In some ways it’s sorta sad that almost every computer now is programmed in a high level language and has memory protection and we probably will not see any more awesome bug stories like the tale of the escaping Tron bikes.
quick, random poll: can you imagine smells? (I cannot, or at least my attempts to right now are failing, and I also can’t recall ever specifically doing so)
No! This is disturbing why didn’t I know this?
i can!
(i have no memory/record regarding whether i could do that before i worked at Bath & Body Works)
I can, but not very well. Taste is much easier.
I guess? I don’t know how I’d go about creating new imaginary scents, but I can copy scents I remember. Not all that well, but my visual imagination is also towards the low-detail end.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #survey #is the blue I see the same as the blue you see
Oh, Tumblr, thanks for hiding a really important reblog with some really important commentary from me. What else are you pretending hasn’t been said?
In just a minute or so, I’ve found two more cases where this happened.
That means it’s happening all the time.
WHAT THE HELL.
Were they all first-degree reblogs of asks? Reblogs of asks, if they are reblogged directly from the OP, show up as commentary-less in the notes regardless of whether they actually lack commentary. Reblogs of reblogs do show commentary. (I don’t remember if the intermediary reblog needs to have commentary or not, but I don’t think it does.)
This is a long-standing and widely known bug, but not always widely known enough.
(Probably we should adopt a social norm of avoiding commentary on first-degree ask reblogs. If one really wants to reblog an ask to respond to it, and there isn’t already a first-degree reblog available, one first reblogs it without commentary (perhaps a small note to one’s followers that one is about to add something) and then reblogs oneself to add the commentary.)
(Is there some sort of centralised wiki or something for unofficial Tumblr documentation? Spreading each individual fact through word of mouth does fit with the general usage style of Tumblr, but the coverage isn’t always that great.)
Tags:
#reply via reblog #Tumblr: a User’s Guide #the more you know #I know I’m supposed to complain here about the ”blue hellsite” #but honestly I can’t be bothered to give a shit #it is what it is
I’ve seen several people in the past 2 weeks post in utter confusion about their works disappearing after they were notified that they’d been added to a collection – or not notified at all. This sounds like a deep mystery, but it’s not.
A somewhat new feature on AO3 is the ability to invite works to a collection. Each user can set their preference to either accept all such invitations automatically or decide each one manually. You can also set whether to be emailed about invitations or not. These settings are under your “Preferences” menu, in the “Collections, Challenges and Gifts” section.
Recently, several users have started creating collections instead of using personal bookmarks for a topic. This is fine! These users then started inviting works to those collections. Also fine! That’s what the system was designed for.
Some of those collection owners got excited about the Anonymity function that collections can turn on or off. They decided to make their collections anonymous. To protect anonymity, if a work is listed in a collection that is set to anonymous, the work does not appear on your personal works page. This makes sense if you enter a challenge and it has an anonymous period before reveals – having the work appear on your personal works page would break anonymity pretty badly!
Unfortunately, I think most people setting Anonymity on these new invitation-only collections don’t realize that they’re making people’s existing works disappear from their works pages. If you have “Automatically agree to your work being collected by others in the Archive” and “Turn off emails from collections” both checked, your work might seem to literally vanish. Someone adds it to their collection, you don’t get an email because you turned those off, and you never find out what happened.
All your works in collections will pop up, and all the collections will be listed in the filters.
Skim down to find your missing work, or use the filter list to look for a collection you don’t remember seeing before and filter by it.
Edit your work.
Under “Post to Collections / Challenges”, press the “x” beside the collection’s name.
Save your work.
This will remove your work from the collection – for now. If this happened to you, I highly recommend turning off “Automatically agree to your work being collected by others in the Archive” in your preferences to avoid the work being re-added to the collection by a confused collection owner who doesn’t understand what happened.
Collection owners, please make sure you understand what Anonymity does before enabling it! For most invitation-only collections, it doesn’t make sense to enable that, because the works already exist and have names attached to them on the archive.
