Can you recommend me some surreal brainfucks?

prokopetz:

(With reference to this post here.)

Heh – sure:

  • Dreaming Sarah – A puzzle platformer about a young woman who’s in a coma following an accident of unknown nature. Your task throughout the game is to expore Sarah’s mind and piece together exactly what happened. Fair warning: it gets kind of graphic in a couple of spots.
  • Metrico+ – Do you like bar graphs? Because this game has bar graphs. It’s an abstract puzzler where you navigate terrain consisting of animated infographics; imagine living in an especially dry PowerPoint presentation and you’ll have the right idea. Despite appearances to the contrary, there actually is a story here, though a lot of players don’t get far enough to realise it, and that story is basically weird as hell.
  • OneShot – This one’s recent enough and popular enough you’ve likely heard of it, but on the off chance that you haven’t, I’ve got to give it a plug. It’s about a young cat-person of indeterminate gender named Niko who’s been chosen as the Messiah, charged with restoring the Sun to a dying world. Note that I didn’t say “you play as”; it quickly transpires that the god Niko serves is you, the player, and as the Messiah they’re able to communicate with you.
  • Ossuary – A puzzle game set in Purgatory. Your inventory consists of various mortal sins. I’d suggest giving it a go without assistance at first just for the atmosphere, but don’t hesitate to look up a guide if you’re well and truly stuck; some of the puzzles descend into some pretty severe moon-logic for their solutions.
  • Rusty Lake: Roots – Less a unified game and more an anthology of variably challenging hidden object puzzles tied together by a nonlinear framing narrative. I think it’s about alchemy. Lots of gratuitous dismemberment; in particular, keep your distance if you have a thing about eye trauma.

wilwheaton:

fallfeatherspony:

sandandglass:

The Creative Act of Listening to a Talking Frog

Kermit the Frog gives a talk on creativity and creative risk-taking

did a puppet just fucking give some of the best advice ever.

I hope you heard this in Kermit’s voice, just like I did.

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

stardustbinch:

love-and-radiation:

cirquedurartastic:

sassking-trevor:

lumos5001:

skotothalamos:

rainnecassidy:

siphersaysstuff:

themexicansnob:

comtessedebussy:

archangelimpala:

vaspider:

leiaorganaskywalker:

kablob17:

ygrittebardots:

oxfordthecomma:

ygrittebardots:

all I ask for in the new star wars films is leia with a lightsaber

I don’t think they give non-force sensitives lightsabers, but I also don’t think they’ve established Leia as force sensitive or not, so who knows

leia is anakin’s daughter. if she’s not force sensitive, I’ll eat my shoe.

The heck do you mean “they haven’t established Leia as Force-sensitive?”

Have you not seen Empire Strikes Back? The movie where her Force-sense was pinging every five minutes? Or in Return of the Jedi: “The Force is strong in my family. I have it. My father has it. My sister has it.” “In time, you’ll learn to use that power too.”

Leia is just as much a basket of potential-Jedi as Luke is.

“No, there is another.” HOW DID YOU MISS THAT

Because girl.

“In Expanded Universe materials set after Return of the Jedi, Leia is portrayed as a founding member of the New Republic. Although most of her life is devoted to such matters of state, she engages in limited study of the Jedi arts, with Luke as her teacher. Notably, she wields a blue lightsaber that she built herself.” [x]

fake geek boys

Even the dang trailer SPELLS “My sister has it”

“I’m sure Luke wasn’t on that thing when it blew…”
“He wasn’t. I can feel it.”

fake geek boys

this post is golden

reblogging cause one of my followers tried to tell me Leia isn’t force sensitive 

There it is. The first Fake Geek Boys post I ever loved.

What kind of dingus doesn’t think Leia isn’t a Magic Space Laser Queen.

LEIA IS FORCE SENSITIVE.

