a place of writing and nonsense

goteamgents:

The September to December season of video games

image

judal-is-my-spirit-animal:

pizzaismylifepizzaisking:

ultrafacts:

Source For more facts, Follow Ultrafacts

Capone prided himself as a man with style. If he ever killed someone himself, or one of his henchmen killed an important person, hundreds of dollars worth of flowers was sent to the funeral. In one fight between Capone’s men and another gang, an innocent woman was shot, not fatally, and required hospital treatment. Capone personally paid for all the hospital fees. He also would pay for all children’s hospital bills when he visited.

I have no idea how to react to this so I’m just gonna leave it here.

judal-is-my-spirit-animal:

pizzaismylifepizzaisking:

ultrafacts:

Source For more facts, Follow Ultrafacts

Capone prided himself as a man with style. If he ever killed someone himself, or one of his henchmen killed an important person, hundreds of dollars worth of flowers was sent to the funeral. In one fight between Capone’s men and another gang, an innocent woman was shot, not fatally, and required hospital treatment. Capone personally paid for all the hospital fees. He also would pay for all children’s hospital bills when he visited.

I have no idea how to react to this so I’m just gonna leave it here.

THERE IS NO BUCKIN WAY KORRA IS BETTER THAN MY LITTLE PONY!
Anonymous

jaxblade:

image

Did you read this out loud before you typed it?

Well, I mean, can you really compare the two shows? MLP is generally more episodic and relies more on sub-plots and character focused episodes, while Korra is focused on its dramatic story (okay, there’s more than that for each but I’m giving examples here). You couldn’t really compare their visual styles either because of how different they are. Korra’s art during the fights are fluid and look great, though some moments in the show don’t look the best. MLP’s art has improved as the seasons go by but there are still animation errors from time to time and there are static moments. I would say that this comes down to personal taste and what you as a viewer want in the show you are watching.

People are attacking Mabel for basically acting exactly like Dipper did over Wendy during season one.

tenaflyviper:

rightzack:

tenaflyviper:

  • Disregarding feelings of sibling until realizing their mistake at the very end:  “The Time Traveler’s Pig”.
  • Pretending to be something they aren’t just to impress someone else:  “The Inconveniencing”.
  • Dragging others into their scheme to help do their dirty work:  “Double Dipper” and “Fight Fighters”.

Don’t criticize one while defending the other for exhibiting the same type of behavior.

That’s already enough of a problem on tumblr as it is.

image

Dude fuck off, Mabel was NOT written well in this episode. It was completely disrespectful to her character.

Uh…did you forget when she literally held a group of test tube human beings hostage in her room like a pack of animals, and lashed out against her friends when they pointed that out?  She’s a little girl looking for a summer romance, and often ignores logic and potential danger in the process.  She has gotten mixed up with gnomes, a manipulative miniature psychopath, and a merman, and has probably mildly frightened many more guys around town.

She’s Mabel.  She lives by her own rules.  The entire point was that she was being judged harshly for going through the same kind of situations and character development that Dipper experienced in season one.  They’re protagonists:  Getting themselves into deep shit that they have to climb out of (and end up learning a valuable lesson from) is their job.

tenaflyviper:

imakegoodlifechoices:

tenaflyviper:

If you’re using NYC subway passengers as your example to lend credence to your argument that men purposefully sit with their knees out as a patriarchal “crotch display” conspiracy, you pretty much just sunk your own ship.

We’re talking the subway system that, on more than one occasion, has discovered corpses that had been riding with other passengers for hours without anyone noticing.

They have literally found a fucking SHARK on the NYC subway.

image

Also, it isn’t a male-only sitting position in the first place.

image

image

Not to mention situations like these:

image

And are we also going to neglect to mention those extra-special ladies who feel their purse deserves its own seat?

image

So, maybe—just maybe—we can just admit that all human beings are capable of being insensitive assholes, especially on the subway that is legendary for people not giving a fuck what happens on it.

image

image

image

Amazing. This person is upset that the subway post that went viral awhile ago, where I complained about my experiences on the New York subways… is in fact about the New York subway. How dare I talk about the NYC subways in my personal blog? After all I just live in New York, and take the NYC subway every single day. I shouldn’t talk about THAT subway. I should talk about the Utah subway or something.

