mouthporn.net
#ref – @a-monster-plain-and-simple on Tumblr
Avatar

Lucy

@a-monster-plain-and-simple / a-monster-plain-and-simple.tumblr.com

var sc_project=11624757; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="304ea62d";
Avatar
“That’s why high school, or a crappy job, or any other restrictive circumstance can be dangerous: They make dreams too painful to bear. To avoid longing, we hunker down, wait, and resolve to just survive. Great art becomes a reminder of the art you want to be making, and of the gigantic world outside of your small, seemingly inescapable one. We hide from great things because they inspire us, and in this state, inspiration hurts.”

— One of the best articles I’ve ever read. Rookie Mag. By Spencer Tweedy. (via wildyork)

Avatar
Avatar
ms-demeanor

Doing an oceanography assignment on waves and one of the slides that popped up was the Beaufort Wind Scale and the IMMEDIATE first thing that came to mind was "oh like from twitter."

Thanks for poisoning my brain, internet.

It's a different poem in my textbook:

Appearance of the Sea

Like a mirror

Ripples with the appearance of scales, no foam crests

Small wavelets; crests of glassy appearance, no breaking

Large wavelets; crests begin to break, scattered whitecaps

Small waves, becoming longer; numerous whitecaps

Moderate waves, taking longer to form, many whitecaps, some spray

Large waves begin to form, whitecaps everywhere, more spray

Sea heaps up and white foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks

Moderately high waves of greater length, edges of crests begin to break into spindrift, foam is blown in well-marked streaks

High waves, dense streaks of foam and sea begins to roll, spray may affect visibility

Very high waves with overhanging crests; foam is blown in dense white streaks, causing the sea to appear white; the rolling of the sea becomes heavy; visibility reduced

Exceptionally high waves (small and medium-sized ships might fora time be lost from view behind the waves), the sea is covered with white patches of foam, everywhere the edges of the wave crests are blown into froth, visibility further reduced

The air is filled with foam and spray, sea completely white with driving spray, visibility greatly reduced.

Avatar
Avatar
quoms

Amazon is facing a looming crisis: It could run out of people to hire in its US warehouses by 2024, according to leaked Amazon internal research from mid-2021 that Recode reviewed. If that happens, the online retailer’s service quality and growth plans could be at risk, and its e-commerce dominance along with it.

Raising wages and increasing warehouse automation are two of the six “levers” Amazon could pull to delay this labor crisis by a few years, but only a series of sweeping changes to how the company does business and manages its employees will significantly alter the timeline, Amazon staff predicted. […]

In the Inland Empire region of California, for example, Amazon may cycle through every worker who’d be interested in applying for a warehouse job by the end of 2022, the internal report warned. One of the reasons is that Amazon is increasingly finding itself in a bidding war for workers with rivals in the area, which is a key logistics region because it is within a two-hour drive of 20 million potential customers and two of the largest container ports in the US.

“We are hearing a lot of [Amazon] workers say, ‘I can just go across the street to Target or Walmart,’” said Sheheryar Kaoosji, co-executive director of an Inland Empire nonprofit called the Warehouse Worker Resource Center. Kaoosji added that Walmart is offering some workers with past warehouse experience as much as $25 an hour. An Amazon executive told Reuters in late 2021 that the company was bumping the average starting wage for new hires in the US to more than $18 an hour, attributing the decision to intense competition among employers. He also said Amazon had increased hiring bonuses to as much as $3,000 in some geographies.

And internal forecasts showed the situation was dire in Phoenix, Arizona, with Amazon projected to exhaust its entire potential workforce by the end of 2021. The Phoenix metro area has been a key market for Amazon since it opened its first warehouse there in 2007. The company currently operates more than 20 facilities in the region. But attrition at Amazon’s facilities in the area grew from 128 percent in 2019 to 205 percent in 2020, as the pandemic upended labor markets and online shopping boomed, putting pressure on fulfillment center employees.

As a result, Amazon seemed to have reversed, or stopped enforcing, some workplace policies at Phoenix warehouses amid the labor shortage, according to a former manager.

