definite difference

anonymous asked:

Do you think there's a way to help Antis understand that helping minors to develop nuanced critical thinking skills about the content that they read, and educating them about how to protect themselves from predators and recognize potentially abusive situations, is a far more effective and enduring solution than the futile task of trying to eliminate all 'problematic' content? If their goal is sincerely to protect kids online, this feels like a no-brainer...

It seems very obvious, doesn’t it? but unfortunately … no, I don’t think there’s a way to help antis see things differently. Definitely not from the outside. fully-invested antis have a strong interest in having a righteous cause, an impossible task, and never considering achievable alternatives because …

anti-shipping is about control. a lot of anti-shippers have little to no control over their real lives for a variety of reasons. they turn to fandom as a space to get away from their real lives, but because web 2.0 is terrible, even that space is pretty uncontrollable, full of people enjoying things that are upsetting. Anti-shipping is a way of controlling fandom space; it’s the one way some of these people can throw around their weight and feel less helpless.

anti-shipping is about feeling righteous. ever had somebody say something awful and incorrect to you and felt a powerful rush of fury and superiority? anti-shipping is partially about generating that feeling. It’s a sense of knowing that you’re right, and because you’re right, you’re also better. You feel good because you know you’re on the side of good, and it’s your duty to smite the asshole before you.

anti-shipping is cult-like. I shove this essay at people a lot, but ‘How Good People and Well-Intentioned Groups Can Go Bad’ really captures the dynamics of anti-shipping as a community. some highlights:

  • antis must believe they are under attack. antis view themselves as protecting minors, survivors, and marginalized people from potentially harmful fandom content; therefore, they must believe that minors, survivors, and marginalized people are under constant attack by adults, non-survivors, and privileged people to justify their cause. many antis fall under one or more of these categories, so they are protecting not just others, but also themselves.
  • antis must believe that there is no such thing as going too far in the name of their cause. in the name of eradicating potentially harmful content in fandom, all things must be permissible, even things that would otherwise be inexcusable. online harassment, death threats, suicide baiting, dogpiling, cyberbullying, callouts, defamation, doxxing, filing false reports, destruction of property, and physical assault are all justified if it contributes to this purpose.
  • antis must believe that their way of thinking is the only right way. protecting minors/survivors/etc = eradicating potentially harmful fan content. there is no other way. if there are any viable alternatives - any other options that will protect minors/survivors/etc, or a way to eradicate the dangerous content without attacking others - it threatens their ability to think of themselves as doing good. 
  • antis must believe that the input of anyone who isn’t an anti is inherently worthless. to avoid any possibility of finding out they’re in the wrong, anti-shippers predetermine that the opinions, identities, or experiences of anyone who isn’t an anti-shipper must be utterly worthless. they don’t need to read any outside opinions or arguments - antis already know that they’re a total waste of time.
  • all of the above collectively let anti-shippers dodge feeling guilty for overlooking or causing harm to outsiders, and also preserves internal harmony, which is maintained by keeping absolute lockstep with one another.

if the goal is feasible - if it’s possible to achieve total eradication of anything anti-shippers don’t like - they won’t have anything to be anti- to anymore. this is not a desirable state because anti-shippers are getting emotional fulfillment out of feeling in powerful, in control, and morally superior. if there’s nobody around to be angry at, it’s hard to get an emotional rise out of being angry, and if there’s nobody doing bad things, they can’t feel attacked by it.

that said: most antis are really genuine in their desire to protect people; they just have bought into a method that’s ineffective at anything except making them feel good and that can only be justified by ignoring every other option. as a result antis are often dealing with their own self-inflicted hell on top of whatever hell the real world has inflicted on them, and they have to be willing to face losing their friends and maybe a guilty conscience if they want to get out. that’s hard, y’all - really, really hard!  so I get why most of them can’t even read a counter-argument: it’s dangerous to them.

but I think all we can do is keep trying to share more helpful knowledge with everyone else as much as we can and be as kind as possible to any anti who genuinely asks for information.