NOW,

GIVE HER A LIGHTSABER

zenosanalytic:

scotchtapeofficial:

science-sexual:

sonatagreen:

jumpingjacktrash:

unbelievable-facts:

In 2010, the RIKEN institute in Japan created mutant cherry blossom trees by firing ion beams at them in a particle accelerator. The mutated trees now bloom four times a year and produce more flowers.

a wise use of science powers

ok so i’m not saying this is the most japanese thing ever, but I’m not saying it’s not

“we have a ray gun that creates mutants” anime level 8/10

“we used it to make super cherry blossoms” japan level 10/10

“so are they like firebreathing carnivorous flowers or” “no they just make more flowers, more often” aesthetic level 11/10

“well done, this is exactly what we hoped would happen when we paid a zillion dollars to build a particle accelerator” —the project backers

Particle physics is fucking magic
Some wizards took a magic box into the woods and fucked up some trees. I love this shit

“ok so should we mutate like a super army or-” “no. this sakura tree.” “but why” “hanami four times a year instead of once. imagine”

The Announcement Article, in English.

eighthdoctor:

guitargoat:

scienceasfuck:

congragulation:

just precisely how bad was 1500s jerusalem at making maps, you ask? well,

image

this…is a fidget spinner

Reblog if you believe in fidget spinner earth.

Ok so a couple of really important things for understanding what’s going on with this map. First, it’s not from 1500s Jerusalem. This is the Bünting Clover Leaf Map from 1581 Hanover, Germany. This turns out to be super important for understanding the map. Why? Because it was made by a Christian.

This is a stylized map. It’s derived from a very popular kind of map called a “T and O map”, which first are found in Iberia around ~600 CE and then became very popular in Europe. Here’s an early one (12th century edition of a 7th century book describing them):

A larger, later, and more detailed one (1300):

And a modern map with the outlines of the T-and-O superimposed:

So what is a T and O map? They were a way to conceptualize the world. Pre-1492, conventional wisdom was that there were three continents: Europe, Asia, and Africa. Asia was the largest and went at the top, with Europe to the bottom left and Africa to the bottom right. The shaft of the T was the Mediterranean, the left side of the crossbar was the Don River, and the right was the Nile River. And at the center? Jerusalem.

Here’s the thing: For most of human history, most people haven’t needed maps to get around. They were either travelling between locations they or someone in their party knew, or they were moving slowly enough (i.e. on foot or by cart) to be able to stop and ask directions. So maps weren’t navigation–they were either for education (Ptolemy’s 2nd cent CE description of the world, which was turned into many, many maps in the Middle Ages) or, far more common, for religious symbolism. Between ~500 and ~1700, the purpose of most maps was to show Christians their place in the world. T and O maps put Jerusalem at the center because it was where Jesus was crucified, and they put Asia at the top because that was where it was believed the Garden of Eden was located.

8th century T and O map from Italy. Adam and Eve are visible in the center top:

The really interesting thing about T and O maps, imo, is that they’re deliberately not accurate. People were certainly capable of making recognizable maps of the world, but they were choosing to go with this more stylized version.

1482 world map based on Ptolemy’s writings:

T and O maps, then, are deliberate. They include only what the map maker thought was important, and that is almost always a religious function.

Our modern maps, meanwhile, evolved out of a combination between the Ptolemaic maps and portolan charts. Portolan charts are navigational maps. They frequently only featured the coastline and ports, but overlaying the map is a set of rhumb lines, or paths with constant bearing with respect to true north.

One of the earliest surviving portolan charts, from 1325 Italy:

Portolan charts, by modern standards, are vastly more accurate than T and O maps, and are visibly a better representation of the Earth than a Ptolemaic map. But from the concerns of a medieval cartographer, they’re very bland and boring. There’s no representation here of important cities, religious locations, or classical allusions. It’s just a map of coastlines.

Back to the Clover Leaf map. In 1492, Columbus changed (among other things) map making. The assumption until 1498 (when it became apparent that this was not Asia and it was not a minor collection of outlying islands) was that the world had three continents–at least three accessible to human explorers. After 1500, mapmakers engaged in a race–sometimes a war–to represent the new discoveries first and most accurately. The result was a series of increasingly recognizable world maps.

There are a ton, and thanks to that and (mostly) accurate records about who went where when, you can start to date post-1492 maps based on what areas of the world they do or do not show. But the most relevant one for this post is this one:

This is a 1582 world map, which depicts a reasonably accurate Europe, Africa (including Madagascar, discovered by Europeans in 1500), and most of Asia. Japan is still difficult, as is southeast Asia; Australia is missing entirely. Over in the Americas, while most of South America is decent, North America has some struggles in the northern and western regions. Baja California is an island and everywhere north of that is missing entirely. In the south, there’s hints that the cartographer was thinking about Terra Australis Incognita–a long theorized ‘counterweight’ to the Northern Hemisphere continents. In the 1500s, various voyages attributed Tierra del Fuego, Indonesia, and Australia to the continent. Its relationship to Antarctica seems to be completely coincidental.

