gracie abrams
Jimmy Eat World
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
The Bowery Presents
untitled
Not today Justin
Interview Vampire Daily
🪼
KIROKAZE
macklin celebrini has autism
RMH
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Show & Tell
taylor price
oozey mess
Claire Keane
tumblr dot com
hello vonnie
Sweet Seals For You, Always
seen from Sweden
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Iraq
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Belgium
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Kenya
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from South Africa
@mssirey
Y’all, I have been needing a dose of soft and cozy, and by commissioning the wonderful @magicalstripedhorse I got just the fix I needed! Just look at these two! My heart absolutely melts for them.
(If you are looking for art for yourself, you should definitely consider reaching out and commissioning a piece!)
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
"Oh sweet one, you do amuse me."
i really do not think it can be overstated how much hatred against trans men on this site is driven by people finding trans men Just Kind Of Annoying. people have pipelined themselves into posting on the daily about how tmes should be raped to death because 6 years ago a teenage trans boy was somewhat overexuberant on a fandom post, and other such minor irritations. finding someone (and therefore their entire segment of the population) Just Kind Of Annoying is a direct line, especially on the internet, to completely unpersoning them. nothing one of those people ever says or does should be taken seriously, even if it's a matter of life and death. because they were kind of annoying :/
hang on yeah i want to talk more about this ^ specifically. been seeing people here discuss the phenomenon of the fascist "right to comfort" mostly in terms of people not wanting to have uncomfortable conversations or not wanting to be exposed to topics that are harmless but make them feel weird. and cringe culture is very much an extension of that perceived right to comfort. if you cannot extend your tolerance to someone who is really fucking annoying, not to be best friends with them or anything, but just to protect their basic rights and dignity, you lack principles. point blank. you need to build a bulwark of values that prioritize autonomy and dignity for everyone and it needs to be strong enough to weather the most irritating person you know, or else you will also inevitably become a fascist or part of the fascists' body count.
Right to Comfort specifically comes from Tema Okun's White Supremacy Culture framework! I feel like it's important to ground the phrase in the original context; that Right to Comfort is specifically about the way white supremacy culture treats accusations of racism as worse than racism itself, and polices the way it's discussed to death.
I think the "antidotes" she names are very in line with what you're talking about here, and this certainly shares ideological ground and roots, though.
This page explores our cultural assumption that I or we (or the ones in formal and informal power) have a right to comfort, which means we
The difference between "There used to be hot summers too,” and a climate crisis.
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 you stay up late to hang out with friends I don’t think you should have to be tired in the morning. I think it should be a freebie
Ayeeee
Adorable, beautiful magic
Guys, I think I might be gay
Original
These people are sexual predators.
If you are in WASHINGTON this is not yet law, this initiative will be on the ballot Nov 3 THIS YEAR. VOTE NO. You have the ability to prevent this from becoming law.
"But AI can't do your job. It can help you do your job, but that doesn't mean it's going to save anyone money. Take radiology: there's some evidence that AIs can sometimes identify solid-mass tumors that some radiologists miss, and look, I've got cancer. Thankfully, it's very treatable, but I've got an interest in radiology being as reliable and accurate as possible. If my Kaiser hospital bought some AI radiology tools and told its radiologists: "Hey folks, here's the deal. Today, you're processing about 100 x-rays per day. From now on, we're going to get an instantaneous second opinion from the AI, and if the AI thinks you've missed a tumor, we want you to go back and have another look, even if that means you're only processing 98 x-rays per day. That's fine, we just care about finding all those tumors." If that's what they said, I'd be delighted. But no one is investing hundreds of billions in AI companies because they think AI will make radiology more expensive, not even if that also makes radiology more accurate. The market's bet on AI is that an AI salesman will visit the CEO of Kaiser and make this pitch: "Look, you fire 9/10s of your radiologists, saving $20m/year, you give us $10m/year, and you net $10m/year, and the remaining radiologists' job will be to oversee the diagnoses the AI makes at superhuman speed, and somehow remain vigilant as they do so, despite the fact that the AI is usually right, except when it's catastrophically wrong. "And if the AI misses a tumor, this will be the human radiologist's fault, because they are the 'human in the loop.' It's their signature on the diagnosis." This is a reverse centaur, and it's a specific kind of reverse-centaur: it's what Dan Davies calls an "accountability sink." The radiologist's job isn't really to oversee the AI's work, it's to take the blame for the AI's mistakes. This is another key to understanding – and thus deflating – the AI bubble. The AI can't do your job, but an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with an AI that can't do your job. This is key because it helps us build the kinds of coalitions that will be successful in the fight against the AI bubble." - Cory Doctorow, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Criticizing AI
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
Movement nudge!
X
I LOVE THIS GUY.
