classification systems

  • zelda fans: ugh, the zelda timeline is so confusing! three branching alternate universes? is nintendo HIGH on DRUGS??? how many BEERS did they DRINK to come up with something so CRAZY???
  • me, a lifelong transformers fan: literally everything in transformers is canon. comic books, tv commercials, movies, video games, everything. the transformers multiverse accounts for literally anything with an autobot logo printed on it. its all canon in a parallel dimension. there is a complex in-multiverse classification system for all of the ridiculous alternate realities. the burger king commercial where Optimus Prime orders a whopper? that's Universal Stream Tyran 607.25 Lambda. it's canon.

More tidbits I’ve found while researching

  • tumblr has a sad-boner for the burning of the library of alexandria
  • which was not actually one burning but several
  • and while the Library of Alexandria was an immense historical and national treasure, a lot of ppl tend to forget about the other book and library burnings that occurred in antiquity
  • Places like the library of Nalanda, in India, which contained an elaborate classification system to hold what was then seen as the largest collection of Buddhist literature
  • and the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, which contained Greek and Arabic works on mathematics and astronomy to zoology and cartography
  • and more recently, the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (no, that does not mean sexual witchcraft) which was burned by the Nazis b/c the majority of tomes dealt with same sex relationships and gay rights and acceptance. 
  • and omg, this makes me so mad. The Libraries of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada has all its collection thrown away in an attempt to save taxpayer money and on the hope that all of its material was digitized. Only 5 to 6% was.
  • and the Saeh library in Lebanon, which was burnt b/c of terrorism.
  • Book burnings are happening right now, y'all.

So @your-biology-is-wrong wrote this excellent post, which attracted some wrongheaded comments and a lengthy, well-documented, frankly stunning rebuttal by @millenniumvulcan.  I recommend you go read them.

But the whole conversation got me thinking.

I’ve been saying for some years now that we’re teaching science terribly wrong in schools, and quite possibly the wrongest thing we’re doing is making no distinction between “facts about the universe that we have observed” and “categories and models that we have constructed in order to organize the facts we have observed”.

Essentially, kids are being taught that “cats are mammals” is the same kind of scientific fact as “cats give birth to live young,” and it isn’t.  At all.

Which is why we get discussions like the one linked above.  Or like the ones about Pluto being declared a dwarf planet instead of a planet, where people assert that the change in nomenclature is because “we understand better now what a planet is” and not because we’ve chosen to narrow the definition to (disputably) better organize our constructed categories of Things In Space.  Or, for that matter, like the ones that call out “scientific error” in the Bible by citing references to calling a bat a “bird,” or calling a whale a “fish,” as though the classification system we use today is objective scientific fact instead of constructed model.

Because nobody is teaching kids how to tell the difference, or even that there is a difference.

Pet peeve: the Doctors are numbered 1-12, except the War Doctor. The others have a last name separated by an exclamation point, like Warner!Three or, or an epithet like Shalka!Doctor. The Masters are written similarly, like Delgado!Master, or Ainley!Master, except for Crispy Master and Missy, who have nicknames. The Romanas are I, II, and III, except for Trey, and the Rani doesn’t even have a system. This is bothering my need as a scientist to have everything neatly described with a universal classification system

“Umm, how can you be ‘semiaquatic’, you either are aquatic or you’re not. Don’t be greedy.”

“So, I get that you’re a monotreme and everything, but do you identify more as a rodent or a bird?”

“Ugh, why do you have to be such a special snowflake. Do you and like three other species need an entire order to describe yourselves that separates you from mammals that birth live young?”

“You needlessly complicate an artificially constructed system of classification. Why don’t you just lose the webbed feet and beak and egg laying ways and become a proper mammal.”

“Ha! You may look like you belong to class Aves, but I know for a fact that birds don’t have fur. You’re such a phony.”

