Science side of Tumblr,

Explain everything.

That’s our goal. Well the goal of scientists anyway; I can’t speak for most of the science side.

(Reblogged from officialbluteam)


I remember when the science side of tumblr was actually very legitimate and prestigious and now it’s like “can someone explain?” “hot dog potato blue 3 in a corset” “thanks science side of tumblr”

How impudent. That is not the true science side of Tumblr. As Shakespeare said, “O villain! thou hast stolen both mine office and my name. The one ne’er got me credit, the other mickle blame.”

(Reblogged from is-doitsu-an-instrument)


so last night I had a dream that my boyfriend died and I was a wreck and later he showed up and said he had to fake his death so that he could move away with me. so I texted him all that and when he woke up he called me and said hE HAD A DREAM THAT HE HAD TO FAKE HIS DEATH SO HE COULD MOVE AWAY WHAT IS HAPPENING. science/ psychology/ philosophy sides of tumblr explain dis.

Coincidence. Because the universe is often so lazy.

(Reblogged from mischacrossing)


A moth my friend saved. She super glued the wing together, watched it fly off into the sunset later on.

Science side of tumblr, can you name the species for me please?

You can submit photos of moths and butterflies to this website and people will ID them for you:

(Reblogged from strobelightgalaxy)


hello science side of tumblr please explain straight people


(Reblogged from littlequeerkid)



what if the coins you find randomly at the bottom of drawers and in between couch cushions are actually from spiders trying to pay rent


Occam’s razor.

(Reblogged from sexydemonhunter)



welcome to harvard: linguistics 101

Is this reality?


yo the word fucking is actually really interesting because it’s one of american english’s only infixes








Haha when I learned this they used “bloody”

(Reblogged from nihilsupernum)
(Reblogged from bothslashneither)
(Reblogged from anteroinen)

awkwardpariah asked: Just curious, but where on a scale of 1 to 10 would you put your level of interest in body modification? 1 being Mormon missionary, 10 being Ghost in the Shell style Prosthetic Body.


I would peg myself at a firm 11.

However, I’m not a fan of all body modification for myself, personally. I’m not big on flash-art style or otherwise colorful tattoos on myself, I think I look too messy already. 

My interest would definitely skew to the “prosthetic body” variety in a lot of cases and is, in fact, explored in FindChaos to the degree that several of the characters might have chosen “upgrades” to their current anatomical situations.

The desire to shake this corporeal existence is embedded not only in my love and respect of mechanics but also in my body’s own inherent flaws — the biggest of which is my inability to control my own chemical balances to the degree that I can function (mostly) normally. If it were entirely possible to put the ghost into the (a) machine, as it were, I would be the first on the list. This raises questions of the “ghost” and how it interacts and retains, of course, but that’s why we call it “theoretical sciences.” 

For now, I’m not holding my breath for any advancements that would allow me to transcend this fleshy ride and I would want any breakthroughs to be thoroughly tested and vetted by many before I would subject working parts to potential harm. I am excited about wetware, cyberonics, cybernetic control systems, and bionic limb (or more) replacement

So many of the things I would choose for myself are so far from being perfected, however, that for now I’ll just stick to large swaths of black ink and scarifications. Maybe the occasional electric shock to my person to reset the balance… 

*I do, however, love almost any and all body mods on others and believe in the freedom to choose whatever mods a person may get.

(Reblogged from nihilsupernum)
(Reblogged from nihilsupernum)
(Reblogged from nihilsupernum)
(Reblogged from nihilsupernum)

I’m sure everyone has a burning need to know how to say ‘that’s my animal fat over there’ in Bella Coola (aka Nuxalk). (It’s a very useful life skill. I promise.) Anyway, it’s st͡sʼqʰt͡sʰtʰx. That’s in IPA, the international phonetic alphabet. Lots of the symbols are probably unfamiliar, so I’ll explain how to pronounce them.

The first sound is s, which is the same as in English. The next sound is more complicated: it’s an affricate, or a stop (here t) followed by a fricative (here s) at the same location in the mouth. So it’s basically just saying ts. But there’s a twist: it’s also an ejective. (That’s what the apostrophe means.) An ejective is where you close your glottis (the part of your larynx, or voice box, that vibrates to voice your words), then move your larynx up so that the air in your mouth gets compressed, then release the closure (which in this case is at your alveolar ridge, the part of the roof of your mouth that your tongue touches when you say t). Usually you make sounds my breathing out, but not for ejectives. (In technical terminology, they’re non-pulmonic.) But learning what’s going on in an ejective doesn’t make it easy to say, so I’ll explain in terms that are easier to learn. First, say t over and over. You run out of breath, right? If you run out of breath and can’t say t anymore, it’s not an ejective. To say an ejective t, hold your breath, with your mouth open. Then say t over and over. You shouldn’t run out of breath (though of course you will have to breathe at some point, but that will be because you used up the oxygen, not lost the air). It will be hard to say at first, and quiet, but with practice you’ll improve. Now, back to the word. It’s not just t’, it’s t͡sʼ; so you have to do the same thing with holding your breath, but instead say ts instead of just t.

The next sound is another one not found in English. The letter [q] in IPA isn’t the same as English letter q. It’s like k, but farther back in the mouth (to use the technical term, it’s uvular. [k] is velar, [t] is alveolar, as I said above.) Say k over and over, slowly moving your tongue back in your mouth. (Side note: this is also a sound in Klingon.) The little ʰ after it means that it’s aspirated, or a little puff of air comes out after you say it. For a demonstration in English, say Lupin (unaspirated p) and then loo pin (aspirated p). [Don’t judge it’s the first example I could come up with.] So you want to say the q with the puff of air. (This shouldn’t be hard because aspiration in English is kind of “default.”)

The next sound is another ts affricate, but this time it’s not an ejective. (phew!) Instead it’s aspirated, like the q. After that is an aspirated t, which is the same sound as the t in English “tin”.

The next sound is x, a velar fricative. (As I mentioned, k is velar too.) Like q, x is a completely different sound in IPA and English. It’s the same sound that you get at the end of “Bach” if you pronounce it like a snob. If you don’t already know how to say it, say k and then try to keep saying k. Don’t say it multiple times; just say it and make it as long as possible. Then try to make that sound without k at the beginning. Congratulations, you just said x. (If you kept the k, it would be an affricate like ts or English ch, which is actually just t+sh. We want it to be a fricative, so we can’t pronounce the k.)

All right! You learned how to say st͡sʼqʰt͡sʰtʰx (which means ‘that’s my animal fat over there’ in case you forgot). Easy, huh? Don’t be discouraged if it takes you a LOT of tries to get it right. I already knew how to say all the sounds and I had to say it over a hundred times to get it right… Anyway, you can now impress your friends with useless information and a strangling sound. If you’re interested in Bella Coola, the language that spawned this awful word, read on.

Bella Coola is a Salishan language spoken in British Columbia. As you will note, the word above had no vowels; Bella Coola is one of a few languages that allow such words. This poses a problem for phonologists (people who study sound systems) who think that all languages should have syllables: Can Bella Coola have words with no syllables? Can a voiceless stop like t be the nucleus of a syllable? (In English, only vowels and a few sonorant consonants can be syllable nuclei: for example, the words butter, bottle, button, and bottom all have no vowel in their second syllable.) Phonologists seek to answer such questions and describe why some sound systems exist and others don’t.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this overly long and information-dense post.



Please tell me that I’m not the only one who enjoys intentionally misinterpreting things written in hard brackets to be narrow transcriptions. It makes it so much more fun.


[dances around the room]

Try saying that as if it were IPA. (Yeah. A coarticulated [t] and [h].)

[my hobby]: [doing this at spelling prescriptivists who criticize] “[lazy]” [pronunciation]

(Reblogged from tropylium)