We are back with more hot bushtit action.

It's much the same as it was yesterday. I might try rotating the stick the camera is mounted to in, in hopes that the camera can focus on the perch better if it's closer to the center, but it might just be too close.

him

[ID: a photo of a glaborous fan lobster; a type of slipper lobster that is off white with many red dots, giving its body a pink hue. it has circular brown eyes. end ID]

i’m so glad this post is reaching the marine animals enthusiasts and i’m getting tags adoring this little guy bc i had to sit through a LOT of “ewwww i hate this!!!” for so many years…. thank you for loving him

AWWWWWW!

slipper lobsters being adorable as always

i think it's funny that despite the fact it makes little sense, the "ships" option is crushing it three-to-one. but i get it. i too instinctively prefer the horizontal layout. feels natural to travel in the direction the human body faces. and the naval metaphor is so ingrained in science fiction. and who wants to be climbing ladders all the time in a spaceship.

Unless you're going at fuckoff absurd speeds (an appreciable fraction of the speed of light), why would you need ladders? The ship doesn't have to be a narrow tube of multiple levels if you're going slowly enough for space dust to not be an aerodynamics problem. You can make a big ole pancake with propulsion on the bottom and it should work fine.

But of course, if you're using this form of acceleration as gravity for years and years then you'll need to be turning around a lot or you will reach those absurd speeds in less time than one might think.

just rotate the spaceship and use centrifugal force as gravity. et voilà, you got a horizontal layout for cheap, and no need to keep accelerating for years at absurd speeds. it just spins on its own while you travel.

uh, source?

Source:

USA news constantly make rounds in this app, its time people see our fight too. This is what’s been happening in Turkey for the past 4 days

whatever. go my scallops

Some highlights:

• Astrologers helped design the study
• No one did better than random chance, even though they only included people in the study who are experienced with astrology and stated that they expect themselves to do better than random chance
• They gave every astrologer a set of 50 things about a person and 5 birth charts to choose from. They weren’t even coming up with the chart themselves!
• After taking the test, most thought they nailed it. Zero out of 152 did better than 5 out of 12. None nailed it
• Astrologers who rated themselves highly experienced (“world class experts”) did the same or worse as those who said they have limited experience. Both performed the same as random chance
• This is hilarious

That's got to be the funniest graph ever published in a paper