“They were so concerned about attrition and losing people that they rolled back all the policies that us as managers had to enforce,” Michael Garrigan, a former entry-level manager at Amazon warehouses in Phoenix from 2020 to early 2022, told Recode. “There was a joke among the … managers that it didn’t matter what [workers] got written up for because we knew HR was gonna exempt it. It was almost impossible to get fired as a worker.”

Avatar
beguines

Immediately brings to mind some excerpts from Silvia Federici’s “The Body, Capitalism, and the Reproduction of Labor Power”:

and

Avatar

what are your thoughts on horses?

Avatar

I don’t actually have any horse-related thoughts at this time.

Avatar
Avatar
nerdpiggy

please let me know when you start having horse-related thoughts. I’ll be waiting.

I’m not going to have horse-related thoughts until I see a horse on a horse. I guess the next time I’m in a horse-friendly place I’ll go look for horses

please draw a horse on a horse for me

I am not a skilled artist, nor do I have access to a horse right now. I am really bad at drawing horses!

Avatar
aeternatv

Horses are pretty hard to draw, fair.

To be fair, I am really bad at drawing horses.

Frank I drew you a horse on top of a horse, do you have any thoughts?

No I have not had a thought about horses at this time.

Avatar

People say that old games dont look as good as they remember

Its because they legitimately dont.

Avatar
crtter

The “fuzz” from CRT monitors was something that was definitely accounted for and taken advantage of back in the day when it came to video games! While this effect is noticeable in 3D games, it’s MUCH more visible when it comes to 2D sprites:

Just look how much more depth these simple sprites of Princess Peach and Bowser from Super Mario RPG seem to have when seen through the “dots” of a CRT TV screen!

Avatar
bogleech

I somehow did not know this!?!?!?

One of the clearest examples of this is using the effect for transparent waterfalls in the MegaDrive Sonic games

Avatar
hive-heart

My absolutely favourite example of this is with Dracula's eyes in Castlevania

Avatar

does hatsune miku qualify as a fictional character or is she real. like it’s different from, say, gorillaz, cause her entire thing is that she’s a robot/computer program/what have you, and also she isn’t an alter ego for one specific artist. so by being canonically digital in her lore and also the same thing in real life i don’t think she is fictional. my point is when you play games that feature her she is actually talking to you like you are conversing face to face with the actual real hatsune miku and not just her likeness

Avatar

Want to learn something new in 2022??

Absolute beginner adult ballet series (fabulous beginning teacher)

40 piano lessons for beginners (some of the best explanations for piano I’ve ever seen)

Basic knitting (probably the best how to knit video out there)

Pre-Free Figure Skate Levels A-D guides and practice activities (each video builds up with exercises to the actual moves!)

How to draw character faces video (very funny, surprisingly instructive?)

Playing the guitar for beginners (well paced and excellent instructor)

Playing the violin for beginners (really good practical tips mixed in)

Color theory in digital art (not of the children’s hospital variety)

Retake classes you hated but now there’s zero stakes:

Calculus 1 (full semester class)

Learn basic statistics (free textbook)

Learn a language:

Russian (pretty good cyrillic guide!)

Avatar

Shoot Your Shot

In biology, there’s a concept of r/K selection. Reproductively, an r-strategy involves an organism trying to produce as many offspring as possible, with low resource investment in each individual descendant. Meanwhile, a K-strategy involves producing few offspring which each receive a large fraction of the parent’s resources to ensure that descendant’s success.

This is of course a spectrum, and the greatest extremes are across biological kingdoms. For example, fungi reproduce via spore dispersal, which is the most extreme version of throwing individual cells into the wind and hoping that some of them live maybe. Meanwhile, while some animals are very r-selected, the most K-selected species in nature are generally animals (eg, whales).

Humans are among the most K-selected things out there. Because of our huge brains, we gestate for nine months. (Compare rats, which gestate for about three weeks, or mushrooms, which just tell individual cells to fuck off and probably die.) Plus, we invest years in raising our children until maturity - and then we delay natural maturity a couple more years to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them going to college.

