like 2 months ago i saw a single lobster in the grocery store tank that'd somehow lost a rubber band and every other lobster was huddled in the opposite corner of the tank in a big lobster pile (presumably because the freed lobster was an asshole about having a free claw) like. im done with crab in a bucket mentality. You're not even trying to pull everyone else down to get out and climb up yourself, you're just being a dick. Unshackled lobster in a tank mentality
Hartford Courant, Connecticut, March 9, 1906
my grandmas dawg
heres what your grandmas dog wold look like. if they were a trail of ant
im getting sick of this.
this just happened on my dash…
it happend again
How can you hate on cookies though?? Like, in any form?? They’re FUCKING COOKIES BRO!!!
don’t let the anti-moreos guy see this either
wait for it he has sources
hi
he’s here
hell yeah im here and im ready to whoop your substantially corrupt minds back into fucking place
You’re like 15 dude you ain’t about to whoop anyone’s ass
I have the power of skeleton memes on my side, what do you have? tom hiddystan? bendelick mumberdun? doctor when??? yeah
This is literally the most beautiful post on Tumblr
doctor when
I've always written everything by hand before typing. Staring at a blank word document doesn't inspire the words to come.
But a blank paper and a blue pen and the words come at a steady pace.
aaaand here's a link to the paper :)
There's a pretty damning commentary on this paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1517235/full
In short:
Honestly, that is....shockingly bad. Like I'm surprised this passed peer review and it makes me wonder about the journal. Of course educational science is a joke of a field anyway with little scientific rigour over the last 50 years, so maybe that's not surprising. But this sure as hell sounds like this researcher walked into this project already convinced that handwriting is better for children's learning than typing and screens, and then rigged an experiment to support that bias. If I were the editor I would retract the paper, not just include a link to the commentary.
I watched half of this talk before scrolling down to see the damning bullet point list and even without reading the paper it had a number of glaring red flags I noticed:
- The brain is a moving-body organ. If you're moving your body more, it's going to naturally have more going on. She kept saying "the brain is more active" like it's a winning poker hand but that's like saying your car engine makes more noise as when you have the gas pedal down. No duh. I'd love to see how her results fall apart when the typist is at one of those standing treadmill desks.
- You HAVE to then go link "activity" to some kind of outcome, which they obviously didn't do because they would have mentioned it if they had anything more substantial than "activity".
- Unscrupulous and careless researchers love showing off their EEG or MRI setups because they produce lots of fancy-looking data artifacts that can be used as authoritative props. But they're not much better than detailed maps of "my car engine is making a funny noise". Careful analysis can pull out useful data but it's extremely easy to mislead yourself and others with these rainbow rorschachs. (See: the famous dead salmon MRI paper)
- See that reMarkable watermark in the corner? They make e-ink handwriting tablets. The profit motive here is obvious for why they'd sponsor this talk/research.
just because someone can articulate their point better doesn’t make them right, it makes them articulated.
and you aren’t stupid for having trouble articulating yourself.
Julian Hooper 1. Introduction, 2016 2. Inevitable conclusion, 2016 (Acrylic on linen)
certified door post
The Gaslighting Magician: This is your card
infantry and adultery sound like they'd be opposites but they're in fact completely unrelated
well fuck. now what am i going to do
So I decided to read this article. I do think it's worth reading if you know a way past the paywall. It's called "The Wrong Kind of American" by Julia Curlee.
I don't like the CIA. I don't necessarily agree with her decision to keep working for them for as long as she could, but it's an interesting look into how queer people are being systematically erased in the federal government right now.
The bit about Mike Pence was a bit odd but her point seemed to be that when she was assigned to his personal staff he at the very least had the bare minimum respect for her, which is a low bar in my opinion but when you work for a conservative government, your mental bar for how you're treated might be a bit low.
I do respect how she refused until the very end to go back into the closet. Even if you hate the CIA, it seems like she and a lot of other openly queer employees have been working to make the federal government a more inclusive place to work for a long time and the current administration just reversed all of that in less than three months. She brought up at the end having to choose between her integrity and keeping her family's health insurance, which I imagine is a decision that a lot of people have had to make unfortunately.
Again, this article is one of those things that's a bit weird and maybe I don't understand all of the decisions that the author has made but it at the very least has some interesting insights into what's going on over there. They seem to be losing a lot of institutional knowledge, which is in fact likely a threat to national security.
To reiterate in case it isn't clear, I don't think you should work for the CIA or that the CIA is good. Since I know this website's reading comprehension is terrible.
