a glorious dawn

mostly void, partially stars

Posts tagged yes good

280 notes

todayiwrotenothing:

nothingbutthedreams:

helloyoucreatives:

Someone is making honest tube ads http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/03/26/tfl-etiquette-posters-made-more-honest/

These are excellent.

Yes these are much better than the naff little poems (WHICH DON’T FUCKING SCAN PROPERLY) on the actual tube posters.

(via ohdeargodwhy)

Filed under yes good once I was trying to get across London at rush hour and two girls got on with instrument cases on their back and NEITHER ONE TOOK THEM OFF the train was so packed some people had to wait for the next one london

17,509 notes

mercurialvixen:

"Umm, how can you be ‘semiaquatic’, you either are aquatic or you’re not. Don’t be greedy."

image

"So, I get that you’re a monotreme and everything, but do you identify more as a rodent or a bird?"

image

"Ugh, why do you have to be such a special snowflake. Do you and like three other species need an entire order to describe yourselves that separates you from mammals that birth live young?"

image

"You needlessly complicate an artificially constructed system of classification. Why don’t you just lose the webbed feet and beak and egg laying ways and become a proper mammal."

image

"Ha! You may look like you belong to class Aves, but I know for a fact that birds don’t have fur. You’re such a phony."

image

"Why do you insist on appropriating beaks and webbed feet. Like, you admitted you weren’t a bird, stop incorporating them into your anatomy. All you’re doing is making birds look less legitimate as an order."

image

(via artemisiaeleutheria)

Filed under yes good the gay agenda

8,440 notes

ch-ch-ch-ch-changes, or: who is carlos?

happierman:

Spoiler note: mild spoilers if you’re not through ep 25 of Night Vale. otherwise, totally safe to read.

tl;dr - we’re changing the voice actor playing Carlos, (but not the character of Carlos!) because we think it’s the right thing to do.

+++

Hey Night Vale… So Joseph and I regularly hear some variation of “who’s the voice of Carlos [in Welcome to Night Vale],” and our response has always been “Carlos is the voice of Carlos.”

And in episode 16 (the only appearance of that character’s voice on the podcast) you hear Carlos speak. Or rather you hear me speak, uncredited, as the voice of Carlos. That’s not that big a shock. Most fans figure it out the moment they meet me and listen to my voice. “Oh, you’re Carlos, right? I totally hear it.”

Here’s the deal. I’m not an actor. I like performing. I like speaking. I like speaking my own words, as I did in ep 16. I like the character Carlos. I don’t like performing as Carlos.

"But… but wait. It SUCKS when they change the actor who plays a favorite character. It really sucks. I don’t want a different voice. Don’t change voices! Don’t do it!"

Well, first, thank you, imaginary, impassioned fan I just made up. But here’s what sucks more than writers/creators changing an actor. 

It sucks that there’s a white straight male (me), playing a gay man of color (Carlos). Look, I know it’s a voiceover, but it’s not just that. We do live stage shows, and that’s a visible role for a PoC. Plus, fans often google the actors who play each character, and what does a Latino/Latina teen think when my face might pop up (or worse, no image pops up) as the actor playing Carlos? What am I doing voicing this major character when there are so many talented, gay, Latino or Hispanic men who can/should be doing it? Why didn’t I think of all of this before ep 16? I don’t know.

But here I am: standing in the way of a actor of color getting paid acting work, and I don’t want to do that since I am neither a PoC nor an actor. 

"So will you cast a new Carlos and then erase your voice from episode 16?"

Yes and no. We have cast a new Carlos. He’s an exceptionally talented man as well as a dear friend. You’ll meet him soon enough. We’re going to leave ep 16 as is, because that’s what we made. But going forward (starting with the episode of “Condos” we’re recording this Wed (Dec 18) at the Bell House), there will be a new voice of Cecil’s scientist boyfriend.

We’ll address the voice change in the script, too, but here I am telling Tumblr/Twitter now, because you guys have been so supportive and understanding of what we do, and I wanted to give you a heads up (no surprises). That’s all. Hope you love the new cast member, even though Carlos remains the same. (The recording will be made available in early 2014 - exact date TBD).

epilogue: ultimately, this show is 99% Cecil’s voice, and it will continue to be so. (So this announcement is not suggesting a bunch of Carlos appearances on the podcast, but it at least opens up that possibility). 

as always, y’all are awesome. thanks.