“Why do you insist on appropriating beaks and webbed feet. Like, you admitted you weren’t a bird, stop incorporating them into your anatomy. All you’re doing is making birds look less legitimate as an order.”

Library Services at Elsewhere University: A Guide and Compendium
(Crossposted to A03

Part One: Student Services

Welcome to the Elsewhere University Library. This guide endeavours to provide students with a general outline of library services, facilities, and safety precautions. More comprehensive help, including study guides for planning your research, finding books and journal articles, evaluating and citing sources, and safely navigating the library both with and without a map, compass, or bread crumb trail can be found online on the library’s website, in print at the first floor reference desk, and translated into Norse runes and carved into the foundation of the condemned building in the west quadrant of the campus.

Instructors wishing to book a tour and orientation for incoming classes can make arrangements directly with the subject librarian assigned to their department. Basic research skills and bibliographic instruction for classes is a core services provided to all faculty. Advanced research support may be obtained with proof of approved interdepartmental charge. Payment will be extracted at the campus health centre, or during one of the library’s monthly fundraising blood drives. A pound of flesh is no longer accepted in payment, as the exchange rate is currently exorbitant. Requests from the biology department will be assessed on a case by case basis until the overdue accounts resulting from the escaped blood scandal last fall are resolved.

Borrowing privileges for undergraduates and non-academic staff include a semester-long loan period with no renewals, and a maximum of three interlibrary loans per course per year. The length of the semester is determined by time passing within the registrar’s office, and no exceptions will be made for the west quadrant of the campus, philosophy majors, or those born on a Tuesday. Library staff, and RAs and custodial staff assigned to Brigadoon Hall are eligible for an exemption, however. Please ensure that circulation staff are advised of your status upon yearly renewal of your library card, and keep in mind that time passes differently within the library.

Graduate students and faculty are eligible for a year-long loan period, and unlimited interlibrary loans. Additional charges for interlibrary loan material may be passed on to the borrower. Library staff will do their best to ensure that you are aware of the procedures and policies of the lending institute, however, can take no responsibility for additional fees and fines accrued. Arrangements for payment must be made directly with the lending institute. We do not have the liability insurance required to send your first-born, existential sense of dread, or the memory of the colour of next spring’s tulips via interoffice mail or interagency courier. Please note that while all graduate theses are archived in the library collection, borrowing privileges for theses that have not yet been written are limited to faculty only.

Overdue fines may be waived at the discretion of the library staff for just cause. Fees for lost items must be paid by the end of the semester or late charges will continue to accrue. Nonpayment of fees and fines may result in withholding of your final transcript, degree, sense of smell, or sense of self. Barter for tangible, nonmonetary items will not be accepted as payment, with the exception of plastic beads. Intangible items may be accepted on a case by case basis. Baked goods are always appreciated, but will have no effect on the balance of your account. (Donations of plastic beads will be accepted at the circulation desk, and will be donated to the library’s current community support program, who is welcome to join us in the library foyer, coffee shop, and first floor classroom space, but we would appreciate it if it refrains from attempting to use the elevators to reach the rooftop garden.)

Keep reading

tessa’s tips: world building

Ah, yes. World building. Some people love it, some people hate it, some people hire someone else to do it for them. But if you’re planning on writing a story in a fictional universe, you’re going to have to do it anyway. Here’s some questions to help you start. 🗺

Keep reading

wine-opera-bitterness  asked:

Hi! You mentioned that classification theory is, in your opinion, quite political and raises ethical issues. I'm intrigued, and JSTOR really isn't giving me answers. It had one job...

Ah! Well, JSTOR isn’t much good for library science literature anyway. The classic intro article that hints at how political classification is is Michael K. Buckland’s What is a “Document”? which asks the perennial question, is an antelope a document? 

Ah, library school.

