Accumulation by Christine Kim
Ornate paper sculptures boasting intricate geometric patterns.
I can’t imagine how scandalized those critics who were relieved to have something that was mild enough to not excite their kids would’ve been if they’d stopped for a second and realized what was actually going on. The very first rule of Scooby-Doo, the single premise that sits at the heart of their adventures, is that the world is full of grown-ups who lie to kids, and that it’s up to those kids to figure out what those lies are and call them on it, even if there are other adults who believe those lies with every fiber of their being. And the way that you win isn’t through supernatural powers, or even through fighting. The way that you win is by doing the most dangerous thing that any person being lied to by someone in power can do: You think.
|—||Ask Chris #81: Scooby-Doo and Secular Humanism (via missshirley)|
science has figured out how to open a portal to hell
- alcohol or lighter fluid
- Mix 4 parts powdered sugar with 1 part baking soda.
- Make a mound with the sand. Push a depression into the middle of the sand.
- Pour the alcohol or other fuel into the sand to wet it.
- Pour the sugar and baking soda mixture into the depression.
- Ignite the mound, using a lighter or match.
This is the world’s second biggest fish tank - so big that it’s even been named the Kuroshio Sea. Located in Okinawa, Japan, the aquarium houses an enormous tank that is some ten metres deep, 35 metres wide and 27 metres long. It is home to a dazzling variety of all the species found thriving around Okinawa, including giant soaring manta rays and the daddy of them all, the world’s biggest fish, the whale shark. The appearance of the main viewing room is dazzling, and the window is so clear that each year millions of visitors can believe, for a moment, that they have stepped into a magical underwater world.
Yesterday I learned that tampons were not originally created for ~feminine hygiene~ but for plugging up bullet wounds for WW1 and the nurses started using them and were like actually this is p effective and voila tampons thanks WW1
so what you’re saying is that tampon commercials should be shot like war films
People with female parts will get about 500 periods in their lifetime. Meaning that you’ll be on your period for a total of around 1200 days. With a loss of about 1440 ounces of blood. Which is approximately how much blood there is in 9 adult human bodies. That, my friend, is some very badass stuff.
if you ever think mythology is boring or serious business or whatever shit
just remember that cerberus, the hell-hound and guard dog of the underworld, comes from the root indo-european word ḱerberos, which evolved into the greek word kerberos, which got changed to cerberus when it went from greek to latin
ḱerberos means “spotted”
hades, lord of the dead, literally fucking named his pet dog spot
Take a trip inside the magical world of….The Book of Clocks. This guide sits in the control rooms at WNYC and has the standard “clocks” for each show. How long the segments are, where the breaks come, when the network hands off to the local affiliate, etc… Without this, we’d be flying blind. Also makes for great bedtime reading.
-Jody, BL Show
Like many decisions that seem arbitrary at first, hurricane naming has unexpected practical consequences. In the mid-1980s, Belgian psychologist Jozef Nuttin showed that people like their initials more than they like other letters in the alphabet. For example, in one study Nuttin found that Europeans who spoke 12 different languages were 50% more likely to identify their own name letters among their top six favorite letters of the alphabet.
In a more recent twist on Nuttin’s basic result, psychologist Jesse Chandler and his colleaguesfound that people donate significantly more money to hurricanes that share their initials. So Roberts, Ralphs and Roses donated on average 260% more to the Hurricane Rita relief fund than did people without R initials. Also in 2005, people with K initials donated 150% more to the Katrina relief fund, and in 2004 people with I initials donated 100% more to the Ivan relief fund.
This information isn’t just idly interesting. Since we know that people are more likely to donate to hurricanes that share their first initials, the World Meteorological Organization has the power to increase charitable giving just by changing the composition of its hurricane name lists. In the United States, for example, more than 10% of all males have names that begin with the letter J—names like James and John (the two most common male names), Joseph and Jose, Jason, and Jeffrey. Instead of beginning just one hurricane name with the letter J each year (in 2013, that name will be Jerry), the World Meteorological Organization could introduce several J names each year. Similarly, more American female names begin with M than any other letter—most of them Marys, Marias, Margarets, Michelles, and Melissas—so the Organization could introduce several more M names to each list.
