The Germans really cooked making "Hobbyless behaviour" an insult. It is both devastating, applicable to a wide range of people and behaviours, and doesn't resort to swearing.
Man ranting on the internet about the Superbowl halftime show or complaining that something is "woke"? Hobbyless Behaviour. Girls mocking another girl for not looking right? Hobbyless Behaviour. Mindless vandalism? Hobbyless Behaviour.
It is more powerful than "get a life" or the English "You're Sad" because it gets to the central point of the matter, and that is wonderful. Danke, Deutsch.
how it's feeling rn
he's beautiful i literally need to put him under extreme psychological stress. i need to put him in extreme physical pain. i need him curling up in someone's arms for the feelings of safety and comfort he hasn't received in ages
I've been fed, walked and watered and I've slept enough and been out of the internet and I'm doing crafts.
Why am I still angry.
I walked right into this one like a blind horse into a revolving door.
And, irrigation canals.
Saves 82% of water evaporation. 💧
Actually, do cover the fields as well (in some areas at least).
The problem with putting solar panels over fields is that most farm machinery is big and so you can't get it through the panels unless the rows of panels are too far apart to get most of the benefit from the shade. So most of the cultivation has to be done by hand ... and the panels are usually low enough to make it a lot harder on the workers because you spend more time stooping over and at odd angles. So yeah, you do get greater yields per acre with this method!
... you also are spending a lot more on labor costs and your workers are getting hurt more to do it.
So in most cases, OP is right. Don't cover fields. Cover parking lots and canals.
Depends on what kind of fields you're putting them in. Grazing fields don't require farm machinery running through them, and the solar panels allow places for sheep and cattle to rest in the shade. This makes a huge difference to the comfort of the animals here in Australia; there are farms that have already incorporated solar panels for that reason.
The linked article in the earlier reblog is talking about crops like zucchini and eggplant, which afaik are generally harvested by hand. I don't know if such crops are usually planted by machine the way that wheat is, but considering there's an apparent increase in yield while also reducing the water use, the inconvenience would likely be worth it for at least some farms even if it changes the sowing technique. (Or alternately, you only cover part of the field, allowing for space between the rows of panels for machinery to be driven. Now that some tractors can be driven by GPS with minimal control by the farmer, that also reduces the chance of collisions and damage to the panels.)
Additionally, if there was wide uptake, I would expect that solar panels could be placed on higher supports, reducing the amount of stooping required. That's a potentially solvable problem. And with some parts of the world – including Australia – becoming drier as the climate changes, the fact that crops can be grown under solar panels with less water is no small matter. It could mean that more of the dwindling supply of irrigation water could be saved for crops like wheat, which are currently impractical to grow under solar panels.
But even if it isn't practicable for large-scale farming operations to put solar panels over crops, there's still millions of hectares of grazing land that could have solar panels put over it perfectly happily. We don't have to limit ourselves to car parks and canals.
I think the lesson is “ put solar panels where they would maximize benefit, and don’t assume you know where that is until you research it.”
883 days left
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:
- they didn't actually measure changes in learning; they measured theta waves which don't have a clear link to learning
- They evaluated adults, not children
- They didn't have participants do any encoding activities; they were mindlessly typing the same thing over and over
- They didn't allow participants to actually type; they had them 'type' with one finger of their right hand, when there's plenty of evidence that using both hands while encoding information leads to increased brain activity.
- They couldn't see what they were typing (no visual feedback), so any error-correction processes the brain would usually run were impaired
- The handwriting part of the experiment was completely normal and representative of using handwriting to record information.
- They didn't actually report the raw data or conduct any statistical analysis for the two parts of the experiment individually; only the differences between the two groups.
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.
For each trial, participants were instructed to either (a) write in cursive with their right hand the presented word with a digital pen directly on the screen, or (b) type the presented word using the right index finger on the keyboard. Before each trial, the instruction write or type appeared before one of the target words appeared, and the participants were given 25 s to either write by hand or type the word multiple times, separated by a space. EEG data were recorded only during the first 5 s of each trial. To prevent artifacts produced by head and eye movements caused by shifting gaze between the screen and the keyboard, typed words did not appear on the screen while the participant was typewriting.
lmao wow
Why are people not reading these parts. Like they're reblogging posts that have criticism of a paper and saying "This is why I always use notebooks!" Trust me, if you can't even bother to fully read something you're gonna say you agree with, be it an entire paper or a freaking tumblr post, you are not smarter than anyone just because you use pen and paper.
