Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

July 21 2017

11:20

tellyjpg:

i really wish everyone had good hearts and good intentions for others. honestly.

Reposted fromirmelin irmelin viamanxx manxx
lordminx
11:18
Reposted fromgruetze gruetze
lordminx
11:17
8273 33e0 500
Erst wenn du zusammenbrichst, hast du das Leistungsprinzip in seiner ganzen Schönheit verstanden – Dies irae
S-Bahnhof Friedrichstraße
Reposted fromsefischer sefischer viaCarridwen Carridwen
lordminx
11:14
lordminx
11:14
9664 c414 500
Battleship gun turret (Yamato) vs tank vs human.
Reposted fromRockYourMind RockYourMind viagruetze gruetze
lordminx
11:13
3629 275c 500
Reposted fromfoods foods viagruetze gruetze
lordminx
11:13
6181 10ac
Reposted frommonsieurgateau monsieurgateau viagruetze gruetze
11:13
7213 9dda 500

Stephen Fabian

lordminx
11:12
2930 2885 500
I'm feeling watched O.o 
Reposted fromInsomniaNervosa InsomniaNervosa viagruetze gruetze
11:11
1933 0c27 500

engineer Karen Leadlay working on the analog computers in the space division of General Dynamics, 1964.

Reposted fromniedopalek niedopalek viagruetze gruetze
lordminx
11:11

Gefahr, drohende

Die bayerische CSU hat einen neuen Rechtsbegriff erfunden, die → drohende G. Der Bayerische Landtag hat gerade ein „Gesetz zur effektiveren Überwachung gefährlicher Personen“ beschlossen. Das erlaubt der Polizei künftig, Wohnungen zu durchsuchen oder Menschen ins Gefängnis zu stecken, wenn die Polizei der Meinung ist, dass von diesen Menschen „in absehbarer Zeit“ Gewalttaten zu erwarten seien – von ihnen also irgendwann irgendeine G. droht. Das klingt gefährlich und so, als würde diese G. gleich über alle hereinbrechen. Aber dieser Eindruck ist falsch. Rechtlich ist die → drohende G. viel ungefährlicher als die sogenannte konkrete G., die bislang in den entsprechenden Polizeigesetzen steht. Denn konkret bedeutet nach den Buchstaben des Gesetzes, dass es wirklich Hinweise darauf geben muss, dass gleich etwas passiert. Beispielsweise weil jemand in einem Ausbildungslager von Terroristen war und nun in Briefen an seine Freunde ankündigt, dass er am kommenden Donnerstag etwas in die Luft sprengen wird.
Eine → drohende G. ist sehr viel weniger bedrohlich. Das legt schon der alltägliche Umgang mit dem Begriff nahe. Den Menschen drohen mannigfache Gefahren, sobald sie aus dem Haus gehen. Und sogar im eigenen Bett droht ihnen noch eine ganze Menge, sogar der Tod. Was jedoch nichts darüber aussagt, ob dieser einen wirklich demnächst ereilen wird. Ähnlich ist es mit dem neuen bayerischen Polizeigesetz. Dem genügt es, wenn die „konkrete Wahrscheinlichkeit begründet ist, wonach in absehbarer Zeit Gewalttaten von erheblicher Intensität oder Auswirkung zu erwarten sind“. Somit wird aus der → konkreten G. nur noch eine „konkrete Wahrscheinlichkeit“. Der CSU-Politiker Florian Hermann sagte dazu im Landtag: „Vorsicht ist besser als Nachsicht.“
Doch damit entfernt sich die staatliche Gewalt immer weiter von Tätern und Taten und bewegt sich immer tiefer hinein in den Raum der Möglichkeiten und Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Wer einmal Lotto oder Roulette gespielt hat weiß, wie tückisch dieser Raum ist und wie schnell man mit einer Beurteilung aufgrund von Annahmen daneben liegen kann. Jemanden ins Gefängnis zu bringen, nur weil man glaubt, dass er irgendwann etwas vorhaben könnte, ist staatliche Willkür. Noch dazu weil dieser im Gesetz vorgesehene Unterbindungsgewahrsam praktisch unbegrenzt verlängert werden darf – ohne ein ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren und einen Verteidiger. Und allein schon die verharmlosenden Wortwahl zeigt, dass diese willkürliche Staatsgewalt verschleiert werden soll. Der Jurist Martin Heidebach von der Ludwigs-Maximilia-Universität München findet denn auch, dass das Gesetz gegen die Verfassung verstößt. Er schreibt, diese „Änderung der polizeilichen Generalklausel“ werde „zu einer massiven Verschiebung der Tektonik von Freiheit und Sicherheit führen – zulasten der Freiheit.“
Und der Jurist und Journalist Heribert Prantl schreibt, das Gesetz sei „eine Schande für einen Rechtsstaat“. „Das alles ist eigentlich unvorstellbar; bei diesem Gesetz ‘zur Überwachung gefährlicher Personen‘ denkt man an Guantanamo, Erdogan oder die Entrechtsstaatlichung in Polen. (…) Die CSU sollte sich schämen.“
https://neusprech.org/drohende-gefahr/ ;
Reposted fromgruetze gruetze
lordminx
11:10
Reposted fromgruetze gruetze

