The future is now

catchymemes:

(via rainbow-mug)

tanoraqui:

silly-jellyghoty:

bogleech:

hexmaniacmareen:

bogleech:

what-even-is-thiss:

that-catholic-shinobi:

authorgirl1111:

fandomlockedfan:

anchirotleep:

hopeful-weirdo:

hello-kitty-senpai:

Heres the thing you gotta understand about statistics. 

“Increases your chances by 80%” does not mean “there is now an 80% chance”. 

If your chances were previously 10%, your chances are now 18%, not 90%. 

if your chances were roughly 1%, they’re now just slightly less than 2%. 

thats how that works. 

Wow I don’t understand math at all

‘if you have a baby after 35, the chance of deformities goes up by 100%’ is a line I hear alot.

It goes up from .5% to 1%

I think my brain just stopped working

100% is just another way of saying twice more likely. So 100% more basically means multiply the number you do have by 2.

Imagine how many woman are scared to have kids because of that statistic

This is why I took stats instead of calc. Because I don’t build engineer bridges in my everyday life but I sure do read studies that affect how I might live my life if I misinterpret them.

I’m terrible at numbers and math but I knew this and I really take it for granted. The average person definitely assumes, quite understandably, that “600% INCREASE!!!” must always mean a whole lot even if it literally only means that one of something is now six of something.

Politicians probably take a shitload of advantage of this confusion.

just remember that increased BY and increased TO are very different things.

Oh god I didn’t even think about that whole other layer of confusion.

Yeah if you’ve got 100 people and one of them is sick, that’s 1% of them who are sick, so if it “increased BY 100%” then that means now two people are sick.

If it’s “increased TO 100%” then all 100 people are sick.

Reblogging again for that last addition.

mathematically, “X increased by Y%” means multiply X by Y% (ie, multiply X by Y/100) and add the result to X

(via gotthisniallthang)

thelittlestagemanager:

dudedevon:

spectralpinecone:

xstephaniejarax:

play this at my wedding or funeral I don’t care where but just plAY IT

I reblog this a lot but it gives me chills every time i hear it

Was this Twenty-One Pilots? Definitely sounds like it.

This has cycled through my blog like 4 times now and I’ll continue to reblog it every time

(via floradavie)

tommysparker:

thelittleloverofbooks:

julietsemophase:

thescalex:

theblondeblizzardandbooks:

cartoonjessie:

tirnelstargazer:

spacewalkerkru:

marianagmt:

feyreacher0n:

hangingfire:

pillowprincesslexa:

aliciaclockgriffin:

swanqueen-in-gotham:

ravenhilarious:

ishipwhatiship247:

kateriverameliawolfe:

crochanblackbeak:

skuldvggerypleasant:

tgif-441:

marvelanimelover:

markisexbang:

knightofbloodcancer:

thatcrazysonicchick:

hamboj2:

teaganvamp:

abh95:

it-is-bugs:

fanfic-yes-please:

eriplier:

illogicalvoid:

inverted-mind-inc:

sageblackrose95:

jupiter235:

not-so-secret-nerd:

nerdsagainstfandomracism:

my-reylo:

street-of-mercy:

dj-killer:

221books:

valerieparker:

baxtersaurus:

mishstiel:

Coming into a fandom early and watching it become an angry clusterfuck

Being in a dormant fandom that suddenly comes alive again after a new book/movie

Don’t forget about those who come in the midst of a fandom war. 

Accuracy at its best

Being in a fandom and not even knowing there’s a war going on…

all of this shit…lol

When You’re Not In The Fandom But You’re Nosy AF

When you get into a fandom only to discover it’s dead

This gets better every time I see it. 

@fuboos-mess

Being in a dead fandom…

Originally posted by senilephilosophy

Or being in such a tiny fandom that it feels like youre the only one

The accuracy hurts.

Being in a fandom that had a shit ending.

When you’ve been fangirling long enough, you’ve experienced all of the above.

Being in a fandom meant for kids.

This just gets better..

@mi-kleos

When you realize that joining the fandom has ruined you

Fandom hell in general

Originally posted by damotp

Yes.

This^^^ just… ALL OF THIS.

Being in so many fandoms that you don’t even know what’s going on

Originally posted by equispebe

THIS IS THE SKULDUGGERY FUCKING PLEASANT FANDOM IN ONE POST!!

Trying to recruit people to your fandom

Originally posted by mightbincognito

Annnnnnndddd it’s back

Being in a fandom which has so many antis

I’ve probably reblogged this before, but that was before these great additions.

