dandelions are magic. literally tiny suns in the grass that turn into the moon and then the stars when you blow on them. fucking insane.
Fucking insane
holy shit

dandelions are magic. literally tiny suns in the grass that turn into the moon and then the stars when you blow on them. fucking insane.
Fucking insane
holy shit
Stop whatever the hell you are doing right now and see this! Super Mario to a violin.
This isn’t what you think it is. It’s better.
the way ivan aivazovsky looks at the sea…i think…i think that’s what love looks like.
love is surrounding yourself with people who see you this clearly
Still the freakiest fact about him is that despite being as tall as a person or more, he banged out these beauties in a day or two at most (and smaller ones ina matter of hours). The longest he spent on a painting, at age 81, to make his largest ever painting, was TEN DAYS:
It is 2.9×4.3 meters large. That’s 9'4"×14'1" for people in other measurement systems. It’s HUGE. There are artists out there that spend years on paintings much smaller than this. He was not one of them.
He also didn’t only paint the sea, but he MOSTLY painted the sea. Very few people could draw light filtering through waves the way this guy did and apparently it was tied into his layering technique that allowed him to paint so goddamn fast.
He is obviously my most favorite painter ever.
!!!
The title "dollar tree diy" made me think this was a diy tutorial type video and not a sculptural masterpiece
The fact that one of the best war films of our times is actually a commercial for a frankly dissapointing cellphone war game its asomething that will always haunt me
MATCHING ICONS FOR YOU AND THE SQUAD
Normalize midwifery and homebirths
A well-trained midwife can actually provide almost 90% of the health and medical support and services pregnant women and new mothers and their babies need, along with serving as advocates on other women’s health and rights issues and increase a positive birthing experience by 60%- women who have a midwife or doula experience little to no anxiety during labor, have a greater postpartum recovery, over 60% end up not tearing and c-section rates plummet as well as unnecessary medical interventions which increase chances to breastfeeding, decrease lower costs, and reduce labor induction.
A substantial increase in coverage of midwife-delivered interventions could avert 41% of maternal deaths, 39% of neonatal deaths, and 26% of stillbirths, equating to 2·2 million deaths averted per year by 2035. -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7758876/
“"If you scaled up midwives, you would avert over 80 percent of maternal deaths,” Kennedy said.“- http://c-hit.org/2018/10/30/midwives-could-be-key-to-reversing-maternal-mortality-trends/
Among low-risk women, planned home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and babies.
Women who had midwives experienced a reduction in child birth fear and caesarean section rates, improvements in childbirth self-efficacy, less distressing flashbacks of the birth and improved parenting confidence.
When it comes to home-birth modern medicine likes to depict it as scary and dangerous, the reality?
This meta-analysis looked at 14 studies including data from around 500,000 intended home births. The authors found that, “The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital.” (Hutton et al 2019). Home births are in fact safe and can be argued as safer when it comes to avoiding medical interventions which unnecessary medical interventions INCREASE the rate of c-sections, infections, PTSD, postpartum depression, struggle breastfeeding, tears, slower recovery rate, etc.
“Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03).” (Hutton et al 2019).
After comparing data from births planned at home birth, in birth centres and in hospital, researchers found that high-quality studies found no statistically significant difference in infant mortality between the different settings, although women giving birth at home or in birth centres were more likely to have a normal vaginal birth. In fact, women planning home births were nearly three times more likely to have a normal (that is, non-instrumental) vaginal birth than women planning a hospital birth.
Planned home birth may be experienced as a very positive occurrence for nulliparous women, and the care those women in this study received contained several elements that can help to promote normal labour and birth at a time in which reducing interventions in maternity care is of importance. Their positive birth experiences gave the women confidence both in their transition to motherhood as well as in other aspects of life. -Skrondal et al (2020)
Positive birth experiences are important and most women experience a positive birth experience in a setting with a trusted midwife, a comfortable atmosphere where they are in control, a lack of unnecessary medical interventions and this generally takes place AT HOME.
Perhaps ask why hospitals encourage medical interventions, c-sections, inductions, and hospital births? 💰 just look at the bill.