This is a helpful FYI! This happened to me – I approved adding Exclusive to a collection because I didn’t know anything other than “yay someone likes my work”, and Roos let me know this morning that my work was showing up as orphaned. I was very worried until I saw this post. Went in and removed it from the collection someone had added it to, and it no longer looks orphaned. Thank goodness.
This is super helpful to know because I’ve been trying to FIND fic and maybe this is accounting for some of the issues. If I get a direct link (like from a tumblr account I happened across) I can get the fic. BUT the story doesn’t end up in tags I follow.
This just happened with a Bucky/Tony story. Drives me batty to suspect that there’s more WinterIron stories I could be reading but don’t know about D:
Hm, @enmuse, that sounds like a different situation entirely. Collections don’t remove works from the tags. Could you contact the Support team at the “Technical Support & Feedback” link at the bottom of every AO3 page, to give them a link to the work and a list of tags it’s tagged with but not showing in? It sounds like a rare but known bug, and they’ll know how best to fix it. (This also goes for anyone else who finds a work older than 2 weeks that’s tagged with a thing but not showing in the tags for that thing.)
Actually, a much quicker solution (speaking as a support volunteer) is to let the author know about the issue in a comment, and suggest they Edit the work or the most recent chapter of the work and then Post Without Preview (they don’t actually have to change anything in the work!) to nudge the Archive into re-indexing the work in question.
If you contact us in Support as a work creator, this is the first thing we’ll suggest you do, and it solves the problem more than 90% of the time. It’s also much faster than the necessary steps on our end to talk to a tag wrangler or database volunteer to shake the archive on our end!
Of course, if this doesn’t work, definitely put in a ticket!
As far as I know this is also a problem if you add works to a new collection that are also in an old collection (usually a challenge) with hinky anonymity settings – I had some trouble with this with the Women of Star Trek collection when I invited works that were also in older collections, where individual works had been revealed but the overall collection was set to Unrevealed or Anonymous. Adding them to the collection reset them to being unrevealed/anonymous.
Also, as someone with tons of pending invitations to my collection, I’m partly reblogging this just because I wish more people knew about collections generally and checked their collection invitations! It’s a really useful bit of the site!
#high context jokes #the only reason I’m reblogging this is to celebrate that I finally managed to get emojis working on my laptop #I can actually see what this is now! #it’s not just a bunch of boxes with hex digits inside!
I love when ghost hunting shows are in a fucking ancient ruin and ask their questions in english
“what is your name” homeboy I was a viking several hundred years ago I don’t know what the fuck you’re saying
Is anyone else imagining “J.R.R. Tolkien: Ghost Hunter”
“Alright, now I’m going to try 8th century Anglo-Norse”
YES
#Hm no how about 4th century Gothic #Welsh? No? #Let’s try good ol’ Latin #this could go on and on #safe bet he wouldn’t accidentally insult the ghost’s mother or anything
I’m doing really well: it’s only been six and a half months since the last one, and I wasn’t even working towards this the whole time. (I also bought a lot of other familiars, a full vista collection, and a fully expanded lair.)
(Plus, this one actually cost 20k gems less than the last one, at 135kg. I already had 125k in gems, so I only had to sell two of my personal sprites to raise the remaining funds.)
Tags:
#okay so I looked at my accounting spreadsheet #and it looks like other familiars + vistas + lair expansions = ~83.5kg #so yeah if I’d gone straight for a second KS familiar I could have gotten there a *lot* faster than 6.5 months #I’m…actually kind of worried about what I’ll do after I get the full set #I guess prepare for the possibility of another Boolean auction? #not sure it’ll be as fun without a clear goal in mind #Flight Rising #adventures in dragon capitalism #oh look an original post
Right, that reminds me of what I was going to say when you liked the previous post. (That like was on the OP rather than my reblog, but I saw it anyway because I was looking at the notes.)
Every time you, a person named Somni, like one of my kink posts, I start wondering about nominative determinism. (Although with a chosen name, even if there is causality it might go the other direction.)
*looks up nominative determinism on Wikipedia*
… the entire article is delightful.
