theblindtorpedo

cityofathena:

honk-honk-its-gamzee:

moistchunkyslurp:

annabellebanna:

omg i am laughing so hard at the Miss Universe costume category

image

you got poland lookin nice

image

Namibia workin it

image

Costa Rica goin big, what did you expect

image

Haiti fuckin rockin it

image

Great Britain got damn

image

Switzerland hell yeah

and then

image

….Miss USA.

we had to be a fucking transformer

is this real life

reblogging this again just to add
image

canada HAD TO BE a fuckign mountie are you kidding me

but did you guys see this: 

image

DAMN MÉXICO

It gets less interesting the more familiar it is, nah?

potterhead-central
kawaiisugah:

mattbellamymuseofspace:

duod:


Many classic horror icons and other disturbing creatures share common characteristics. Pale skin, dark, sunken eyes, elongated faces, sharp teeth, and the like. These images inspire horror and revulsion in many, and with good reason. The characteristics shared by these faces are imprinted in the human mind.
Many things frighten humans instinctively. The fear is natural, and does not need to be reinforced in order to terrify. The fears are species-wide, stemming from dark times in the past when lightning could mean the burning of your tree home, predators could be hiding in the dark, heights could make poor footing lethal, and a spider or snake bite could mean certain death.
The question you have to ask yourself is this:
What happened, deep in the hidden eras before history began, that could effect the entire human race so evenly as to give the entire species a deep, instinctual, and lasting fear of pale beings with dark, sunken eyes, razor sharp teeth, and elongated faces?

To be honest that last question frightened me more that the picture.


That question is what always catches me and makes me want to reblog this

kawaiisugah:

mattbellamymuseofspace:

duod:

Many classic horror icons and other disturbing creatures share common characteristics. Pale skin, dark, sunken eyes, elongated faces, sharp teeth, and the like. These images inspire horror and revulsion in many, and with good reason. The characteristics shared by these faces are imprinted in the human mind.

Many things frighten humans instinctively. The fear is natural, and does not need to be reinforced in order to terrify. The fears are species-wide, stemming from dark times in the past when lightning could mean the burning of your tree home, predators could be hiding in the dark, heights could make poor footing lethal, and a spider or snake bite could mean certain death.

The question you have to ask yourself is this:

What happened, deep in the hidden eras before history began, that could effect the entire human race so evenly as to give the entire species a deep, instinctual, and lasting fear of pale beings with dark, sunken eyes, razor sharp teeth, and elongated faces?

To be honest that last question frightened me more that the picture.

That question is what always catches me and makes me want to reblog this

ukrainiandystopia

raptortooth:

mybine:

lumos5001:

amazingpeetaisnotonfire:

sluttynuggets:

aphtaiwan:

johnhamishmorstan:

I don’t understand american school years what the fuck is a freshman or a sophomore why do you have these words instead of the numbers

what why would you use numbers

so IT FUCKING MAKES SENSE WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT MOORE OR A FRESH MAN WHY ARE THE MEN FRESH

image

America makes no sense, as usual.

bless the person that actually made the chart

laughter from France

image

France what the fuck

…why a) the Poles have to take time to count their current year of education, b) it’s important to say _what_ school you are in, in Poland XD.

pyrrhiccomedy

qog314 asked:

How did you cultivate your skepticism? I think of myself as fairly intelligent and yet I'm also exceedingly gullible when it comes to things I know nothing about. How did you train yourself to question instead of accepting what even a seemingly reliable/trustworthy source says?

pyrrhiccomedy answered:

I started and re-started my answer to this ask half a dozen times. Because it’s a really, really important question, but it’s also a hard question to answer in a useful way. I’m going to do my best.

Nothing is as important as what you believe is true. If I can control what you think, I can control every decision you make. I can control what products you buy, who you vote for, which of your friends you trust—and which of them you distrust; I can choose which social causes you apply yourself to, and how effectively you champion them; to a very great extent I can even decide what you’ll major in in college, who you’ll marry, IF you’ll marry, if you’ll STAY married if the marriage goes bad, what job you’ll go for, how well you’ll do in that job, how you spend your leisure hours, how you treat your children, how you feel about yourself when you look in the mirror, what you’ll eat for dinner, and if you’ll respect yourself in the morning.

EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE is based on what information you’ve accepted. So if I can make you believe what I want you to believe, I own you.

And make no mistake: my best interests are NEVER the same as your best interests. The most you can hope for from ANY source is that their interests and your interests align. If I’m a company, then it’s in my best interest if you buy my product. I am only interested in the quality and safety of my product to the extent that you will not buy it if it’s garbage, or too dangerous. If I’m a newspaper, believe me, my goal is not to make you a more informed citizen of the world. My goal is to sell newspapers.

