HM THEMES
via · source

intensional:

when someone asks to see your phone

image

via · source
via · source

trappedinvacancy:

I’m here. 

via · source

jtotheizzoe:

The Evolution of Tyrannosaurus rex

The terrible lizards of your childhood have changed quite a bit, despite having been dead for millions of years. Perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in ol’ Sharptooth: T. rex

Many folks without strong paleontology backgrounds (which, let’s face it, includes most people … including me) don’t appreciate how little we really know for sure about these prehistoric forms. We go to a museum, we see a fossil reconstruction of an immense dinosaur, and we assume that’s how it came out of the ground. That’s not the case.

While the Field Museum’s famous T. rex ”Sue” was 80% complete upon excavation, the first specimen ever constructed was done so with just a suitcase’s worth of bones. See the shaded regions in the upper left drawing? That’s the 108-year-old first reconstruction of T. rex done by W.D. Matthew. And it’s very wrong.

Even into the 1940’s, when Rudolph Zallinger painted The Age of Reptiles mural (top right) for Yale’s Peabody Museum, T. rex was still a clumsy, chubby, upright tail-dragger that looked more like a drunk Godzilla than king of the dinosaurs. By the 1970’s it was clear to scientists that T. rex could not have have held its body that way, and instead moved holding its head and tail nearly parallel to the ground.

But the tail-dragger myth persisted, and in 1988’s The Land Before Time (which, let’s face it, is where most of us first formed our images of dinosaurs) Sharptooth was frustratingly upright (see middle left). Combine that with the ridiculously impossible, ninja-like aerial assault on Littlefoot’s mom, and we have a real dino science stinker on our hands. Stan Winston’s Jurassic Park finally got the head-down pose right (middle right). Yet children and college students still overwhelmingly draw T. rex as upright.

Modern paleoartists (like Raul Martin, lower left) get it consistently right, but the public doesn’t. It shows you just how important it is to deliver good science to kids, because even today I can feel the upright pose of my T. rex dinobot calling me back to wrongville.

And as we continue to learn more about Tyrannosaur relatives and the feathery frills they sported, we are beginning to see many artists add them to the great hunter (lower right, by pheaston). Plumage rarely shows up in fossils, and scientists and artists have to be careful not to make errors of incompleteness like we saw 108 years ago. But considering how good Velociraptor looks with that fancy outfit on, I think we’ll see more and more feathery fury on T. rex in the future.

At least none of YOU will ever draw it incorrectly again, right? :)

For more cool dino illustration, check out Fuck Yeah Dino Art.

via · source

smilefor-medarling:

Some of these are so awkward, and some are great, and there’s that one with the dad that’s just 100% heartbreaking.

via · source
cowboycliche:

One of my favorite twitter exchanges

cowboycliche:

One of my favorite twitter exchanges

via · source
via · source

bobbityhobbity:

ikkinthekitsune:

theozilla:

ikkinthekitsune:

I find it interesting that Zaheer’s detachment from worldly desires seems more like a way for him to escape suffering than an actual sacrifice.

He couldn’t give up his desire for P’li when she was alive because he actually wanted to remain attached to her. But, as soon as she died and that attachment felt painful rather than pleasurable, he gave it up without hesitation.

That kind of seems like a jerk move to me (though I suspect P’li herself wouldn’t mind).

This is actually something that’s sorta perturbed me about both ATLA and TLOK, that it kinda (probably unintentionally) misrepresents the idea of “detachment” (in the Buddhist sense) as being equivalent to apathy and/or not caring/loving people; the way detachment has been discussed both with Aang and Zaheer makes it out to seem that becoming detached means no longer holding/experiencing love for people. When the reality (from my limited understanding) is that detachment in Buddhism means that one stills feels compassion and love for people and the world but through an unbiased and not obsessive lens.

I think it’s important to remember that we’re dealing with characters who don’t always understand the concepts, because a lot of what you’re seeing could just be the result of Aang and Zaheer not really knowing what they’re talking about.

With Aang, his interpretation of Guru Pathik’s teachings was very much the interpretation of a twelve-year-old boy who was in love and didn’t know the difference between that and unbiased compassion.  His frustration at the apparent inconsistency between the Air Chakra and the final chakra strongly implied that he was missing something, and his attempt to open his final chakra ended up resulting in tragedy, which probably wouldn’t have happened if he were meant to have done it right.

With Zaheer, his interpretation of Guru Laghima’s teachings was very much the interpretation of a zealot who saw those teachings as justification for whatever he wanted to do anyway.  It’s plausible that detaching himself from concern for others was not what Laghima intended, but functioned as a dark workaround for someone like Zaheer who could actually pull it off.

The most questionable thing said by a character who actually knew what she was talking about was Yangchen’s speech to Aang about why the Avatar can never truly detach themselves:

Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment, but the Avatar can never do it, because your sole duty is to the world. Here is my wisdom for you: Selfless duty calls you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world.

That doesn’t necessarily imply that detachment equals apathy, though — she might just be talking about the Avatar’s need to reincarnate and remain part of the world.

On that last point: yes. The Buddhist notion of nirvana is that the enlightened person is freed from the cycle of samsara and no longer reincarnates once s/he physically dies. The Avatar can not become truly enlightened because s/he must always be reincarnated in order to serve the world. And as such, the Avatar is always bound to worldly suffering and will never achieve freedom from it.

via · source

molgars:

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE


flexing muscles sit-ups abs lifting weights push-ups physical activity running football biceps

via · source

officialunitedstates:

to all my spanish speaking followers:  hola

to all my non-spanish speaking followers who feel left out:  don’t worry, I just said “hello”.  maybe someday you too can grasp another language

via · source

zoomwitch:

number-one-mollusc-fan:

snerky:

incredible

holy shit

look at this

via · source

thesociopathwithabox:

secretlifeofageekygirl:

Literally the best bromance to ever bromance

"maybe one day he’ll love me that much" -turk’s wife

via · source

joelmillers:

coldwarqueer:

in russian they dont say “i love you” they say “пожирать плоть капиталистов” which means “we are one and the same” and i think thats beautiful

image

image

via · source

kawaiilluminatii:

when people bring up your past

image

320k:

what the FUCK is that hideous yellow circle in the sky