and it costs them being interesting. I cannae get over that the reason so much romance sucks ass is because the only hard rule is basically "these people MUST be together even if it would be better if they weren't because god forbid the reader is confronted with the notion of impermanence" like....I can't really explain the depths of how silly I find this rule and how much it goes against what I find compelling to read/write about wrt to romance. It's akin to finding out that the Hayes Code is fully enforced in 2026 and everyone agreeing the Hayes Code is how movies should be made because otherwise it doesn't count as a movie. That's how this revelation of "you haven't written a romance story™ unless your characters unambiguously live happily ever after" makes me feel. I personally prefer to think of romance as a method, as means, as a set of knives to cut characters open and go rummaging around for hidden treasure that can't be found any other way, if you will. Who cares if the characters will live "happily ever after"? Here's a better question, are they even yet living?

It's a bit like how the genre convention of a detective story is that the crime will be solved. It would be much more realistic if that wasn't the case (at least some of the time), but that's not what people are looking for when they reach for an Agatha Christie book!