I’ve got a tiny black hole in a jar. Cute and incomprehensible isn’t it? Don’t open the lid. The last guy who did that got turbo radiation poisoning.
No it’s not a pet but it does eat light. Which is pretty easy to acquire all things considered. Just shine a lamp on it.
Again, do not open the jar.
What does it weigh? Only about ten pounds. It’s like carrying around a cat. In fact, a cat may have turned inside out on itself to make it. Or maybe it was a small dog or a raccoon, I’m not sure.
In any case, seriously, do not open the jar.
*opens the jar*
*you immediately fall over due to going through all stages of every type of cancer in 2 seconds*
*closes the jar*
They never listen.
Wait, how come you don’t have cancer?
I don’t open the jar.
To those of you saying that the black hole would blow up in less than a nanosecond, clearly not. Because it’s still in the jar.
It would not blow up because the event horizon of a black hole that weighs as much as a cat would be miniscule. No idea how you suspended it in the jar though.
I didn’t say it was suspended in the jar. It still has mass. It’s on the bottom of the jar.
something about this era of baldness that I didn’t share was this his skin was sticky. way too hot to comfortably touch, and slightly wet like a frog. really yucky business
my terrible memory is kind of hilarious like I don’t remember my high school friend’s name but I do remember when his bike slipped on black ice and he ate shit and had this massive infected wound on his knee for like a month. genuinely my buddy. could not tell you his name, remember all of that in heavy detail.
I will never attend a high school reunion because I know I’d be like “hi girl who had that absolutely hideous confederate flag purse back in 10th grade, have you grown out of the absolutely hideous confederate flag purse you had in 10th grade? I don’t remember your name, just that absolutely hideous confederate flag purse you once carried”
Friendship between guys isn’t about knowing each other’s name or basic biographical information, it is about remembering every embarrassing moment in your bro’s life.
Ianthe finds two bone fragments, one a tooth, in the incinerator, and is able to determine that two people’s corpses were in it. Harrow sees her identify this and decides she is a more serious threat, per Gideon’s narration. Is it because Ianthe saw her behead Pro and knows no tooth could be his? Is it because she has the necromantic ability to tell from the minute bone fragments? Hard to tell. GtN Ch 30.
Later, Harrow is exposing “Dulcinea” for lying about Protesilaus’s puppeted corpse and poking holes in her “explanation”. Someone attempts another explanation and Ianthe calls out the inaccuracy. When Naberius remarks that she’s apparently somewhat of an expert on beguiling corpsehood, Coronabeth hurries to divert attention and get them out of the room. Harrow, meanwhile, fixates on Ianthe for this. GtN Ch 30.
Ianthe had something to see God about a queen. HtN Epiparodos.
At some point after this conversation he decides she would be worth of the epithet “Saint of Awe.” HtN Ch 20.
Queen Violabeth is referred to in the past tense, which implies she is dead.
When I was a kid, I thought those pillars went down to the sea floor.
In reality, they usually go down to some large submerged floats.
I dislike this.
Pillars and floats like that are pretty stable, compared to regular boats, so there’s even a research vessel, called FLIP, that purposefully capsizes itself to be more steady when conducting research.
Something something people not knowing the history something …
I am increasingly of the view that the besetting flaw of modern, internet-based, leftist-progressive culture is the tendency to take concepts that were intended as consciousness-raising, “have you noticed”/“makes you think” moments and treat them as all-encompassing rules for life. The Bechdel test is not a yardstick for feminism and/or artistic worthiness. It’s not a test you were ever meant to apply to any single work. It’s a thought experiment intended to illustrate how the entertainment industry as a whole discounts the interiority, desires, and relationships of women except as they relate to men. But again and again you’ll see people - and perhaps especially people who define themselves as feminists - who treat it as the one and only meaningful measure of a work’s value. In reality, there are feminist works that don’t pass the Bechdel test, and works that pass the Bechdel test that are not feminist, and works with tremendous political value that do not foreground feminism because they’re about something else.
And if the Bechdel test is a relatively old example, this is a phenomenon that keeps cropping up. “Some artifacts in museums were stolen or looted, with colonialism and racism providing a cover for acts that in other circumstances we’d easily recognize as criminal” has become “all museums are piles of loot and stealing from them is righteous even it it’s to melt the artwork down and funnel the profits to organized crime.” “Zoos sometimes abuse their animals and the goal should be to reintroduce specimens to the wild” has become “open all the cages and let the animals out (to spaces where they will almost certainly die/be killed to stop them killing people)”. “Ethnic foods are sometimes treated as more palatable, and sold for more money, when they’re marketed by white people” has become “people should only prepare and eat food from their own ethnicity”. Again and again, it feels like these ideas that were meant to make us think, to pause a moment and notice the unspoken assumptions and elisions that exist in our world, have been turned into catchphrases that shut down thought. I think the reason that happens is that people enjoy the feeling of righteousness that comes from calling out institutions like museums or the film industry, but along the way you can become just as dogmatic and tunnel-visioned as the bodies you were calling out.
It’s easy to treat these ideas as “rules” you can memorize and follow, and act as if shouting down anyone who doesn’t do so is all that is required to be an activist/ally/good person.
It’s much harder to do actual self work, push for meaningful social change, and most of all actually listen to members of oppressed groups.
They just don’t want to do anything hard. So they’ll take a soundbite and completely miss the point and run with it to an extreme that’s actually harmful to the oppressed group they’re pretending to care about. Because that’s less work than actually listening and doing something useful.
Purity culture and moral absolutism are easy. Meaningful change is hard.
Criticizing media for not passing the Bechdel Test without doing any actual analysis doesn’t encourage better media. It encourages shallow virtue signaling and stilted writing. Shaming white people for wearing dreadlocks doesn’t fix black people having to spend a fortune to make their hair look more like white people’s hair because office jobs won’t hire them if they don’t, it in fact just increases the stigma. Demanding that white people never own Native American art doesn’t fix the exploitation and fetishization of First Nations art and aesthetic. It just means actual indigenous people who depend on selling art for an income face increased financial hardship because of fake progressives who care more about feeling righteous than they care about helping anyone. None of those are the outcomes anyone actually asked for. A bunch of mediocre white people just missed the point.
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
