Lorem Ipsum

When you see an animal with its eyes set to the front, like wolves, or humans, that’s usually a predator animal.

If you see an animal with its eyes set farther back, though—to the side—that animal is prey.

Now look at this dragon.

See those eyes?

They’re to the SIDE.

This raises an interesting—and terrifying—question.

What in the name of Lovecraft led evolution to consider DRAGONS…

This isn’t a mammalian thing. When people talk about ‘eyes on the front’ or ‘eyes on the side,’ they’re really talking about binocular vision vs monocular vision. Binocular vision is more advantageous for predators because it’s what gives you depth perception; i.e, the distance you need to leap, lunge, or swipe to take out the fast-moving thing in front of you. Any animal that can position its eyes in a way that it has overlapping fields of vision has binocular vision. That includes a lot of predatory reptiles, including komodo dragons, monitor lizards, and chameleons.

(The eyes-in-front = predator / eyes-on-sides = prey thing holds true far more regularly for birds than it does for mammals. Consider owls, hawks, and falcons vs parrots, sparrows, and doves.)

But it’s not like binocular vision is inherently “better” than monocular vision. It’s a trade-off: you get better at leap-strike-kill, but your field of vision is commensurately restricted, meaning you see less stuff. Sometimes, the evolutionary benefit of binocular vision just doesn’t outweigh the benefit of seeing the other guy coming. Very few forms of aquatic life have binocular vision unless they have eye stalks, predator or not, because if you live underwater, the threat could be coming from literally any direction, so you want as wide a field of view as you can get. If you see a predator working monocular vision, it’s a pretty safe assumption that there is something else out there dangerous enough that their survival is aided more by knowing where it is than reliably getting food inside their mouths.

For example, if you are a crocodile, there is a decent chance that a hippo will cruise up your shit and bite you in half. I’d say that makes monocular vision worthwhile.

Which brings us back to OP’s point. Why would dragon evolution favor field of view over depth perception?

A lot of the stories I’ve read painted the biggest threats to dragons (until knights with little shiny sticks came along) as other dragons. Dragons fight each other, dragons have wars. And like fish, a dragon would need to worry about another dragon coming in from any angle. That’s a major point in favor of monocular vision. Moreover, you don’t need depth perception in order to hunt if you can breathe fucking fire. A flamethrower is not a precision weapon. If you can torch everything in front of you, who cares if your prey is 5 feet away or 20? Burn it all and sift among the rubble for meat once everything stops moving.

I knew she was young. Like, obviously she was young. A mask and costume can only disguise so much, right? But I thought, for sure, college age. It’s hard to tell for sure through costumes and she wears a lot of padding and armor. (Very sensible, it’s a dangerous job.) 

Still, I took it easy on her. No head blows, right? I also tried to avoid any joint injuries, because I suspected she was on a sports team. (Turns out she runs track.)

Like, sure, I’m a ‘villainess’ or whatever, but I’m not actually fuckin evil. I want what I want but I don’t actually want to maim some idealistic coed over it. Like, come on. Life is hard enough for young women. I know that.

And I got the sense that, for her, it was mostly for show as well. Sure, she thrashed the shit out of that fucker with the tentacles, but he was planning some sort of gory sacrifice, fair’s fair. Even as I went easy on her, I got the sense she was going easy on me, is my point. She pulled her blows. 

But. You lose sponsorships if you just let the bad guy get away, you know, and college ain’t cheap. Right? So she’s gotta make a show of it. 

So the newspaper called me her nemesis because we kept coming to blows, but mostly it was a show, and it was about 50/50. 

I should have tracked her down. I made a promise to myself not to, you know? I felt like that was crossing a line. But now that I know… shit. I’m kicking myself. I could have known. But I was like, you know, a young woman, the last thing she needs is some creepy old lady stalking her. I should have, though. 

Okay, so here’s what happened.

The men are so tender.

They cry, and kiss each other’s foreheads, and hug, and call each other ‘my friend’ and ‘my dear’; they’re respectful to women and faithful to their partners; they have banter without being creepy and sleazy, and literally none of that stops them from being considered “manly”.

Except then Aang meets Zuko - probably when Zuko jumps in to save someone, because his sense of justice is too strong to just sit back while someone is hurt, even if he is trying to remain apolitical - and his brain goes “!!!!” Because that’s a good firebender. They do exist. And now Aang knows someone who can teach him firebending without trying to kill him

I think that’s why I like invertebrates so much. It is easy to empathize with another large mammal. We use the term “charismatic megafauna” to describe animals that have broad appeal to the general public because they have traits that easily align with our cultural values and instinctive proclivities. We can easily convince ourselves, often with disastrous results, that these animals think and feel as we do, and that’s why they’re important.

It is much harder to anthropomorphize a spider. We can praise the patience and delicate artistry of a golden orb-weaver, and see the fragile beauty in a ghost-green Luna moth. We can sing the virtues of the industrious honey bee—self-sacrificing, hard-working, bold and dedicated to her hive.

But we know that a beetle is not as we are. We do not look for secret dreams in the black poppyseed eyes of a scorpion. We realize that whatever we might find locked away in the mind of a centipede will not be a reflection of our own humanity. Centipede thoughts are not human thoughts.

https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-passwords-plaintext-change-yours/

Another tenant is in a same-sex relationship and their homophobic family doesn’t know (the Addams do, and Gomez and Morticia sit their kids down to explain homosexuality to them) “Your father and I love each other very much, and so does your new friend and her lovely girlfriend…” 

Person: What’s demisexuality?

Demisexual: It means you don’t get attracted to people unless there’s an emotional bond.