Being in a fandom that actually works together

Originally posted by lynx1825

Why is this so true? All of it.

being in a fanbase but all your mutuals suddenly turn into Kpop blogs

I always enjoy it when a good post comes around again and has been improved by the reblogs like the years for a fine wine.

Being in a fandom when shit goes down and everyone has different opinions

Originally posted by solarspidey

Originally posted by funnypictures13

When you are in a fandom and don’t care for others people opinion…..even if they are right…(believe me, I have met several of those)

Originally posted by mrgoldsshopofhorrors

Being in a fandom you never meant to join

I love this. and it’s gotten better

After abandoning a fandom you’re still a little bit emotionally invested in….

All of these are me. Lol

Being in a fandom on Tumblr

And it reached its epic conclusion

Wow it’s been a periodically time since I’ve seen this and I must say that the new additions to it just made it 100000000x better.

@hellsite-hall-of-fame

(via cherryslime-deactivated20221212)

carryonmy-assbutt:

thenarator:

boykingdom:

who on earth coined the stereotype that girls are obsessed with changing clothes i’ve been wearing the same t shirt and pajama pants for two days now and the same bra for like three

OOH OOH I KNOW THIS ONE! so in the elizabethan era queen elizabeth couldn’t appear like she was having That Time of the Month in front of the male members of her court, and you bet your ass if she had to remain in the public eye while she was bleeding from the snatch then the rest of the female courtiers did too. because they didn’t have handy dandy tampons back in the day, they would basically shove a rag down there and inevitably bleed onto the inner layers of their clothes. she what did they do? changed clothes. about eight times a day to be precise, and they did that all month long, so none of the delicate male constitutions would be offended by unseen yet implied bloody lady parts. this is part of why fashion was such a huuuuuge cultural item (and the secondhand clothing industry was such a huge part of society) because they had to appear like they were just doing it out of vanity/showing off their wealth. this became pretty much the standard mode of behavior for ladies who had to be out and about during shark week, right up until some nurses realized that the specialized gauze pads they used to plug up bullet wounds would work great for other such bleeding holes.

so yeah if you were wondering why dudes think women change their clothes a lot its because they don’t understand periods.

It always comes down to men not being able to handle periods

(via kinqzaddy)

jlegaspi178:

the-ackerman-queen:

just-about-to-break:

asanaambitions:

Friendly reminder to check your breasts while you’re just sitting there scrolling the internet, then reblog so your followers do the same. Two people I know were just diagnosed within the same week.

these are the things that need spread. not fucking ribbons and the words “breast cancer awareness.” we know it exists. just knowing it exists isn’t going to help much.

for everyone who has breasts or is rather busty in the chest area (because men can get it too and not everyone who has breasts is a woman)

Quick reminder for my followers with boobs! I checked mine and I’m all clear.

(via smileyxtpwk)

vivicarstairs:

thereschemicalskeepingustogether:

mllesouthernbelle:

thereschemicalskeepingustogether:

thereschemicalskeepingustogether:

what do you call a pansexual man named nick who works at a cd store?

pan nick at the disc co.

Get the fuck out

fine, you want me to close the goddamn door too?

oh my god I finally found the post

(via aquarius-szn-deactivated2020082)

hokeygnocchi:

one-more-miracle-gatsby:

whatwouldjessusdo:

angel-starbeam:

web-s:

tomftholland:

cockyhorror:

kinktendo-shamecube:

kinktendo-shamecube:

one of my favorite tropes is when a character is talking in the foreground and something happens in the background that directly contradicts what they’re saying

foreground: character is talking about how they pride themselves on being a good parent

background: character’s 3 year old son starts a car and speeds off

Originally posted by mansplainedmarxist

also

This will never get old.

Originally posted by chiekuchiki

Kinda works

(via curlyevanbuckley)

neutralangel:

dvphn1:

black–twitter:

wow i love this

One of the truest things I’ve ever heard is that people who say they’re “brutally honest” are more interested in the brutality than the honesty.

