curlicuecal:

curlicuecal:

malepresentingnips:

I would say about 50% owl

[colors tweaked post hoc to satisfy the censorbots]

this is the best science I have ever done

@lewisandquark has an excellent post about why this kind of simple tweak can throw off a neural net—

Do Neural Nets Dream of Electric Sheep”

For example, image recognition has a tendency to misindentify rocky fields as goats (because goats are often found there), images with rulers are more likely to contain skin cancer, annnnnd apparently anything significantly skin toned as porn.

( #send dunes)

Not only that, but nets that were pretty good at recognizing goats regularly misIDed them when they turned up in unusual places– goats in trees = birds, goats in cars = dogs

Neural nets inherently reproduce the biases of the systems they’re trained on.

And yeah, playing with the censorbots reveals all sorts of pattern breaks can throw them off— large borders, weird zooms, image filters, hue, and saturation changes, clothing, props.

The presence of a small owl in a hat.

Tl;dr:

friends, may I suggest the solution to the nsfw-ban is porn in unusual places?

fireleaptfromhousetohouse:

shieldfoss:

isaacsapphire:

alaija:

someoneintheshadow456:

croquettish:

Have you ever seen a twitter thread (or, in this case, two!) that so perfectly expressed everything you’d felt over months and months of harassment persistent? With all credit to @blackblobyellowcone, who is clearly amazing and completely gets it– not just why us women write and read the erotica that we do, but the history behind the censorship we, as a gender, have experienced. Bravo. 

Seriously modern fan discourse is Victorian era prudes screaming about how fiction is corrupting the “poor innocent young women” and how their fantasies are “evil”

Except in the Victorian era it was done by men. Today it’s done by OTHER WOMEN.

It wasn’t really done only by men then either. Women wielded political power through their husbands etc. It’s that what the men were doing was visible.

Yuuuup.

It was great for twelve tweets and then

Men go on making shitty, problematic art for mass consumption and we take our valid anger about that and

Your what, lady?

Valid anger

At what?

problematic art

More, I need to ask here, or less, problematic than rubbing it to Nazis, as you talked about upthread?

Is it woke to want Nazis when women do it, but not when men do it?

(Trick question, obviously: It’s woke when she wants it and problematic when she doesn’t.)

At the risk of offering a killing insult to Nazi fetishists, I’m going to say it’s never particularly woke to want Nazis. Like, by definition – just as if one were to have a fetish for minstrels, golliwogs, or the Wayans brothers in ‘White Chicks’. 

‘This isn’t woke, but that’s ok’ is perfectly in the spirit of the thread above, but I fear that, for one reason or another, the tweeters wouldn’t want to make that claim.

At the risk of taking this more seriously than it merits – “This isn’t woke, but that’s ok” is perfectly in spirit of the first twelve tweets, that’s why the thirteenth one soured me so badly.

isaacsapphire:

alaija:

someoneintheshadow456:

croquettish:

Have you ever seen a twitter thread (or, in this case, two!) that so perfectly expressed everything you’d felt over months and months of harassment persistent? With all credit to @blackblobyellowcone, who is clearly amazing and completely gets it– not just why us women write and read the erotica that we do, but the history behind the censorship we, as a gender, have experienced. Bravo. 

Seriously modern fan discourse is Victorian era prudes screaming about how fiction is corrupting the “poor innocent young women” and how their fantasies are “evil”

Except in the Victorian era it was done by men. Today it’s done by OTHER WOMEN.

It wasn’t really done only by men then either. Women wielded political power through their husbands etc. It’s that what the men were doing was visible.

Yuuuup.

It was great for twelve tweets and then

Men go on making shitty, problematic art for mass consumption and we take our valid anger about that and

Your what, lady?

Valid anger

At what?

problematic art

More, I need to ask here, or less, problematic than rubbing it to Nazis, as you talked about upthread?

Is it woke to want Nazis when women do it, but not when men do it?

(Trick question, obviously: It’s woke when she wants it and problematic when she doesn’t.)

slartibartfastibast:

nanonaturalist:

talons-mcbeak:

lampfaced:

nanonaturalist:

demonladytakkuri:

nanonaturalist:

Barn Owls are THE BEST. They are in a separate family from all other North American owls, and instead of whoo hoooting they do the TV STATIC SCREAM FROM YOUR NIGHTMARES.

Gotta love the raptor presentations at the state parks! This was at Lockhart State Park tonight at our Master Naturalist meeting. These presenters rehabilitate injured birds of prey through Austin Wildlife Rescue (austinwildliferescue.org), an organization that always NEEDS VOLUNTEERS to help out with the adorable baby animals. If you’re in Central Texas, check them out!

June 18, 2018

The barn owls are members of the family “tytonidae” while every other owl species is a member of the “strigadae” family.

While we typically think of owls like the one in the original post as being barn owls, every species in the family can technically be considered a barn owl.

