I don’t actually watch Agents of Shield so I don’t have any context aside from the stuff that comes across my dash but sometimes I just want to scream to the skies that villain and victim are not mutually exclusive terms so please stop pretending they are and suggesting an abuse victim isn’t really a victim of any sort unless they’re a good person and also if they’re given the opportunity to leave and they don’t take it they’re not really a victim anymore omfg I realize I’m probably missing a bunch of context and idk what the fandom’s like in general but it really bugs me when I come across these sorts of posts.

An abusive horrible person can also have been a victim themselves. Their victim status is not something that can be revoked just because they’re also horrible, being a victim doesn’t necessarily imply that someone’s good or innocent or that they should get a pass for horrible behaviour all it means is that they’re a victim.

anonymous said:

Don’t you feel like the episode was ultimately about the Doctor and Danny rather than Clara? She provided comfort to young Danny and inspired both Danny and the Doctor with the soldier toy, but the story wasn’t really about her. For example this episode was about fear and it could’ve been a start for her personal growth if she had confronted her own fears instead of only helping both the Doctor and Danny with theirs. What do you think?

I definitely think it was about the Doctor and Danny. I think it could’ve been interesting to see Clara confront her own fears. But I think in a way it was tangentially about how Clara lives with fear. She doesn’t let it rule her, she rationalizes what causes her fear, and she just lives with it.

In addition, not every episode HAS to be about the companion. It’s nice to explore Danny’s character, especially since he’s going to be a recurring character and possibly a second companion. And personally, really liked the exploration of the Doctor’s character.

Clara’s character has been developed a lot in Series 8, and I’m still holding out hope that there will be an episode that is very focused on Clara. A lot of interesting snippets of her life have been thrown up in past episodes (such as “Rings of Akhaten”) but they haven’t really been put together in a coherent narrative about her life. There’s not a lot of connection between Series 7 Clara and Series 8 Clara. We still have no mention of her family, or what happened to the Maitland family. Clara’s a teacher now and it seems we’ll be entirely focused on her developing relationship with Danny and the goings on of Coal Hill School.

Do you feel lucky?


This has been an unusually unlucky week—or, at least, it’s seemed that way.

On Wednesday night, as I was biking home from a movie, my bike tire went flat. I had to lock it up, bus home, and scramble the next morning to get it into a shop. I got the tire fixed, but now I find my derailleurs are messed up and I’ll need to take the bike in again.

This morning as I was getting ready to leave for work, I realized that I’d lost my access badge for work. It must have fallen out of my pocket somewhere—and the person who knows how to make new ones is on vacation this week.

Maybe the biggest bummer is the reason you’re reading this on The Tangential’s Tumblr instead of our regular site: spammers seem to have hacked into our site and tried to manipulate our scripts, which caused our host to shut the site down. Getting it back up will require extensive and possibly costly repairs; in the meantime, we’re losing readers and SEO mojo by the minute.

Recounting the misfortunes of my week makes me think of the book Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day—which I hated as a kid, both for its litany of disasters and for the sour mood with which Alexander greeted them. I’ve had my sour moments this week, but I try to play the glad game: My bike was quickly repaired. I have an awesome job. Probably more people read us on Tumblr than on our main site anyway.

I also carry, in my mind, a few vivid examples of times I’ve been extremely lucky. There was the time my car almost killed a pedestrian dressed in black, crossing a poorly-lit intersection at night. Another time, I jumped off the back of a U-Haul and pulled my foot out from behind the hitch knob just in time to avoid a broken ankle, a smashed face, or worse. Maybe scariest, there was the night I was biking home and didn’t see a stop sign until I realized I’d just run straight through it. I survived all those close calls without a scratch. Pretty lucky.

Thinking along these lines, though, can lead to even more cosmic contemplations. I’m lucky not to have been born at a time that would have put the draft in the way of my college and early adulthood, as it did for my dad and so many of his generation. But then, am I unlucky not to have been born in a future time when we live in bliss among productive technologies of unimaginable power? Maybe I was born at the luckiest of all times, in the luckiest of all places: securely middle-class in an unsustainably wealthy nation, just before climate change and/or global warfare devastate us all.