Person: Oh, so like, a normal person?

Demisexual: Actually, no, although I can see how you’d think that. Most people don’t have sex with people unless they have an emotional bond with them but that’s not really to do with sexuality, that’s just staying safe and having common sense.

’Normal’ people, although not intending to sleep with someone right away, still know, usually, whether they would be interested in doing that within a short amount of time, sometimes immediately. People come up to me and say “You’re attractive, can I have your number?” after just seeing me from across a bar. They’ve never spoken to me, don’t know who I am but still found me attractive and are thus interested in getting to know me more to see if they’d like to start a relationship.

Demisexuals don’t experience that. We don’t see underwear adverts and find the actors desirable. We don’t look at someone from across a room and think “they’re hot, I wonder if they’re single”. ‘Sex sells’ goes over our heads. Dating apps where you swipe pictures across the screen are useless. We literally don’t get attracted to people that quickly.

Person: Oh, I see. So it’s not just being picky or abstaining from sex, it’s literal lack of attraction?

Demisexual: Yes, you’ve got it.

Person: That must make dating difficult.

Demisexual: It does. Many of us are interested in dating but are limited to people we know emotionally. If someone asks for my number I then have to say to them ‘can we be friends for roughly two to three years, by then I should know whether I find you physically attractive and if I do we can start dating’. It’s sad because I don’t want to get people’s hopes up or seem like I’m leading them on. But I literally do have to know them for a while before I can get attracted to them if I do at all. It also meant growing up was a strange experience because everyone would be pointing out attractive people on TV, in magazines and when walking down the street and I just didn’t understand.

Person: Well thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. I understand now that there is a difference between abstaining from sex and actually lacking attraction.

Demisexual: No problem. It’s nice to be accepted and understood.

Demisexuals, you are real and valid. Just because people don’t understand what you go through that doesn’t mean what you go through is fake. Pride is about respecting and celebrating all sexualities and their nuances. 

You should also note that demisexuality is common among those on the autism spectrum. To deny demisexuality is not only illogical but it’s also ableism. You’re erasing people’s symptoms because its convenient for you and because you don’t understand them. 

Demisexuals just want to chill and exist. They don’t want fame and to be mollycoddled. They just want awareness and acceptance. 

Fox News has no idea how to handle it because he’s Captain America and he’s literally from the 40’s like how do that handle that

He refuses to go on half of the news shows because they lie

Mostly ends up on the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and the Young Turks

Starts charities that focus on kids and the poor

Donations to veterans charities go through the roof

They make of shirts like WWCD “what would Cap do?”

Tony is thrilled and proud and hires of team of lawyers exclusively to handle the news stations screaming about Steve

The public face thing is just the start.  It starts this whole new wave of people that shut down offensive shit during interviews and holding their own.

Talks about growing up in the depression when people bring up financial issues - says things like “With all due respect, ma’am, what others may remember as being over 80 years ago was less then 5 ago to me. Things were supposed to get better. Those issues we thought we fixed were supposed to go away - we were supposed to work to a future where it was gone - and instead it seems to be worse then ever.”

And of course he’s a raging feminist and is absolutely appalled when Natasha tells him about rape statistics

Bruce takes a lot of time to fully educate him about the social and medical side of abortions, teaches him about the various birth defects and medical issues the mothers can face, shows him the demographic information of access and need, and Steve is horrified by that too

Angrily stands in protest rallies and dares people to start something with peaceful protesters.  Just DARES them.

Rolls his eyes at baby boomer articles about the newer generations.  He’s heard that mess before.  He’s done with it.

Understanding people have problems with medical bills, having been there himself.

Fucking standing up for single mothers becaUSE LIKE WHOA THAT’S HIS MOTHER YOU JUST DISSED.

Update: The neonazis were subsequently expelled from the city, and a statue was erected in her honor.

This week 34 years ago, Danuta Danielsson demonstrated how much respect fascists deserve.

this is ok.

it has happened before. it will happen again. it has been lost before. it will be lost again. and again. and again. and again. art and architecture are transient, and temporary, and 850 years may seem like a lot to the individual, who will live maybe 100 if they are very lucky and very healthy, but even the pyramids at saqqara have only existed for about 6000 years and that’s still not all that much, if you consider the grand scheme of things.

yes, this is terrible. as someone who is deeply religious and literally a professional historian with a focus on art and architecture, this is terrible. im mourning. im gutted. im horrified and upset and miserable. but.

it’s not over.

victor hugo wrote hunchback because notre dame du paris was in the process of collapsing and falling apart, and revitalized the entire world’s focus and love for this church, and that was not even 200 years ago. it led to it being renovated.

the roof has fallen in. the scars of fires are on its buttresses. the rose window has fallen out. the beams and piers have collapsed. the spire has toppled. the stones have suffered, and will suffer again, but it is not gone.

renovation work is essential. sometimes things collapse and burn and break and have to come back. it’s not a terrorist attack, it’s renovation, an accident, but we have so much evidence, history, carefully documented everything on one of the most studied places in the world.

Obviously everyone is shocked but here’s a few important key facts:

The roof is completely gone. Part of it dated back from the 13th century but the rest was from the 19th. The stone arch roof under the top roof is fine.

One of the three main stained glass rose windows has fallen out. Most of the other stained glass windows are okay.

The spire has fallen down and that’s the saddest part. BUT! It was in the process of being restored and the 16 statues that were there were removed just four days ago! So they’re fine.

The main structure is still here and nothing has “burned down” unlike what some people have been saying.

The “treasure” (sacred objects) is safe.