All those "spend just 35 minutes doing a bunch of really hard exercises and you'll feel great forever!" videos are really discouraging. I usually end up doing like, 2 minutes of some of his while waiting for my shower to heat up, and ykw?
That's 2 minutes more than I would have done otherwise.
oh hey I have a thing like that last one that I like to do sometimes, but I do it lying down in bed. it's a very satisfying pop/shift in my hips/lower back, but doesn't always work. maybe I will try his version and see if it is more effective for me
She literally does not give a damn what that old fool is yelling about
the lion does not concern herself with papa
Humans are weird: fibers.
We all fucking LOVE fibers. We wear them. Eat them. We use hypothetical fibers to explain the unexplainable. We make ART with them - not just the obvious crocheting or needle felting or sewing. Guitars, brushes, all these things. STRING THEORY. And all the media tropes, like the red string of fate. Humanity is obsessed with fiber.
writing is so funny because i could write nonstop for 9hrs and then hit a block where im like "how do i transition between this moment and the next?" and then i just dont touch it for 6 months
Serious advice tho if this happens, it's likely because you already wrote past the end of the scene and wandered too far from the more logical transition point, and you should go back to the last time the writing felt "unforced" and cut everything after.
You can also just skip the transition. Really good writing can span years in a single sentence, like you can just authoritatively state fact and your reader will go with it.
This is GOLD! You just saved me like thousands of therapy costs lmao
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
5001 being divisible by 3 doesnt feel right
Shortcuts to determine if an integer is divisible by:
This is a given.
If the last digit is divisible by 2 (a.k.a. even), then so is the whole number.
If the sum of the digits is divisible by 3, then so is the whole number. The recursivity of this means that if the sum has multiple digits, you can add them up again until you get a single digit and see if it's 3, 6, or 9.
Like the rule for 2, but check if the last two digits are divisible by 4.
If it ends in 5 or 0.
If the rules for both 2 and 3 apply.
No shortcut. Alas.
Like the rules for 2 and 4, but check if the last three digits are divisible by 8. (Yes, this pattern keeps going for 16, 32, etc.)
Like the rule for 3, but the sum of the digits (or the sum of the sum of the digits, etc.) must be 9.
If it ends in 0.
#THIS POST IS WRONG 7 DOES HAVE A RULE FOR HOW TO TELL IF THE NUMBER IS DIVISIBLE#it's just. not a short cut#you're better off dividing it and seeing if you get a whole number than doing the method
but what IS the rule @anqelbean ???
Okay, so, basically, you remove the least important digit of the number (which is the first digit from the right), you double it, and then subtract it from the remaining number. If the number you get is still large, you do it again.
For example, 294
29 4
4×2=8
29-8=21
21 is divisible by 7
Second example, 1946
194 6
6×2=12
194-12=182
182 is still large, so let do it again
18 2
2×2=4
18-4=14
14 is divisible by 7
Okay, so, I was previously familiar with the ‘tricks’ for the digits apart from 7, but I found myself curious about the math behind the one for 7. Join me as I explore!
Let’s start with looking at exactly what we are told to do for the trick to work. We have a number—in the first example, it is 294—and we are being told to separate the last digit (29 separated from 4), to multiply that last digit by 2 (4x2=8), and then to subtract that product from the remaining original digits (29-8=21). Then, if the number is small enough to check against our 7s table (21=7x3), we have our answer (yay, it’s divisible!). If not, as was the case with our second example, we repeat the process.
Okay, that’s all well and good, but let’s look at what was *actually* happening. What did we accomplish? There is a bit of sleight of hand within this trick. The trick turned 294 into 21. How? Let’s run it in slow motion and find out.
What is lost in the “separate the last digit, double it, and subtract it from the rest” bit is that you are taking the last digit and multiplying it by 21 (a number divisible by 7) and subtracting *that* product from the original number.
In our example, 4x21=84, and 294-84=210
Then, because 210 (and in fact every possible number we would get at this step) is divisible by 10, we can drop the 0 (210 becomes 21) and carry on with a more mentally manageable number.
The trick simplifies the process of getting there by giving us a handy roadmap, and it utilizes the fact that 21 is divisible by 7, and the fact that subtracting 21(X), where X is the last digit, will always return a round (divisible by 10) number. It’s very clever!
You can check every number in the set {21, 42, 63, 84, 105, 126, 147, 168, 189}. Within the context of our trick, these are all the possible values we would subtract from the original number (or the new number we are checking within subsequent iterations of the trick).
Our goal is to see if our original number (294) is divisible by 7, and we have subtracted a number we know is divisible by 7 (84). By the distributive property (which states that a(b+c)=ab+ac), we can check the new number (210, but because that number is divisible by 10, we are actually checking 21), and if it is also divisible (which it is), it confirms that the original number is (yay!).