We also know that people tend to pay more attention to their own names, so hurricanes with popular names rather than uncommon names are likely to attract far more attention from possible donors. For example, the 2013 North Atlantic list features the name Joyce—the first name of approximately 6,000 American women—but it could just as easily feature the name Jennifer, which is shared by 1,500,000 American women. The name Dorian (the first name of 9,000 American males) will also be on the 2013 North Atlantic list, but a Hurricane David (a name shared by more than 3,500,000 American males) would attract far more attention. These are simple, inexpensive tweaks, but, since people donate upwards of 50% more when hurricanes share their first initials, they have the capacity to increase charitable giving by many millions of dollars over time. (According to one simple back-of-the-napkin calculation, aid agencies might have attracted up to $700 million more since 2000 had they named the hurricanes using this “optimal” approach.)
Brent Christensen constructs massive towers that he has coined Ice Castles. The monuments are made entirely out of ice with no supporting substructure. “Christensen’s series of Ice Castlesare unpredictably constructed towers of ice fortified by more ice. The enchantingly frosty structures start off with a pool of water, naturally frozen atop grass, as their foundation. From there, the artist attaches countless icicles, using water to cement them in place, with the help of about 20 crew members who work tirelessly to deliver Christensen’s self-made icicles from his personal rack, where water drips and forms 3,000 to 5,000 icicles per day. Millions of gallons of water are used for each castle’s assembly, allowing it to reach heights of 20 to 25 feet. Additionally, the interior design of the chilly architectural constructions include tunnels, archways, walls, and stairs. At night, they’re even illuminated from within by multi-colored LED lights, heightening the magical air of the setting.”
I am sick to death of everything frozen, snowy or wintry, but even I can admit this is pretty damn cool.
During oral argument last week in Shelby County v. Holder, the constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “[I]s it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?” Solicitor General Verrilli responded, “It is not, and I do not know the answer to that … .” This post offers a preliminary answer to the Chief Justice’s question, using recent data. Our initial results suggest that the coverage formula of Section 5 does a remarkably good job of differentiating states according to the racial attitudes of their nonblack citizens. There are essentially three schools of thought about how best to measure racial prejudice using survey questions. Some researchers favor explicit measures of prejudice (“old-fashioned racism” or stereotyping), based on agreement with statements like “blacks are less intelligent than whites” and “blacks are lazy.” Others favor symbolic measures of prejudice or “racial resentment,” based on questions about affirmative action and whether blacks have gotten “more than they deserve.” Still others favor measures of implicit or subconscious bias. For the results reported here we use explicit stereotyping, as it remains disputed whether racial resentment measures capture prejudice as opposed to conservatism, and it is uncertain whether implicit bias predicts political behavior. We created a binary measure of stereotyping that roughly captures whether a person is more prejudiced toward blacks than is typical of nonblack Americans. Our data source is the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES), which asked non-black respondents to rate their own racial group and blacks in terms of intelligence, trustworthiness, and work effort, on a scale of 0-100. On average respondents ranked their own group about 15 points above blacks on each trait. We coded respondents as holding “prejudiced” views with respect to blacks on a particular trait if the difference between their rating of their own racial group and their rating of blacks exceeded the national mean difference for the trait. To create an overall measure of prejudice for each respondent, we summed the number of traits on which the respondent was more prejudiced than the national mean. Finally, we converted this sum into a binary variable, coding as “prejudiced overall” those respondents who exceeded the national mean with respect to at least two of the three traits. To be clear, a respondent whom we have coded as “not prejudiced overall” may well be quite prejudiced. But the Chief Justice’s question—whether “citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North”—is a question about relative prejudice, and this is what we are trying to capture. We provide two estimates of the proportion of adult, nonblack residents in each state who are “prejudiced overall.” The first is based on simple disaggregation of the large NAES dataset (N=19,325). This method should work pretty well for the largest states but may yield unreliable estimates for smaller states, which contribute relatively few respondents to the NAES sample. For the second estimate we use multilevel regression with post-stratification (MRP), a recently developed statistical technique that has been shown to yieldremarkably accurate estimates of state-level public opinion. We model prejudice as a function of individual-level covariates (sex, race, age, and education) and a set of state-level predictors (black population, percent of blacks in poverty, segregation, and income inequality).
Using either technique we find a strong positive correlation between Section 5 “covered status” and anti-black prejudice, but with MRP the correlation is truly stunning.
Aerial Views of Icelandic Rivers
|—||Alain de Benoist, Confronting Globalization (via nydwracu)|