1. jtotheizzoe:

    Here’s rionhunter's response, I've added my take on this below:

    I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 

    To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.

    Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.

    Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.
    That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.

    Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.

    The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.

    This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.

    For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.

    Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved.

    If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?

    Yeah, a little trickier.

    In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

    Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.

    Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.

    As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.

    The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.

    Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.

    The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.

    When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.

    And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. 

    In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)

    So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);

    The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. 
    When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.

    I don’t totally agree with rionhunter's explanation. It's true that persistence of vision and related phenomena of visual perception are responsible for the fact that films and TV don’t look like the series of still frames that they are. But to me, none of that explains the directional perception of the hotdogs or their (apparent) speed.

    Today’s films, TV shows, and digitally animated features aim for 24-30 frames per second. Hand-drawn animation like the Disney films of yore used to get away with as little as 12 images per second (each doubled to create a total of 24 frames per second). And yes, they would distort images in between to create a motion-blur type effect.

    But the GIF illusion above reminds me more of the spinning dancer illusion than anything else:

    Almost instantaneously, that dancer will appear to spin in one direction. A majority of you will see it in a certain direction over the other, but I don’t want to lead the witness, so to speak, by telling you which. Most of you, given enough brain cramping, will be able to reverse the direction of the dancer, just like you reversed the direction of the happy hot dogs (try using your peripheral vision to make it switch).

    This initial reaction/reversal trickery is due to the lack of a depth reference in both images. It’s likely that our perceived position below Hot Dog Man tricks our brain into assuming the franks are flying away to the right. And without a reference point that makes the opposite impossible, you can readily make the opposite possible and perceive the hot dogs falling into his pants. Incidentally, you may have heard that your directional preference determines whether you are “right-brained” or “left-brained”, but that’s BS, because brain-sidedness is a BS concept to begin with.

    As for their apparent speed? In each of the frames of this GIF, a sausage moves vertically by 12 pixels and horizontally by 4 pixels (I measured). It doesn’t matter which direction you perceive them moving, that’s how far they go in either direction. It’s likely that they appear to move faster when entering his pants (appearing to move down and to the left) because the background is moving to the right. You know how sometimes when you’re stopped at a stoplight and the car next to you will move and you suddenly feel like you’re moving backwards? It’s like that. It’s an illusion of self-motion. On the other hand, when the hotdogs move in the same direction as the drumsticks, the illusion of motion is reduced because the background reference is interpreted differently by your brain. What’s especially cool about this is that the hotdogs move the same distance no matter what, your brain is just doing that thing it always does where it lies to you.

    So there ya go John and Hank and everyone else. That’s my take on the hot dog man illusion GIF. Science side … out.

    (Hot dog GIF by Lacey Micallef)

     
  2. policymic:

    Spanish “Robin Hood” funneled $680K in loans into anti-capitalist activism

    When capitalism fails, the best weapon against it might just be capitalism.

    That’s Spanish activist Enric Duran’s reasoning for taking nearly half a million Euros in loans and funneling the money into building alternatives to a system that has wracked Spain’s economy and left its citizens buckling under catastrophic unemployment. He has no intention of ever paying those loans back, which has earned him a reputation as “the Robin Hood of the banks.”

    Read more | Follow policymic

     
  3. wantering-blog:

    Do you eat, sleep and breathe fashion? Join Wantering.
    wantering (wantering) on Twitter

    (via fuckyawatches)

     

  4.  

  5. Anonymous asked: Shut the fuck up about vaccinations. Not everyone has to have them, not everyone believes in them. Uneducated fuck.

    palavra-valise:

    cognitivedissonance:

    cognitivedissonance:

    a-ghra-mo-chroi:

    cognitivedissonance:

    of-shoes-of-ships-of-sealing-wax:

    aspiringdoctors:

    restless-wafarer:

    aspiringdoctors:

    image

    You know, my homie and secret best friend Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best….

    image

    This isn’t an issue of belief or should even be up for discussion. It’s not a debate- like gravity or that the Earth revolves around the Sun isn’t up for debate. It’s a fact, whether or not you like it. Sorry bro.

    And any ‘educated fuck’ knows that vaccines are necessary and everyone who can have them should have them.

    Have a lovely day, sugar. 

    Actually there’s a lot of research and knowledge supporting the fact that vaccines are NOT necessary. It is simply another thing that today’s health system is super big on, just like hospital births and c-sections. And a lot of people actually have long term and short term complications from getting vaccines. Ahem.

    Dang guys, you thought I didn’t check my activity log every now and then? Because I knew shit like this would pop up. And, I just finished my block exam and am feeling fiesty.

    Actually you’re wrong. That ‘research’ is either completely fabricated OR grossly misinterprets the data OR uses shitty research techniques to get the data they want- all which are grossly unethical, in case you’re curious. I’ve got slides from a recent lecture on vaccines (aka why I am so fired up about this nonsense). You can check out the citations on each slide if you don’t believe me… something unsurprisingly missing from literally every anti-vaccine comment I’ve gotten and website that I have visited. Show me your sources, honey, and if you do, I will blow them out of the water because not a single one stands up to current scientific research standards.