All the major classification systems (Library of Congress, Dewey, etc.) start from the idea that all information can be ordered, because objective order exists. But once you crack that system open you can see how incredibly subjective it is. Where things are slotted tells you everything about the worldview of the people who created that system, and whose reality they think is and is not worth respecting. It’s like Genesis: the order in which things are created, and what’s next to what, is terribly important. 

You can see what I mean if you wander through your local library’s reference collection and browse the shelf, looking to see what’s next to what, and what order it’s in. You will see not only a white people bias, you’ll see a Christianity bias. (White people and Christianity always come first as you start any new subject.) I once saw a library that has socialism sitting right next to criminals. (Not the library’s fault: the classification system’s fault.) Gay marriage as a subject used to be found under relations between the sexes, in the infidelity section. See what I mean? It tells you so much about the people making the decisions.

People who like libraries and who like books also generally like to talk about serendipity in the stacks, about how you can stumble upon things you weren’t specifically looking for. While I suppose this could happen completely at random, serendipity in a subject area is dependent on someone thinking hard about a book and deciding where it should sit on a shelf. When someone decides to put gay marriage three bays over from the general works on marriage, they are controlling that serendipitous moment for you. They are protecting you from things. 

This is why I think classification is political, ethically charged, and interesting.

Side note: many of my librarian kin would kill me for saying this, but if you want to do a search about something you don’t know very well, but you want academic sources, I’d strongly encourage you to use Google Scholar. It casts a wider net than searching any one database (like JSTOR), and it’s easier to use than library systems. FYI.

cosmic witchcraft 101: candles and constellations

When I’m doing cosmic spellwork, I like to try and reflect the energy of the constellations I’m working with by arranging my candles into their shapes. This can definitely work with any candles you have on hand, but I love to match the color of the candle to the color of each specific star in the constellation!

I’ve done a few spells with Orion, so I’ll use it for an example. I chose to work with the brightest seven stars in the constellation. You can just look at the sky or pictures to figure out what colors you’ll need, but I like to match what I see with each star’s individual stellar classification.

The Harvard spectral classification system divides stars into seven groups using single letters of the alphabet based on their spectral characteristics. If you want to learn more about spectral classification, you can read more here on Wikipedia, but all you really need to know is the star’s letter and that letter’s corresponding color.

  • O (blue)
  • B (blue-white*)
  • A (white)
  • F (yellow-white*)
  • G (yellow)
  • K (orange)
  • M (red)

*For the blue-white/yellow-white stars, I usually just pick the color that looks closest to what I see in the sky.

Since most constellations have lots of stars, it’s really easy to spend an egregious amount of money on traditional candles. A more affordable option is birthday candles! I got almost 50 for less than $10. I was able to find purple ones, so I added a candle for the Orion nebula here.

You’ll need something to stand them up in; I used salt (which I would not recommend - it took a ton of salt and a long time for me to actually get them to stand them up) but something like sand or soil would probably work. Or you could just bake a magickal cake to go along with your spell!

If you have enough candles on hand, you can represent bigger and brighter stars with bigger candles. Here I used two large taper candles to represent Betelgeuse and Rigel.

Most importantly, remember there’s never a wrong way to connect with your stellar objects of choice. If the stars you want to work with are yellow but blue corresponds with your intent, choose whichever color suits your fancy! Maybe represent each star in the constellation with different colors to match your different intents. Ultimately, this is about your connection with the cosmos  ✨☄

anonymous asked:

Can you do a thing on systems? It would help a ton

yeah, i’m gonna do that now. or at least try. (also, if you’re looking for sysc/ourse, you’ve come to the wrong place. won’t be talking about that here. i’ll be going by what the dsm classifies as a system. i obviously have my opinions on it, but i’m not willing to start mess.)

difference b/w did and osdd-1

did is what you’ve most likely heard of in the media as “multiple personality disorder” and was recently renamed dissociative identity disorder to avoid confusion b/w it and personality disorders. did is a dissociative disorder and is classified as having at least two separate identities that take over a body at different times, and there must be dissociative amnesia involved.

osdd-1 is basically when you fit some but not all criteria required for the diagnosis of did, but there is still more than one person present. the most common example is having multiple members, but little to no amnesia is experienced. there is also the example of median systems, whose members can usually be better described as “parts of a whole” rather than separate people, like facets on a diamond.

sizes and types

systems come in varieties of sizes and types! a system can be two people, and a system can be 100+.

the size of the system does not matter in the classification of the system, until you get to the range of 100+ members. these systems are called polyfragmented.

there are two types of systems: multiple and median. multiple systems = multiple people. median systems = multiple facets of one person.

multiple systems are what we usually think of when we think of did/osdd-1.

median systems are different than multiple systems. all members of a median system share a core identity, and there are facets of the core identity that take over at various times.

there are also things known as subsystems, essentially a system inside a system. i believe subsystems are where there’s “another system” that is not aware of the other, and is usually centered around someone, perhaps? correct me if i’m wrong, i don’t have a subsystem.

also, i’ve heard of people calling themselves “mixed” systems, essentially a system with both alters and facets. i don’t believe it’s that common.

common terminology

there’s common terminology used in the system community to describe systems/system members. here’s some common ones:

singlet/singleton - a person without a system.

headspace - the space where all alters interact. some systems have very intricate, large headspaces, and others don’t have one at all.

core - also known as the original, is not always present in all systems. some may not even know who the original is, or if they’re even still with them.

host - also referred to as main-fronter. sometimes this is the core/original. sometimes it is not.

alter - can also be referred to as headmate, system member, or even personality. you should refer to systems with the terminology they prefer. essentially a split off personality state.

facet - can also be referred to as headmate, system member, or others. the members of a median system.

little - a system member 12 or younger. not to be confused with d.d.l.g littles who stole the word from us.

caregiver - takes care of the littles. sometimes can be the protector.

protector - defend the system against any threats.

persecutor - members who try to hurt the body/system/core/host

introjects - system members based off an outside person or a figure: essentially, fictives and factives.

fictive - a fictional introject of a character in media.

factive - an introject of a historical figure or of protectors/abusers

memory holder - a member who holds memories hidden from the rest of the system, usually to do with either very happy or very bad memories of childhood trauma.

gatekeeper - a member who controls switching/front, access to headspace, or access to certain memories.

internal self-helper (ish) - considered to be one of the first alters to split from childhood trauma. they hold vast amounts of knowledge about the system. some people call them “hidden observers”. (may or may not also be the gatekeeper.)

fragment - an alter that is not fully developed. may exist to carry out a single function or job, to hold a single memory or emotion, or to represent a single idea.

there’s other stuff i probably missed. probably very obvious stuff. forgive me.

Re: Split Attraction “Model”

Many may not realize that there is a difference, but people really need to understand that there is a difference between split attraction as an experience and the act of “splitting” one’s identities. Also, that referring to “split attraction” as a “model” can sometimes be invalidating

First, “split” can act as a verb to mean “to break apart.” In this context, one “splits” or breaks apart a larger identity category into smaller parts. As is the case with many systems of classification, there is much debate over the “lumping” and “splitting” of human sexuality (the larger category.) 

When “split” is used as a verb, we’re talking about the act of someone dividing their identities into separate parts. While the “lumping” versus “splitting” debate wars on, it’s important to understand that the manner in which one classifies themselves and their experiences is dependent on context. 

For example, I am aromantic and asexual. My romantic identity and my sexual identity technically “align.” They both have to do with a lack of attraction. I choose to “split” my romantic identity from my asexual identity because it enables me to articulate my experiences within my community. 

Second, “split” can act as an adjective to mean “broken apart” or “divided.” In this context, one’s experiences do not align with a particular convention typically applied to their sexuality. Commonly, this refers to a disconnect or separation between one’s sexual identity and romantic identity. 

