khinaye:

yrmomschesthair:

yellowxperil:

watchingmedia:

The yellowface of “The Mikado” in your face

Remember when someone pranked a San Francisco TV station into reporting that the names of the Asiana plane crash pilots were “Captain Sum Ting Wong” and “Wi Tu Lo”?

After the station KTVU realized its mistake, it fired three producers.

But in Seattle, at least one theater plans to spend the summer guffawing about how Asian names sound like gibberish.

“The Mikado,” a comic opera, is playing at the Bagley Wright Theatre from July 11 to July 26, produced by the Seattle Gilbert & Sullivan Society.

Set in the fictional Japanese town of Titipu — get it? — the opera features characters named Nanki Poo, Yum-Yum and Pish-Tush. It’s a rom-com where true love is threatened by barbaric beheadings.

All 40 Japanese characters are being played by white actors, including two Latinos. KIRO radio host Dave Ross is in the cast.

It’s yellowface, in your face.

read more: http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2024050056_mikadosharonpianchancolumn14xml.html

holy shit!!

christ

kill them

There are so many problems with this play, regardless of who produces it.

When I was still in grade school, my dad bought some tickets to go to a local college’s production of this show.  We knew it was going to be based in Japan from the title, but at some point through the bad hair and floppy bathrobes used for kimono, I stopped thinking it was about Japan because it so obviously wasn’t in any sense based on what Japan really is like.  It was easier to watch it thinking about it that way.

But then they had the emperor make a grand entrance through a prop of a gigantic sumo wrestler’s loincloth.

They had the emperor come out of a gigantic asshole.

(via raw-toast)

Wooow…
First thought was “this is such a white person thing to say…”
…and I’m usually pretty forgiving about cultural misunderstandings, but really now.

Wooow…

First thought was “this is such a white person thing to say…”

…and I’m usually pretty forgiving about cultural misunderstandings, but really now.

Boyfriend is otter whisperer.
This poor otter though.  It’s apparently special because it’ll shake hands with people, so the aquarium has it sectioned off away from all the other otters in a tiny box (you can just see the back wall of the box in the picture—it’s that small).  It was just swimming in circles the entire time.

Boyfriend is otter whisperer.

This poor otter though.  It’s apparently special because it’ll shake hands with people, so the aquarium has it sectioned off away from all the other otters in a tiny box (you can just see the back wall of the box in the picture—it’s that small).  It was just swimming in circles the entire time.

Tags: sea otter

Eating all the pokemon cookies at my dentist uncle’s house…oops…

Eating all the pokemon cookies at my dentist uncle’s house…oops…

(ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧

(Source: quicksllvr, via thatonekidalex)

I found an artifact.

I found an artifact.

skeletondan:

eridanxroxy:

deepthroatmom:

ratak-monodosico:

article here>

cool lol

"cool lol" tHEYRE ACTUALLY TESTING TO FIND OUT IF WE’RE LIVING INSIDE A COMPUTER SIMULATION AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT IS
"COOL LOL"

They’ve done the tests, and have evidence that our universe may actually be a simulation: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
It’s less that we may be living within a computer simulation, but more like the foundations of our universe ( the laws of physics) are written on a lower dimensional plane, and the observable universe that we see is a projection (simulation) up onto a higher dimension.
Here’s some background: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/#comments

A few caveats about the last comment:
So the Nature article is about string theory, which is a different research question and not fully related to the other articles.  In the Nature article, the research team was testing whether string theory might be plausible by making computational simulations and seeing whether the results of the simulation are the same as what we observe in our own universe.  In a lot of cases, scientific theories might have some rules where we can’t figure out the resulting interactions without actually playing out the scenarios on computational models.  This happens in fields outside of physics, like in the case of bird or fish flocking, where each individual has a set of rules that make up group patterns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8IA_NjgEXs).  Even when a model might only have a few rules (for instance, one flocking model I’ve made had 3 rules in total), it might not be possible to figure out the ways that all the individuals as a group interact and what dynamics there might be, so you model it and can get all of these complex patterns that wouldn’t be obvious otherwise.  So the Nature article is taking a theory they think applies to our universe and modeling it (by making a computer simulation) to see if the rules in the theory create the same patterns we see in our universe.
But all of that is separate from whether our own universe is a simulation.  The other articles are looking for limits in our universe that indicate it might be a simulation too.  So basically, simulations are dependent upon a machine computing in discrete steps (noncontinuous).  That means that there are limitations on simulations because measurements aren’t continuous.  For instance, think of a ruler and how it’s divided into little tick marks.  If your ruler is divided up into 16ths, you can measure up to 1/16th of an inch and even though you know smaller increments are there between the tick marks, you can still only measure 16ths.  Computers don’t work on continuous numbers, so when a computer simulates time, for instance, it can advance time only by each “tick mark”.  If a program’s “tick marks” are seconds, the simulation can advance 1 second to 2 seconds, but never to 1.5 seconds.  This is all on a much smaller scale, but simulations would have similar limits on measurements or units of energy.  So that’s basically what the research team is looking for in our own universe (just at much, much smaller increments).  There seem to be a few other things that the team is looking for, but that’s one simplification of an aspect of the problem they’re looking at.
So basically, the Nature article asks, “Can we figure out if string theory is plausible by simulating it?” and the other article asks “Does our universe have similar limits to what we’ve seen in computer simulations we’ve made and does that mean our universe is also a simulation?”
Anyway, oversimplification of stuff, plus I’m not a physics major and probably don’t have everything quite right, but computational models are cool :D