July 20 2017

19:14
8642 2d39 500

santaclausdeadindian:

akajustmerry:

By @sapphicdiaz on twtter (feat, gina rodriguez concept by yours truly) 

give me all or any of these

19:11

carnistprivilege:

actuallyblind:

let-the-spectrum-in:

actuallyblind:

drackir:

candidlyautistic:

carnistprivilege:

actuallyblind:

Small tip to help some of your blind friends: do not put 10,000 emojis in the middle of a text or a post if you continue to put text after the emojis because I will tell you that I will Straight give up if I have to listen to “face with tears of joy, face with tears of joy, face with tears of joy,” 23 times just to hear the rest of your text or post.

Oh my god, that’s what screen readers say when they read out emojis?? I didn’t realize.. I will change how I write my posts now… My bad…

This is good to know. Pretend there are twenty three light bulb emojis indicating sudden understanding following this text.

So the clap hands emoji post would be extra annoying since you can’t just speed read it, damn!

YES. That is one of my least favorite emojis because it’s LONG. It also says skin tone on some, and while that’s AWESOME, if you put 30 prayer hands, I have to hear “hands clasped in celebration with medium dark skin tone” 30 times in full. And even if I use a braille display, it still writes it out in full because there’s no real way to represent them any other way yet, so until someone invents a Braille display with like 10 lines that isn’t astronomically expensive, there’s no easy way to skip over them.

Now, at least with some screen readers, punctuation is a little different and if there are multiple of the same thing it’ll say like “17 exclamation points” instead of saying them all individually, and I wish that update would be made to screen readers to speak emojis in multiples that way… That would be a good solution.

Is it okay to use emojis sparingly? I don’t ever use a million like that, the most I’d put in a row is probably two different emojis, lol. But I do feel the need to use either emojis or ASCII faces in order to get emotion across in my writing. Which is better for you, a traditional ASCII face like :-) or a newfangled emoji like ☺️? Can your screen reader “translate” things like :-) into “smiling face” or do you just hear “colon dash right parentheses”?

Oh yeah, of course! If you only use one or two in a row that’s totally fine! Don’t feel like you have to just stop using them. They are fun and lots of people like them.

As for emoji versus traditional typed out faces, it doesn’t really matter. It can’t translate most of those faces except for a general smiley face, but I know what the symbols put together mean, though this may be difficult for somebody who is not very well versed in print reading. Most blind kids get taught to recognize both though.

There’s so much good info on this post! I didn’t know any of this. Thanks for making it!!

18:56

Infants do not cry ‘for no reason.’

myneurodiversity:

fullmetal-fitblr:

audreycritter:

howtoimpersonateanadult:

Infants do not cry to upset you. They don’t have a concept of hurting others and they don’t have any reason to want to do so.

Infants do not have any other way of communicating distress or an unmet need. They do not have a choice about crying.

Do not ever yell at, shake, or punish an infant. They will not learn from this – but they will be upset and afraid and possibly harmed, either in the moment or via problems in brain development.

It’s okay to take a minute to set an infant down and go into a quiet room if you are having a hard time staying calm and comforting, and come back when you have more self-control.

The only way to get an infant to cry less is to meet their needs. If you spend a lot of time with infants you can actually learn to notice when they need something, before they cry about it at all. Most infants show signs of discomfort, hunger, or having a full/wet diaper, before they get upset enough to cry.

Infants whose needs aren’t usually met right away may learn to cry immediately. Regularly not responding to an infant’s crying teaches the infant to panic every time they need something, and the trauma of being so afraid so often as an infant can cause issues with healthy brain develoment.

If a baby is crying, they need something.

  1. Is their nappy/diaper clean and dry? Even if it’s just wet, it should be changed right away.

  2. Are they hungry? A quick way to check is to run your finger over their mouth and see if they try to grab it with their lips.

  3. Do they have air bubbles? You may be able to tell if this is the problem by feeling the infant’s tummy for unusual firmness.

    Infants need to be burped right after they eat to help them get rid of air bubbles that may get trapped and cause discomfort. If it’s been little while since they last ate, it may be more effective to lay the infant on their back and move their legs in a bicycle motion.

  4. Are they too warm/cold? Touch the infant’s hands and feet to see if they need more or fewer coverings.

  5. Are they overstimulated? If it’s too noisy/bright or they’re being touched by too any people, etc., they may need to be held by one calm person with a blanket over their head. Like most people, infants tend to get more easily overstimulated when tired.

  6. Are they able to breathe freely? Infants cannot blow their own nose. A nasal aspirator is an inexpensive tool you can use to help them clear nasal congestion.

  7. Are they in pain? When an infant is sick or otherwise in pain, it may be beneficial to give them pain medication formulated for infants, such as baby tylenol. Always follow the instructions on the bottle and consult a doctor or pharmacist with any questions.

    If a cold doesn’t start to improve within a few days or the infant seems to be in pain but you don’t know why, consult a doctor. The infant may have colic, silent reflux or other issues which can sometimes be treated.

    If the infant is more than a couple months old, they may be teething. Baby tylenol will still help but a numbing paste, like orajel, on their gums may be more effective. They may also need teething toys to chew on or a cold wet (clean) washcloth.

  8. Do they just need reassurance? Infants like being sung to, murmured to, and soothed with rhythmic “shhh”-ing. Calm and steady sounds help reassure them that they aren’t alone and help them relax.

    Another way to comfort an infant is to bounce them gently and rhythmically in your arms, and/or pat their back rhythmically.

    Some infants, including most newborns, may need to be swaddled. A tight swaddle helps the infant feel secure and warm. Ask a doctor, nurse, parent, or YouTube to show you how to do a proper swaddle.

  9. Do they need to be held? The need for touch is the need most often ignored. Infants are significantly more likely to thrive with lots and lots of skin-to-skin contact. They also just need to be held, in general, a lot of the time.

    Being held (especially with skin to skin contact but even without it) helps the infant release hormones necessary for healthy brain development. Being close enough to feel an adult’s steady heartbeat is calming and beneficial for an infant.

    For these reasons and many others, infants need to be held - a lot. Our closest primate relatives maintain constant physical contact with their babies for the first year of life. Historically most humans have lived communally, which allows several people to take turns providing the necessary physical contact.

    Infants don’t need to be held every single moment, but the more they are held, the safer and more secure they’ll feel and the more likely they are to be healthy. A sling, baby wrap, or wearable infant carrier can help an infant get necessary contact time.

    If an infant needs contact to sleep, consider getting a cosleeper cushion to safely allow you or someone else to sleep next to the infant. If that isn’t possible, sleep training where you pick up and comfort the baby each time they cry, and then put them down slightly sooner each time that night, may help.

Do not let an infant cry and cry for help and not give it to them.

Add: infants who have experienced long term neglect STOP CRYING to get things or communicate. This isn’t growing out of crying to replace it with language, I’m talking about pre-verbal language absence of crying to express needs.

This does not not mean the baby is a “good” baby. This means the baby has been neglected or attended to so inconsistently that they have given up on social communication of needs. It is not a good sign.

A little louder for the people in the back.

You would not believe the amount of times I have heard “you’re going to spoil him”, “he’s manipulating you” and so on, for holding/rocking/COMFORTING my son when he was fresh. (And seeing people tell this to new parents while at work I’m like ???? Their baby?? Is 3 hours old?? What?? The fuck??)

Pardon my language but are you fucking kidding me? Who came up with this idea that infants, INFANTS, are manipulative? They think something disappears from existence when they can’t see it anymore, and you’re telling me they have the mental capacity to be manipulative?

Babies cry because they have needs to be met. It’s not rocket science. Their brains NEED love, human touch and interaction, to develop properly. You will not spoil your child by soothing them when they cry.

I am horrified that the attitude that seeking to get ones needs met is being framed as manipulative behaviour in actual infants. That’s awful. Attention seeking behaviour means that a person has needs that they require another person to attend to. I have been so seriously harmed by this pervasive culture that shames and judge people for having and expressing their needs. I didn’t realise the indoctrination into a culture where we don’t permit people to express their needs started as early as infanthood.

18:55

you've been hit by, you've been struck by

pimby:

the fear that you’re unloveable and you’ll die alone

18:44
8685 4ccc 500
17:47

ploppythespaceship:

dubiousculturalartifact:

straight-as-a-curly-fry:

My favourite fact about Star Trek TOS is that, because automatic doors weren’t invented yet, the ‘automatic doors’ in TOS were really just some guy yanking a rope and pulley system to make them slide open. Problem was the person was far enough away that they couldn’t see when exactly the doors needed to be open, and relied on a signal from somebody just off set. The actors, however, had to act as if they were 100% confident the doors were going to open at the exact time and moment despite the fact that they occasionally did not which lead to multiple occasions in which the actors walked directly into the doors while they were opening. 

A. it’s so surreal to think of the modern technology like automatic doors, that we just take for granted while watching Star Trek. But they were legitimately part of the futuristic elements of the show to the viewers at the time. It’s interesting to consider how these elements may have influenced those future inventions, as in the case with other tech on the show like the commmunicators. Also how differing social/historical contexts influences the reception of a work. What elements in our contemporary science fiction will seem commonplace or even hopelessly dated, to societies of the future? How will what we envision wind up shaping those societies, and what is the responsibility of us to…

B. nah anyway someone tell me there’s footage of Shatner doing this

Here’s a montage of several bloopers where people have problems with the doors. My personal favorite is Michael Dorn walking directly into the turbolift door and Patrick Stewart just smiles because it has to happen all the time.

17:42

gaylor-moon:

you can’t masturbate away the depression but that won’t stop me from trying

lordminx
10:03

New comic!

Some things are too much to think about all at once. But some things insist, I guess.

via Robot Hugs - Whump
Reposted byCarridwen Carridwen
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl