#long : (

[rat2rrj]

Even if this 1953 study WAS real, imagine the size and scope of those participants. I'm betting high there's no minority involvement, so it would be a time capsule reference for rich white guys during a specific time in America at best.

if I've learned anything from grad school it's to check your sources, and this has proven invaluable in the dozens of instances when I've had an MBA-type try to tell me something about finances or leadership. Case in point:

Firefox serves me clickbaity articles through Pocket, which is fine because I like Firefox. But sometimes an article makes me curious. I'm pretty anal about my finances, and I wondered if this article was, as I suspected, total horseshit, or could potentially benefit me and help me get my spending under control. So let's check the article in question.

It mostly seems like common sense. "...track expenses and income for at least a month before setting a budget...How much money do I have or earn? How much do I want to save?" Basic shit like that. But then I get to this section:

This sounds fucking made up to me. And thankfully, they've provided a source to their claim that "research has repeatedly shown" that writing things down changes behavior. First mistake. What research is this?

Forbes, naturally, my #1 source for absolute dogshit fart-sniffing financial schlock. Forbes is the type of website that guy from high school who constantly posts on linkedin trawls daily for little articles like this that make him feel better about refusing to pay for a decent package for his employees' healthcare (I'm from the United States, a barbaric, conflict-ridden country in the throes of civil unrest, so obsessed with violence that its warlords prioritize weapons over universal medical coverage. I digress). Forbes constantly posts shit like this, and I constantly spend my time at leadership seminars debunking poor consultants who get paid to read these claims credulously. Look at this highlighted text. Does it make sense to you that simply writing your financial goals down would result in a 10x increase in your income? Because if it does, let me make you an offer on this sick ass bridge.

Thankfully, Forbes also makes the mistake of citing their sources. Let's check to see where this hyperlink goes:

SidSavara. I've never heard of this site, but the About section tells me that Sid is "a technology leader who empowers teams to grow into their best selves. He is a life-long learner enjoys developing software, leading teams in delivering mission critical projects, playing guitar and watching football and basketball."

That doesn't mean anything. What are his LinkedIn credentials? With the caveat that anyone can lie on Linkedin, Mr. Savara appears to be a Software Engineer. Which is fine! I'm glad software engineers exist! But Sid's got nothing in his professional history which suggests he knows shit about finance. So I'm already pretty skeptical of his website, which is increasingly looking like a personal fart-huffing blog.

The article itself repeats the credulous claim made in the Forbes story earlier, but this time, provides no link for the 3% story. Mr. Savara is smarter than his colleages at Forbes, it's much wiser to just make shit up.

HOWEVER. I am not the first person to have followed this rabbit hole. Because at the very top of this article, there is a disclaimer.

Uh oh!

Sid's been called out before, and in the follow up to this article, he reveals the truth.

You can guess where this is going.

So to go back to the VERY beginning of this post, both Pocket/Good Housekeeping and Forbes failed to do even the most basic of research, taking the wild claim that writing down your budget may increase your income by 10x on good faith and the word of a(n admittedly honest about his shortcomings) software engineer.

Why did I spend 30 minutes to make a tumblr post about this? Mostly to show off how smart I am, but also to remind folks of just how flimsy any claim on the internet can be. Click those links, follow those sources, and when the sources stop linking, ask why.

[mafleur]

𝑜𝑢𝑟𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒕.

𝒆𝒖𝓅𝒉𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔.

𝒕𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡.

𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒏—𝑎𝑛𝑑—𝒃𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒔

𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐚, 𝖻𝗅𝗈॔𝗆.

𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒔, 𝗄𝖺𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖾.

𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠, 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕.

ㅤ

ㅤnicknames───诗人♡.

𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒓⸻𝑚𝑒.

𝒍𝒖𝒂 𝑑𝑒 𝒔𝒂𝒏��𝒖𝒆

𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾—𝖽𝖾—𝗅𝖾𝖺̃𝗈.

𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒇𝒐

𝖺॔𝗅𝖿𝖺𝗋 ٭ 𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞

𝓕𝓵𝓮𝓾𝓻 𝓑𝓵𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓱𝓮, يوسف

𝙰𝙲𝚁𝙴⸻𝙳𝙾𝙲𝙴.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I made a mistake of watching this video. And then looking at the comments. 

A company in Chile accidentally overpaid one of their employees a few decades worth of his salary (268x to 330x, depending on who you ask). They asked him to go to the bank  and reverse the transaction.

