Give your friends a mug that says “#1 computer scientist” and watch them wonder if you hate them or if you’ve just never seen 0 indexing before
Then buy yourself a mug that says #0 computer scientist,
Tags:
#I didn’t actually laugh aloud but it still amused me enough to reblog #(why is that hatred though?) #(the second best computer scientist in the whole world is going to be very damn good at it)
I made some yogurt (with my roommate’s instantpot) and it’s pretty good. it’s super easy to do, it tastes like how I remember yogurt tasting, and it’s probably something like 30 or 40% of the cost so that’s a win I guess
turns out one banana for an bowl yogurt is a lot of banana. but no way in hell am I going to the effort of preserving half a banana. guess I either need to lose the granola or eat twice as much yogurt
Eat the other half of the banana straight-up?
Tags:
#food #reply via reblog #bananas *can* be an Ingredient I guess but mostly they are a Food
it’s not even subtle, as 2020 approaches my blog is full of these incredibly smug foreshadowing comments, real Pratchettarian bullshit like “don’t worry, a horrifying death is the last thing that will happen to you haha”
This is a misunderstanding, Mr. Argumate. You didn’t cause 2020 by posting, rather, you posted because 2020 would happen – it primed your brain for it.
Unfortunately this phenomenon tends only to happen in a way that can’t be used to act on the information effectively – partly because there are multiple possible futures, and the very effect of the information travelling backwards alters the future, even very minutely.
Ultimately the ability can be cultivated, but it’s really only useful for writing science fiction.
listen have you been committing chronofelonies again?
it’s cool you can tell me i’m not a time cop (:
that’s what you told us the last four loops and in each one you turned out to be a time cop :/
(see also)
Tags:
#anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #time travel #unreality cw #covid19
HEY THERE Y’ALL. So I go through phases where I read nothing but Tumblr and then phases where I devour new books like a ravening wolf. I’m getting to a point where I want to Read Things, but of course the library is not open (and my local library is shite anyway, that’s a separate rant). So I’m basically stuck with Project Gutenberg, and I don’t know where the fuck to start. I don’t even know what genre I want to try.
So! Does anybody have any recommendations? What are your favorite out-of-copyright books? Are there Great Classics that are surprisingly readable? Assume I haven’t read anything aimed at adults, but I’m game to try anything. I’m generally fonder of adventure than of romance, but the thing about books old enough to be on Project Gutenberg is that they really don’t fall into the same categories as the mid-century kidlit I grew up reading.
If you’re willing to tolerate DRM designed to mimic library lending restrictions (the file self-destructs after two weeks), I hear the Internet Archive has a bunch of copyrighted ebooks as well [link].
As for Gutenberg specifically, I got a set of ACD Sherlock Holmes books there, and I quite enjoyed them. I read an Agatha Christie book there once too…The Mysterious Affair at Styles, I think.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #the more you know #recs
By what right does a government, entrusted with the preservation of liberty, see fit to prohibit consensual acts? This question, which was the catalyst of the Sexual Revolution, has led this author to reconsider all manner of social taboos.
While considering the rise of PDAs on campus, I considered how the right to show affection had superseded the expectation of those around them to feel comfortable. This is a positive change, primarily because the taboo against this act is rooted in the belief that people have the right to control the expression of their peers. This value has no place in a free society. From this position, I considered more extreme examples of the same principle. If society has no right to prohibit public signs of love, why should it prohibit its members from the literal act of love? It is this question that led me to my thesis, that it should be legal to have sex in public.
The first objection that will be raised against this is that the other people do not consent to seeing this. This response misrepresents the nature of consent. Many of you have seen a video in which consent is explained using the metaphor of giving someone tea. In this video, consent is understood to be a state in which the two people involved in sex agree to the act. Nowhere in that explanation does the opinion of those around them come into consideration. Because of this, saying that public sex violates the rights of passersby, or that they should just “get a room”, holds no weight.
The second point is that public sex does no harm to those who witness it. As with PDAs, there is no injustice that one can point to in order to justify its prohibition. The most likely grievance one could have is that people having sex on the ground would cause people to move around them. This is certainly an inconvenience, but not one that warrants government intervention. The worst-case scenario is that the coitus occurs in an exit or other narrow location. In this scenario, the appropriate action would be to use applicable fire codes to identify this as a safety violation. They could then be punished accordingly, public sex not being relevant to the matter. In neither case can the public claim harm that comes directly from the act of making love, but from factors that would be relevant whether or not sex was involved.
As I end this, I should address the reader’s assumption that the author is a crazed sex maniac. On the contrary, I am only interested in freedom for its own sake. I have no desire to partake in the act, nor would I gain sexual pleasure from seeing this in my daily life. I am content to know that the government will not interfere with those who chose to do so. Being free does not require that you partake in an act, it only requires that you reserve the right to do so, should the desire come. That is why I write this, so that we may all be a little more free.
People should not have sex in public because–given the fluids involved–it is unsanitary and against the interests of public health. They also should not talk in public for the same reason.
would you then support the idea that those having sex should be responsible for the cleanup of their own fluids?
I highly doubt that would be enforceable in practice. Our current public-health measures are unreliable and generally inadequate: we can’t even prevent restaurants from serving rotting food!
(while you could argue the *later* instances were a natural punishment for forcing service workers into proximity with them during a plague, those poor bastards who simply ordered the least popular variant of chicken during Christmas break absolutely did not deserve what they got)
By requiring people who have sex to do so in (ideally) their own space or (at minimum) a space owned by people in a good position to trace the sex back to them, we both increase the probability that they will have disinfectant available and ensure that, if they fail to use it (or fail to use it thoroughly enough), it will either harm *themselves* or harm someone with the capacity to figure it out and seek restitution. One of many situations where we eliminate the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #discourse cw #unsanitary cw #nsfw text #in which Brin has a job #in which Brin has a food poisoning phobia #illness mention
By what right does a government, entrusted with the preservation of liberty, see fit to prohibit consensual acts? This question, which was the catalyst of the Sexual Revolution, has led this author to reconsider all manner of social taboos.
While considering the rise of PDAs on campus, I considered how the right to show affection had superseded the expectation of those around them to feel comfortable. This is a positive change, primarily because the taboo against this act is rooted in the belief that people have the right to control the expression of their peers. This value has no place in a free society. From this position, I considered more extreme examples of the same principle. If society has no right to prohibit public signs of love, why should it prohibit its members from the literal act of love? It is this question that led me to my thesis, that it should be legal to have sex in public.
The first objection that will be raised against this is that the other people do not consent to seeing this. This response misrepresents the nature of consent. Many of you have seen a video in which consent is explained using the metaphor of giving someone tea. In this video, consent is understood to be a state in which the two people involved in sex agree to the act. Nowhere in that explanation does the opinion of those around them come into consideration. Because of this, saying that public sex violates the rights of passersby, or that they should just “get a room”, holds no weight.
The second point is that public sex does no harm to those who witness it. As with PDAs, there is no injustice that one can point to in order to justify its prohibition. The most likely grievance one could have is that people having sex on the ground would cause people to move around them. This is certainly an inconvenience, but not one that warrants government intervention. The worst-case scenario is that the coitus occurs in an exit or other narrow location. In this scenario, the appropriate action would be to use applicable fire codes to identify this as a safety violation. They could then be punished accordingly, public sex not being relevant to the matter. In neither case can the public claim harm that comes directly from the act of making love, but from factors that would be relevant whether or not sex was involved.
As I end this, I should address the reader’s assumption that the author is a crazed sex maniac. On the contrary, I am only interested in freedom for its own sake. I have no desire to partake in the act, nor would I gain sexual pleasure from seeing this in my daily life. I am content to know that the government will not interfere with those who chose to do so. Being free does not require that you partake in an act, it only requires that you reserve the right to do so, should the desire come. That is why I write this, so that we may all be a little more free.
People should not have sex in public because–given the fluids involved–it is unsanitary and against the interests of public health. They also should not talk in public for the same reason.
Tags:
#one hot take deserves another #nsfw text #discourse cw #unsanitary cw #reply via reblog
These things the Fae would like you to remember:
Your world is very big beside our own.
We are ashes crushed from cinders, one last ember
Left to smoulder through the Winter all alone;
The tower in the rowan-grove is leaning;
The tunnels from the blasted oak run under
The new estate, its solemn children dreaming
Of the slow descent of ravens like a wonder:
But we may not yet survive the next December.These things the fae would like you to remember:
That straying from the path is never wise;
The beasts out there don’t care who they dismember;
Our night, as yours, contains a thousand eyes;
That wisdom is a salve against adventure;
That the knight who rings the bell at set of sun
Knows a whispered spell to save you from indenture;
That dismemberment can sometimes be undone;
That the dragon leaves the tapestry at midnight;
Pull the red thread, not the green, behind her tail;
That the ravelled thread will vanish in the sunlight;
That the witch has only smoke behind her veil:
Tonight the hunt will have another member.These things the Fae would like you to remember:
The fruit is bittersweet and tastes of freedom
From those things you do not want to set you free;
Some say it is a trap, and you should heed them,
But some find though it a self they need to be;
That there is no riddle here without a catch,
No power so strong you cannot still entreat it;
That the tower’s wicket-gate is on the latch;
And if you do not want the fruit, don’t eat it;
That our time in sparkling runnels and in torrents
And in floods and gyres and mournful doldrums flows;
It will loose you from your hours’ weary warrents;
It will teach you things that every forest knows:
As distant from Midsummer as September.These things the Fae would like you to remember:
That gold without its glamour is just metal;
That you have bled and burned from iron too;
That beneath the hemlock-umbel and the nettle
Is the earth that claims us all as well as you:
The gentle earth of May knows no November.
These things the Fae would like you to remember.
Tags:
#fae #poetry #death tw
Yeah in the old days, it would have been strange to specify “I’m a guy” or “I’m a girl”. This is the Internet! Nobody cares who you are, only how well you can argue about atheism!
Tags:
#religion #anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #((this amusement not to be taken as expressing an opinion regarding the statement itself))
Brinens and Things - Tumblr Mirror 