This includes the various species of masked owls which are relatively similar to your common barn owl

As well as both varieties of sooty owl which are strikingly different than the common barn owl

There are also the grass owls which are behaviorally different than other barn owls in their habits of living on the ground rather than trees

And the two odd tytos out, the red owl and ashy faced owl respectively. Scientists know almost nothing about the former and no individuals have been kept in captivity despite being discovered quite some time ago. Even photographs of it are rare, but it appears to be an orange barn owl with a pink face.

Structurally speaking, barn owls actually have very few traits in common with strigadae owls as their face and beak shapes and proportions are entirely different. There are also differences in their legs and talons, while their similarities are limited to feather composition, ear placement, spinal structure, and binocular vision among a few other internal components.

That being said, barn owls are far from the only family of non-hooting owls as hooting is almost exclusive to larger species, typically genus Strix or bubo. Many other species will trill, screech, and/or hiss.

Barn owls are rather unique in having an incredibly keen sense of hearing, even in comparison to other owls. They can hear and discern between different heartbeats and triangulate the sound perfectly due to their satellite dish-like face shape.

In addition, this barn owl is not actually Tyto alba, it’s a Tyto furcuta, T. alba is the species native to Western Europe while T. furcuta is native to North America.

Many thanks for this owlditional quality content. I give three screams of approval 👍

bay owls (genus Phodilus) are in Tytonidae and they are some of my favorite owls of all time. they can be found in Southeast Asia, and some sites claim central Africa as well but I’m not sure?

they can shut their eyes and look eyeless

OR OPEN THEIR EYES WIDE THIS AND LOOK LIKE DEMONS

did I mention they have the best judgemental faces because of their eye positioning

and babies look like tiny demonic gryphons

last I went looking, not a lot is known about bay owl behavior aside from general Tyto habits. I just know they’re so out there appearance-wise and I love them so much for it.

IIIIIT’S TYTONIDAE TIIIIIME

(Small correction: the American barn owl is Tyto furcata!)

Anyway, I love everything about this post. Tyto alba hasn’t been photographically represented yet here so I’m just gonna go ahead and add this lovely boy. His name is Valentino, he’s an education ambassador, he’s 16 years old, and he’s an absolute delight. 😍

What a handsome gentleman!

Valentino has stolen my heart 😍

October 25, 2018

@argumate is this one:

I see the resemblance

xenoqueer:

whyyoustabbedme:

It’s like ending network neutrality/fair peering arrangements for postage, basically??

The most basic summary I can come up with is that mail going from China to the US via postal services is now going to cost as much as mail going from the US to China does. Until now, senders in China (and other lower wealth nations) paid lower prices to ship, which is why it’s often cheaper to buy things and have them shipped directly from China to the US, (eg AliExpress) than buy things from US sellers (eg Ebay) and have them shipped within the US. That’s the intended goal: by equalizing the shipping costs for US and international sellers, hypothetically US sellers will see increased business and profits.

But, practically speaking, privately owned shipping companies won’t be held to account by this change in federal policy, and will be able to keep right on doing reduced shipping from China to the US, and then will have all the leverage they need to get the USPS shut down. Without the USPS as a price cap, they’ll be able to charge whatever they damned well please for their services, utterly unopposed, and in a world where so many of us buy so much online for delivery, they’ll make the kind of profit that is unholy. Because they’ll be selling a necessity and pricing it as a luxury.

It also raises a lot of questions for rural residents. Private shipping is notorious for refusing to deliver to low-density areas, shoving their packages off on the USPS. This is because the USPS is legally required to delivery to all residences within any US postal code. Private shipping can look at a low population area, and just say, “fuck it.”

And they will because low density shipping isn’t profitable.

So, you’ll see a lot of people saying in the upcoming months that this change is for the betterment of US business owners, so that they can compete with Chinese businesses. That’s where all the supporting arguments are going to come from.

But it’s bullshit because private shipping will not be held to these standards. They were never members of the UPU in the first place.

Also, the UPU handles price setting agreements for roughly 200 countries, (colored green in this map). The US is withdrawing to negotiate “fairer” pricing with China, but currently just doesn’t even have fucking plans for the 190+ other countries. We’re about to having an international shipping crisis with everyone from Canada and Mexico, to the EU and Philippines.

@xenoqueer

But, practically speaking, privately owned shipping companies won’t be held to account by this change in federal policy, and will be able to keep right on doing reduced shipping from China to the US, and then will have all the leverage they need to get the USPS shut down. Without the USPS as a price cap, they’ll be able to charge whatever they damned well please for their services, utterly unopposed, and in a world where so many of us buy so much online for delivery, they’ll make the kind of profit that is unholy. Because they’ll be selling a necessity and pricing it as a luxury.

Do you have literally zero idea what your thesis is from one sentence to the next?

voxette-vk:

shieldfoss:

voxette-vk:

shieldfoss:

voxette-vk:

shieldfoss:

wes-stoodis:

lokicolouredglasses:

imathers:

abraxuswithaxes:

smallrevolutionary:

trungles:

shorterexcerpts:

styro:

salon:

Ronald Reagan pretty much ruined everything for millennials.

fuckin’ ronnie

I try and bring up how he ruined free in state tuition in the name of hippie bashing when he was California’s governor often, but don’t exactly have the biggest platform.