    There are however tomes and tomes of research for the safety end efficacy of vaccines. Don’t believe me? Look at a simple google scholar search.

    So! Here we go! 

    image

    image

    Holy shit, it’s almost like vaccines SAVE SOCIETY MONEY. In fact, they give money back to society, along with the other programs indicated by red arrows. Which would be really weird for something that is just a healthcare fad like c-sections and hospital births.

    And most people have no complications for getting vaccines, and if they do, most of them are short term. In fact, it is devilishly hard to prove an adverse effect was because of a vaccine. Why? Because it’s how we’re wired. We falsely see connections and causes where there are none (called a type 1 error; you are rejecting a true null hypothesis). People are more likely to attribute an adverse health event to a shot- even if that shot is the placebo and the numbers are just the background rate for whatever health event in the population.

    image

    And here is a graph showing the sample sizes necessary to prove that an adverse event is caused or related to a vaccine.

    image

    You know what, it was a really good lecture and I’m going to share more more relevant slides in case any one else feels like contradicting me.

    These slides show the public health impact of vaccines. Note the differences between the historical peak and post-vaccine era deaths columns. Because saving literally thousands of lives is totally a conspiracy you should beware of.

    image

    image

    And this is why herd immunity is so important! See how high it has to be for measles? Guess what we’re seeing outbreaks of thanks to anti-vaxxers? Don’t forget that one of the deadly complications of measles is SSPE.

    image

    Look how Hepatitis A infections in older adults when down after kids started getting immunized. Shocking! Could vaccines be… good for …. everyone????

    image

    Ahem.

    Anti-vaxxers are a danger to the world and we need to stop them tbh

    GODDAMMIT. I AM SICK OF THESE ANTI-VAXXER SHIT GOBLINS.

    VACCINATE THOSE WHO CAN BE VACCINATED TO PROTECT THOSE WHO LEGITIMATELY CANNOT.

    I DON’T GIVE A FUCK IF YOU THINK YOU’RE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE FLOATING AROUND IN YOUR SPARKLY CLOUD OF YOUR OWN SELF RIGHTEOUS FARTS THAT WILL PROTECT YOU FROM DISEASES LIKE POLIO.

    GET. A. GODDAMN. CLUE. THEN GET VACCINATED. VACCINATE YOUR SPAWN.

    YOUR BATSHIT BELIEFS ARE KILLING PEOPLE.

    In my opinion, refusing to vaccinate a child who can be vaccinated is tantamount to medical neglect. I am 100% done with being nice to anti-vaxxers. We need to bring back exiling people. Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy are the first to go.

    So what’s your opinion on delaying the vaccine schedule?

    For review, here’s the importance of vaccination in a few easy charts. But I’ll let actual doctors answer this further:

    "[Dr. William Schaffner] said creating worry over the recommended immunization schedule — up to 24 shots by the age of 2 and up to five pokes per visit — is misleading and unfounded. ‘The area is not gray. There is no injury to children getting vaccinations simultaneously. A child’s immune system is more capable, powerful and flexible than you would think it is,’ Schaffner said.

    Schaffner said that altering the timing of vaccines may seem like a compromise but it still poses a serious health risk because a child remains susceptible to vaccine preventable illnesses for longer periods of time. He said it also puts others, including people with compromised immunity and even fully vaccinated individuals, at risk by exposing communities at large to preventable diseases. And, he said, delaying vaccinations is more costly and makes it more likely a child never completes the full schedule necessary for protection against disease. ‘Vaccines spread out are often vaccines not received,’ he said.” (Source)

    According to Dr. Kristen A. Feemster and Dr. Paul Offit, delaying vaccines is dangerous because “vaccines are recommended at certain ages and intervals to optimize the immune response, ensure protection when a child is most at risk for disease acquisition, and minimize adverse events.” They also discuss the implications of a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which found that delaying vaccinations under the guise of preventing adverse effects actually correlates with an INCREASE in adverse effects experienced by older toddlers, ranging from mild fevers to seizures. [Citation: “Delaying Vaccination Is Not a Safer Choice”, Kristen A. Feemster, MD, MPH, MSHPR; Paul Offit, MD, JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(12):1097-1098. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3071.]

    Here’s Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Mark Sawyer in a nifty video: “Are We Overwhelming the Immune System With Too Many Vaccines?” http://youtu.be/6JibQ7LX5Uk (Spoiler alert: No)

    And here’s Dr. Mark Sawyer in another fab video: “Is it safe for a child to receive multiple vaccinations?” http://youtu.be/AD8AsogWq2w (Spoiler alert: Yes)

    Here’s another summary of why there’s no medical benefit to delaying vaccinations, and how it can be harmful

    Plus, you also give your kid MORE shots and office visits if you spread it out. On the delayed schedule chosen by most parents who skip vaccinations, kids “will have only received immunity against eight diseases by 15 months” and “ miss out on measles, rubella, chickenpox, Hep A, and Hep B.” But when children are vaccinated by the CDC’s vaccine schedule, they have immunity to over 14 diseases by the age of 24 months.

