This lamp absorbs 150 times more CO2 than a tree
It’s still in the “so crazy it just might work” stage, but these microalgae-powered lamps, invented by French biochemist Pierre Calleja, could absorb a ton of carbon from the air every year. That’s as much as 150 to 200 trees. [x]
YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND. This is ingenious.
The design is a light bulb surrounded by a glass casing. The glass is filled with (water based) media and microalgae. The top is permeable to gasses so that gas exchange can occur. All of the wiring is linked to the grid underground.
Since the light source is inside, it gets scattered and “dimmed” by the water and algae. This makes it less glaringly bright and scatters the light wider, which is good for a street light. It is not longer white light as well, which helps make it easier on the eyes while still providing light.
At the same time, it provides the light for photosynthesis in the algae, so they are continuously exchanging CO2 for O2, not just in the day. It also provides a source of heat, which helps keep the algae from going dormant during cold weather (as in the snowy picture above).
And notice how I did not specify permeability - that’s because NOx’s (NO and NO2) are also permeable and can be used as nitrogen sources to microalgae. In fact, algae are relatively low maintenance. As autotrophs, they don’t require super complex media, not does it really need to be changed/added to. (I’m actually fairly certain that there would still be algae in these tanks a year later; it may need to be cleaned or something, but there would be some living algae.)
ten inch dick aka longer than my forearm
i know there are some writers who follow me
I believe the average is 6 inches? The longest is 14, an he suffers dizziness when he gets a boner, and even though he’s heterosexual, he can only have sex with men (or anally with women) as his cock can’t fit in a vagina.
So writers, take note.
jesus h. christ
I once had a boyfriend who was quite well-endowed, and that was some painful, annoying shit right there (especially with a selfish dude who didn’t really think about that/blamed me for being “tiny,” what the fuck). The average vagina is 3-4 inches deep, though some women may have a depth of 6-7 inches.
Of course, a lady’s Sarlaac Pit is designed to accomodate rather large things. That does not, however, mean that it is comfortable or fun to have those large things in your hermetically-sealed shame basket, not to mention have it ramming repeatedly against your cervix. Ow fucking ow.
Contrary to popular belief, bigger is NOT ALWAYS BETTER.
A rectum can be between 5-7 inches deep. A pliable dildo could push past that, taking that sharp curve into the large intestine, if you’re patient and flexible and you have a lot of lube at your disposal. And you don’t mind things being in your INTESTINES, oh my God. A hard dick, however, that isn’t so bendy, would be another story entirely.
So if you’re shooting for realistic sex and your bottom isn’t into pain, you may want to reconsider giving your top anything over 7-8 inches of dick. 10+ inches might sound awesome but like Communism, for most people at least, it’s better in theory than it is in practice.
This very NSFW and TMI-imbued post brought to you by all the fucks I do not give.
Oh and if anyone accuses me of kink shaming I will find you and I will skin you.
ive learned a lot today omg
i think the last of my innocence just got killed reading this
why am i reblogging this
As a writer, I genuinely thank you. Thank God for tumblr. Where the hell else am I going to learn this sort of stuff? Not school or my parents, that’s for damn sure. *sighs*
hermetically sealed shame basket
this post is gold
“The average vagina is 3-4 inches deep, though some women may have a depth of 6-7 inches.”
AHEM, objection! An average vagina is 3-4 inches deep when not sexually aroused. When a woman is aroused, it elongates itself to about 5-7 inches.
oh gee let’s go look up some reference for cherno alpha’s feet they’re so cool
ah yes how neat i see the— wait
is thAT WHAT I THINK IT IS??//? ?? ?? ?
IM SO FUCKIG NDONE WITH EVERYTHING
THEY DIDN’T NAME IT FROM CHERNIY (BLACK IN RUSSIAN)
THEY DIDN’T NAME IT FROM CHERNOBYL
SASHA AND ALEKSIS KAIDANOVSKY NAMED THEIR FUCKING ROBOT /AFTER THE RUSSIAN DEVIL HIMSELF/
I wonder if Guillermo del Toro intended it to be a nod to the Russian devil, or to the Western Slavic mythology. While Chernobog later became synonymous with evil and even the devil, he was originally a Slavic deity of whom much cannot really be said, since the only historical records of him were compiled by Christian priests - and as we all know, those were pretty damn biased when describing the beliefs of any other religious system.
But yes, it’s a pretty cool detail to know. I always assumed it was from Chernobyl myself. Though, I suppose, that would be way too easy a reference to expect from someone like del Toro!
This better be my cake
This is an awesome idea. Although I’d also be tempted to make all the lesser rings of power as a batch of cupcakes, and give them to my friends.
…But they would be all of them deceived, for another cupcake would be made.
In my apartment, in the fires of my oven, I will bake in secret a Master Cupcake to control all the others. And into this cupcake I will pour my flour, my sugar, and my will to dominate all confections.
Reblogging again for commentary.
Wow. One does not simply have a birthday.
that bolded is KILLING ME
The bolded tho… *cackles*
Erica Baum, Nine Images from “Dog Ear”, (2011)
A dog-eared page — a folded corner — is the simplest memory system: it marks a stopping point, a favorite passage, a place to remember. Along with marginalia, underlining, and other notational strategies, dog ears map a history of reading and remind us that reading is a physical act: an encounter with words, to be sure, but also a tactile experience with paper and individual pages of a book. A dog ear is legible as a readerly engagement with the material text. Someone read this; someone stopped here.
Erica Baum’s book Dog Ear (Ugly Duckling Press, 2011) makes this point and takes it further. In Baum’s rendering, the dog ear presents an activist readerly engagement: by folding a page, the reader creates a new site of meaning, a square of text to be encountered not as placeholder but as a rich cluster of words, selected (appropriated, deformed) by the reader’s hand.
Supermodel Karlie Kloss was photoshopped to look less thin for a Numero campaign. There are so many things wrong with this. Models are forced to be incredibly thin to fit a certain aesthetic, but when they do, they’re so emaciated that they have to be photoshopped to not look sick.
Robin Hardy, a former creative director at Vogue, has commented on the practice of photoshopping to cover up the aesthetic and health costs of extreme thinness:
“At the time, when we pored over the raw images, creating the appearance of smooth flesh over protruding ribs, softening the look of collarbones that stuck out like coat hangers, adding curves to flat bottoms and cleavage to pigeon chests, we felt we were doing the right thing…
But now, I wonder. Because for all our retouching, it was still clear to the reader that these women were very, very thin. But, hey, they still looked great!
They had 22-inch waists (those were never made bigger), but they also had breasts and great skin. They had teeny tiny ankles and thin thighs, but they still had luscious hair and full cheeks.
Thanks to retouching, our readers… never saw the horrible, hungry downside of skinny. That these underweight girls didn’t look glamorous in the flesh. Their skeletal bodies, dull, thinning hair, spots and dark circles under their eyes were magicked away by technology, leaving only the allure of coltish limbs and Bambi eyes.”
Ahh I never new this got so much attention! Yay! This kind of thing getting awareness makes me so much happier than that other picture…
I’ve never heard of this before, but this is SO INCREDIBLY telling. We all know of models being photoshopped to look thinner, but in reality some of these people are so thin to the point of unhealthiness that people in power, not wanting to show the public what has been done to these models, purposely reverse-photoshop them to look healthier, because God forbid we be forced to come to terms with the overwhelming pressure we put on women to be thin.
Just….wow. Can’t even handle this right now.