He vanished, and quit via lawyer.

And a bunch of idiots in the replies said "good for him!" Someone tried to say that this was wrong, and like six people said that guy was "defending a corporation" or "capitalism". 

No other argument.

I think the stupidest people were the comments that said when somebody makes a mistake they just have to deal with it, and the person who claimed that the company wasn't affected by it, and contestant number 3, who said that corporations don't pay back the bailout money so why should people pay money back to them?

In order; 

1. If you overpay someone, they cannot legally keep your money, generally speaking. If you overpay some little kid selling lemonade on the corner and it's not a tip, they're not supposed to keep it. You get a refund. 

It's not like this dude found a duffel bag of money in the woods.

2. The company was pissed off about this enough to file charges against the thief, so I think it's safe to assume they were affected. Last time I checked, nobody had infinite money. $165 million USD is nothing to sneeze at for anyone.

3. This was in Chile. Not America. And even if it was in America why would you assume this company got a bailout, and why would you assume that they didn't pay it back? 

I think this proves that a lot of people who are against corporations aren't actually against corporations, they are against a shallow stereotype of what they think corporations are like.

[k-eke]

Behold the biggest baguette ever created 🥖

Not a gif but wanted to post it there since it's really long lol

(Seems Tumblr can't handle the power of this baguette!)

[otakuvampyre]

Love that they also repeatedly leave out that she didn't just "say three words." She literally said "you'll be next" while quoting someone who recently murdered a CEO.

If someone quotes a killer and says "you'll be next" that's a fucking threat and threats are not covered by free speech.

That doesn't mean what's in the op is any less ridiculous. People should be able to name a playlist whatever they want.

Tho I do find it VERY entertaining that suddenly leftists are all about free speech when they were mocking it a year ago. Maybe not even that, they probably never stopped.

the level of censorship around this man is ridiculous, what happened to free speech? It’s just his name.

[masterhallmark]

Rant incoming

I feel like the problem with a lot of Disney's live action remakes (and arguably Wish) is they're trying to appeal to a crowd that no longer exists, namely the people who used to claim that the Disney Princesses were sexist.

All the interviews tend to include, "Well she's not chasing a MAN anymore" which...almost no one sees the princesses like that, anymore. Virtually NO ONE still believes the princesses are man-chasing sexist caricatures of women.

Cinderella is now hailed as an abuse victim who stayed strong long enough to get help to get out of her situation. Anyone who says she should have saved herself is basically regarded as a victim blamer. And it's very clear in the film she wasn't looking to marry the prince, she just wanted a night off. She was the only one who wasn't in line to meet him. She didn't find out she met the prince until he went looking for her!

Snow White is now hailed for her negotiation skills, ability to calm down after extreme stress (she had a moment of panic and had to cry for a bit, but who wouldn't after finding out The Queen hired someone to kill you?), and ability to take charge of a house of adult men. And again, she was an abuse victim, this time trying to escape ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS. While she dreamed of her prince, it was secondary to her main goal of SURVIVAL. There are also entire video essays about how Snow White gave hope to people during The Great Depression.

Everyone acknowledges that Ariel wanted to be human BEFORE meeting Eric. We all know she was a nerd hyperfixating on humans, and also standing up to her prejudiced father.

We understand Sleeping Beauty wasn't the main character, the Three Good Fairies were, AND PHILLIP WOULD NEVER HAVE BEATEN MALEFICENT WITHOUT THEM! He literally depended on them! WOMEN SAVED THE DAY! But even then, is it really such a sin for a girl to fantasize about romance and fall for someone with corny pickup lines?

We all understand Jasmine just wanted someone to treat her LIKE A PERSON. She rejected every Prince before Aladdin because they treated her like a prize. So why did they need her to want to be Sultan? How did that make her more feminist when she already wanted to be treated like an equal and have a say in her future? Is it only empowering if you want a career in politics?

We admire that Belle, despite living in a judgemental village, was kind to everyone (even though she found the village life dull), and her story teaches girls that the guy everyone else loves isn't always a good guy. What's sexist about teaching girls about red flags? And she didn't start being nice to The Beast until he started treating her with respect and kindness.

Do I really NEED to defend Mulan or Tiana? I think they speak for themselves.

