April242014
12AM

revereche:

mantisbutts:

reapergrellsutcliff:

Fashions of the Future as Imagined in 1893

Illustrations from “Future Dictates of Fashion” by W. Cade Gall that was published in the January 1893 issue of The Strand magazine.

At first I thought this was some “fashion of witches and wizards through the ages” type thing but nah everyone is supposed to dress like this. I wish everyone dressed like this. 

nailed it

(via septimalshenanigans)

April232014

nimblermortal:

nimblermortal:

Frellity frell frell

There is a Nobel laureate coming to give an exclusive talk to undergraduates today

in one hour

I am the only person who knows about it

I have no idea whether the email I sent actually went to the listserv

If anybody has any questions whatsoever about dark energy, please send them to me

I have no interest or knowledge about the subject and I will be the only one there and I was going to do the homework due immediately afterward in that time

Well, as expected, I am the only person here

Including the professor in question

Ahahahahaaaaaa ten minutes more and I am saved

Also the department offered cookies sooooo

Final reblog: I am saved, but if you guys still want to send me questions on dark energy, I will use my superior googling capabilities plus my background as a physics student to answer them.

And if they’re really good questions, I will take them to the final talk on Friday, and I pinky promise you to raise my hand and ask them in front of a room full of professors.

6PM

nimblermortal:

Frellity frell frell

There is a Nobel laureate coming to give an exclusive talk to undergraduates today

in one hour

I am the only person who knows about it

I have no idea whether the email I sent actually went to the listserv

If anybody has any questions whatsoever about dark energy, please send them to me

I have no interest or knowledge about the subject and I will be the only one there and I was going to do the homework due immediately afterward in that time

Well, as expected, I am the only person here

Including the professor in question

Ahahahahaaaaaa ten minutes more and I am saved

Also the department offered cookies sooooo

5PM

Frellity frell frell

There is a Nobel laureate coming to give an exclusive talk to undergraduates today

in one hour

I am the only person who knows about it

I have no idea whether the email I sent actually went to the listserv

If anybody has any questions whatsoever about dark energy, please send them to me

I have no interest or knowledge about the subject and I will be the only one there and I was going to do the homework due immediately afterward in that time

3PM

jtotheizzoe:

Here’s rionhunter's response, I've added my take on this below:

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 

To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.

Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.

Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.
That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.

Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.

The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.

This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.

For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.

Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved.

If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?

Yeah, a little trickier.

In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.

Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.

As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.

The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.

Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.

The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.

When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.

And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. 

In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)

So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);

The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. 
When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.

I don’t totally agree with rionhunter's explanation. It's true that persistence of vision and related phenomena of visual perception are responsible for the fact that films and TV don’t look like the series of still frames that they are. But to me, none of that explains the directional perception of the hotdogs or their (apparent) speed.

Today’s films, TV shows, and digitally animated features aim for 24-30 frames per second. Hand-drawn animation like the Disney films of yore used to get away with as little as 12 images per second (each doubled to create a total of 24 frames per second). And yes, they would distort images in between to create a motion-blur type effect.

But the GIF illusion above reminds me more of the spinning dancer illusion than anything else:

Almost instantaneously, that dancer will appear to spin in one direction. A majority of you will see it in a certain direction over the other, but I don’t want to lead the witness, so to speak, by telling you which. Most of you, given enough brain cramping, will be able to reverse the direction of the dancer, just like you reversed the direction of the happy hot dogs (try using your peripheral vision to make it switch).

This initial reaction/reversal trickery is due to the lack of a depth reference in both images. It’s likely that our perceived position below Hot Dog Man tricks our brain into assuming the franks are flying away to the right. And without a reference point that makes the opposite impossible, you can readily make the opposite possible and perceive the hot dogs falling into his pants. Incidentally, you may have heard that your directional preference determines whether you are “right-brained” or “left-brained”, but that’s BS, because brain-sidedness is a BS concept to begin with.

As for their apparent speed? In each of the frames of this GIF, a sausage moves vertically by 12 pixels and horizontally by 4 pixels (I measured). It doesn’t matter which direction you perceive them moving, that’s how far they go in either direction. It’s likely that they appear to move faster when entering his pants (appearing to move down and to the left) because the background is moving to the right. You know how sometimes when you’re stopped at a stoplight and the car next to you will move and you suddenly feel like you’re moving backwards? It’s like that. It’s an illusion of self-motion. On the other hand, when the hotdogs move in the same direction as the drumsticks, the illusion of motion is reduced because the background reference is interpreted differently by your brain. What’s especially cool about this is that the hotdogs move the same distance no matter what, your brain is just doing that thing it always does where it lies to you.

So there ya go John and Hank and everyone else. That’s my take on the hot dog man illusion GIF. Science side … out.

(Hot dog GIF by Lacey Micallef)

(via nanodash)

2PM
WHO AUTHORIZED THIS DIAGRAM

WHO AUTHORIZED THIS DIAGRAM

9AM
beckaford:

micahelizabeth:


“Eat” the damn Play-doh cookies.
Slurp the invisible soup.
Pretend that they’re not causing grievous bodily harm as they “brush” your hair.
Always be serious when asked what you’d like for dinner, and never say something silly like rabbit soup. Because they will go get their stuffed one off the bed, put it in your best pot, and fill said pot with water. Then place it on your desk.
Greet their make believe friends and ask how their day was.
Always kiss the teddy bear goodnight. It has feelings too.
Always pretend to die when they shoot you.
If you are having a fake war with them and you shoot them and they say they can’t die because they are invincible, you don’t shoot them again, because they are invincible.
Yes, their drawing does look like a butterfly, not a bunch of jumbled up lines.
Them pounding on the piano is the best thing you have ever heard.

THISTHISTHISTHIS

no but seriously it’s very important to a child’s development to not be shut down by parents and other caregivers

beckaford:

micahelizabeth:

  • Eat” the damn Play-doh cookies.
  • Slurp the invisible soup.
  • Pretend that they’re not causing grievous bodily harm as they “brush” your hair.
  • Always be serious when asked what you’d like for dinner, and never say something silly like rabbit soup. Because they will go get their stuffed one off the bed, put it in your best pot, and fill said pot with water. Then place it on your desk.
  • Greet their make believe friends and ask how their day was.
  • Always kiss the teddy bear goodnight. It has feelings too.
  • Always pretend to die when they shoot you.
  • If you are having a fake war with them and you shoot them and they say they can’t die because they are invincible, you don’t shoot them again, because they are invincible.
  • Yes, their drawing does look like a butterfly, not a bunch of jumbled up lines.
  • Them pounding on the piano is the best thing you have ever heard.

THISTHISTHISTHIS

no but seriously it’s very important to a child’s development to not be shut down by parents and other caregivers

(via dduane)

6AM
12AM

Anonymous asked: Why do Americans say "on accident" not "by accident"?

jenesaispourquoi:

madlori:

I’ve never heard an American say “on accident.”  We say “by accident.”  As in “I drove my car into a tree by accident.” 

Perhaps it’s a regionalism?

i think it comes from analogy with ‘on purpose’ (being its opposite). But it is nonstandard/regional, yes.

Hello yes I know people who say ‘on accident’

Southeastern thing? Anybody want to contradict that?

← Older entries Page 1 of 324