anonymous asked:

How do you know someone stole your translation versus translating on their own? Genuine question, I want to know what to look out for. I just figured translating a sentence would be the same no matter who did it?

no, translating isn’t that easy. you can’t just literally translate a line and call it a translation. all translations are modified so that they will be able to convey the meaning in the smoothest way and avoid as much misunderstanding as possible. for lyrics, there are tons of way to translate even a single line. i often sketch out a few ways of translating a line and find as many synonyms of the words as possible, then choose the ones that sound the best to put into my translation. for example, there’s this line in ‘sea’:

“바다인 줄 알았던 여기는 되려 사막이었고”

which i translated into: “i thought the sea was here but it turned out to be a desert”

some of my translation drafts for this line were: “this place that i thought was the sea was instead a desert” (this one is the literal translation) and “i thought here lied the sea, but instead there was only a desert”. i took the flow of the other lines into account and after few modifications, decided on “i thought the sea was here but it turned out to be a desert”.

the acceptable level of similarities between different translations in my opinion should be 30%. no translation is completely the same, unless it’s a plagiarization. i would say look for the longer sentences, because they can hardly be translated totally the same to every single word. shorter sentences have more tendency to be translated the same in different translations because there’s only so many options on how to translate them. longer sentences on the other hand offer way more translating options and they definitely will sound different depending on how one phrases the original .

anonymous asked:

Have we seen Rooney's house? I'm really interested in what Ramona's room would look like and what kind of life she'd have there. Like I love love love your stories and hanging out with Santi even though it breaks my soul sometimes but I sometimes forget about the small but important details of their everyday lives like the 'jobs' anon pointed out.

yep and yep! ramona’s room is here. but i’m currently gutting out my mods folder and getting rid of 90% of my build/buy cc and trying to utilize the actual in game stuff we have, so it’ll definitely look different in the future when they come back from their trip. especially ramona’s room, because i didn’t realize she wouldn’t be an infant when she started living in their actual house, so it’ll have to be tweaked a little for her toddler-y needs lol. i’ve been imagining their life there again now as a little family and i just wanna skip over to that time but then i’m like nO JAPAN THINGS FIRST which i’m also excited about but then i also want it to just be windenburg time again. i’m excited for a lot of things ok. mostly just getting back to focusing on my OG bbys who now have their own bby and i cry

thank you so much btw, he breaks my soul too ;__; i also forget about the small details because i’ve been focused on the big back stories, and since santi’s story is largely over for the most part i want to explore more of those things i haven’t gotten to show this whole time, especially with characters i haven’t focused on as much. (so basically lou and the gay squad haha) you will see a lot of the small details in lou’s life as i begin her story.

Darling, Time Does Not Change a Thing

Rating: T (This is subject to change on what I end up including in the final piece, but I will leave updates if that changes, so you guys get a heads up)

Pairing: SasuSaku

Summary: You would think, after defeating a god that nothing would seem that odd. However, they suddenly find themselves in the future after a terrifying fall through the sky. They know they need to make it home as soon as they can, but many things could happen while they are in the future. Especially when they know they won’t even remember it.

A/N: Well, i’m definitely trying something different with this fic. So, I used to write really long fanfics all the time, but never posted them. This is kind of an attempt at getting back into writing larger amounts at a time. I have many ideas for where this could end, but if you read I Don’t Want to Forget, you have some idea. That fanfic is connected to this one, and they are assumed to be in the same AU. Also, I’m trying to fit this into the canon universe best I can. I hope you guys enjoy this fic, and if you wanna see more let me know!!! I’m not gonna know if you guys wanna see more if you don’t tell me lol




The air felt stale, murky, reeking of something that felt out of the place in the lush forest on the outskirts of the Land of Fire. Sakura was aware of the change just as much as Sasuke could see the menacing chakra in the very air around them. Shifting purple and blue hues littered the area, coating the landscape in a strange tint. The auras distorted their view of the forest around them. The two shinobi were on their guard, not knowing what possible things could come out of the forest around them. Their investigation turned into a more complex mission than what it first seemed.

Keep reading

I’m riding a horse at college called Tobias, send help:

So the horse I ride regularly is called Tobias, but everyone calls him Toby. You don’t know how hard it is not to giggle like a kid when the instructor says “Okay, mount Toby” considering I’m utter trash for Tobias Forge.

1000% yes please I would like to mount Toby

forget the saddle, I’ll go bareback

What is a Homology Class?

For almost two years, I’ve been skating by, saying “I don’t want to explain homology right now, homology is complicated, ask me later.”.

Later has come, folks. This is the fifth post of a seven-part sequence dedicated to shining light on this beautiful, mysterious beast. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7). This is a very important post for us, since we have built up all the background and we will finally see how to use homology to determine the number of holes in a space!

——

Recall that in the last post we gave an algebro-geometric justification which permitted us to understand these two cycles as “essentially the same”:

We thought this was a good thing because both $A$ and $B$ “surround the same hole”, and we only want to count each hole once.

Motivated by this argument, we make the following definitions. If the difference* $A-B$, between two cycles $A$ and $B$, is a boundary, we say that the cycles are homologous, or in other words that they are of the same homology class. This allows us to define the homology of a space as the collection of all homology classes.

Since cycles of different dimensions look qualitatively different, and so they probably surround different-looking holes, it’s natural to want to split up the homology by dimension. We say that the collection of homology classes having dimension $d$ is the $\mathbf{d}^\textbf{th}$ homology group, and is usually written $H_d(X)$, where $X$ is the space in which the chains live.

[ There’s a technicality here: how do we define the dimension of a homology class? After all, homology classes aren’t curves or surfaces or anything; they’re these giant unwieldy collections of many, many chains. However, this “issue” turns out not to be, because any two homologous chains have the same dimension. (This is not totally obvious; it’s worth the effort to draw a picture or two to convince yourself.) Because of this, we can define the dimension of a homology class by determining the dimension of a cycle of that class: any choice will give the same number. ]

[ * You may wonder why I said “difference” instead of “combination”, since $A+B$ and $A-B$ are the same thing, after all, and the former is more geometrically intuitive. The answer is that the subtraction definition works even outside of characteristic $2$; the addition definition does not. ]

——

However, even restricting our attention to a single homology group, we’re still not counting holes quite yet! The number of $d$-dimensional holes in the space is actually not the number of $d$-dimensional homology classes. For instance, when $d=1$, we can use a slight variant on our example space: instead of a disk with one hole, take a disk with two holes. See if you can convince yourself that no two of these four loops are homologous.

[ You may be concerned with the innermost square loop: this is the class containing the boundaries. We include it for the same reason we include zero as a number: it’s true that boundaries count for nothing, but nothingness, itself, counts for something. We make this convention for convenience, because it makes the theory nicer (like, way nicer, you’d actually be amazed); this is exactly the same reason that we consider zero to be a number. ]

You can keep playing this game: if there are three holes, the picture looks like the one below. (Despite my best efforts, this picture kept turning out a mess; this one I think is at least somewhat legible):

So it turns out that, if you include the class containing all boundaries, the number of classes in a homology group is always a power of $2$; if that number is $2^h$, then we might say that the space has $h$ holes of the corresponding dimension. 

By the way: If you think the $2$ in $2^h$ has something to do with being in characteristic $2$, you’re right! But there is also another way to explain it, which perhaps lines up more reasonably with the picture. 

People with more advanced mathematics backgrounds may know that $2^h$ is the number of elements in the power set of a set of size $h$, or in other words, is the number of subsets. Applying this knowledge to the situation at hand, it stands to reason that a homology class consists of loops which surround a particular collection of holes. If you believe that the chains I’ve chosen for the pictures above represent “typical” members of their homology classes, then this probably makes sense :) For instance, the fourth cycle in the two-holed space represents the collection “both holes”, and the little squares in both spaces represent the “empty collection” of holes.

——

We’ve made it! 