Feeling lucky—or unlucky—starts to feel like a moral decision when you think about your lot compared to the rest of the world. If I philosophize that everyone’s lucky in some ways and unlucky in others, that seems offensively dismissive of the millions of people who have actually each been dealt a truly awful hand. That makes luck seem objective, but how does one keep score?

I guess luck is like money, as described by Ann Landers: it can’t make you happy, but the lack of it can make you miserable. I have more than enough to not be miserable, so I should probably stop whining about my damn derailleurs.

- Jay Gabler


There are three things about this picture that make me unreasonably excited (beyond just the fact that it exists LOOK AT HIM WHAT DOES THIS MEAN). I’d like to present them you all and see what you all think.


There’s a wet spot as though he was just kneeling down (and as far as we can see it’s just the one knee) and I know this is what everyone is saying (especially since there is a ring on Emma’s finger even if it’s a different finger), but I couldn’t not mention it because WHAT.


He isn’t wearing any of his rings or necklaces or other pirate jewelry, and princes don’t usually wear earrings, so keeping this on is probably a deliberate choice. The fact that he’s wearing the earring even while dressed up all princely is great, because it’s a little visual reminder that even now whatever the hell ‘now’ is he’s still a pirate. He can be this princely heroic looking guy and still be a pirate.

There’s also the fact that his coat is basically the exact same cut, just not all leather and a different color. The essentials of who he is are still the same, and the shift from “pirate” to “prince” is really just a matter of how you look at him.


This one is a lot more speculative and I’d like to ask what other people think, but here we see Colin holding two black gloves in his hand, so I assume he’s wearing both of them - this means either fake hand or HE GETS HIS HAND BACK.

I know in past fake hand scenes he has at least sometimes worn an actual fake hand (so he could take it off), but I don’t know if that was always the case. If he sometimes just wears a glove and holds his left hand stiffly then that could just mean fake hand here. But even then, notice that the cuffs are pretty tight around his wrists and the coat doesn’t hang over his hands a little the way his usually does. There’s no room to include the ‘mechanism’ that would hold a fake hand in place (which Hook would have).

I’m not saying I’m certain about this at all, but the possibility is boggling my mind a little.

Have you ever wondered how fast you are spinning around Earth’s rotational axis?  Probably not, but now you can find out anyway!  This graph shows the tangential speed of a point on Earth’s surface for a given latitude due to Earth’s rotational motion – it does not include speed due to our revolution around the sun! Tangential (linear) speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector, which points tangent to Earth’s surface in the same plane as the circle of latitude.

I’ve plotted the dependent variable (speed) on the x-axis; though this is unconventional, it allows the map in the background to be placed in the traditional north-pointing-up orientation.  So if you don’t know the latitude of your location, you can pick it out on the map and then trace a horizontal line to where it intersects with the curve. To the scientists and non-US readers, sorry that the speed axis is in mph; I converted from km/h because most of the people who read this are from the US.

Those who remember their trigonometry will notice that this graph is nothing more than a slight variation on the cosine function – because I have switched the axes, it could be thought of as cosine reflected over y=x, or arccos if it had no range restrictions and could plot below the x-axis.

Though this is an approximation, in an effort to be as accurate as possible, I used the length of a sidereal day (23 hrs, 56 min, 4 sec), which is a full 360° rotation of Earth. Because Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, I varied the radius as a function of latitude when calculating the tangential speed. The polar radius is 3950 miles and the equatorial radius is 3963 miles; I approximated the radius at other latitudes via a linear interpolation. This has no visible effect on the curve, though. Using the average radius of the earth (3959 miles) as a constant changes the global tangential speeds by <1 mph. Topography of the Earth is equally unimportant for this level of accuracy because the difference between a mountain peak and the bottom of the ocean is trivial compared to the radius of the Earth. If, hypothetically, Mt. Everest’s peak (5.5 miles above datum) and the deepest part of the Mariana Trench (6.8 miles below datum) were both located along the equator, the difference in tangential speed caused by the 12.3 mile elevation difference would only be about 3 mph, or less than a third of a percent of the equator’s 1040 mph tangential speed.