The term has its origin in the “Feedback” column of the British popular science magazine New Scientist in 1994. A series of events raised the suspicion of its editor, John Hoyland, who wrote in the November 5 issue:
“We recently came across a new book, Pole Positions—The Polar Regions and the Future of the Planet, by Daniel Snowman.[39] Then, a couple of weeks later, we received a copy of London Under London—A Subterranean Guide, one of the authors of which is Richard Trench.[40] So it was interesting to see Jen Hunt of the University of Manchester stating in the October issue of The Psychologist: “Authors gravitate to the area of research which fits their surname.”[41] Hunt’s example is an article on incontinence in the British Journal of Urology by A. J. Splatt and D. Weedon.[42]
We feel it’s time to open up this whole issue to rigorous scrutiny. You are invited to send in examples of the phenomenon in the fields of science and technology (with references that check out, please) together with any hypotheses you may have on how it comes about.“[43]
Feedback editors John Hoyland and Mike Holderness subsequently adopted the term nominative determinism as suggested by reader C. R. Cavonius. The term first appeared in the December 17 issue.[44] Even though the magazine tried to ban the topic numerous times over the decades since,[45] readers kept sending in curious examples. These included the US navy spokesman put up to answer journalists’ questions about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, one Lieutenant Mike Kafka;[46] authors of the book The Imperial Animal Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox;[47] and the UK Association of Chief Police Officers’ spokesman on knife crime, Alfred Hitchcock.[48]
Sue Yoo, a lawyer, said that when she was younger people urged her to become a lawyer because of her name, which she thinks may have helped her decision.
Weather reporter Storm Field was not sure about the influence of his name; his father, also a weather reporter, was his driving force.
Psychology professor Lewis Lipsitt, a lifelong collector of aptronyms,[83] was lecturing about nominative determinism in class when a student pointed out that Lipsitt himself was subject to the effect since he studied babies’ sucking behaviour. Lipsitt said “that had never occurred to me.”
In 2015 researchers Limb, Limb, Limb and Limb published a paper on their study into the effect of surnames on medical specialisation.
New Scientist coined the term nominative contradeterminism for people who move away from their name, creating a contradiction between name and occupation. Examples include Andrew Waterhouse, a professor of wine,[63] would-be doctor Thomas Edward Kill, who subsequently changed his name to Jirgensohn,[64] and the Archbishop of Manila,Cardinal Sin.[65][E]
I googled “Somni kink” and got my own posts as the first results. [ And several other people with the username “somni” on other sites after that. I’m … not actually in the Supernatural fandom(yet?). In case anyone was wondering. ] So I suspect this is not the name of a specific kink but a general allusion to hypnosis.
In this case, it might be of note that my girlfriend ( Sofi ) (( @sigmaleph )) is rather fond of hypnosis things. And I am interested in her as well.
I’m kind of shy about these things, so I don’t like listing things that I like directly. If you or anyone else is interested, I created an editable document of my kinks and people (including those I’ve done things with) have been filling it in.
Re: nominative determinism, those are some delightful quotes.
—
There is a fetish called “somnophilia”, which is a term that sounds like it ought to apply to me but actually refers to having intercourse with unconscious people (occasionally to other people having intercourse with you while you’re unconscious, but mostly you hear from tops). Sometimes I look through somnophilia stuff in case somebody like me wandered in because they got confused by the name, or is deliberately trying to expand the definition. (I could see an alternate, more genitally-inclined version of me being into semi-conscious intercourse, which is why I got excited when I saw somebody in the Tumblr somnophilia tag talking about how they were into that…and then they turned out to be fictional.)
I went back and checked, and it looks like you haven’t actually pressed the “like” button on any of my posts regardingmyadventuresin the Tumblr somnophilia tag, although the also-very-aptly-named @spiralingintocontrol did once. (And you did like the pun about fucking the natural order.)
—
I don’t see anything unkind, given that you did ask Sofi’s permission.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #sexuality and lack thereof #so apparently it’s one of those days when I spend a lot of time writing blog posts and don’t get as much video gaming in as I’d wanted #*shrug* #(expect a Flight Rising post in the near future though) #(hopefully before bedtime)
Brinens and Things 