However, it may be that my reputation is an important part of reaching my goals: and if I feed you misinformation, my reputation may be damaged. And so a degree of trust may be invested in sufficiently reputable sources, since their goal (“to maintain a high reputation”) and your goal (“to learn something”) are aligned. Be VERY CAREFUL when bestowing this kind of trust on a source, and NEVER let them act as your ONLY source. You can never know for sure how important that reputation really is to them, or for what ends they may be willing to compromise it.

"But this information is from a random Tumblr post, not a news corporation, or a professional blog. Nobody’s making money, here. So why would they lie to me?" Attention? Attention’s a big one. Those posts you see going around, full of SHOCKING CLAIMS, usually have tens of thousands of notes. Tens of thousands of people shocked - shocked! - to learn that feeding bread to ducks makes them sick, or that Charlie Chaplin was a Nazi, or that bleach mixed with baking soda can eat through concrete. It doesn’t matter that none of those things are true. It doesn’t even matter if the OP, or all of the people reblogging it, BELIEVE that they’re true. What matters is that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE had in their own interest something that was more important to them than “make sure the things I’m reblogging are accurate.”

Maybe they wanted the prestige of being the first to bring interesting new information to their social group. Maybe they were alarmed by what they read, and they wanted to keep their friends and loved ones safe. Maybe what they read reinforced some bias that they had, and so they disseminated it because they wanted it to be true. Maybe having this surprising intel on their blog made them feel more intelligent, or more socially conscious. There are lots of reasons, because there are lots of people, and every single one of those people had their own best interests.

And none of those interests are yours.

So because what you believe is SO important, and because you are the sole guardian of your own best interests, I think it’s downright reckless to accept any piece of information as fact without asking two questions first:

- Who is telling me this? Do I have reason to trust them? Should I trust them SO MUCH as to let them be the sole arbiter of what I believe on this subject?

- Who benefits if I accept it as the truth? THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. A lot of information masquerades as being in the interests of one thing when really it’s in the interests of something else. Really think about it.

When you choose to believe someone - anyone - about anything, you are giving them power over you. And skepticism is the only thing that protects you from giving that power to people who don’t deserve it.

visualizingmath

ryanandmath:

Imagine you wanted to measure the coastline of Great Britain. You might remember from calculus that straight lines can make a pretty good approximation of curves, so you decide that you’re going to estimate the length of the coast using straight lines of the length of 100km (not a very good estimate, but it’s a start). You finish, and you come up with a total costal length of 2800km. And you’re pretty happy. Now, you have a friend who also for some reason wants to measure the length of the coast of Great Britain. And she goes out and measures, but this time using straight lines of the length 50km and comes up with a total costal length of 3400km. Hold up! How can she have gotten such a dramatically different number?

It turns out that due to the fractal-like nature of the coast of Great Britain, the smaller the measurement that is used, the larger the coastline length will be become. Empirically, if we started to make the measurements smaller and smaller, the coastal length will increase without limit. This is a problem! And this problem is known as the coastline paradox.

By how fractals are defined, straight lines actually do not provide as much information about them as they do with other “nicer” curves. What is interesting though is that while the length of the curve may be impossible to measure, the area it encloses does converge to some value, as demonstrated by the Sierpinski curve, pictured above. For this reason, while it is a difficult reason to talk about how long the coastline of a country may be, it is still possible to get a good estimate of the total land mass that the country occupies. This phenomena was studied in detail by Benoit Mandelbrot in his paper “How Long is the Coast of Britain" and motivated many of connections between nature and fractals in his later work.

lanas-aphrontistery

anrisaryn:

landofstories:

startrekspeare:

"what’s a queen without her king?" well, historically, better

also, in the british monarchy, if a queen is on the throne, there isn’t a king. her husband is a prince. BUT if a king is on the throne, his wife is a queen. which truly shows that the country can be ruled without a king but can’t without a queen.

HISTORY

Haha, reminds me of the issue shortly preceding the Polish-Lithuanian Union. Apparently, the Polish nobles thought that a queen couldn’t not be married, so they opted for young Jadwiga to be crowned as a king, instead… When she got married her husband was known as the “king’s consort,” until she died and he inherited the throne.

lanas-aphrontistery

lowkeywalker:

come-to-my-world:

Ok, so I don’t know how I ended up here and woah!

they made

image

characters

image

for

image

every

image

single

image

element

image

of the

image

periodic

image

table!

image

And also they made this

image

and this

image

*new ship* 

There’s even a granny!

image

It’s like

image

superheros

image

(there’s a guy who looks like Hulk btw)

image

and humans

image

and there are

image

twins!!

image

And Bethoveen

image

THEY MADE THOR

image

And there’s also this which made me laugh

image

I can’t! 

image

(source)

this is the coolest shit b.

It’s Maria Curie-Skłodowska, actually. (That’s why Polonium is called Polonium.)