(via ofunicorndust)

Filed under night vale yes good

33,551 notes

writhing-pages:

howtohavegaysubtext:

metrikfire:

I would like to make a public service announcement on this piece of shit information floating around the internet. I’m NOT going to take pot shots at an artist’s personal palette but this is just misinformation to thousands of other people out there who may or may not know better.
Number one. IF YOU ARE PAINTING, YOU’RE NOT REFERENCING A DIGITAL SWATCH. So first of all, you need to know where paint comes from. I dont even know where to start with this. I mean seriously, the statement about not being able to make pure, strong colours with cadmiums is just so full of ignorance, I don’t even know where to start. 
If you need visual evidence, let’s take a look at this picture 
This picture was invented before CMYK ever came around, tbh. Too bad Klimt is dead or else he would attest to this just like EVERY OTHER TRADITIONAL PAINTER will. 
Mixing colours is not magic nor is it as easy as picking colours from a digital swatch. It takes practice to understand how certain colours react with one another, employ painting techniques such as not mixing white with every goddamn colour to lighten a hue. 
Let’s take another look at a somewhat LESS brightly paintedpiece.

The saturation is not nearly as bright but the chroma is pure. There are no muddy colours, nothing is brown where it was not meant to be. Because Kandinsky knows how to mix colours. It didn’t happen overnight nor was he born with that knowledge. It was years and years of practise and work.
Even Klee knew what was up. He was not a master artist by any means but he worked goddamn hard at it and look what he created.


Here’s another Klimt because we all love him so:

CMYK exists because it does not know how to replicate the natural pigments of paint that can reflect light. It’s a beautiful, beautiful fake at best. I love CMYK. I even want to get a tattoo that says CMYK. But it is by no means the one and only. 
So PLEASE. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND CROSS REFERENCE YOUR COLOUR THEORY BEFORE YOU BUY INTO THIS GARBAGE. NEWTON KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE MADE THE COLOUR WHEEL GUYS.
PAINTERS SPEAK OUT FOR OUR BELOVED COLOUR WHEEL! REBLOG AND REPOST! Whoo!
************************
EDIT// Additionally, I re-read that ignorant infographic or whatever and have come to realize that the artist classifies pthalo blue/green and hansa yellow as CMYK. That is not CMYK guys. CMYK is used for digital prints because you can’t use paint. Duh. God, that information is so wrong, it wasn’t even worth making this post.

I was going to rant about that post myself but someone else did it for me, like oh my gosh. Thanks for this because seriously, whoever wrote that thing was speaking out of their anus in the most extreme manner.

THANK.

writhing-pages:

howtohavegaysubtext:

metrikfire:

I would like to make a public service announcement on this piece of shit information floating around the internet. I’m NOT going to take pot shots at an artist’s personal palette but this is just misinformation to thousands of other people out there who may or may not know better.

Number one. IF YOU ARE PAINTING, YOU’RE NOT REFERENCING A DIGITAL SWATCH. So first of all, you need to know where paint comes from. I dont even know where to start with this. I mean seriously, the statement about not being able to make pure, strong colours with cadmiums is just so full of ignorance, I don’t even know where to start. 

If you need visual evidence, let’s take a look at this picture 

This picture was invented before CMYK ever came around, tbh. Too bad Klimt is dead or else he would attest to this just like EVERY OTHER TRADITIONAL PAINTER will. 

Mixing colours is not magic nor is it as easy as picking colours from a digital swatch. It takes practice to understand how certain colours react with one another, employ painting techniques such as not mixing white with every goddamn colour to lighten a hue. 

Let’s take another look at a somewhat LESS brightly paintedpiece.

The saturation is not nearly as bright but the chroma is pure. There are no muddy colours, nothing is brown where it was not meant to be. Because Kandinsky knows how to mix colours. It didn’t happen overnight nor was he born with that knowledge. It was years and years of practise and work.

Even Klee knew what was up. He was not a master artist by any means but he worked goddamn hard at it and look what he created.

Here’s another Klimt because we all love him so:

CMYK exists because it does not know how to replicate the natural pigments of paint that can reflect light. It’s a beautiful, beautiful fake at best. I love CMYK. I even want to get a tattoo that says CMYK. But it is by no means the one and only. 

So PLEASE. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND CROSS REFERENCE YOUR COLOUR THEORY BEFORE YOU BUY INTO THIS GARBAGE. NEWTON KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE MADE THE COLOUR WHEEL GUYS.

PAINTERS SPEAK OUT FOR OUR BELOVED COLOUR WHEEL! REBLOG AND REPOST! Whoo!

************************

EDIT// Additionally, I re-read that ignorant infographic or whatever and have come to realize that the artist classifies pthalo blue/green and hansa yellow as CMYK. That is not CMYK guys. CMYK is used for digital prints because you can’t use paint. Duh. God, that information is so wrong, it wasn’t even worth making this post.