“Worst of all, these students’ sense of the future is constrained by planning for and then paying down their student loans, often for decades. Economists are waking up to the fact that when young Americans enter the workforce burdened with over a trillion dollars in cumulative debt, they become risk averse, unwilling to move, less able to make major purchases, and slower to become homeowners. Not coincidentally, they don’t feel safe enough to register any major protests against the society that’s done this to them.”

Damn.

i am reblogging again because….. fuck ronald reagan forever and ever and ever and ever.

Economists should be adept in their fields, how are they only now realizing that paying off our student debt is a fucking priority over anything else other than food?

Weird, it’s almost like there’s something missing from the study of economics.

Who would have possibly thought that a young generation owing trillions of dollars could have a negative effect on the economy?

Weird, it’s almost like there’s something missing from the study of economics.

Basically every single economist I know or read thinks the American student loan situation is ridiculous. You can’t blame a field of study for the idiocy politicians get up to.

(I mean you can but it’s not a good look)

Subsidized student loans are not good, but they’re a hell of a lot better than free tuition.

Making the debt undischargable in bankruptcy is an astoundingly bad way to subsidize the loans though.

The main subsidy is the interest rate and guaranteed issue (for most types of loans).

Making them undischargeable just makes sense and is what people would voluntarily contract privately if they were allowed to. Otherwise you have a large loan funding an asset that has real productive value but can’t be repossessed. “Protecting” people from making that contract prevents them from making a mutually beneficial deal.

They also can’t make their money back if the student dies, or never gets a job that pays enough to make back the loan. A car loan can only be repossessed if the car isn’t totalled, a home if it isn’t burned.

“Protecting” people from making an undischargable loan forces the bank to evaluate whether it is a mutually beneficial deal that is likely to see an acceptable ROI.

Of course, but the student has an interest in not dying and in getting a high-paying job. There is no moral hazard. And the loan issuer can consider the risk of death or the odds that the degree and the student’s academic performance will lead to a high-paying job.

But once the student has the degree, the student at that time has no interest in actually paying back the loan, if they can go bankrupt instead. So they won’t. And so anyone making the loan will lose the whole principal. So no one will make the loan.

But before the student has the degree, they would still like the loan. For a good student, who wants to get a degree to obtain a high-paying job, it is very much in their interest. So if they are not allowed to commit to paying it off, that prevents them from making a valuable trade.

Of course, a poor-performing student getting a degree in a low-demand field may not be considered to have a good chance of paying off even a nondischargeable loan in full and on time. So they may be denied loans, if there is no guaranteed-issue subsidy.

Mm. Did not consider the moral hazard.

voxette-vk:

shieldfoss:

voxette-vk:

shieldfoss:

wes-stoodis:

lokicolouredglasses:

imathers:

abraxuswithaxes:

smallrevolutionary:

trungles:

shorterexcerpts:

styro:

salon:

Ronald Reagan pretty much ruined everything for millennials.

fuckin’ ronnie

I try and bring up how he ruined free in state tuition in the name of hippie bashing when he was California’s governor often, but don’t exactly have the biggest platform.

“Worst of all, these students’ sense of the future is constrained by planning for and then paying down their student loans, often for decades. Economists are waking up to the fact that when young Americans enter the workforce burdened with over a trillion dollars in cumulative debt, they become risk averse, unwilling to move, less able to make major purchases, and slower to become homeowners. Not coincidentally, they don’t feel safe enough to register any major protests against the society that’s done this to them.”

Damn.

i am reblogging again because….. fuck ronald reagan forever and ever and ever and ever.

Economists should be adept in their fields, how are they only now realizing that paying off our student debt is a fucking priority over anything else other than food?

Weird, it’s almost like there’s something missing from the study of economics.

Who would have possibly thought that a young generation owing trillions of dollars could have a negative effect on the economy?

Weird, it’s almost like there’s something missing from the study of economics.

Basically every single economist I know or read thinks the American student loan situation is ridiculous. You can’t blame a field of study for the idiocy politicians get up to.

(I mean you can but it’s not a good look)

Subsidized student loans are not good, but they’re a hell of a lot better than free tuition.

Making the debt undischargable in bankruptcy is an astoundingly bad way to subsidize the loans though.

The main subsidy is the interest rate and guaranteed issue (for most types of loans).

Making them undischargeable just makes sense and is what people would voluntarily contract privately if they were allowed to. Otherwise you have a large loan funding an asset that has real productive value but can’t be repossessed. “Protecting” people from making that contract prevents them from making a mutually beneficial deal.

They also can’t make their money back if the student dies, or never gets a job that pays enough to make back the loan. A car loan can only be repossessed if the car isn’t totalled, a home if it isn’t burned.

“Protecting” people from making an undischargable loan forces the bank to evaluate whether it is a mutually beneficial deal that is likely to see an acceptable ROI.