When “split” is used as an adjective, we’re not talking about a model of identification being followed. We’re talking about a phenomenon, wherein someone’s experiences do not align with a standard assumption. Experiences with split attraction may result in someone using the “split attraction model.”

For example, someone who is asexual but who is not aromantic experiences split attraction. Their identities do not “align” because a common assumption regarding human sexuality is that sexual identity and romantic identity are always the same or always related to one another. 

You can experience split attraction, without using the “split attraction model.” You can use the “split attraction model” without experiencing split attraction. This is because these two things are not necessarily the same thing. Since they are not the same, referring to split attraction exclusively as a model is invalidating.

The “split attraction model” surfaced in the asexual community out of necessity, because asexuals are commonly assumed to be aromantic by default which sometimes leads to intracommunity tension between aromantic asexuals and romantic asexuals and fuels arophobic attitudes in shared spaces. 

This “model” can be misused if people do not understand its purpose, do not consider its historical importance to asexuals, and do not pay attention to the context in which it is used. Some may feel pressured to use it when they don’t need to, which can lead to people misidentifying themselves. 

That doesn’t render it useless. The “split attraction model” enables people within asexual community spaces to articulate their experiences, and find resources that are relevant to them. It is not “inherently bad,” as it has been a necessary tool for discussion and nuance in asexual spaces.

Finally, by referring to the experience of “split attraction” as a model, you are assuming someone has control over a phenomenon in the same way they have control over how they identify. This is not a model, and forcing someone to refer to their experience as a model delegitimizes that experience. 

We can choose whether or not we use a model of identification, but we cannot choose whether or not our experiences with attraction align according to human sexuality conventions. As an aromantic asexual, I can simply refer to myself as asexual as much as a romantic asexual person can. 

The big difference is that my experiences with attraction align, whereas they do not align for someone who is romantic and asexual. A romantic asexual may use the split attraction model to articulate that their experiences do not align, as much as I may use it to articulate that my experiences do align

anonymous asked:

I want to read up on fairy tales, what would you recommend?

Well, first of all, just read a lot of them. And–this is crucial–read folklore from other traditions, stuff that isn’t typically called fairy tales, to give yourself a good understanding on the gut level of how fairy tales are unspecial (they’re just a particular slice of world folklore; when you get down to it it’s all the same messy preoccupations filtered through different cultural conventions, reference points, etc) and how they are special (i.e. the cultural-historical specificity of the particular stories that have ended up in this category). 

But I suspect this is not what you are really asking. So:

Keep reading

A New Chapter (Ch. 2): Saying Goodbye Pt. 1

Characters: Dean Winchester x Platonic!Reader, Sam Winchester x Platonic!Reader, Dean Winchester x Mia Walker (OC)

Length: 1645+ words

TW: Dean being a jerk! 

A/N: Feedback is encouraged, but not necessary. Let me know if you want to be tagged, or removed from the Tag List!

Catch up on the Hell on Earth Series HERE

“Hey, Sam, can I ask you something?” Y/N asked once they sat down for breakfast.

“Sure. What’s up?”

She put the piece of paper of her ideas on the table, directing it towards him. “I want to go to college, and move out of here, but I was wondering if you could help me? I’m not sure if everything I want to do is possible… Especially if I’ll be doing it alone.”

“Wait- Wh- Alon-” Sam furrowed his eyebrows, taking the piece of paper, and reading through it. “Get a job, apply for college, and get an apartment. That sounds reasonable, but…”

“I’m not doing this to avoid Dean,” she said quickly. “I just think I need to learn to live by myself, you know? I need to move on from all of this, and it sucks because I don’t want to leave you guys, but I think it’ll be for the best.”

“I understand,” Sam said. “It’s not healthy to keep you locked up in here forever. You’ll keep in touch, right?”

“Of course. I don’t think I can cut you guys out of my life forever.”

Sam got up, and pulled her to a strong hug. “God, I can’t believe I’m letting you go like this.”

“I’m sorry,” she mumbled against his chest. “I just don’t think I can stay here forever. I want to, but-”

“You don’t have to explain anything.” He rubbed her back comfortingly, blinking back the tears. “You’re gonna do so well out there.”

“Thank you, Sam.”

Keep reading

charlesisseriousbusiness  asked:

If birds are part of an order of dinosaurs, then how do they have separate orders? Are they micro-orders or something like that? And can you explain like I'm five?

Of course! Basically, orders aren’t real. And neither are classes, or families, or phyla.

See, all those “ranks” were made before scientists knew that living things could change over time, so they just put things into groups of similar things. These groups didn’t always actually reflect how they were related.

After Charles Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection, lots of people began to question the old classification system, and this only got stronger when we figured out how to use DNA to find out how things are related.

We found out that, for example, crocodiles are closer relatives of birds than they are of lizards or turtles. And that birds are actually a kind of reptile. According to the old system, this would mean that a class (aves) was inside an order (saurischia*). And that’s not possible.

*Saurischia as we knew it may not be real

So, what happened? Well, if a scientific way of describing things doesn’t describe the real world, then the model is wrong. So the system of “ranks” (aka Linnaean taxonomy) was pretty much thrown out, in favour of cladistics.

The truth is that nature isn’t really as cut and dry as we like to think. It would be nice if evolution was organised into orders and suborders and infraorders, but it’s not. Those are just names humans made up for bookkeeping; they can help understand things, but they also don’t always show the true story.

Power Level in EDH

It is no secret that EDH is a very diverse format - probably the most diverse format out there. A deck builder can build almost any kind of deck imaginable - from the typical control, combo, aggro, and midrange decks; to decks like Stax, chaos, pillowfort, and anything in between. However, not all EDH decks are created equal - the possible disparity in power level between any two EDH decks is potentially as large as the difference between a bad draft deck and a tuned Vintage deck - and any sort of deck in between.

Most people tend to classify EDH decks as either “Casual” or “Competitve”, but the divide between the two is both subjective and blurry. However, a good way to classify EDH decks is needed in order to better communicate what kinds of decks you are playing to the rest of your pod or playgroup so everyone can have an enjoyable experience. It would also be good to have a metric for discussing certain cards or deck-archetypes. As such, I have decided to try creating my own classification system for EDH decks:

Type 1: Jank, Draft Chaff, and Gimmicks

Everyone was new to EDH at one time. Whether from inexperience or lack of funds, many players of EDH have decks that are barely functional - containing little more than draft chaff and starter-pack rares. Their curves are nonexistent, their decks are incoherent, and their cards are unsleeved. Some may  be monstrosities containing 65 random green creatures and 35 forests, or “troll decks” containing 5-drop removal spells and Divinations with literally zero win-con. Other decks of this type tend to be gimmicks or “theme decks”, created by a more enfranchised player as a form of self-expression. Decks like “Ladies Looking Left” or “Chair Tribal” or “Mono-Red Samurai” - full of a whole lot of flavor, but almost nothing else. Decks of this type are often composed entirely of cards most players would never give a second look at, and typically cannot stand up to anything much stronger than a precon, if that.

Type 2: Casual

As opposed to Type 1 decks, Type 2 decks tend to have some amount of selectivity in the cards they play. You probably aren’t going to see random French-Vanillas in a deck like this, and they typically tend to have some sort of strategy and coherence. This is actually where I would rate the precon decks that Wizards makes every year. I would also consider decks built with some sort of arbitrary restriction - EG “no rares” or “no cards over $2”, as well as builds of “grouphug” and “chaos” that just do not have a way to win to be in this category. These types of decks are typically not exactly “good”, still containing many suboptimal choices and often with abysmal mana-curves, but the decks still tend to have some bite to them. If there are any combos in these decks, they are horribly janky and inconsistent ones, requiring so many pieces to function that it feels fair.

Type 3: “75%”

The name of this type is based off the “75%” deckbuilding philosophy, that states that the way to build an EDH deck that can handle the most competitive of players while not being unfun for the most casual is to make one at 75% power. While such a deck is actually impossible to build (anything that wants to even attempt to have a chance at so much as participating in a game with the most competitive of decks has to run the sorts of cards that more casual players shun entirely), decks of this type can pretty happily sit at a table with anything from a “type-2” deck to a “type-4” deck. While not all 75% decks out there are of this type, and not all decks of this type are 75% decks, the types of decks that philosophy builds are exemplars of this power-level. These are probably the most common types of EDH decks out there, and if you are going into a new group or store blindly, your best bet is probably with one of these.

Type 4: Pubstomp

Y’know that guy who claims he is so amazing at EDH and that his deck is unbeatable? That guy that plays Kaalia or Jhoira or Rafiq, that you just can’t beat? Well, this is probably the kind of deck he plays. Type 4 is where the gloves come off and anything goes - MLD, combos, Stax, Infect, Extra Turns, and everything else under the sun. These decks are mean, and tend to crush more casual decks out there. If you asked the average player what the best decks in EDH are, they would probably list off decks of this type. And they would be dead wrong.

Type 5: CEDH

These are actually the best decks in the format. These decks are truly degenerate, capable of consistently winning on turns 3-5 through disruption. These decks are not fair in any sense of the word, full of a who’s who of broken cards and mechanics, and anything that can’t kill everyone at once is too slow.. Storm, Doomsday, Stax, Ooze Combo…decks more broken and tuned than most think is possible in this format. There is a good reason that decks like these are often referred to as “singleton Vintage” decks. But we promise we aren’t bad once you get to know us…

A few days later, Draco is home alone, scratching out a paper on the pros and cons of the Cheshire Magical Classification System versus Rowena Ravenclaw’s Hogwarts system, when The Earl starts rubbing against his legs.

Draco looks down. “What do you want?” he says loftily.

The Earl meows and continues winding about his legs.

“Attention,” says Draco. “That’s what you want.”

It takes him approximately a minute to give in and lean down to scratch The Earl’s ears.

It isn’t much longer before The Earl’s on his lap, batting at his quill.

“You’re a nuisance,” says Draco. “Do you know that?”

The Earl does not respond.

“All you care about is yourself,” Draco gripes. He pauses. “And I suppose,” he continues, “Harry.”

The Earl leaps onto the desk. Hurriedly, Draco grabs his inkwell and moves his paper to the side. The Earl looks straight at him, yellow eyes boring into him.

“Okay,” he grumps. “Whatever. Yes. We have a lot in common.”
—  The Earl by ignatiustrout

Dr. Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was an American astronomer, professor, and ufologist. He is perhaps best remembered for his UFO research. Hynek acted as scientific advisor to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force under three consecutive projects: Project Sign (1947–1949), Project Grudge (1949–1952), and Project Blue Book (1952–1969).

In later years he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the “Close Encounter” classification system. He is widely considered the father of the concept of scientific analysis both of reports and especially of trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs

anonymous asked:

Hey wonderful, I saw a post where you say your a spoonie and I was just wondering what that means?

A spoonie is someone who is living with a chronic illness, who likely uses [The Spoon Theory] as a reference to the amount of energy they have or don’t have daily due to their illness. 

Not everyone that has chronic illness utilizes the concept of spoons in their life, or uses the word “spoon” as a measurement for the amount of energy or lack thereof that they may have, or uses the term “spoonie” to classify themselves as someone with a chronic illness. 

For some of us, however, that concept struck a particular cord with us, resonated with us in a way no other classification system for chronic illness has. I suppose we use the term as a sort of identifier to other people who may use the same theory within their lives, so we can recognize one another, know that we can relate, and that we’re not alone in our struggles with our illnesses.

At least, that’s my perspective, lol.