(via zazby)

finnglas:

jenniferrpovey:

niqaeli:

tzikeh:

arcadiaego:

garrettauthor:

mudkippey:

libations-of-blood-and-wine:

jumpingjacktrash:

jumpingjacktrash:

lostsometime:

jumpingjacktrash:

when i watch old movies i’m constantly surprised by how much acting has improved. not that the acting in the classics is bad, it’s just often kind of artificial? it’s acting-y. it’s like stage acting.

it took some decades for the arts of acting and filmmaking to catch up to the potential that was in movies all along; stuff like microexpressions and silences and eyes, oh man people are SO much better at acting with their eyes than they were in the 40′s, or even the 70′s.

the performances we take for granted in adventure movies and comedies now would’ve blown the critics’ socks off in the days of ‘casablanca’.

there’s a weird period in film where you can see the transition happening.  right around the fifties, I think.  the example my prof used when i learned about it was marlon brando in “a streetcar named desire” - he was using stanislavski acting methods and this new hyper-realistic style and most or all of his costars were still using the old, highly-stylized way of acting. it makes it way more obvious how false it is.

i even noticed it in ‘the sting’, which was 1973. i actually think they used it on purpose to get the viewer fished in by the second layer of the con; the grifters at the bookie’s were acting like they were acting, and the grifters playing the feds were acting for reals. if you’re used to setting your suspension of disbelief at the first set’s level, then the second set are gonna blow right past you.

or possibly the guys playing the grifters playing the feds just happened to be using the realistic style for their own reason, and it coincidentally made the plot twist work better. but i like to think it was deliberate.

i was thinking about this again, and when you know what to look for, it’s really obvious: old movies are stage acting, not movie acting. it just didn’t really occur to anyone to make the camera bend to the actors, rather than the other way around. just image search old movie screenshots and clips and gifs, you’ll see it. the way people march up to their mark and stand there, the way they deliver their lines rather than inhabiting the character. the way they’re framed in an unmoving center-stage.

this is a charming little tableau, quirky and unexpected, but it’s a tableau. it lives in a box.

now, i usually watch action movies, and i didn’t think it was fair to compare an action movie with what appears to be an indoor sort of story, but i do watch some comedy tv. so i looked for a brooklyn 99 gif with a similar framing, intending to point out that the camera moves, and the characters aren’t stuck inside the box. but i couldn’t even find the framing. they literally never have all the characters in the same plane, facing the camera, interacting only within the staging area. even when they’re not traveling, they’re moving around, and they treat things outside the ‘stage’ as real and interact with them, even if it’s only to stare in delighted horror.

as for action, it took a while for the movies to figure out what, exactly they wanted to show us, and how to act it. here’s a comedy punch:

here, also, is a comedy punch:

the first one looks like a stage direction written on a script. the second one looks like your friends horsing around and being jerks to each other. the first one is just not believable. the physics doesn’t work. the reaction is fakey. everyone’s stiff. even the movement of the camera is kind of wooden. the second one looks real right down to the cringe of his shoulder, and the camera feels startled too.

i’m not saying this to dis old movies, i’m just fascinated and impressed by how much the art has advanced!

I’m going to bed, but I also want to say that I think, without actually bothering to explore it and make sure, that there’s been a similar shift in comics, probably related to the shift in acting/camera work. And I think you still see remnants of old “stage acting” comics in the three-panel style set ups (you might still see it in long form comics, but you’d probably call it bad composition)

Now can someone explain why people in old films talked Like That

Y’all, THAT’S HOW PEOPLE TALKED.

Seriously, I used to work in a sound studio, and one series of projects required us to listen to LOTS of old audio recordings. Not of anything special - just people talking.

AND THEY TALKED LIKE THAT.

It was so fucking wild to hear just a couple of people being like,

“WELL HI THERE JEANINE, HOW ARE YOU TODAY?”

“OH, NOT TOO BAD, JOE, THOUGH MY HUSBAND’S BEEN AWAY ON BUSINESS FOR A FEW WEEKS AND I MISS HIM SOMETHING TERRIBLE.”

“WELL IT’S A HARD THING, JEANINE, BUT YOU’LL GET THROUGH IT.”

“WELL I SUPPOSE I’VE GOT TO, HAVEN’T I JOE?”

All in that piercing, strident, rapid-fire style we associate with the films of the era. If you’ve watched lots of old movies you can imagine the above in that speech pattern.

I don’t know if people talked like that because it was in movies but I suspect it’s the other way around.

Same goes for the UK - When they made the TV series The Hour, set in the 1950s, they had to tell the very well spoken, privately educated Dominic West to tone down his imitation of a 1950s newsreader because being accurate would have sounded to a 2011 TV audience as if he was doing a parody. When you watch Brief Encounter they’re not speaking like that because they can’t act, they’re speaking like that because it was the norm on screen. It now sounds unnatural because it’s not the norm any more.