I'm not even against the idea that writing is better for your brain than typing, but this experiment is objectively bad and does not prove anything.
Beating a dead horse reblogging this post a third time but generally speaking anytime you see a headline about a study proclaiming that the good ol' traditional way of doing [thing] is better for your brain and makes you smarter and cooler and doing it with newer technological tools doesn't Activate Your Brain™ as much and makes you dumber and lazier that should start ringing your alarm bells to go check if there's Some Bullshit going on with the methodological design, because this such a common type of "someone clearly went into this with their mind already made up about the results they wanted and deliberately designed the study to support those preconceptions" study.
Like it's something you should always be doing, but especially for stuff like this, and *especially* if the conclussion just so happens to play nicely into the confirmation bias that old method = more effort = good.
reminder for the people who think they can report a fic to ao3 for being “dark and problematic” and that ao3 will listen to them and take the fic down
*the country in question is china. ao3 is banned there because they firmly refused to remove one problematic and taboo fanfic that upset chinese government.
ao3 was built with the main purpose to be completely against censorship. it was built because the founders, who were proship, got tired of pro censorship platforms like wattpad banning dark and taboo fics. ao3 founders built ao3 specifically to host and give a platform to dark and taboo fics that were reported and taken down on pro censorship platforms.
the fic you report to ao3 for being dark and taboo is the exact reason why ao3 was created in the first place. it’s the exact type of fic ao3 allows and protects.
mass reporting is not possible because on ao3, a fic can only be reported one time. if you try to report a fic that has already been reported, ao3 will tell you the fic has already been reported and is under their review, therefore your new report—and any new report from anybody—does not go through. the only time ao3 will remove a fic is if it violates their terms of service (by mentioning money, being a stolen work, not actually being fanwork, or deliberately mistagging things, although mistagging things won’t get a fic removed, ao3 will just ask the author to fix their tags) but they will not remove a fic simply for being dark and taboo, no matter how explicit or dark or taboo the fic is.
also, if you rapidly report several fics under specific tags / several fics from specific authors, your action can be count as you abusing ao3’s support system by ao3 themself — ao3 may consider your action to be a form of harassment, which is against their terms of service. and then ao3 may take action against your account.
ao3 has been fighting against censorship for nearly two decades now. they know what they’re doing. they know what they’re up against. they have their own team of lawyers to defend them, their users, and every fanwork that is posted on their platform.
ao3 abides by american laws. and everything ao3 allows is legal in america.
so no, they will not take down a fic for being dark and taboo when they don’t break any laws by allowing these dark and taboo fics on their platform, and they—as a non-profit organization that’s run by fans, for fans, on the donations of fans who are also against censorship—don’t have any sponsors or companies that they have to please by being pro censorship and banning taboo fics.
so i hauve covid rn and i must say, American cold medicine is the absolute bees knees. You go to a UK pharmacy and they tenderly press like eight (8) paracetamol into the palm of your hand... God FORBID you're sick in France, i had to scour every pharmacy in Paris for something that wasn't HOMEOPATHIC PASTILLES. meanwhile last night i took the last of my stash of Nyquil that expired in 2019 and it was like getting hit by a fucking baseball bat (affectionate). press X to timeskip. LOVE me a cheeky little medically induced coma. you can really feel that it's a precursor to meth. i know that everything is fucking awful over there my friedns and my heart goes out to every one of you but if you need one small bright light of national pride in this time of strife please know that i envy you your cold medicine every day
i once took an american antihistamine pill just a basic one for seasonal allergies and i had to immediately lay down and while doing so i vividly hallucinated that i was a steerage passenger on the titanic resigned to my death as my cabin filled up rapidly with water. then i blacked out and when i woke up again my allergies were gone for the entire season.
The Hat Man is our greatest export