Of course, even among humans, there’s a spectrum. As with most species with two fixed sexes (reproductively speaking), males can get away with a more r-like strategy, because in theory they don’t have to invest a ton in offspring. However, with few exceptions, males can’t actually get away with too much of this, because that nine month gestation period puts a hard ceiling on how r-strategy females around them can afford to be. So instead we tend to do pair bonding and families and all the other shit mushrooms would be baffled by. (Except they can’t be, because they don’t have our big expensive brains.)

OK, so this post isn’t really about reproductive biology. It’s about human psychology. Specifically, the fact that the r/K split in how willing one is to engage in [high output | low investment] vs [low output | high investment] can be generalised across way more domains than making babies.

In the biological model, organisms generally lean toward r when the environment is very high-variance. In such a situation, the amount that you invest in individual offspring matters far less than luck (ie, environmental factor’s beyond the parent’s control). Like, fungi can’t really change the concentration of dead logs in the area - the best they can do is hope their spores fall on some.

Likewise, if you are engaged in any pursuit where how well a given attempt goes has more to do with unpredictable conditions than with your own level of investment, r strategies are better. Meanwhile, K is ideal for the reverse. The only problem is, for some reason (I would guess due to some mixture of culture and biology), most people are stuck on K.

Call this perfectionism. Call it fear of failure. Whatever it is, a lot of people are unwilling to act unless they’re confident that any individual attempt will succeed - even when they can make an unbounded number of attempts. They just seem unable to comprehend that failure is low cost - or they’ll come up with a bunch of justifications for why failure actually is high cost. “Oh, but people I’ve never seen before and will never see again might laugh at me!” Excuse me, but what? The fuck?

All my observations seem to indicate that very few people actually shift their strategy between the r and K poles based on the circumstances. r/K becomes a feature of them - not of the optimal environmental strategy. Case in point - women in general tend to be less willing to do things they might fail at, no matter how soft the landing. I see this all around me. My male and female acquaintances are, in general, about equally competent - but the men do while the women practice and practice and practice and are never good “““enough”””.

The reason the world isn’t run by perfectionists is because perfectionists won’t get out of bed. The reason the world is run by men is because (many) men will shoot their shot at anything. Do you think Donald Trump would have run for president if he was only willing to do things he thought he’d succeed at? Are you not going to run for office because you might lose? Well, congratulations - now you know why bullshit floats.

And almost everything is like this! The modern world is made of soft landings. Almost nothing truly hurts you these days. Embarrassment doesn’t mean getting thrown out of the tribe - it means you can just do the same damn thing tomorrow and it’ll probably work. If you think you’re not good enough, you are almost certainly wrong, because few things today have a “good enough” - it’s just whether this time the right person/company/algorithm was impressed. Why are they impressed some times and not others? Honestly, this hardly matters - just keep shooting out spores and eventually they’ll land on wood.

Most people won’t put their art online because they don’t think people will like it. So??? If they don’t then they… Won’t look at it. If they do, you’ve just got both fans and information on what kind of stuff those fans like. I don’t think I’m a particularly great writer - I’ve met tons of people slaving away in obscurity who are clearly better than me. But I wrote my way to America because I wrote where Americans could read it - while my obscure acquaintances don’t let their writing out far enough to get a response.

Likewise, when I go to a concert, I’m generally the first person on the dancefloor. It’s rare that anyone else will visibly move their body until I’ve proven that it’s “safe”. Safe from what - who fucking knows? In reality, nothing. That’s why I don’t hesitate to bust a move. In the minds of everyone else - death, I’m guessing. So, of course, they all dance less expressively than me, in the hopes that no one will notice them. Meanwhile, I’m not an especially skilled dancer - I’ve taken two dance classes in my life - but at the end of the night, all eyes are on me. Of course they are - there was no one else to look at.

It’s hard for me to overemphasise the degree to which every. thing. is. like. this. This particular psychological bug is one of the most frustrating things in the world to me, because sitting over here on this heap of utility it just feels so obvious. Yes, you should ask people out! Yes, you should apply to that job! Yes, you should submit that manuscript! Yes, you should post your sketches on Deviant Art! Yes, you should try antidepressants! Yes, you should stop curtailing your life and start winning! More than half the time, the main obstacle is an unwillingness to lose cheaply.