    Unnecessarily delaying childhood vaccines only increases the number of vaccines, the amount of office visits, and most critically, the length of time children are vulnerable to disease.

    Bonus reading! Here’s an excellent critique of Dr. Bob Sears’ alternative schedule: http://www.immunize.org/concerns/offit_moser2009.pdf

    Personally, I 100% condemn putting children and immunocompromised people in danger because parents mistakenly think there’s something wrong with a vaccination schedule demonstrated to be the most scientifically and medically sound for decades by actual scientists and pediatricians. Are vaccines 100% safe? No. But complications are exceedingly rare, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, are a mild fever and soreness at the injection site.

    But when some parents elect not to vaccinate their children, other parents are never even get the chance. A recent USA Today article highlighted the stories of Kathryn Riffenburg and Jon Alcaide, who lost their nine week old son to whooping cough; and Michaela Mitchell and her ten-year old son who lives with severe physical disabilities after nearly dying of meningitis at age 6. Both children contracted a preventable disease because they were younger than the recommended age for the appropriate vaccine. They were exposed to these illnesses after the diseases were circulating in their communities. The likelihood of an outbreak of diseases like these in children too young to be vaccinated increases exponentially in areas with low vaccination rates.  

    ABC News’ Chief Health and Medical Editor Dr. Richard Besser interviewed parents who said their choice not to vaccinate for diseases like measles was based on their OWN assessment that there is very little risk that their children would contract disease based on herd immunity and the relative rarity of diseases like measles. Another parent interviewed by Besser nailed how selfish this line of thinking really is, stating, “Parents like them are counting on the fact that most kids get the shots, giving protection to the rest. That’s not fair to everybody else. You’re relying on everybody else to do it for you.”

    Another medical professional interviewed by Besser said parents are planning Russian roulette with their children’s lives because they cannot predict if their child will “be the 1 in 1,000 child that’s going to die from that illness.” [Source: ABC News, “Opting out on vaccines?” http://youtu.be/VSu-GHtPdHM]

    Finally, writer Lessley Anderson summarizes all this succinctly:

    “But there’s a big difference between not eating GMOs and not getting a vaccine. If I don’t eat a corn chip at my local taqueria because I have doubts about the lack of research on GMOs and believe it’s because science and the government are in Monsanto’s pocket, I’m not going to put my dining companions at risk of disease. But if I decide not to vaccinate my kid, I make him a potential carrier. He may be able to fight off measles, mumps, rubella, and other illnesses — but what if he spreads a disease to somebody who, for whatever reason, isn’t so lucky?”

    Exactly.

    When people say “too many, too soon” they’re generally referring to vaccines. But personally, I think refusing vaccinations would have left my child vulnerable to too many diseases, too soon. Diseases aren’t regulated. Diseases don’t play fair. Vaccines are monitored more than just about anything else.

    GMO hysteria is stupid too, btw. GMOs are highly monitored, unlike “natural” hybrids (which like diseases, pretty much do whatever they want).

     
  6. rustyxiv:

    What if the manga used the ASB name changes.

    (via productionig)

     

  7. "Walmart’s owners are so absurdly rich that one of them, Alice Walton, spent over a billion dollars building an art museum in Bentonville, Arkansas, 500 miles away from the nearest person who ever would want to look at art. And she said about it: ‘For years I’ve been thinking about what we can do as a family that can really make a difference.’ How about giving your employees a raise, you deluded nitwit?"
    — Bill Maher (via holygoddamnshitballs)

    (via misandry-mermaid)

     

  8. Anonymous asked: Does you have an orgasm when he goes real deep inside of you while he is ejaculating so that you can feel his warm seed splashing up against your cervix coating it does that bring you to orgasm babe?

    i-hate-the-beach:

    prince-of-perverts:

    i-hate-the-beach:

    I have to rephrase this before I can answer it seriously.

    "Do you ever cum when the guy cums inside you because you can feel it and it’s super hot (not temperature haha) and lovely?"

    Yes yes I fucking do

    I wish some people knew how to spelling and grammar.

    Is that a joke?

     

  9. Anonymous asked: i hope you get beat the fuck up on the italian streets you hideous, disgusting tranny

    penis-hilton:

     
  10. Kill La Kill - Matoi Ryuuko

    (Source: silent-100, via trashkd)

     

    1. If there were a 60's or 70's styled new science fiction show it would be the most popular one ever. People only accept the bad taste because they have no other options.
     

  11. faypunk:

    people who hate transtalia but are cool with nyotalia, or as i like to call it, “transphobia”

    (via trashkd)

     

  12. "What matters in life is not what happens to you but what you remember and how you remember it."
     
  13.  
  14.