Obviously there were people with regional accents and who didn’t speak in a heightened manner, but they didn’t get to be on TV or in movies unless they were villains. (And usually the villains were putting it on, like Richard Attenborough in Brighton Rock. Sure, he was Richard Attenborough, but he was brought up in the Midlands, and by the on-screen standards of the time, that was common.)

Even the Queen’s very posh accent has changed over the last 50 years and become “more common" - check out newsreel footage etc for proof - and recordings of her father are almost like someone from a foreign country (well, it is the past).

There is, for many film historians/critics, an actual turning point from mannered, theatrical, or “overplayed” acting on screen to naturalistic/American Method realism on screen. It happens in the 1954 movie On the Waterfront, during a traveling shot in which Marlon Brando’s character and Eva Marie Saint’s character are walking together. Eva Marie Saint accidentally drops her glove in the middle of the scene. Marlon Brando instinctively picks it up as his character, and continues the dialog, all the while playing with the glove–turning it about, trying it on, etc. Eva Marie Saint stuck with him, never broke, and the director didn’t call “cut.” 

Before that scene in that movie, if an actor dropped a prop by accident, they would have re-shot the scene–because Brando mostly disappeared out of frame as he bent down to pick up the glove, and (as is explained above) movies were framed to keep the people in the scene in the frame. I

t’s a pretty famous scene in movies because Brando’s character doesn’t give the glove back, but instead uses it to amplify what the two characters are experiencing, naturally and without artifice. It is, for all intents and purposes, the exact moment that screen acting changed.

Okay, but here’s the thing about television specifically: given the size of TV screens when they first came out? Stage acting was the only thing that could be READ. Watch Star Trek: TOS on a modern screen and it looks absurdly overacted. Film of the same era is not, and yet the TV is.

And that’s not a fault of the actors; they were all very capable of naturalistic film acting (yes, even Shatner) – as the later movies would bear out. It’s because they were acting for the small screen, not the big one.

Stage acting and stage makeup is what it is because people are far enough away from the stage that you have to cake on the makeup garishly and exaggerate the hell out of your for it to be VISIBLE. And in early television? Yeah, those constraints actually very much applied. You could move the camera, sure, but the quantity of visual information you could send was just damned limited.

Here’s another example of that.

Watch some Classic Dr Who. You may or may not notice it without watching for it, but every shot of the TARDIS is taken from the same angle.

The TARDIS was, at that time, a stage set. The camera was behind the fourth (Sixth?) wall. It was fixed. And most TV sets were built like this. They had a specific fourth wall and everything was filmed from that angle.

Fast forward to the new series, and you’ll see that the TARDIS is being filmed from different angles all the time, including following the actor around.

Three things have changed:

1. Cameras have become much smaller.

2. Set building for TV has developed as an art. Those early sets were built by people who were trained to build stage sets.

3. Overall technological improvement resulting in things being cheaper.

The TARDIS set that was just retired? Each of its walls was designed to slide out. So you could put the camera anywhere you wanted. Presumably this is the case with the new one too. They couldn’t imagine doing that back in the day. Nor could they afford the complexities of a set like that.

It’s actually my opinion that TV has very much matured as an art form…this century. This decade. We are doing and seeing things that couldn’t be done ten years ago, twenty. Heck, even five.

Going back to speech patterns for a moment – I was a young child in the 80s, so my memories of the norms of the time period are limited (especially because I was incredibly sheltered), but the books I read at the time and the popular movies of the time all have this kind of – whimsical, sardonic speech pattern going on. Think John Waters dialogue. 

I always thought it was kind of stylized. But then I ended up in a weird part of YouTube one night and found someone’s home video of just walking aroud a 7-11 convenience store at midnight talking to people in Orlando, Florida. Just trying out their new camcorder for shits and giggles, talking to other customers, talking to the cashier, etc. And you know what? They all talked like a goddamn John Waters movie. It was the weirdest thing, like I was watching outtakes from The Breakfast Club or Say Anything. I expected one of the Cusacks to walk into frame any second.

Anyway, so I think it’s super cool how human speech and interaction shifts over time, and if you’re living through the shift, you don’t really notice it as it happens.

(via pettydiazmybeloved)

tumakhunter:

hapslock:

eclecticstudentwriter:

succubus-is-smol:

black-hippie-moonchild:

17mul:

phoenixwolf876:

lovelynemesis:

This has happened to me before when I was in college at a frat party. This girl comes squeezing herself in between me and my friend and throws her arms around me. “Amanda, I am so glad you decided to come!” I was so confused and just figured she was drunk and mistaked me for someone else, until I saw the panic on her face. She leaned close and whispered that a guy was following her, was certain that he had put something in her drink and if I would please play along. I looked behind her and sure enough, some creep was watching her like a hawk. We invited her to hang out with us the rest of the night and even waited until her ride showed up just to make sure she was safe. Always look out for each other!

If you ever feel scared like this just come up to me like we have been friends since kindergarten, call me any name u can come up with ill play along.

🗣

👌🏾

Stay together, stay safe

Perfect advice.
I’m reblogging this as a guy, because first of all, if you”re a guy : DON’T DO THAT. Don’t be that creep.

And if you’re a guy and you notice some creep is following or stalking a girl, and that she’s obviously uncomfortable or panicked, go ahead and say hi, long time no see, pretend to be her cousin, and tell her discretly you noticed there was a shady guy. Ask her if something’s wrong, if she feels unsafe, if she wants your help (very important - she may not trust you enough, no one could blame her, don’t take it personally). (and don’t you dare take advantage of the help you offered for a flirt opportunity, that would make you no better than the creep)

We can all stop “witnessing and do nothing”, and set an example.

Alternative option for a guy: if you feel safe doing so, go up to the creeper who’s following her and be like “hey WHAT’S UP bud do you like SPORTS? My favourite team is the redsox what’s YOURS my man? What you DRINKING dude that looks GOOD.” and be friendly and just loud enough to blow his cover. Draw attention to him and see what he does. He won’t feel as safe creeping if he knows people are looking at him, and maybe he’ll leave. It also means the woman won’t have to worry that you are *another* creeper she has to be wary of, and you may distract the bad dude enough to give her a chance to lose him.

Reblogging for that last comment.

(via everythingispointless23)

ryoutahkises:

christmas season is upon us so here are my fav christmas vines

(via curlyevanbuckley)

ariasphyxia:

oh my fucking god

(via wmoonie)

tvylxrrr:

allthyvexations:

deinde-prandium:

rainbowrowell:

teacupdream:

vandigo:

bitch-jerk-assbutt-teamfreewill:

one-lastmiracle:

intangible-rice:

When I was 17 my appendix ruptured because I thought I was just having period cramps and didn’t go to the hospital so don’t tell me PMS symptoms are no big deal

this actually happened to me during my math final and i didn’t think anything of it and when i was later admitted to the hospital my math prof was asking me ‘you didn’t have to take the final! why didn’t you tell me it hurt?!?!’ and i told him i’ve had cramps worse.

he gave me 100

This is actually an extremely common occurrence simply because in sex ed they don’t teach you how to tell the difference between menstrual cramps and other more serious pains. The way to tell the difference between cramps and appendicitis is that while menstrual cramps are generalized toward the middle of the stomach below the belly button, pain from a swollen or burst appendix will start in the middle of the stomach and relocate to only the lower right side, even lower than menstrual cramps, and is a very localized pain. It also comes on extremely suddenly and will worsen over time or when you make a sudden movement, like a cough or a sneeze.

Basically, if you’re feeling any sort of pain, even if it’s menstrual cramps, don’t hesitate to tell the school nurse or a parent, or if you’re out of school and home even make a doctor’s appointment. Chances are if your cramps are that bad there’s something they can do to improve that as well.

I am boosting the shit out of that reply, because I am twenty-fucking-five years old and did not know how to tell the two pains apart

Adding another diagnostic tool! This is something we use in the ER called the rebound test. Basically, appendicitis and cramps react differently to certain things. If you’re still not sure if you have cramps or appendicitis, take two fingers and press them into your abdomen where the pain is (try repeating this on the lower right quadrant of the abdomen just to be sure.)

When you press in firmly, it will probably hurt. Here’s the test: LET GO. Does it get better or get worse? Appendicitis will immediately hurt worse when you let go. Cramps will not. Go to the ER if the rebound test makes it worse!

THE REBOUND TEST IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

My husband got sent home from the ER with a rupturing appendix. When he came back and was rushed into surgery, the surgeon was super angry – “Why didn’t anyone do the rebound test?!”

All great info, but there is another lesson to be learned here: if you’re in major pain, it’s probably important - so don’t let anyone tell you it’s not. There is a documented pattern of women who go to the ER with complaints of pain being dismissed as overreacting…when in reality women have an incredibly high tolerance for pain, to the point that some don’t even realize exactly how serious their condition is. These stories only serve to illustrate this point.

Reblog to literally save a life.

Every time I see this..

(via rainbow-mug)

mohamedlamine:

(via surprisebitch)