Close the World, txƎn ɘʜt nɘqO
How do you figure out what to do with your life

magpieandwhale:

thefrenemy:

Holy shit, babe, you almost never do and you almost never stick with it.

It’s a big ole bumblefuck of “this is what I love” and “this is how I survive” and you find the most middle ground possible and see how these ebb and flow almost constantly. To live life, though, I suggest always taking detours, learning to say no, realizing things will always change, and trying to keep your “things you love” level as balanced as possible with your survival.

Find out who you ARE, first, and find out how much you can take and it’s the best running start you’ll have.

And uh, remember: it’s a balance of “it’s never too late” and “your time here is so short”, but you can probably always open new doors if you notice they are there.

This advice is the best.

becausebirds:

Fluffy, running Sanderlings!

source video

elisaddiq:

terarroni:

While this may be a big “duh” to a lot of U.S. citizens, a recent study which has been made open for public viewing concludes that the United States’ system of government is closer to that of a (corporate) oligarchy than it is a democracy. That is to say that power is vested within a small group of people, as opposed to the majority.

Historically speaking, oligarchies generally devolve into tyrannical states due to the concentration of power (usually based on class) with a smaller group of people who generally do not agree with the interests or preferences of the majority; these types of frictions lead to oppression by making some people more “equal” than others, as demonstrated in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, essentially giving people certain rights, but allowing those rights more freely to certain groups.

I remember in the 6th grade when we were learning about different types of governments and we got to oligarchy I said to the teacher “Oh so that’s what America is right?” and he looked at me like i was crazy and said “No Elijah, America is a democracy because the citizens also have power” and I said “what power?” and he said “We can vote” and I was kind of quite for a little bit because i thought he was gonna say something else and I was like “Is that it?” and he just went on to the next lesson

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
April 16, 2014

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

Source

proofmathisbeautiful:

This is Your Brain on Engineering (GoldieBlox Easter PSA)

At age 2, girls start to identify with their gender. Or, more accurately, all kids start to understand that they have a gender, and become more aware of the social influences for how they should act as a result. In our culture, there are narrow blueprints called “boy” and “girl” that dictate to us all what is and is not the “right” way to act. These blueprints are pretty limiting — “boys don’t cry” and “girls are princesses” aren’t exactly the greatest life mottos. Gendered influences come from everywhere around kids: their parents, their friends, their teachers, the games they play, the movies they watch, the books they read… the list is endless, and all of it sends a message, sometimes negative and often limiting, about what is and isn’t a “girl thing” or a “boy thing.”

cashcats:

shrampton

dreaming of Santorini [x]

Depression is hard to understand, because it is not a consistent state. Depression is rather like a virus, but like a virus, it has its manageable days and its acute, life-threatening flare-ups. You can be in a depression and still laugh at a friend’s joke or have a good night at dinner or manage low-level functioning. You grocery shop and stop to pet a puppy on the corner, talk to friends in a café, maybe write something you don’t hate. When this happens, you might examine your day for clues like reading tea leaves in a cup: Was it the egg for breakfast that made the difference? The three-mile run? You think, well, maybe this thing has moved on now. And you make no sudden moves for fear of attracting its abusive attention again.

But other times…

Other times, it’s as if a hole is opening inside you, wider and wider, pressing against your lungs, pushing your internal organs into unnatural places, and you cannot draw a true breath. You are breaking inside, slowly, and everything that keeps you tethered to your life, all of your normal responses, is being sucked through the hole like an airlock emptying into space. These are the times Holly Golightly called the Mean Reds.

I call it White Knuckling it.

Miles and Miles of No Man’s Land, Libba Bray (via babybirched)

"But the stigma of depression is that it comes with the sense that you shouldn’t have it to begin with. That it is self-indulgence or emotional incompetence rather than actual illness."

(via sonchorizos)

buzzbya:

cressidaisolde:

hypothermiclegumes:

stereofidelic:

noxi:

crush-zombie:

oldmanyellsatcloud:

Good ref image. Shows how and where obvious jams can occur, and what you’d need to adjust to clear one.

Dat engineering.

swrrt jesus  sexy

ooh damn, that is nice.

OMG WHOA good ref

I literally did not know how a gun works until I saw this 

While this is a good ref for this particular gun, a glock if im not mistaken, not all guns work in the same way.

While there is some variation, the majority of semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols is practically identical to this.  The basic fundamentals are unchanged from the design of the Colt 1911. The trigger releases the hammer which strikes the firing pin (or in this case the trigger operates the striker) which fires the bullet.  The recoil blows back the side which extracts the empty cartridge, and as it cycles forward it strips a fresh cartridge from the magazine and presses it into the chamber. 
You may have guessed that the action of the triggers has changed somewhat.  [[MORE]] In the 1911 for example the trigger is Single Action, the hammer must be cocked by the slide, all the trigger does is release it.  If the hammer is in the down position (not cocked), the gun will not fire.
Some newer guns have a Double Action / Single Action trigger, meaning the trigger can cycle the hammer on the first shot, with the slide cocking the hammer on each following shot.
And in the graphic of the Glock above, the trigger action is Double Action Only. There is no hammer, only a striker which must be cycled by the trigger on each shot.  Personally I’m not fond of the trigger action on Glock pistols.  It’s a relatively short trigger pull, and the Glocks have no manual safeties.  Meaning you must rely on the operator of the pistol to keep their finger off of the trigger when not shooting, there are no other mechanisms in place to prevent an accidental discharge from an idiot that doesn’t practice trigger discipline. 

buzzbya:

cressidaisolde:

hypothermiclegumes:

stereofidelic:

noxi:

crush-zombie:

oldmanyellsatcloud:

Good ref image. Shows how and where obvious jams can occur, and what you’d need to adjust to clear one.

Dat engineering.

swrrt jesus  sexy

ooh damn, that is nice.

OMG WHOA good ref

I literally did not know how a gun works until I saw this 

While this is a good ref for this particular gun, a glock if im not mistaken, not all guns work in the same way.

While there is some variation, the majority of semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols is practically identical to this.  The basic fundamentals are unchanged from the design of the Colt 1911. The trigger releases the hammer which strikes the firing pin (or in this case the trigger operates the striker) which fires the bullet.  The recoil blows back the side which extracts the empty cartridge, and as it cycles forward it strips a fresh cartridge from the magazine and presses it into the chamber. 

You may have guessed that the action of the triggers has changed somewhat. 

Read More