This is a pretty typical late 1500s map.

It’s drawn by the same cartographer as the Clover Leaf map.

Heinrich Bünting wrote a book, called Itinerarium Sacrae Scripturae (Itinerary of Sacred Scripture), in which both maps are featured, along with many, many others. The book uses current knowledge along with the Bible to talk extensively about the Holy Land–which explains why Bünting put such an allegorical map in his book to begin with.

The Bünting Clover Leaf map isn’t an accurate representation of the world–but it does show a 16th century audience how the world was constructed in medieval theology.

To an extent it’s a problem with fandom: the fact is that you’ve got thousands of intelligent people thinking about a problem, and statistically speaking some of them are likely to come up with something more clever than the creators. […] There comes a point at which, frankly, fandom IS better than the creators. We have more minds, more cumulative talent, more voices arguing for different kinds of representation, more backstory… The thing is that I rarely get involved with a show without a fandom anymore, because I actually enjoy the analysis and fic and fun more than I enjoy the show itself. Similarly, I get drawn into shows I otherwise wouldn’t really consider by the strength of their fandom. And I want the shows to live up to their fandom, but it’s an almost impossibly high bar, because the parts of fandom I choose to engage with are often parts that wouldn’t be considered sufficiently accessible or relevant to a majority of viewers. So… basically, for me, fandom is primary, and canon is secondary. The latter is really only there to facilitate the former.

glitterarygetsit, in a discussion on fan responses to media on facebook

#this is the first time i’ve really articulated this #and i was quite pleased with it #this is the thing: i care so much less about original material than i do about fanworks

(via imorca)

On the one hand, sure – fandom of mediocre art tends to be better than the art, or at least more interesting, because there are a lot of creative nimrods out there who didn’t go to professional expressing themselves school to have their sharp corners sanded off – but for the same reasons fandom of good art tends to degrade its subject, because fandom (taken collectively, as this  person does) is only interested in telling certain types of stories and can only understand certain character archetypes, meaning that fanwork of property A (absent names, eye color and haircuts) tends to be indistinguishable from fanwork of property B.

But that’s not what this person is talking about, is it?  They’re not talking about fandom the mass entity – they’re talking about the outliers, the long tail.  “I engage with parts of fandom that wouldn’t be considered sufficiently accessible or relevant to a majority of viewers”, they say, inversely snobbing it up.  Far be it from me to speculate about the particular itch this person has, this content which is nowhere to be found in popular media except in certain pieces of fanfiction and “analysis”, but I suspect it doesn’t have as much to do with complexity or quality as it does with recognition, with finding a shared point of view which is otherwise shut out by mass culture gatekeeping.  

Don’t say that fanart is better executed or smarter – it’s not, in the vast majority of cases.  Say that it’s honest.  Say that it’s real.   Say that it exceeds commercial art because it does effortlessly what learned craft only achieves at the highest level, which is to reflect the soul as it is.   But remember that the animating spirit that makes it all work – the relationship the fanartist has with the setting and characters – is only there because some poor striving fucker made those up.

(via some-triangles)

jumpingjacktrash:

ctm-pupcake:

When you have a child, you’re not signing up for them to be an exact copy of you, you don’t sign up for them to be straight, cisgender, a certain religion, you sign up to bring another human into the world and raise them as their own person, and the minute you make a decision to have a child, you have signed up for them not to be straight, not to be cis, not to have a certain religion. You can’t attach terms and conditions to a human being, and as a parent, your child being gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transgender, non binary and so many more identities, should not be used as an excuse to make their life hell, to remind them all the time that they’re not what you signed up for. If you do that, you are not a good parent. You can tell yourself you are, you can tell your child you are, but really you’re a monster. When you have a child, you sign up to accept, love and support them for them.

you’re also not signing up for an abled child. their disability did not steal your ‘real’ child. the fuck is wrong with people.