Rapunzel was yet another abuse victim who just needed a little help to get out of her bad situation. In this case, she also needed to learn that she was an abuse victim, and that what Mother Gothel did WASN'T normal, much like many victims of gaslighting.

And don't get me started on the non-princess animals.

Perdita had a healthy relationship with Pongo to the point she was open to express her pregnancy fears to him, and was ready to TEAR APART Cruella's goons for daring to touch her puppies as well as adopting the other puppies. Like, she was so ferocious the goons mistook her for a hyena! She's basically that "I AM THAT GIRL'S MOTHER!" scene from SpyXFamily if Yor were a dog. She and her husband were a TEAM.....but they made a Cruella live action to turn her into a girlboss?! The literal animal abuser!? THAT'S the woman you wanted to put on a pedestal when Perdita was RIGHT THERE!?

Duchess kept her kittens calm after they had been catnapped and was classy as heck. Nice to everyone regardless of social class during a time period where that was uncommon.

Lady stood up to Tramp when she believed he had abandoned her and didn't really care about her. She found out he was a heartbreaker and was like, "Nuh uh. No. You are not doing that to me! You put me through enough."

Miss Bianca from The Rescuers was IN CHARGE the whole movie, and was willing to risk life and limb to save an innocent child. THAT TINY MOUSE TOOK ON ALLIGATORS! And she picked Bernard to accompany her because he was the only one who wasn't ogling her. And then in the sequel SHE DID IT ALL AGAIN! I wish I were as brave as her.

Like, the public haven't accused these ladies of being sexist caricatures since 2014 (Actresses and actors don't count, they're out of touch like the rest of Hollywood) yet Disney is operating under the assumption that the public still thinks that way, hence all the "sHe'S nOt AfTeR a MaN iN ThIs VeRsIOn" talk.

The live action remakes are trying to attract an audience that doesn't really exist much, anymore, and back when it did exist, was comprised mainly of people who didn't actually watch the films. The Disney princesses are no longer seen as sexist, and feminine qualities are no longer seen as weak or undesirable.

[princesssarisa]

In the past I've shared other people's musings about the different interpretations of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Namely, why Orpheus looks back at Eurydice, even though he knows it means he'll lose her forever. So many people seem to think they've found the one true explanation of the myth. But to me, the beauty of myths is that they have many possible meanings.

So I thought I would share a list of every interpretation I know, from every serious adaptation of the story and every analysis I've ever heard or read, of why Orpheus looks back.

One interpretation – advocated by Monteverdi's opera, for example – is that the backward glance represents excessive passion and a fatal lack of self-control. Orpheus loves Eurydice to such excess that he tries to defy the laws of nature by bringing her back from the dead, yet that very same passion dooms his quest fo fail, because he can't resist the temptation to look back at her.

He can also be seen as succumbing to that classic "tragic flaw" of hubris, excessive pride. Because his music and his love conquer the Underworld, it might be that he makes the mistake of thinking he's entirely above divine law, and fatally allows himself to break the one rule that Hades and Persephone set for him.

Then there are the versions where his flaw is his lack of faith, because he looks back out of doubt that Eurydice is really there. I think there are three possible interpretations of this scenario, which can each work alone or else co-exist with each other. From what I've read about Hadestown, it sounds as if it combines all three.

In one interpretation, he doubts Hades and Persephone's promise. Will they really give Eurydice back to him, or is it all a cruel trick? In this case, the message seems to be a warning to trust in the gods; if you doubt their blessings, you might lose them.

Another perspective is that he doubts Eurydice. Does she love him enough to follow him? In this case, the warning is that romantic love can't survive unless the lovers trust each other. I'm thinking of Moulin Rouge!, which is ostensibly based on the Orpheus myth, and which uses Christian's jealousy as its equivalent of Orpheus's fatal doubt and explicitly states "Where there is no trust, there is no love."

The third variation is that he doubts himself. Could his music really have the power to sway the Underworld? The message in this version would be that self-doubt can sabotage all our best efforts.

But all of the above interpretations revolve around the concept that Orpheus looks back because of a tragic flaw, which wasn't necessarily the view of Virgil, the earliest known recorder of the myth. Virgil wrote that Orpheus's backward glance was "A pardonable offense, if the spirits knew how to pardon."