Any time you’re considering doing something, you should ask yourself what the minimum viable product is. What is the lowest effort version of the thing you want to do that might maybe work? And how easily can you just do that repeatedly until it works? If you haven’t Googled a list of a few dozen companies in your industry and spammed them with your portfolio, why not? Because one might reject you? There are billions of people in this world and millions of companies that have never heard of you. You are not going to run out of options if you’re willing to cast a wide net.

Of course, the psychological bug in question is extremely deep, so I know the vast majority of people reading this will just feel briefly uncomfortable with their life choices before moving on and continuing to shoot themselves in the foot. That’s fine. Luckily, thousands of people read this blog, so hopefully a couple of them will get shaken up enough that they’ll be willing to stop screwing themselves out of success. And a couple people living better lives is as much as I’m aiming for.

In the meantime, I’m going to walk through some business districts in SF today and hand out my resume. Feel free to wish me luck, but I shouldn’t need it. Whether I succeed is just a matter of how much paper I can print on.

okay but HOW?  I agree with you that things would be much better if we could just be less worried about the vague emotional negative consequences of things. But in most cases both the positive AND the negative consequences of things are just vague emotional stuff, and even when that’s not the case (like in a job search) the negative consequences are still there, and I’m just not sure how to get over that.

Like… I posted a song on a social media thing yesterday. It’s not even a song I wrote or anything, I just liked it and wanted other people to like it, and nobody commented. And multiple times a day I noticed that post and how nobody reacted to it and I felt bad and sort of wanted to just delete it so I could stop having the negative experience of “nobody likes my thing”. And it wasn’t even really my thing!  Sure, I’d have a positive experience if someone did like it, but I’m not sure it would be equally positive (I’d probably still think about all the people who didn’t like it), and the chance of it is probably lower, so in the end the obvious emotional reinforcement mechanisms lead to me not doing that kind of thing. And I’m just not sure what I can do to fix that. The loss isn’t all that expensive, but neither is the win, because in the end both are just social-emotional fluff. And while obviously my life would be better if I found the loss cheaper and the win more salient, what is the magic that would let me do that?

(However, yes, I should probably try more antidepressants, since those do have a clearer and more long-term consequence of winning.)

Avatar
sunreon

The short answer is CBT.

The long answer would be which specific CBT techniques would be useful for emotional regulation and helping disconnect the impact of that experience. That specific example sounds like rejection, which nobody likes, but some people are more sensitive to than others. Reducing the impact of minor rejection is HUGE re: r/K selection psychological bug.

Avatar
etirabys

@sinesalvatorem idk if you’re on here these days, but this post was one of the bigger discrete inputs into my changing my mind on how to Do Life, and as part of that change I self-published some erotica that might conceivably make me a few bucks. It felt awful and terrifying for no reason at all and I’m glad I did it.

Thank you!

Avatar
loki-zen

The thing about just cranking ideas out is that ideally you don’t have as much time to obsess over if anyone liked any particular one

Avatar

*guys selling and trading NFTs* what the fuck, the IRS is making me report my digital assets as assets! that's insane! since when are there regulations on sales of securities!

i feel this is kinda nerd shit so i should briefly (over)explain (mostly because it's a very big L for crypto losers). so essentially, before now, anyone making money off crypto trading (or just NFTs specifically) was in this kinda...grey area in terms of regulation and taxation, and the anonymized nature of cryptocurrency means that most people were straight up not reporting that money as earnings (or NFTs as assets), especially not if it was never converted back into non-cryptocurrency. this meant that, if you were dealing in crypto, you could (and i'm HUGELY over-simplifying) dodge the vast majority of regulations and requirements (and taxes) that someone making a similar amount of money in USD would deal with. after this new regulation, if you receive US $10,000 or more in cryptocurrency, you must now report it to the IRS as a cash asset, and if you don't, that is a felony.