skeletondan:

eridanxroxy:

deepthroatmom:

ratak-monodosico:

article here>

cool lol

"cool lol" tHEYRE ACTUALLY TESTING TO FIND OUT IF WE’RE LIVING INSIDE A COMPUTER SIMULATION AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT IS

"COOL LOL"

They’ve done the tests, and have evidence that our universe may actually be a simulation: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

It’s less that we may be living within a computer simulation, but more like the foundations of our universe ( the laws of physics) are written on a lower dimensional plane, and the observable universe that we see is a projection (simulation) up onto a higher dimension.

Here’s some background: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/#comments

A few caveats about the last comment:

So the Nature article is about string theory, which is a different research question and not fully related to the other articles.  In the Nature article, the research team was testing whether string theory might be plausible by making computational simulations and seeing whether the results of the simulation are the same as what we observe in our own universe.  In a lot of cases, scientific theories might have some rules where we can’t figure out the resulting interactions without actually playing out the scenarios on computational models.  This happens in fields outside of physics, like in the case of bird or fish flocking, where each individual has a set of rules that make up group patterns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8IA_NjgEXs).  Even when a model might only have a few rules (for instance, one flocking model I’ve made had 3 rules in total), it might not be possible to figure out the ways that all the individuals as a group interact and what dynamics there might be, so you model it and can get all of these complex patterns that wouldn’t be obvious otherwise.  So the Nature article is taking a theory they think applies to our universe and modeling it (by making a computer simulation) to see if the rules in the theory create the same patterns we see in our universe.

But all of that is separate from whether our own universe is a simulation.  The other articles are looking for limits in our universe that indicate it might be a simulation too.  So basically, simulations are dependent upon a machine computing in discrete steps (noncontinuous).  That means that there are limitations on simulations because measurements aren’t continuous.  For instance, think of a ruler and how it’s divided into little tick marks.  If your ruler is divided up into 16ths, you can measure up to 1/16th of an inch and even though you know smaller increments are there between the tick marks, you can still only measure 16ths.  Computers don’t work on continuous numbers, so when a computer simulates time, for instance, it can advance time only by each “tick mark”.  If a program’s “tick marks” are seconds, the simulation can advance 1 second to 2 seconds, but never to 1.5 seconds.  This is all on a much smaller scale, but simulations would have similar limits on measurements or units of energy.  So that’s basically what the research team is looking for in our own universe (just at much, much smaller increments).  There seem to be a few other things that the team is looking for, but that’s one simplification of an aspect of the problem they’re looking at.

So basically, the Nature article asks, “Can we figure out if string theory is plausible by simulating it?” and the other article asks “Does our universe have similar limits to what we’ve seen in computer simulations we’ve made and does that mean our universe is also a simulation?”

Anyway, oversimplification of stuff, plus I’m not a physics major and probably don’t have everything quite right, but computational models are cool :D

(Source: fencehopping, via ordon-village)

Also a UFO catcher addiction…

Also a UFO catcher addiction…

So I might have a slight sticker addiction…

So I might have a slight sticker addiction…

Tags: stickers

I pretended to cry and laugh in front of dogs to see what they would do. Such behavior. Much react. Wow!

shyspectres:

lolmythesis:

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University

Someone who went to Princeton still thinks this is a funny joke. I feel like this says something important about society and higher education.

We also do linguistic analysis on it…and read articles to each other about Canterberry Brandyhook.  Also we write our essays in doge speak.