In some versions, when the upper world comes into Orpheus's view, he thinks his journey is over. In this moment, he's so ecstatic and so eager to finally see Eurydice that he unthinkingly turns around an instant too soon, either just before he reaches the threshold or when he's already crossed it but Eurydice is still a few steps behind him. In this scenario, it isn't a personal flaw that makes him look back, but just a moment of passion-fueled carelessness, and the fact that it costs him Eurydice shows the pitilessness of the Underworld.

In other versions, concern for Eurydice makes him look back. Sometimes he looks back because the upward path is steep and rocky, and Eurydice is still limping from her snakebite, so he knows she must be struggling, in some versions he even hears her stumble, and he finally can't resist turning around to help her. Or more cruelly, in other versions – for example, in Gluck's opera – Eurydice doesn't know that Orpheus is forbidden to look back at her, and Orpheus is also forbidden to tell her. So she's distraught that her husband seems to be coldly ignoring her and begs him to look at her until he can't bear her anguish anymore.

These versions highlight the harshness of the Underworld's law, and Orpheus's failure to comply with it seems natural and even inevitable. The message here seems to be that death is pitiless and irreversible: a demigod hero might come close to conquering it, but through little or no fault of his own, he's bound to fail in the end.

Another interpretation I've read is that Orpheus's backward glance represents the nature of grief. We can't help but look back on our memories of our dead loved ones, even though it means feeling the pain of loss all over again.

Then there's the interpretation that Orpheus chooses his memory of Eurydice, represented by the backward glance, rather than a future with a living Eurydice. "The poet's choice," as Portrait of a Lady on Fire puts it. In this reading, Orpheus looks back because he realizes he would rather preserve his memory of their youthful, blissful love, just as it was when she died, than face a future of growing older, the difficulties of married life, and the possibility that their love will fade. That's the slightly more sympathetic version. In the version that makes Orpheus more egotistical, he prefers the idealized memory to the real woman because the memory is entirely his possession, in a way that a living wife with her own will could never be, and will never distract him from his music, but can only inspire it.

Then there are the modern feminist interpretations, also alluded to in Portrait of a Lady on Fire but seen in several female-authored adaptations of the myth too, where Eurydice provokes Orpheus into looking back because she wants to stay in the Underworld. The viewpoint kinder to Orpheus is that Eurydice also wants to preserve their love just as it was, youthful, passionate, and blissful, rather than subject it to the ravages of time and the hardships of life. The variation less sympathetic to Orpheus is that Euyridice was at peace in death, in some versions she drank from the river Lethe and doesn't even remember Orpheus, his attempt to take her back is selfish, and she prefers to be her own free woman than be bound to him forever and literally only live for his sake.

With that interpretation in mind, I'm surprised I've never read yet another variation. I can imagine a version where, as Orpheus walks up the path toward the living world, he realizes he's being selfish: Eurydice was happy and at peace in the Elysian Fields, she doesn't even remember him because she drank from Lethe, and she's only following him now because Hades and Persephone have forced her to do so. So he finally looks back out of selfless love, to let her go. Maybe I should write this retelling myself.

Are any of these interpretations – or any others – the "true" or "definitive" reason why Orpheus looks back? I don't think so at all. The fact that they all exist and can all ring true says something valuable about the nature of mythology.

[shpepyao]

sea wormy thingy that overtakes bodies of foolish mortals to travel on land

[syabm]

Yeah, here's the thing.

OP is trying to liken this lady to someone I think is an unjustified murderer.

I don't think anyone, left or right, should be sending death threats to others, and I have no idea what Boston's political persuasion is. Nor do I care.

OP is the one who is trying to defend death threats and murder on partisan grounds. So are you.

I do not consider it inherently excessive to punish people for death threats. OP seems to think that should just...be okay.

I am also aware that most people plead out, and do not get the maximum sentence. I have also seen no actual evidence OP wants her punished at all. Or that the charges she faces are excessive.

I think you're projecting your own partisan bias onto people who have the groundbreaking moral standard of "death threats are wrong".

And I'm not going to discuss this any further with you.

PS: It's also astounding how so many articles I found desperately tried to say that referencing a recent terrorist murderer with a very similar target was totally not a credible threat. Including the Guardian article which tried to claim women get it worse on the internet, all the time.

you guys made luigi mangione trend for days and I need to see the same energy for brianna boston. she is a 43 year old mother of three who ended a phone call with blue cross blue shield (after being denied a claim) “delay deny depose, you people are next” and is now being held under a 100,000$ bond and could face FIFTEEN years of prison if charged. she has no weapons, her record is clean, and yet she is being held behind bars. they are afraid of the public and are trying to subdue. do not let them!!!! be outraged that our freedom of speech is being threatened!!!!! deny defend depose! free brianna boston!