First of all, those pictures of people sprawling, aren’t real sprawls. They’re inconvenient. Maybe a little rude. When I talk about people sprawling on the subway I’m talking about things like this:

http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/image/96742979919

http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/image/93777260929

http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/image/90553164079

Which by the way, not all of those photos are from NYC, so obviously it’s not JUST an NYC problem. And before you say “Oh that’s such an exaggeration! No one REALLY sits like that!” Obviously they do because there are photos, and my post wasn’t about EVERY SINGLE DUDE WHO SITS WITH A KNEE GAP. No one cares about a reasonable knee gap. My post was about those jerks who take up 3 seats with their knees splayed and their elbows out. Does that happen every day? Nope. Because 98% of the people who ride the subway aren’t complete assholes. My post is about the assholes. No one cares if a dude takes up his whole couch at home. This is about sharing public space.

As for the patriarchal crotch display, those weren’t my words. However men ARE socialized to take up more space. Men feel entitled to more space. 98% of guys aren’t total jerks about it when riding in cramped public spaces, but those that ARE total jerks about it ARE TOTAL JERKS ABOUT IT. Every woman I know who rides the subway in NYC has stories of some guys sprawling all over her. Every single one. A lot of these stories involve them already being seated and then having some guy shove a sweaty thigh into their leg and shove an elbow into their side. Is this every single guy out there? No. No one ever said it was. But there is a minority of guys who absolutely feel entitled to your space, and your attention and that IS an example of the patriarchy.

And this person is so obsessed with demonizing men that they’re apparently ready to deny that there are multiple websites out there devoted specifically to people riding on the NYC subway (funny how the category of “mansitting” on the latter site has all of two entries, and one of them is a woman), and feature myriads of different folks from all walks of life engaging in the same generally rude behavior (including women that think their purse deserves a seat of its own).

They’re also going out of their way to ignore the fact that, at rest, knees tend to point outward.  Then, there’s the fact that, in older time periods (such as the Victorian era), it was originally customary for every person to sit with their legs either together, or crossed, including men.  It was literally part of polite society, which brings the idea of men being “conditioned” to sit in any specific way outside of those restrictions more than a little questionable.

Also, we’re apparently supposed to believe that women on tumblr totally never make up completely bullshit stories about men that are later proven to be false.  Yeah, that totally never happens, right?

But seriously:  If you are truly this bent out of shape by how people sit on the subway (enough to devote an entire side blog to it, which is all kinds of pathetic), you’re either in dire need of psychiatric evaluation, or you’re one of those women who’s most likely to die alone in an apartment full of cats and garbage.

P.S.  It should be noted that this person messaged me out of the blue today about this, perhaps after having obsessively gone through the notes on that post months after the fact.  Probably because I pointed out that she was invading others’ personal space deliberately.

ughsocialjustice:

flow-mein:

"Now gamers are dealing with a new army of critics, gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies"
*cue video of Anita Sarkeesian*
LOL, I love this woman. A feminist who’s not looking to get offended by everything showing that video games aren’t making us sexist, and that not all feminists are as horrible as Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. And she probably didn’t need $6,000-$150,000 to make this video.

I love this woman. Subscribing.
-the italian one

Team Lads - DK Rap
19,808 plays

themanwhoknewtoolittle:

Team Lads singing the DK Rap

sodomymcscurvylegs:

[AGGRESSIVELY AVOIDS USING HEALING ITEMS TO SAVE THEM FOR BOSS BATTLES.]

[AGGRESSIVELY FORGETS TO USE HEALING ITEMS DURING BOSS BATTLES.]

heyitsris:

Isn’t it funny how the elements that once brought them freedom led to their ultimate demise?

tribute27:

I saw a couple ppl say ‘why is Kanaya cleaning Rose’s room. why is she being stereotyped as a mom’ and i think they forget

image

image

nobody-but-mebody:

image

image

image

I DIDN’T MEAN IT 

subjectnumber32:

outerlabia:

fpti:

earlygr4ves:

i walked into health and screamed and the teacher goes “you’re the 7th person today. they’re cpr dummies.”

jesus christ

they’re calling to mother for food

F  E  E  D

subjectnumber32:

outerlabia:

fpti:

earlygr4ves:

i walked into health and screamed and the teacher goes “you’re the 7th person today. they’re cpr dummies.”

jesus christ

they’re calling to mother for food

F  E  E  D

mindblowingscience:

Ethical trap: robot paralysed by choice of who to save

Can a robot learn right from wrong? Attempts to imbue robots, self-driving cars and military machines with a sense of ethics reveal just how hard this is
CAN we teach a robot to be good? Fascinated by the idea, roboticist Alan Winfield of Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the UK built an ethical trap for a robot – and was stunned by the machine’s response.
In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov’s fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.
At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.
Winfield describes his robot as an “ethical zombie” that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn’t understand the reasoning behind its actions. Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, “my answer is: I have no idea”.
As robots integrate further into our everyday lives, this question will need to be answered. A self-driving car, for example, may one day have to weigh the safety of its passengers against the risk of harming other motorists or pedestrians. It may be very difficult to program robots with rules for such encounters.
But robots designed for military combat may offer the beginning of a solution. Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, has built a set of algorithms for military robots – dubbed an “ethical governor” – which is meant to help them make smart decisions on the battlefield. He has already tested it in simulated combat, showing that drones with such programming can choose not to shoot, or try to minimise casualties during a battle near an area protected from combat according to the rules of war, like a school or hospital.
Arkin says that designing military robots to act more ethically may be low-hanging fruit, as these rules are well known. “The laws of war have been thought about for thousands of years and are encoded in treaties.” Unlike human fighters, who can be swayed by emotion and break these rules, automatons would not.
"When we’re talking about ethics, all of this is largely about robots that are developed to function in pretty prescribed spaces," says Wendell Wallach, author ofMoral Machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Still, he says, experiments like Winfield’s hold promise in laying the foundations on which more complex ethical behaviour can be built. “If we can get them to function well in environments when we don’t know exactly all the circumstances they’ll encounter, that’s going to open up vast new applications for their use.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “The robot’s dilemma”

Watch a video of these ‘ethical’ robots in action here

mindblowingscience:

Ethical trap: robot paralysed by choice of who to save

Can a robot learn right from wrong? Attempts to imbue robots, self-driving cars and military machines with a sense of ethics reveal just how hard this is

CAN we teach a robot to be good? Fascinated by the idea, roboticist Alan Winfield of Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the UK built an ethical trap for a robot – and was stunned by the machine’s response.

In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov’s fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.

At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.

Winfield describes his robot as an “ethical zombie” that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn’t understand the reasoning behind its actions. Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, “my answer is: I have no idea”.

As robots integrate further into our everyday lives, this question will need to be answered. A self-driving car, for example, may one day have to weigh the safety of its passengers against the risk of harming other motorists or pedestrians. It may be very difficult to program robots with rules for such encounters.

But robots designed for military combat may offer the beginning of a solution. Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, has built a set of algorithms for military robots – dubbed an “ethical governor” – which is meant to help them make smart decisions on the battlefield. He has already tested it in simulated combat, showing that drones with such programming can choose not to shoot, or try to minimise casualties during a battle near an area protected from combat according to the rules of war, like a school or hospital.

Arkin says that designing military robots to act more ethically may be low-hanging fruit, as these rules are well known. “The laws of war have been thought about for thousands of years and are encoded in treaties.” Unlike human fighters, who can be swayed by emotion and break these rules, automatons would not.

"When we’re talking about ethics, all of this is largely about robots that are developed to function in pretty prescribed spaces," says Wendell Wallach, author ofMoral Machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Still, he says, experiments like Winfield’s hold promise in laying the foundations on which more complex ethical behaviour can be built. “If we can get them to function well in environments when we don’t know exactly all the circumstances they’ll encounter, that’s going to open up vast new applications for their use.”

This article appeared in print under the headline “The robot’s dilemma”

Watch a video of these ‘ethical’ robots in action here