Intervenendo ieri alle Camere, Matteo Renzi ha parlato dell’inchiesta sull’Eni.

Come si ricorderà, l’Eni è accusata di aver pagato uno sconquasso di tangenti in Nigeria, e il Corriere della Sera è stato il primo quotidiano italiano a far trapelare la notizia.

Renzi con una certa enfasi, ha spiegato che non saranno inchieste “citofonate sui giornali” a minare l’industria italiana mettendo a repentaglio “migliaia di posti di lavoro”.

Cioè, traduco:

1) Chi indaga sulle industrie – eventualmente – truffaldine, mette a repentaglio l’Italia.

2) I giornali che danno la notizia, pure. E comunque hanno certamente ricevuto quelle notizie da giudici infedeli.

Uno che volesse cambiare verso, davvero, a questo derelitto Paese, avrebbe potuto dire:

“L’inchiesta Eni è un fatto grave. Spero e credo che i vertici sapranno dimostrare la loro innocenza, ma in caso contrario siamo disposti a fare pulizia perché l’Italia ambisce a presentarsi sui mercati internazionali con le mani pulite e la testa alta. Questo è il nostro impegno di novità e trasparenza”.

Invece, ha detto, a giornalisti e giudici: fatevi i cazzi vostri.

Perché è la sua cultura. Che non solo è quella di Berlusconi: è la nostra.

Renzi. Razzi.


Continua a leggere

  • Okay, if you people are going to be reblogging that list of Doctor Who cast birthdays, I might as well post the entire year.
  • January
  • 2 Deborah Watling
  • 8 William Hartnell
  • 15 Richard Frankin
  • 20 Tom Baker
  • 30 Daphne Ashbrook
  • February
  • 1 Elisabeth Sladen
  • 4 Peter Butterworth
  • 10 Peter Purves
  • 16 Christopher Eccleston
  • March
  • 1 Roger Delgado
  • 10 Yee Jee Tso
  • 11 John Barrowman
  • Alex Kingston
  • 20 Freema Agyeman
  • 21 Peter Pratt
  • Timothy Dalton
  • 22 Mary Tamm
  • 25 Patrick Troughton
  • April
  • 6 Mark Strickson
  • 13 Peter Davison
  • 14 Peter Capaldi
  • 18 Eric Roberts
  • David Tennant
  • Camille Coduri
  • 20 Louise Jameson
  • 27 Jenna Coleman
  • May
  • 2 Paul Darrow
  • 5 Richard E. Grant
  • 7 Valentine Dyall
  • 12 Catherine Tate
  • 26 Peter Cushing
  • June
  • 1 Jonathan Pryce
  • 4 Philip Olivier
  • 8 Colin Baker
  • 9 David Troughton
  • 16 Carole Ann Ford
  • 17 Arthur Darvill
  • 25 Sheridan Smith
  • 28 Lalla Ward
  • 29 Maureen O'Brien
  • July
  • 1 Jean Marsh
  • 7 Jon Pertwee
  • 10 Jackie Lane
  • John Simm
  • 15 Miles Richardson
  • 22 Bonnie Langford
  • Adrienne Hill
  • August
  • 10 Kate O'Mara
  • 20 Anthony Ainley
  • Sylvester McCoy
  • Sophie Aldred
  • September
  • 9 Janet Fielding
  • 22 Frazer Hines
  • Billie Piper
  • October
  • 11 Nicola Bryant
  • 14 Katy Manning
  • 17 Mark Gatiss
  • 19 Caroline John
  • 20 Anneke Wills
  • 22 Derek Jacobi
  • 28 Ian Marter
  • Matt Smith
  • 29 Michael Jayston
  • November
  • 3 Richard Hurndall
  • 14 Paul McGann
  • 18 Trevor Baxter
  • 19 William Russell
  • 23 Michael Gough
  • 28 Karen Gillan
  • 29 Michael Craze
  • December
  • 6 Noel Clarke
  • 7 Wendy Padbury
  • 12 Sarah Sutton
  • 16 Nicholas Courtney
  • 17 Jacqueline Hill
  • 19 Matthew Waterhouse
  • 24 John Levene
  • 27 Christopher Benjamin
  • 29 Bernard Cribbins