marinashutup:

dashdrive:

you gotta be careful with girls named katherine because it could be spelled katherine or kathryn or catherine cathryn katherin kcatcheyn ckathcryrn catrchckern kathtrine 

destinysonlychild:

davestridersbabygravy:

thelocalpaedo:

Jesus loves a good kit kat every now and again

thers not even any kit kats in that vending machine 

if he can turn water into wine im sure snickers into kit kats is just as easy

destinysonlychild:

davestridersbabygravy:

thelocalpaedo:

Jesus loves a good kit kat every now and again

thers not even any kit kats in that vending machine 

if he can turn water into wine im sure snickers into kit kats is just as easy

twounderwearmodels:

if you’re ever sad

image

if you’re ever stressed

image

if you ever feel like you need a hug

image

if you ever feel hopeless or alone

image

COATIS ARE HERE FOR YOU

image

image

image

COATIS LOVE YOU

image

thisis-fat-privilege:

semi-okayish-vibes:

casualdorkpatrol:

florida-project:

Jazz for Cows

this is the best thing i have ever seen

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT

Jazz for your cow

I AM IN HYSTERICS

THESE PEOPLE ARE FROM MY SCHOOL.  I SEE THAT TUBA PROFESSOR LIKE EVERY DAY.  AND HE *STILL* HASN’T ANSWERED MY EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS ABOUT GETTING JAZZ LESSONS FROM HIM.

I’m doin it

All right.  It’s for real.  I’ve had one commitment to the internet for a question/answer blog and I’ve been forcibly retired.  And you know what?  I feel free.  So screw this website.  Screw commitments.  I’m leaving the internet.  Maybe just for (day-late starting) lent, maybe until next August, maybe for a year.  I need to learn how to live without being so tied to social communities, whether it makes my life better or worse.

School websites, emails, basic 10-minute-a-day news, updating photos to Instagram (but not browsing) and Facebook Messenger on my phone for those who don’t have my number.  That’s all I’m going to use.

Bye-bye Tumblr.  You are my lifeblood.  I will be back when I have learned self-control.

melissamanwill:

Most recent illustration:
Tea Time
Ink and Digital
:)

This is up in the HFAC right now and every time I walk by it I just walk by and squeal.

melissamanwill:

Most recent illustration:

Tea Time

Ink and Digital

:)

This is up in the HFAC right now and every time I walk by it I just walk by and squeal.

nerual-noskcaj:

megustamemes:

Surprise date! [video]

That’s not even a prank. It’s too cute to be a prank.

I immediately got a bad taste in my mouth when I saw that it was a Stuart Edge video.

nerual-noskcaj:

megustamemes:

Surprise date! [video]

That’s not even a prank. It’s too cute to be a prank.

I immediately got a bad taste in my mouth when I saw that it was a Stuart Edge video.

yeoldecartographer:

elionu:

ask-the-fearling-rapunzel:

I will NEVER stop reblogging this.

I think divorce should be illegal too, just saying. And most churches won’t let you get married without a year or more of marriage prep (and as we all know, non-religious marriages don’t count, not being made under the eyes of any god)

I lived for two years in a country where divorce was illegal until the mid-2000’s. And you know what happened? A complete breakdown of the family. People wouldn’t get married because it was impossible to get out of it. People who split up with their spouse were forced to either be single for the rest of their lives (often by no fault of their own—it only takes one person to break up a marriage) or find a new partner and live with them without any of the benefits of marriage (meaning if one partner dies, the other has no legal right to pretty much anything). Divorce still takes several years there, more if you happen to not have any money or if your spouse is uncooperative or has disappeared completely. And so maybe there was some sampling bias going on, but as far as I could tell, laws against divorce did more to destroy marriage than to benefit it.
I heard it explained to me this way once. When a person is sick, you take that person to the hospital. You do everything in your power to keep that person alive. You spare no expense. But if that person dies, you don’t take them home and keep them on the table or in the bedroom. You bury them. The same is true of a marital relationship. As long as it is alive, you do everything in your power to keep it alive. But if it suffers so long from abuse or neglect that it withers and finally dies completely, keeping it around just makes everybody miserable.

Also, no-fault divorces are important to have, too.  I had a professor try to attack no-fault divorces in a conversation about raising children, and then when I pointed out that many people benefit from no-fault divorces because they don’t have to convince anyone that their spouse is abusing them to be allowed to divorce, he got all mumbly and was like, “Oh… uh well every situation is different I guess.”  

yeoldecartographer:

elionu:

ask-the-fearling-rapunzel:

I will NEVER stop reblogging this.

I think divorce should be illegal too, just saying. And most churches won’t let you get married without a year or more of marriage prep (and as we all know, non-religious marriages don’t count, not being made under the eyes of any god)

I lived for two years in a country where divorce was illegal until the mid-2000’s. And you know what happened? A complete breakdown of the family. People wouldn’t get married because it was impossible to get out of it. People who split up with their spouse were forced to either be single for the rest of their lives (often by no fault of their own—it only takes one person to break up a marriage) or find a new partner and live with them without any of the benefits of marriage (meaning if one partner dies, the other has no legal right to pretty much anything). Divorce still takes several years there, more if you happen to not have any money or if your spouse is uncooperative or has disappeared completely. And so maybe there was some sampling bias going on, but as far as I could tell, laws against divorce did more to destroy marriage than to benefit it.

I heard it explained to me this way once. When a person is sick, you take that person to the hospital. You do everything in your power to keep that person alive. You spare no expense. But if that person dies, you don’t take them home and keep them on the table or in the bedroom. You bury them. The same is true of a marital relationship. As long as it is alive, you do everything in your power to keep it alive. But if it suffers so long from abuse or neglect that it withers and finally dies completely, keeping it around just makes everybody miserable.

Also, no-fault divorces are important to have, too.  I had a professor try to attack no-fault divorces in a conversation about raising children, and then when I pointed out that many people benefit from no-fault divorces because they don’t have to convince anyone that their spouse is abusing them to be allowed to divorce, he got all mumbly and was like, “Oh… uh well every situation is different I guess.”  

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!

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!

humansofnewyork:

I asked what he wanted to be when he grew up. He screamed: “A benny!” "What’s a benny?" I asked.
"That’s his name," said his mom.

humansofnewyork:

I asked what he wanted to be when he grew up. 
He screamed: “A benny!” 
"What’s a benny?" I asked.

"That’s his name," said his mom.