An average uncomplicated vaginal birth costs about 60% less in a home than in a hospital. Home birth provides immediate bonding and breastfeeding. Early breastfeeding helps the mother stop bleeding, clears mucus from the baby's nose and mouth, and transfers disease-fighting antibodies in the milk from mother to baby.
One economic analysis found that if 10% of hospital births occurred in birthing centers or at home, the healthcare system could save $11 billion per year "without compromising safety."
It's time we take a look at our current medical system when it pertains to pregnancy and how it is impacting mothers and their children.
Boy heroically puts horse conditioner in princess’s hair without a moment’s hesitation
I’ve never seen so much discourse about horse-and-people hair products but please know that your comments have absolutely made my day
ways to tie knots on pendants and keychains
Here it is folks:
My definitive ranking of my least favorite bodies of water! These are ranked from least to most scary (1/10 is okay, 10/10 gives me nightmares). I’m sorry this post is long, I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about this.
The Great Blue Hole, Belize
I’ve been here! I have snorkeled over this thing! It is terrifying! The water around the hole is so shallow you can’t even swim over the coral without bumping it, and then there’s a little slope down, and then it just fucking drops off into the abyss! When you’re over the hole the water temperature drops like 10 degrees and it’s midnight blue even when you’re right by the surface. Anyway. The Great Blue Hole is a massive underwater cave, and its roughly 410 feet deep. Overall, it’s a relatively safe area to swim. It’s a popular tourist attraction and recreational divers can even go down and explore some of the caves. People do die at the Blue Hole, but it is generally from a lack of diving experience rather than anything sinister going on down in the depths. My rating for this one is 1/10 because I’ve been here and although it’s kinda freaky it’s really not that bad.
Lake Baikal, Russia
When I want to give myself a scare I look at the depth diagram of this lake. It’s so deep because it’s not a regular lake, it’s a Rift Valley, A massive crack in the earth’s crust where the continental plates are pulling apart. It’s over 5,000 feet deep and contains one-fifth of all freshwater on Earth. Luckily, its not any more deadly than a normal lake. It just happens to be very, very, freakishly deep. My rating for this lake is a 2/10 because I really hate looking at the depth charts but just looking at the lake itself isn’t that scary.
Jacob’s Well, Texas
This “well” is actually the opening to an underwater cave system. It’s roughly 120 feet deep, surrounded by very shallow water. This area is safe to swim in, but diving into the well can be deadly. The cave system below has false exits and narrow passages, resulting in multiple divers getting trapped and dying. My rating is a 3/10, because although I hate seeing that drop into the abyss it’s a pretty safe place to swim as long as you don’t go down into the cave (which I sure as shit won’t).
The Devil’s Kettle, Minnesota
This is an area in the Brule River where half the river just disappears. It literally falls into a hole and is never seen again. Scientists have dropped in dye, ping pong balls, and other things to try and figure out where it goes, and the things they drop in never resurface. Rating is 4/10 because Sometimes I worry I’m going to fall into it.
Flathead Lake, Montana
Everyone has probably seen this picture accompanied by a description about how this lake is actually hundreds of feet deep but just looks shallow because the water is so clear. If that were the case, this would definitely rank higher, but that claim is mostly bull. Look at the shadow of the raft. If it were hundreds of feet deep, the shadow would look like a tiny speck. Flathead lake does get very deep, but the spot the picture was taken in is fairly shallow. You can’t see the bottom in the deep parts. However, having freakishly clear water means you can see exactly where the sandy bottom drops off into blackness, so this still ranks a 5/10.
The Lower Congo River, multiple countries
Most of the Congo is a pretty normal, if large, River. In the lower section of it, however, lurks a disturbing surprise: massive underwater canyons that plunge down to 720 feet. The fish that live down there resemble cave fish, having no color, no eyes, and special sensory organs to find their way in the dark. These canyons are so sheer that they create massive rapids, wild currents and vortexes that can very easily kill you if you fall in. A solid 6/10, would not go there.
Little Crater Lake, Oregon
On first glance this lake doesn’t look too scary. It ranks this high because I really don’t like the sheer drop off and how clear it is (because it shows you exactly how deep it goes). This lake is about 100 feet across and 45 feet deep, and I strongly feel that this is too deep for such a small lake. Also, the water is freezing, and if you fall into the lake your muscles will seize up and you’ll sink and drown. I don’t like that either. 7/10.
Grand Turk 7,000 ft drop off
No. 8/10. I hate it.
Gulf of Corryvreckan, Scotland
Due to a quirk in the sea floor, there is a permanent whirlpool here. This isn’t one of those things that looks scary but actually won’t hurt you, either. It absolutely will suck you down if you get too close. Scientists threw a mannequin with a depth gauge into it and when it was recovered the gauge showed it went down to over 600 feet. If you fall into this whirlpool you will die. 9/10 because this seems like something that should only be in movies.
The Bolton Strid, England
This looks like an adorable little creek in the English countryside but it’s not. Its really not. Statistically speaking, this is the most deadly body of water in the world. It has a 100% mortality rate. There is no recorded case of anyone falling into this river and coming out alive. This is because, a little ways upstream, this isn’t a cute little creek. It’s the River Wharfe, a river approximately 30 feet wide. This river is forced through a tiny crack in the earth, essentially turning it on its side. Now, instead of being 30 feet wide and 6 feet deep, it’s 6 feet wide and 30 feet deep (estimated, because no one actually knows how deep the Strid is). The currents are deadly fast. The banks are extremely undercut and the river has created caves, tunnels and holes for things (like bodies) to get trapped in. The innocent appearance of the Strid makes this place a death trap, because people assume it’s only knee-deep and step in to never be seen again. I hate this river. I have nightmares about it. I will never go to England just because I don’t want to be in the same country as this people-swallowing stream. 10/10, I live in constant fear of this place.
Honorable mention: The Quarry, Pennsylvania
I don’t know if that’s it’s actual name. This lake gets an honorable mention not because it’s particularly deep or dangerous, but it’s where I almost drowned during a scuba diving accident.
Heres your semiregular reminder that opal is one of the worst possible gemstones for engagement rings and tumblr posts about how pretty opals are and how diamonds are bullshit and we should all wear opal rings are not actually well informed or your friends
@sirfoggybrain Of course!
So opals, as we all know, are gorgeous stones
I will at no point deny that, theyre stunning and look different from every angle and in every lighting, the plays of color are insane, and they can be used to make beautiful jewelry, including, unfortunately, engagement rings. Which then have the tedency to do what opals do best, which is break and chip
The problem with opals is their position on the mohs hardness scale: they are a 5.5 to a 6.5. This in on par with glass. You can break one of these with glass or a knife or any piece of metal. The woman on the left broke hers by accidentally knocking it against her desk. Engagement rings are meant to be worn every day, and they are worn on your hands, which are high contact body parts. Opals cannot properly hold up to everyday use, and will become damaged unless you are lucky. It is, in my opinion, best not to risk it- this is a special ring, your forever ring, an object that meant to be worn daily and symbolizes your love and is, if worst comes to worst, something to hawk if you are desperate for cash to continue to live. You do not want it to break. Moonstone- which is another one i see recommended a lot- is the same way. Engagement rings are special. I would not ever in good conscience be able to recommend something that fragile to be someones forever ring.
Diamonds are not recommended just because of the diamond industry (which is bad, i agree! Please make sure your diamond is ethical if you chose to get one, and my personal opinion is that lab made is better) but because they are the most durable stone out there. You cant break your diamond.
Theres nothing wrong with wanting a colorful, flashy engagement ring, but an opal is not the stone for you. You want a gemstone that is an 8+ on the hardness scale- so stones like emeralds (if youre careful with it!), rubies, sapphires (which come in all sorts of colors), moissanite (typically white, but with twice the fire and brilliance of a diamond), morganite, colored diamonds, and alexandrite are all good choices. Alexandrite even changes colors depending on lighting!
TL;DR: opals are too soft and fragile for an engagement ring. Get opal necklace instead, and pick a tougher stone for your engagement ring.
Topaz is also 8 on the Mohs scale, and Aquamarine is the same stone as Emerald but in a different colour. Both are also worth considering!
We here on tumblr, we like rock
A deep sea monster scene inside a block of epoxy | source
oh COOL
Two thoughts
1) this is so pretty imma cry
2) JOLENE?????
those Grannysquare pockets tho! talent