So this is very funny, to me, for two reasons. One is that now, if a crypto-bro wants to not commit a felony, they have to un-anonymize their wallet, so they can no longer trade as an anon. They would be trading under their name (assuming they're trading $10,000 or more, per year i believe if i read right). This defeats some of the major uses of cryptocurrency, especially as it was being used to launder money, and it means your identity on the blockchain would now become knowledge people would have access to, and track all future and past trades you have made on the blockchain.

the second and funnier thing is what this does to NFTs. a cash asset is any asset which can be easily converted into cash within three months. according to this new regulation, you available cash assets would now include your NFTs (assuming they're valuable enough etc. etc.), and you would be expected to borrow and pay obligations based off of that information. so if a collector came to make good on their loan to you, they would be considering your NFT as a cash asset that can be used to pay them, but of course *selling NFTs is a fucking scam*. They're *not* cash assets, because outside of very specific circumstances, those $50,000 NFTs are not bought up again for the same or higher value.

many (it's hard to know exactly how many, but this exact thing i'm about to describe has been documented a bunch of times in this space) NFTs have their values inflated purely through insider trading, in a scam that goes (in its simplest form) something like: person 1 makes an NFT, and person 1 sells the NFT to person 2 for a very high amount of crypto, some amount of which is given back to person 2 in another, altered form so as to not be traceable as just trading money back and forth. this causes the NFT to become "worth" that amount of money that was paid for it (this is also how most of the real world art market works too!). Do this to like 5 of an artist's NFTs, and suddenly it looks like that artist's work is worth X amount of money, despite no one having actually *paid* that much for it really, but now that the value of their work appears to be high, it can be sold to rubes for that high amount for real now.

which is all a way to say that, if you are said rube, and you just bought a shitty picture of a monkey smoking a joint for $75,000, that is now considered cash you can access within three months when it comes to paying debtors (or anything else that involves how much cash and assets you have on hand, including how much you pay in taxes), even though, if you tried to sell it, no one would buy it for that much. so people will be expecting you to have money you do not actually have the ability to access. Not only that, but you would have had to un-anonymize you wallet's identity on the blockchain to buy the monkey, so everyone knows who the rube is.

it owns ok? it owns. fuck this is a terrible explanation. i'm bad at explaining econ shit and probably got 50 things wrong go away

Avatar
biglawbear

As someone that knows tax law, this sounds pretty accurate

Avatar
roach-works

i wish all NFTbros a very merry Pay Your Taxes Lol

Avatar

You guys, the funniest fucking thing just happened. A group of creators made a crypto currency based off of squid games. The catch was you could buy it, but you COULD NOT sell it. Multiple sources warned it was a scam, citing multiple spelling errors on a hastily put up website that has now vanished. Despite this, $2,000,000 of the currency was bought by crypto traders before the creators pulled the plug and ran with the earnings. Now a whole bunch of crypto bros are crying out about the “fake” currency and lack of regulation which is the selling point of crypto. Paired with the critique of capitalism that is Squid Games it literally couldn’t get more poetic 😂

"stole" no honey you invested and your investment didn't work out :)

maybe they shouldn't have had so much money if they didn't wanna get robbed

How was it being based on squid game not enough of a red flag on its own

Avatar

Ok so the most amazing reblog I've seen of this says:

There's a globe-spanning layer of mesopelagic fish that is so dense it distorts SONAR. For decades we had no idea what created the Deep Scattering Layer or why it moved. We still know almost nothing about it.
It contains 65% of all fish biomass.
Marine Ecology has Dark Fish.

And:

FYSA: 65% is a low-end estimate. Dark Fish may comprise 95% of all fish biomass, but we just don't know: https://phys.org/news/2014-03-ninety-five-cent-world-fish-mesopelagic.html
Avatar

Ok so the most amazing reblog I've seen of this says:

There's a globe-spanning layer of mesopelagic fish that is so dense it distorts SONAR. For decades we had no idea what created the Deep Scattering Layer or why it moved. We still know almost nothing about it.
It contains 65% of all fish biomass.
Marine Ecology has Dark Fish.

And:

FYSA: 65% is a low-end estimate. Dark Fish may comprise 95% of all fish biomass, but we just don't know: https://phys.org/news/2014-03-ninety-five-cent-world-fish-mesopelagic.html
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net