theremin
context (via @mellorocket)
doubly funny that I saw a compilation of all the corporate accounts like "aw thanks elmo, we're doing well" meanwhile all the flesh and blood real human people are extremely not okay
Okay but Elmo had actually the best and sweetest response to all this trauma dumping:
And then all the other Sesame Street character accounts joined in:
And now I’m thinking maybe we’re gonna be okay… 💗
(Comment compilation from this Twitter)
I kinda feel for the poor person running Elmo's Twitter.
"So, boss... I may have messed up."
"What did you do, Ray?"
"Well, I made a post for Elmo saying 'Hi, how's everybody doing?'"
"I mean, that's kind of what we pay you for."
"Yeah, but.... <sigh> it turns out pretty much everyone is hanging on by a thread, badly enough that they needed to tell Elmo."
"Oh."
"God help me, boss, I think Elmo needs to be there for them."
"Get the others."
this is the energy that jim henson would be proud of.
and important addition
Always reblog this. Elmo and his friends will be there in your times of trial and doubt, to help you through your torment
I think tumblr should be banned from using the phrase “an angel lost its wings” when referring to trans people in any way shape or form. Whether it’s about a headcanon or a type of surgery, if you only want trans people to live, exist and experience life in a way that makes you personally satisfied and any deviation is akin to a tragedy, then your allyship means absolutely nothing to me, even if you yourself are trans.
Your job is to crawl around on all fours through the aisles and scare all the customers
somebody could literally make the funniest joke in the universe, expertly crafted and hand made like a fine artisan cheese, but it’ll never make me laugh as much as that one fucking comic where goofy steals a hat from himself in a different panel and defies all logic and starts crying
The amazing thing about this comic is that the tone is masterfully softened by the presence of the pre-existing hat. The fact that he ends up briefly wearing two hats adds a silly, surreal uh… ‘goofiness’ to the image and subtly masks the disquiet of the underlying paradox, namely where does this new hat actually come from?
See, how different the comic feels without the original hat:
In the original comic, his tears are kind of funny contextually, because he already has a hat, why would he need another one?
In the second comic, it’s like he’s being directly rebuked for breaking the laws of the universe.
While what you are saying can make sense, the way I interpreted it was there was only ever one hat. The hat went up to panel four and was picked up in panel two, put on again in panel three, and stayed on the rest of the time.
A level 99 blacksmith just offered bottom surgery with mythril but idkkkk chat what kind of enchantments should I put on that thang?
bane of arthropods. i won't disclose anything but you'll need it for later. trust me on this one
i would really prefer a spoiler in this case
if youve ever heard of weird polycule drama u gotta understand its less 'poly people are bad partners' and more 'statistically if you have five girlfriends thats like 5x the likelyhood of one of your girlfriends doing something batshit" . like thats just basic math. rollin the dice. you hit the snake eyes buddy. sorry try again.
Statistically, what you're describing is actually the probability that at least one partner does something batshit. This can't be done by simply multiplying by the number of partners you have; if the probability is 10%, and you have 11 gfs, you'd get 110%, which doesn't make sense. What you need to do is use a cumulative binomial probability.
These are kind of annoying to calculate, so to avoid it, I'll use binomial manipulation wizardry to convert it to its equivalent: calculate the probability that all partners don't do something batshit, and take the complement
1 - (1-p)^N
where p is the probability of a single partner doing something batshit and N is the number of partners. Graphing different values for N and p (valid only for x≥2)
However, this assumes that the drama is generated independently from a single person alone. If the drama is interpersonal, then it is dependent on the number of interactions, which increases as the square of the number of partners.
For simplicity, let's assume all interactions have the same probability of causing drama. The probability of at least one interaction causing drama is equivalent to the complement of no interactions causing drama.
1 - (1-p)^(N(N-1)/2)
At a 10% chance of conflict arising between any two people, with five partners, the probability of drama increases eightfold to 80%
To account for both single person and interpersonal drama, you can combine the two, with different values for p1 and p2, but the change as a result of p1 is small compared to p2, especially for p1<10%
1 - (1-p1)^N · (1-p2)^(N(N-1)/2)
Windows 10 - Disk Cleanup
everyone came together and agreed
Emotions aren’t masculine or feminine. they’re human. normalize them.
That’s right, now it’s important here that your feelings, which we call X for convenience, have only locally finitely many irreducible components. Otherwise we can run into trouble with normalization!
Let X be feelings such that every quasi-compact open has finitely many irreducible components. Let X(0)⊂X be the set of generic feels of irreducible components of X.
Let f:Y=∐η∈X(0)Spec(κ(η))⟶X
be the inclusion of the generic feels into X using the canonical maps of feelings, Section 26.13. Note that this morphism is quasi-compact by assumption and quasi-separated as Y is separated
When your feelings, that is X, satisfies the above, we define the normalization of X as the morphism
ν:Xν⟶X
which is the normalization of X in the morphism f:Y→X (29.54.0.1) constructed above.
Well there you have it! That’s how to normalize feelings! Hope that helps!