[aladdin-the-simmer]

Hazel Hair

Base Game Compatible

Hat compatible

All EA swatches

All LODS/maps

3 versions :

Download (Patreon) | SimFileShare

Follow Me : Tumblr | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube 

Hope you like it! 💖

[bedupolker]

Limerence & Lust: Part 2, Limerence and Lust practice self care

Part 0

Part 1

Part 2.5

[r0sie-bun]

Leaked Volume 19 omake (?)

(I’m trying to get better at Fujimoto’s style lol)

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Seems to me she matches the "bear" in the OG art almost exactly. Bears aren't the same as being BBW.

"why isn't there any good LGBT rep in games??" because you don't use itch io and don't believe art made by smaller teams is worth anything or you think nsfw art is an inherent moral failing. Go play a 20 minute porn game made by a depressed transfem lesbian and then maybe you'll calm down

[mafleur]

花、コーヒー、詩

✿ バネ͏ ⋅ 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟺

soundtrack of a peaceful, act one: ͏i. the garden dream. ii. galeria do tempo. iii. blizzard iv. forgive and forget. v. bicycle.͏

𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗀𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗆 𝄒 𝗐𝗂𝗇𝖾 ⒌ 𝙿𝙸𝚉𝚉𝙰

𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍ㅤㅤ𝓵𝗈𝗏𝖾ㅤㅤ...ㅤㅤ她;ㅤㅤ﹫𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖼𝖾.

𝖼𝗈𝖿𝖿𝖾𝖾ㅤㅤ{...}ㅤㅤ東京、ㅤㅤ日本ㅤㅤ⳻ㅤㅤ𝗏.𝗅𝗈𝗀¹

𝖺ㅤㅤ𝗊𝗎𝗂𝖾𝗍ㅤㅤ𝗅𝗈𝗏𝖾ㅤㅤ♡ㅤㅤ𝖻𝗒ㅤㅤ𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗲.

日付───𝒊.ㅤ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏͏𝗌𝗇𝗎𝗀ㅤ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏𐫅ㅤ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏♥︎ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ㅤ𝗇𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗍.

soundtrack of a peaceful, act two: i. perfume. ii. forest. iii. chum iv. love like that (words from her). v. fences. ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

𝗀𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗅,ㅤㅤ✿︎ㅤㅤ𝖽𝖾⠀⠀꽃잎ㅤㅤ𝖾𝗇ㅤㅤ𝖾𝗉𝗂́𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗅𝖺.

𝖿𝖾𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗅𝖾𝗌ㅤㅤㅤㅤ𝗌𝖾̀𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗌ㅤㅤㅤㅤ𓂃ㅤㅤㅤㅤ𝖺𝗋𝖻𝗋𝖾.

𝗌𝗈𝗎𝖿𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗍,ㅤㅤ𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗎𝖾ㅤㅤ𝖽𝖾ㅤㅤ“ㅤㅤ♡ㅤㅤ”

𝗈𝗁!ㅤㅤ𝗄𝗄𝗈𝖼𝗁ㅤㅤ성ㅤㅤ(𝗌𝗍.),ㅤㅤ𝖿𝗂𝖿𝗍𝗁ㅤㅤ𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗎𝖾.

𝖿𝖾𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗈ㅤㅤ𓄹𓈒ㅤㅤ𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈ㅤㅤ๑ㅤㅤ왕국.

[staff]

tumblr tuesday: "hi"

Good day to everyone whose heads and hearts haven't left the Truham-Higgs vicinity since Thursday. Season 2 has us all in a tizzy, and luckily, the fandom's artists are right there with us.

(This is another one that goes out to everyone who has seen the second season. SPOILERS AHEAD. MILD BUT STILL SPOILERY. PLEASE BE WARNED.)

@sleepyraywrites:

@idkchatie:

@darkshadowswhitelight:

@oliverhangout:

@pixelated3d:

@indecisive-blob:

@artbean:

@stringcage:

@brbrbeatrice:

@lyxchen:

@smileyrice:

@letraspal:

@bernard-the-rabbit:

@carvifox:

@pitiplush: