izzy's playlists!
EXPECTATIONS
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Fai_Ryy
Game of Thrones Daily
wallacepolsom
Xuebing Du
@theartofmadeline
★
almost home
Product Placement
The Bowery Presents
The Stonewall Inn
art blog(derogatory)
Today's Document
occasionally subtle
titsay
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Colombia
seen from Switzerland
seen from South Korea
seen from Iceland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Malawi
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
@the-grey-tribe
if you think about it, all mary's room is showing is the limits of language to communicate information. language (including math) is just one channel of information, different from audio or visuals or smell.
of course language cant communicate the same type of information as these other channels can, but that doesnt necesarily make those other channels more magical. more necessitating of conciousness as a magical non physical thing
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
Part of me does wonder a bit why the Pre-Raphaelites and their descendants had such a hard-on for rendering things. Take the architectural paintings of Henry Roderick Newman, an American Pre-Raphaelite (yes, there were a few of those);
Tumblr may crush the quality of those, so I’m going to zoom in on a few details here—
He has individually rendered every discolored, separate tile on the facade of the Duomo in Florence…
And this relief of Isis is divided into discrete blocks of stone. He’s drawn every outline.
Now, the effect is very crisp and sharp and beautiful, but I feel like this is a great way to drive yourself to madness! What was the point of working like this? How long did it take Newman to complete each of these? I mean, dear god.
Drawing bricks sounds easier than actually drawing whole buildings, or, god forbid, people. I can't draw faces or hands to save my life, but bricks? Easy peasy.
I think Victorians admired detailed architectural drawings in general. One of the books that made John Ruskin the foremost art critic in England was The Stones of Venice, three volumes and 1,400 pages with lots of drawings of the individual stones of the buildings. And they really admired hard work; Whistler's Nocturnes caused a minor scandal for being painted too quickly.
I guess maybe the most famous pre-Raphaelite painting of all is John Everett Millais's Ophelia.
It looks very nice, right? Colorful. How long do you think it took to paint?
I was quite surprised to learn that Millais worked 11-hour days for five months to render the vegetation, plus a few more months for the figure. "Sometimes magic is just someone spending more time on something than anyone else might reasonably expect."
Shit. I was thinking yeah, of course it would take forever to draw individual bricks of a building, but it would be doable. I was bad at copying paintings for art class back in high school, but anything that was made up of a lot of small distinct shapes was doable, it just took a shit ton of time. And now I'm learning it just took a shit ton of time!
And, well, if I had several days to make a pencil drawing and then several days to paint over it with oil, paint by number style, I think I actually could do a decent job. Not as good as these people of course, but way easier than a portrait. I just couldn't paint a portrait of a person, even if I had two weeks.
Everyone needs to stop saying death of the author when what they mean is separating the art from the artist. Like FR stop it.
I know it's mainly just ignorance of what the term means but I do wonder if this happens in part bcos 'death of the author' sounds so dramatic like oh this author is dead to me, I don't care about them anymore. Whereas 'separating the art from the artist' is a lot more neutral and well. In CERTAIN CASES it is kind of immediately apparent that you cannot.
TO REITERATE:
Death of the Author is a term coined by Roland Barthes for his essay of the same name in 1967.
In brief: death of the author is the concept that analysis of a work of art should not be focused on the artist's intent; the artist's intended reading of their own work is just A reading and no more valid than anyone else's.
A good straightforward example of this in practice is the response to Andy Weir and Project Hail Mary. Weir is adamant that his work contains no politics but I would say that PHM is pretty clearly a story about climate change.
You can apply death of the author to any work of fiction and it has nothing to do with whether the author is a good or bad person.
No, that's not what Roland Barthes meant by that!
Part of me does wonder a bit why the Pre-Raphaelites and their descendants had such a hard-on for rendering things. Take the architectural paintings of Henry Roderick Newman, an American Pre-Raphaelite (yes, there were a few of those);
Tumblr may crush the quality of those, so I’m going to zoom in on a few details here—
He has individually rendered every discolored, separate tile on the facade of the Duomo in Florence…
And this relief of Isis is divided into discrete blocks of stone. He’s drawn every outline.
Now, the effect is very crisp and sharp and beautiful, but I feel like this is a great way to drive yourself to madness! What was the point of working like this? How long did it take Newman to complete each of these? I mean, dear god.
Drawing bricks sounds easier than actually drawing whole buildings, or, god forbid, people. I can't draw faces or hands to save my life, but bricks? Easy peasy.
Real Rorschach Test: Let's examine your responses as a jumping off point to help you understand your own mind better.
What people think the Rorschach Test is: The inkblots can read your thoughts. The inkblots know you better than you know yourself. The inner workings of your mind are naked before the omniscience of the inkblots.
I am always shocked that media can’t differentiate psychologists from psychics. The amount of undergrad Psychology graduates who are functionally omniscient is truly staggering.
It probably didn't help that at some point they tried to "standardise" the ink-blots of "The" Rorschach test. That led some people to believe that there were "correct" answers.
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 i could give one piece of advice to newly transitioning trans men, it's that it's 100% possible to find a community of people (including women!) who don't treat you as a threat, and the people trying to convince you otherwise are not your friends
The companies developing new weight-loss medicines have a problem: the balance of power has shifted, and patients are bailing out of their c
Apparently awareness of GLP-1 drugs is high enough that control groups fall apart when people are able to realize they’re being given placebos after not getting quick results
FWIW, use of "performance enhancing drugs" such as steroidsbis supposedly an open secret in American Special Operations forces. There's even been conversation (from people who aren't political leadership) about a process to "responsibly" do this officially.
My understanding is that a lot of men in the USA do have "normal but historically actually really low" testosterone, and which seems like a real public health issue, but it's become a whole Thing for deeply concerning manosphere types who are very attached to a particular form of macho BS.
I have full confidence that Hegseth will act on this in the stupidest possible way.
Militaries the world over have a long history of pumping various Fun And Interesting chemicals into their troops to varying success (see here basically every air force in WWII running on meth). If anything, finding a way to boost testosterone production during training would be less likely to screw up your system than half the things they're already putting in them. Y'know, modulo being implemented by someone not Hegseth.
AFAIK the discussion on "official" steroid use in the military is as much a response to many, many cases of soldiers trying to DIY steroids and injuring themselves in the process. A friend I was talking to recalled multiple cases of men developing breasts, and in one case even lactating, because they botched their testosterone boosting regiment due to a lack of medical knowledge.
Also meth has been implicated in scandals of SOF guys doing weird crimes.
the trouble is with intellectual self-minimization is that there's an incentive for it -- never make any claims that anyone could take issue with and you'll never need to defend them and you'll never need to face-off against power-knowledge. Then again, I am seeing now how self-minimization could also be a more selfish way to protect beliefs that you worry deep down could be refuted by others in a way that you may find convincing. If you're attached to these positions and you're also attached to the identity of being someone with epistemic rigor, then you might avoid bringing these beliefs up in front of other people you trust and who you see as a justified epistemic authority for fear of having them confronted. For fear of either -- being forced to defend them -- even if you have a defense ready there's a social cost there, there's an emotional cost there -- but there's also an epistemic risk of being convinced that certain beliefs aren't justified. and being forced to abandon a position you're attached to, or forced to feel the ego-dystonic awareness that you're not as rigorous and ironclad as you saw yourself to be. and that others can see it too. I think, partly, I hold on to the notion of being a person who cares deeply about epistemic rigor because I hold positions that if seen at low resolution in bad faith could mark me as being part of a camp I don't actually want to associate with.
I also think that chains of logic built to defend positions from attacks (which are themselves motivated in various ways) are markedly different than the chains of logic one actually takes to arrive at a position, which is different again than the chains of logic you might present to teach people in an intelligent way. the pedagogic justification is different from the defensive justification is different than the immanent justification.
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
Shit. I think there is actually something to it. I think giving your soldiers T level screening might actually be a good idea, and a clear improvement on the previous situation.
Well, it depends on the details, whether they eliminate bad incentives.
Well, it's clear that Hegseth is saying this for symbolic/totemic reasons, and the Tumblr response is just making fun of it all because balls, but there's a chance that this might be a smart move.
Wait, what's the purpose? As in, don't you already have a bunch of evaluations you do on your troops, to figure out how good they are at... Various stuff? What does direct testosterone-measurement do here?
Is it something where you find some soldiers where you think it'd be low-hanging fruit to improve their (just physical?) performance by administering exogenous T?
I guess also, do armies tend to administer the various other banned-in-sports performance-enhancers, steroids and HGH and so on, to various soldiers? Is that even useful? I mean, generally you want 'em to be strong and fast, right...? And it's not like there's some "that's dishonorable" reason you can't do it... Or is it just a taboo? Are the Russians 'roiding up their soldiers, for all the good that does them?
If there is actually a problem, for example if high speed low drag cool guys get "operator syndrome", i.e. traumatic balls injury from repeated muzzle blast, and they often self-medicate with bodybuilder stuff, risking dishonourable discharge for drug usage, then changing the rules is a good idea.
Shit. I think there is actually something to it. I think giving your soldiers T level screening might actually be a good idea, and a clear improvement on the previous situation.
Well, it depends on the details, whether they eliminate bad incentives.
Well, it's clear that Hegseth is saying this for symbolic/totemic reasons, and the Tumblr response is just making fun of it all because balls, but there's a chance that this might be a smart move.
There's an important lesson here, which is that stuff tends to get done by the people who just... Show up and do stuff. Just taking initiative and starting things often gives you a lot of decision power. There are no adultier adults who are in charge—just whoever is trying things.
people like saying community when they mean demographic
the thing is that for all its supposed faults, i would take this brand of 90s utopian globalism over whatever the fuck we’ve been doing for the last 10 years in a heartbeat
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
Organisers of events at the Divine Playhouse say they have cancelled coming events following the furore, and have accused Meta of shutting d
Now this is a fascinating story (nonpaywall link) about a brand new gay club in an old (deconsecrated) church doing Catholic themed sexy parties, and consequentially being shut down by organised Christian opposition almost immediately.
I genuinely admire this lack of knowledge about Christianity. to live in an information space where I don't absorb understandings of Christianity via osmosis...
Nah, they've got a point sort of. The Catholic Christians, apparently, decided this building is no longer sacred. And literally held a ceremony about it!
(I'm too Protestant for any of this, but what "too Protestant" means in this case is that there's no such thing as a Holy Building at all. You have people meeting to do church stuff and it's a church; you don't and it ain't. "Where two or more gather in my name, I am there, and remain there afterward precisely as long as the object they gathered in does," said Jesus never.)
So it's a valid question-- exactly which Christians are complaining, and why do they think the Catholic consecration was spiritually important but the deconsecration wasn't?
Obviously that means that the harm isn't spiritual, but purely symbolic!