We have described holes, things which “aren’t there”, with genuinely intrinsic features of the space. This was no small feat, and it is worth celebrating. 

If this is all you know about homology, you’re in a pretty good place (at least as far as not-being-freaked-out-when-it-gets-mentioned goes). However, we may wish to see some more interesting examples. In the next post, we will grant that wish by peering into some higher-dimensional holes.

[ Previous ] [ Post 5 ] [ Next ]

There Will Be Other Date Nights

Probably not my best, and it definitely went a little differently than I thought it was going to, but…here we are. :)

Also, moved this whoooole saga to it’s own little work on AO3, here.

Sanvers Date Night and the Kids AU. Less kids in this one, but they’re there. 


“Gertrude Kara Danvers, if you make me late for my date tonight, you are going to get a knuckle sammich!”

A giggling mess of dark curls rounds the corner a second later, barreling down the stairs, and skidding to a stop at her feet, “Yuck.”

Alex laughs and kisses the top of her eldest daughter’s head, “Dating is gross?”

“Yes.”

Alex considers this, “You know what? You’re right. It is. Until you’re 30.”

She deserves the eyeroll she gets, “Mama…”

Alex laughs and takes her daughter’s backpack from her, and then reaches for her hand, “Come on, baby. We’ve got to hurry. Your Mommy will kill me if I’m late.”

Date nights were rare with three kids, sure—but the love and romance never wavered. Plus, this time was a rare instance when the kids would be spending the night with Kara and Lena, not just the evening. And it was a school night.

Maggie wouldn’t give Alex any hints, which meant a week of her imagination wandering off as to what her wife had in store for her. 

Every single outcome made her blush.

Keep reading

kianeggg  asked:

What are the main types of attraction? How is emotional different from romantic? How is sexual different from sensual? If I am desiring an emotional connection for someone, is it called emotional, platonic or romantic attraction? And how are the dictionary definitions different from your definition? - a confused "Q"

Hey! I’ll reblog a picture for you that will explain it pretty well!
-jessi

anonymous asked:

So what would happen you think if Link met Sora?

instant bros. ˢᵒʳᵃ'ˢ ⁿᶦᶜᵏⁿᵃᵐᵉ ᶦˢ “ˡᶦᵗᵗˡᵉ⁻ᵇᵒˢˢ⁻ᵏᵉʸ”

I thought “serizawa’s crocs” was just a fandom thing until I saw them in the actual webcomic in a VERY serious context and I promptly lost my mind

You know what I love about the foxhole court?

It features a canon lgbt relationship between a gay boy and a demisexual boy, a relationship that isn’t even a main focus of the books but still manages to contribute to both the plot and the character development.

A same-sex relationship that doesn’t end tragically, that shows these two characters staying together for years to come and leading a healthy domestic life with two cats, an apartment and a joint career.

A relationship that may not start out well, that is anything but love at first sight, but grows so much through personal struggles and mutual respect, and results in something worthwhile.

A relationship that places heavy emphasis not only on mutual consent, on learning and supporting, on protection and respect, but also on individual independence.

A relationship that doesn’t cast other characters to the sidelines, that isn’t the main character’s only source of happiness, because it takes more than romance to develop a character.

A relationship with a goddamn happy ending that feels entirely deserving for both characters because this is how they love, this is how they overcome their past, this is how they grow, not dependent on each other but side-by-side.

Just a goddamn happy same-sex relationship that doesn’t end in death or separation and that involves characters actually learning to respect and love each other basically???

8

You asked me, what kind of life we had just surrendering. It wasn’t, It wasn’t a life. What we did back there, what we’re doing now, making a future for Judith and for Glenn and Maggie’s baby, fighting the fight, that’s living. You showed me that.

6

Maybe you’re a panromantic asexual, which means, you know, I can feel attraction to genders but I don’t feel particularly sexual. Maybe it’s just at this point in my life, maybe that’ll change in ten years and that’s just a way to do it. I know that some people argue that ‘sexuality and all these labels and definitions are different things’ but we don’t even know what sexuality means.