I was going to rant about that post myself but someone else did it for me, like oh my gosh. Thanks for this because seriously, whoever wrote that thing was speaking out of their anus in the most extreme manner.

THANK.

(via dorkery)

Filed under yes good

95,983 notes

thursdayplaid:

clumsyoctopus:

flower language has always been an intense source of disappointment for me

like, they all mean really generic things like “love” or “forever” or “i’m sorry” 

i thought you could combine flowers

like you could just send someone a bouquet and from the combination of hibiscus and posies and tulips they’d understand “the rebel leader is dead, rendezvous at the docks at 8, bring the dog, you will need lighter fluid and  a large tomato”

I really hope no one’s answered this for you yet, I saw this and got so excited that my obscure knowledge base might come into use.  I had to stretch a few flowers so to speak but Victorian flower language allows for alteration in meaning depending on colour, fruit, flower, bud, steam, leaves and thorns, so I didn’t feel I was too far out of line.  This message would work best as two bouquets bound together.  First red Nasturtium with no leaves (red denotes a leader, the nasturtium a patriot) mixed with white or red Mask Flowers (rebellion, red if you want to emphasize fighting, white martyrdom) around Cypress (death).  Then Chick weed (rendezvous) and Blue Convolvulus (night) surrounded by eight White Popular Leaves (symbolises the time: eight), Yellow Iris (flame, and a flower that grows by rivers) and Yellow Prarie Dock Flowers (this was closest I could find to docks)and one large Tomato Leaf, all bound in Dogwood Bark.  Dogwood represents deceit, but as far as I could find the bark wasn’t used symbolically, and as you referred to the dog instead of a dog, I thought it was likely the pun should be a dead giveaway.  

So there’s your rebel message!

(Source: cephalodogs, via aeromachia)

Filed under yes good nts

518,581 notes

saxifraga-x-urbium:

fuckyeah-nerdery:

fiorinda-chancellor:

setbabiesonfire:

swallowedwholeinnegatives:

What does this mean?

That, my friend, is exactly the question you have to ask.

It means that this is one of the best ways to pile up rocks and not have them fall down for a long time.

I’m not saying it was aliens,
Because it wasn’t.

This seems like a good post to illustrate a rant I had at the British Museum the other day: namely that human beings have never been fuck dumb, only ignorant of specific processes or resources. We’re a highly observant species with a great deal of curiosity and stamina when it comes to discovery, hampered largely by what was available to us and driven by our needs, which were largely the same at some levels and tailored to the environment we lived in at others.
Therefore it’s a pretty good guess that any human society, given the same resources, is going to come up with similar ways of solving a similar problem, and probably within a roughly similar timeframe. Sometimes the ways of tackling the same problem (navigation across oceans, for example) is handled in very different ways, but the problem still get solved if it needs to be.
*breath*
which is why I like this post and get so irritated with posts which waste hours wrangling over which culture “was smartest”. spoilers: we all were, it’s a species thing, not a cultural thing. the people who adapted themselves to their environment and their environments to themselves in the amazon were the same smart that the people who invented chronometers for safe distance navigation to the amazon from spain were. SHOCKING.

saxifraga-x-urbium:

fuckyeah-nerdery:

fiorinda-chancellor:

setbabiesonfire:

swallowedwholeinnegatives:

What does this mean?

That, my friend, is exactly the question you have to ask.

It means that this is one of the best ways to pile up rocks and not have them fall down for a long time.

I’m not saying it was aliens,

Because it wasn’t.

This seems like a good post to illustrate a rant I had at the British Museum the other day: namely that human beings have never been fuck dumb, only ignorant of specific processes or resources. We’re a highly observant species with a great deal of curiosity and stamina when it comes to discovery, hampered largely by what was available to us and driven by our needs, which were largely the same at some levels and tailored to the environment we lived in at others.

Therefore it’s a pretty good guess that any human society, given the same resources, is going to come up with similar ways of solving a similar problem, and probably within a roughly similar timeframe. Sometimes the ways of tackling the same problem (navigation across oceans, for example) is handled in very different ways, but the problem still get solved if it needs to be.

*breath*

which is why I like this post and get so irritated with posts which waste hours wrangling over which culture “was smartest”. spoilers: we all were, it’s a species thing, not a cultural thing. the people who adapted themselves to their environment and their environments to themselves in the amazon were the same smart that the people who invented chronometers for safe distance navigation to the amazon from spain were. SHOCKING.

(Source: zowieee)

Filed under yes good