anchovy:

I’m a big fan of Elephant Trunk Snakes they look like a seal was turned into a snake as a punishment by a genie

(via cipheramnesia)

the-haiku-bot:

clove-pinks:

fluentisonus:

knowing enough about ships to be able to tell when a movie tall ship set is Bad is so distracting like when they’re all standing on a deck that’s way too big & empty and there aren’t nearly enough ropes or curves or anything. like unfortunately ships are characters to me so it’s like the same uncanniness as if they put a cardboard cutout instead of a guy

This, and forever being annoyed by cheesy bad art that shows a ship with every inch of canvas set (because that’s the only reference picture the artist has ever seen) either 2 feet away from a beach/a lee shore, or sailing during a violent storm like that.

Tragically, the whole crew died instantly before they could shorten sail.

Tragically, the whole

crew died instantly before

they could shorten sail.

Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.

(via cargopantsman)

mossworm:

This article documents the severe and ongoing specimen neglect I witnessed over 12 months working at Florida State Collection of Arthropods. FSCA actively solicits donations, then picks and chooses what specimens to care about based on individuals’ personal favorites. The rest are left to rot.

Please take a look and consider sharing this, it’s extremely important for people (especially in science, taxonomy, natural history, museum curation, etc) to know how and why scientific material is being lost.

Neglect of a Museum’s Collection Could Cause Scientific Setbacks

According to sources familiar with the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, many specimens are deteriorating.

Undark Magazine

mostly-funnytwittertweets:

(via littleelectric)

froody:

froody:

froody:

froody:

when he starts talking about how much he hates unions but you’re from Appalachia

(he doesn’t know I’m about to union-bust his head open)

post dedicated to the scab actors and writers

damn. this post blew up. read up on the West Virginia Coal Wars and remember not to cross picket lines. unionize.

Anonymous asked:

hey, how do you cope with people saying we only have a small amount of time left to stop the worst effects of climate change? no matter how hopeful and ok i am, that always sends me back into a spiral :(

reasonsforhope:

A few different ways

1. The biggest one is that I do math. Because renewable energy is growing exponentially

Up until basically 2021 to now, all of the climate change models were based on the idea that our ability to handle climate change will grow linearly. But that’s wrong: it’s growing exponentially, most of all in the green energy sector. And we’re finally starting to see proof of this - and that it’s going to keep going.

And many types of climate change mitigation serve as multipliers for other types. Like building a big combo in a video game.

Change has been rapidly accelerating and I genuinely believe that it’s going to happen much faster than anyone is currently predicting

2. A lot of the most exciting and groundbreaking things happening around climate change are happening in developing nations, so they’re not on most people’s radars.

But they will expand, as developing nations are widely undergoing a massive boom in infrastructure, development, and quality of life - and as they collaborate and communicate with each other in doing so

3. Every country, state, city, province, town, nonprofit, community, and movement is basically its own test case

We’re going to figure out the best ways to handle things in a remarkably quick amount of time, because everyone is trying out solutions at once. Instead of doing 100 different studies on solutions in order, we get try out 100 (more like 10,000) different versions of different solutions simultaneously, and then figure out which ones worked best and why. The spread of solutions becomes infinitely faster, especially as more and more of the world gets access to the internet and other key infrastructure

4. There’s a very real chance that many of the impacts of climate change will be reversible

Yeah, you read that right.

Will it take a while? Yes. But we’re mostly talking a few decades to a few centuries, which is NOTHING in geological history terms.

We have more proof than ever of just how resilient nature is. Major rivers are being restored from dried up or dead to thriving ecosystems in under a decade. Life bounces back so fast when we let it.

I know there’s a lot of skepticism about carbon capture and carbon removal. That’s reasonable, some of those projects are definitely bs (mostly the ones run by gas companies, involving carbon credits, and/or trying to pump CO2 thousands of feet underground)

But there’s very real potential for carbon removal through restoring ecosystems and regenerative agriculture

The research into carbon removal has also just exploded in the past three years, so there are almost certainly more and better technologies to come

There’s also some promising developments in industrial carbon removal, especially this process of harvesting atmospheric CO2 and other air pollution to make baking soda and other industrially useful chemicals

canadianwheatpirates:

trashincognito:

I think sometimes people forget that the gov is the corporations’ bitch, not the other way round.

This has made the city go “wait, it sucks that we can’t punish corporations who do this”, though:

Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia tweeted Friday that StreetsLA would be fining Universal Studios $250 for trimming trees without a city permit. He also said that “outdated laws limit fine amounts and aren’t equitable across offenders, especially big corporations” and that he will recommend these laws be reevaluated. 

(Source)

(via nichristi)

chuckdrawsthings:

i have a lot of feelings about pigeons ok

(via drukhari)

marxistbarbie:

yatsbr:

battlships:

marxistbarbie:

ERASE the idea that America saved lives by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan from your minds. ERASE the idea that it was anything more than a political move to scare Russia and also to satiate US curiosity as to the true ability of nuclear weapons. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not military bases. They were heavily populated civilian cities chosen precisely bc the U.S. wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go. Japan was on the verge of surrendering, the U.S. literally wanted to test out their nuclear weapons on people that they deemed disposable. That is it. If those bombs were dropped by any nation other than the US veryone involved would have been tried as war criminals.

Also erase the idea that America was the hero of WWII and got into the war because they wanted so save people. They couldn’t have cared less about the victims of the Holocaust, proven by the fact that they turned away so many shiploads of refugees that went on to die at the hands of Nazis.

“the us wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go” oh really? Source your bullshit, asshole

i left out sources bc i figured most tumblr users know how to use google but ok 

- Report produced by the U.S Strategic Bombing Group (employed by Truman) to survey the air attacks on Japan concluded that: 

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” - page 52-56 

- Dwight Eisenhower future president and then Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces also said:

“I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [the then Secretary of War] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” - page 380

- Admiral William Leahy, one of the highest ranking officials in the US army during WW2 wrote of the usage of the bombs:

“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. […] My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” - page 441

- General Douglas McArthur, another high ranking US official in the war:

“[When asked about his opinion on bombing Japan] He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” - page 70-71

- On September 9, 1945 Admiral William F. Halsey commander of the Third Fleet publicly quoted as saying:

“The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment… . It was a mistake to ever drop it… . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it… . It killed a lot of Japs.” - online source

- The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, speaking to President Truman:

“I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atomic bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength.” - diary of Henry Stimson which can be found online here 

- Even those deploying the bombs questioned the decision to drop them on civilian cities:

“I thought that if we were going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the outskirts–say in Tokyo Bay–so that the effects would not be as devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to go ahead with our targets.” - online source

- Lewis Strauss Assistant to the Navy Secretary James Forrestal on the locations of the bombings:

“I remember suggesting […] a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. […] Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation.” - page 145

So to recap: 

1. A lot of American generals were against using the bomb as they felt it served an empty purpose.
2. Those who agreed with its usage completely disagreed with dropping them on cities.
3. Truman went ahead and had them detonated in two highly populated civilian cities anyway. Two cities that had remained mostly untouched by regular bombings throughout the war precisely bc of their lack of value to the Japanese war effort.  

Draw your own conclusions. 

(via chaumas-deactivated20230115)