powercuddle:

free-parking:

i found my new wardrobe

i need henry the eighth to reside over my crotch like some fucked up guardian who will behead or divorce all who dare try and pass him

(via the-selfie-of-dorian-gray)

fuckyeahlavernecox:

Just received my copy of I Am Jazz! Found a quote by Laverne in it… :) 

I Am Jazz is the story of a transgender child based on the real-life experience of Jazz Jennings, who has become a spokesperson for trans kids everywhere.

(via the-selfie-of-dorian-gray)

georgetakei:

For the comment trollers out there.
Source: That’s Messed Up

georgetakei:

For the comment trollers out there.

Source: That’s Messed Up

officiallyshipped:

Can we all just take a moment and appreciate Deadpool

(via iammyfather)

a-little-melancholy:

chaz-gelf:

sixmilliondeadinternets:

Gandhi has been historically the most aggressive character in Civilization due to an original bug in the first game that caused him to go all-out once he reaches democracy. They just kept the thing going ever since.


To further explain this bug, because I was chatting with mothmonarch about Civilization and other strategy games last night and I never got around to explaining this fully, but I love this story:
Gandhi’s AI in the original game had its aggression set to the absolute minimum (0 on a scale of 0 to 10, I believe, I may have this wrong but the basic idea I’m about to explain is accurate, as far as I can tell). Adopting democracy lowers an AI civ’s aggression by 2 points, so when someone who is fully peaceful loses two points of aggression, they should still be nice and polite, right?
Except this is an old DOS game, and so computer math is in place. What actually happened was that Gandhi’s aggression level ticked backwards two steps, from 0 to 255. On a scale of 0 to 10, Gandhi is now 255 points of pure nuclear rage.
And that’s the story as I recall it, but again I may have gotten some details wrong, so feel free to correct me! After that, as the original poster said, the devs loved the bug so much that they just kept it in as a running joke!

“On a scale of 0 to 10, Gandhi is now 255 points of pure nuclear rage.”I about pissed myself laughing at this.

a-little-melancholy:

chaz-gelf:

sixmilliondeadinternets:

Gandhi has been historically the most aggressive character in Civilization due to an original bug in the first game that caused him to go all-out once he reaches democracy. They just kept the thing going ever since.

To further explain this bug, because I was chatting with mothmonarch about Civilization and other strategy games last night and I never got around to explaining this fully, but I love this story:

Gandhi’s AI in the original game had its aggression set to the absolute minimum (0 on a scale of 0 to 10, I believe, I may have this wrong but the basic idea I’m about to explain is accurate, as far as I can tell). Adopting democracy lowers an AI civ’s aggression by 2 points, so when someone who is fully peaceful loses two points of aggression, they should still be nice and polite, right?

Except this is an old DOS game, and so computer math is in place. What actually happened was that Gandhi’s aggression level ticked backwards two steps, from 0 to 255On a scale of 0 to 10, Gandhi is now 255 points of pure nuclear rage.

And that’s the story as I recall it, but again I may have gotten some details wrong, so feel free to correct me! After that, as the original poster said, the devs loved the bug so much that they just kept it in as a running joke!

On a scale of 0 to 10, Gandhi is now 255 points of pure nuclear rage.”

I about pissed myself laughing at this.

(Source: halcy, via iammyfather)

scinote:

Question

Why is it that the further away an object is, the smaller it appears? Obviously the simple answer is perspective; What causes perspective to be something that we perceive in the way that we do? Why is it that there being three spatial dimensions causes us to perceive objects including ourselves in the way that we do? In a universe wherein four spatial dimensions are at play, does perspective cease to exist? In 4D, do objects still appear smaller the farther away they are from the viewer?

Asked by terraf0rm

Answer:

Fascinating question! In fact, your question was so awesome that we had two teams of Experts— biology and physics— collaborate to answer.
As you alluded to, your question really gets to the heart of what perception is. When we focus both of our eyes on an object, we receive two-dimensional representations of this object on the center each of our retinas. The images are sent through the optic nerve to the occipital lobe, where our genius of a brain calculates the difference in angle between the two images. This difference, or binocular disparity, is responsible for generating our sense of immersion in our three-dimensional environments.
When viewing an object that is further away, our angle of vision of that object is much more acute than it would be if it were closer. As Stephen Pinker explains in Mental Imagery and the Third Dimension, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, ”an object will subtend a smaller visual angle when it recedes from the viewer”. This smaller visual angle makes the distant object seem smaller in our field of view than a closer object with a larger angle would appear. 
 
Hypothetically, four-dimensional human beings would view their world in the same way— by receiving two slightly different images on their three-dimensional retinas. These retinas would grant four-dimensional humans a sense of depth that isn’t accessible to us, with our mere two-dimensional retinas. Their perceptions of the four-dimensional world of space-time would seem as navigable to them as three-dimensional space is to us.
 
Just as a two-dimensional being would not be able to see inside a square that they’re next to, three-dimensional humans cannot see inside a cube that is next to them. Four-dimensional humans would have no such limitation, being able to view all sides and inside of the cube simultaneously. Utilizing the logic that perspective exists in a two-dimensional world just as it does in the three-dimensional one, we think a visual system adapted to four-dimensional vision would also be subject to the same perspective constraints, and four-dimensional objects would also look smaller to an observer with increasing distance.
But of course, we mere 3-D humans can’t know for sure. We suppose you’ll have to ask the first 4-dimensional human you meet.
Sources:
Pinker, Steven. “Mental Imagery and the Third Dimension.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 109.3 (1980): 354-71. 

Answered by John M., Expert Leader.

Edited by Dylan S.

(via twistedlandstourguide)

inheritedloss:

hey sooooo remember how the police in ferguson were going to start wearing body cameras

the police officers’ union is bringing out every last excuse to keep it from actually happening

actual quote from the article: “This gotcha discipline that we have with the dash board cameras is what we’d be afraid of,” Roorda said.

"gotcha discipline"

basically “any tangible way of holding us accountable for abusing our power is what we’d be afraid of”

(via twistedlandstourguide)