the grassy gnoll had me thinking about a mossy rock … mossy .. statue?
so here is a gargoyle i’ve doodled up. he’s my son
To everyone voting for the first option: I bet you think dinosaurs didn't have feathers because incorporating new findings into research hurts your feelings.
This is the stupidest addition I've ever seen.
People say Pluto is "not a planet" because in 2006, 5% of the International Astronomical Union, a grand total of 424 people, voted to give "planet" a formal astronomical definition. Why did they do this? As far as anyone can tell, the only apparent reason for why they needed to come up with such a conservative definition of "planet" is because at that time, dozens of new, planet-sized objects (such as Eris) that were round and orbited the Sun were being discovered to exist beyond Neptune. This made it challenging to justify labeling Pluto as the "ninth planet" when there were so many satellites that were similar to Pluto that were arbitrarily called "not-planets". So the astronomers that were able to attend the vote (again, 424 out of a possible 9000 people) decided on the final definition that some astronomers use today.
The above addition acts as if the definition of "planet" is something objective that science has "discovered"; like dinosaurs having feathers. But obviously that's ridiculous. It's an argument over (ultimately inconsequential) terminology, and furthermore, the IAU definition has its fair share of criticisms by other astronomers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Ongoing_controversies
I want to especially highlight this paragraph: "Many astronomers, claiming that the definition of planet was of little scientific importance, preferred to recognise Pluto's historical identity as a planet by 'grandfathering" it into the planet list." Basically, why do we need to restrict the definition of "planet" to 8 bodies in the first place? Is it because schoolchildren need to learn them, and so you need a short list? Why is that something schoolchildren need to learn? Isn't it simpler to just say "the number of planets is undetermined, but here are the 9 most famous/important ones" for your memory"?
It is remarkable that the discovery of Eris, the goddess of chaos/discord, kicked off this astronomical controversy
easyvirgin-deactivated20160413
happy Thursday the 20th
blakegdiamond
I’d have to wait months or even years for another chance to reblog this, so why the fuck not?
the-mighty-tor
next days you can reblog this on a Thursday the 20th
August 2015
October 2016
April 2017
July 2017
September 2018
December 2018
June 2019
February 2020
August 2020
You know, just in case you wanted to set your queue for the next 6 years
itsquietinsantafe
TODAY
Heritage post
April 20, 2023
July 20, 2023
June 20, 2024
February 20, 2025
March 20, 2025
November 20, 2025
August 20, 2026
May 20, 2027
January 20, 2028
April 20, 2028
July 20, 2028
Another round of Thursday the 20ths for you to queue up for the next six years
sodhya-deactivated20181218
This got me dying
the-bitch-goddess-success
who paid for this study bruh
pettyeol
it’‘s literally seasoning. that’s it. that’s what make food taste good.
Bro it’s more complex than just ‘ey they used seasoning’
It’s HOW they used seasoning, compared to other areas of the world.
Indian seasoning does this neat color wheel of flavor, fitting a bunch of spices that are very DIFFERENT from each other, to create a huge range of complex flavor.
Meanwhile in Italy for instance, they tend to use flavors that are SIMILAR. For instance, Basil and Oregano, or Sweet fish with Sweet wine. It makes foods less likely to contrast weirdly in your mouth, and it’s the basis of why fancy european people pair red wines with steak and white wines with chicken. Savory with Savory, Light with Light.
“ That like flavors should be combined for better dishes—an unspoken but popular hypothesis stipulated by recipe-building in North American, Western European, and Latin American cultures—is an idea essentially reversed in Indian cuisine. “
well yes, spices need to not just complement the food but contrast against each other. to get maximum flavour when cooking indian food:
1. use whole spices, dry roast small quantities of individual spices together and then grind them to a powder. balance is what you’re looking for, not just chucking in handfuls of seasonings willy nilly because quantity does not equal flavour when it comes to spicing indian food.
2. whole spices go in the oil first. always. also everything gets fried on its own before it’s chucked into the sauce/curry. even the curry base is started off by frying onions/ginger/garlic/tomatoes or any combination thereof. basically…FRY THAT SHIT. i don’t know of any regional cuisine in india that uses stock for simmering. frying everything individually is how we add flavour instead.
3. indian food needs to be cooked long and slow for the flavours to really merge. don’t skimp on the cooking time if you can because that makes a huge difference.
thresholdofzero
This was so enlightening
I feel a need to mention that the researchers for this study are NOT white, as stated above. They’re Indian. It’s Indian people saying “why does our cuisine work and taste so vastly different than anywhere else in the world?” To quote from the article:
“Researchers Anupam Jaina, Rakhi N Kb, and Ganesh Bagler from the Indian Institute for Technology in Jodhpur ran a fine-tooth comb through TarlaDalal.com—a recipe database of more than 17,000 dishes that self-identifies as “India’s #1 food site”—in attempts to decode the magic of your chicken tikka masala or aloo gobi.”
There’s a major misunderstanding in how a lot of people understand science. There’s this idea that there’s a frontier of stuff we don’t know and a big block of stuff we do. Their first reaction is to scoff because we already “know” that Indian food “uses spices” and that’s why it tastes good. Why waste time re-treading that ground to come to the conclusion you already have?
In reality, the frontiers of knowledge are everywhere. Most of what gets studied is common everyday stuff because we generally have a good grip on what stuff does but the holes are in the “how it does it”. And we don’t know anything to perfect certainty, only degrees of relative certainty, and in varying levels of precision.
The person who says the Earth is flat isn’t making a terribly large miscalculation of the curviture of the Earth, and on a local scale it may not impact their day to day life, but they are still wrong. The person who says the Earth is round is also wrong, but the model is off from reality significantly less. The one who says the planet is an oblate spheroid futher brings the model into precision, but ultiamtely, the only perfect 1:1 model of the planet, is the planet.
Every measurement is going to have a margin of error. Doesn’t mean we should just stop at the sphere, or even the oblate spheroid.
the emotional fragility of a Prius driver contemplating his own mortality
emotionally fragile? not this guy:
connor233universe
The Willow Project would emit more climate pollution annually than more than 99.7% of all the single point sources in the country. It would be harmful for the natives living there, animals, and the rest of the environment. The video below explains more about it
Below is a letter written by people who live in the area where the project would take place, they talk about the pros and cons of it
If you're against the Willow Project, there's this petition
And this has a pre-written letter that will get sent to Biden, the final decision maker regarding the project, saying you're against the Willow Project
ROUND 1: DEWEY WILKERSON (malcom in the middle) VS ANTON CHIGURH (no country for old men)
Ooohh you look a bit roughed up; have a cure wounds
(done in procreate)
Youtubers will see some super tame sfw furry art and be like, “OH GOD WHY AAHHH MY EYES!!! WHAT IS THIS??!? WHY WOULD YOU SHOW ME THIS?!?” And the art will look like this:
