misandry-mermaid:

unwinona:

THIS

This is how you feminist ally.

(Source: psychedellicwonderland, via science-fantasy)

Binary Code Can Now Copy Itself Like DNA

mindblowingscience:

Strings of binary aren’t all that different from strands of organic DNA; they both carry actionable information encoded into reconfigurable symbols. And, like DNA, with enough replication and slight variations, software could become resistant to viral attacks through digital biodiversity.

Taking inspiration from nature, scientists at the University of Denmark’s Center for Fundamental Living Technology (FLinT) devised a method that allowed information strings made of binary code to autonomously self-replicate and mutate in a virtual simulation. Basically, they got digital strings of 1s and 0s to act like the building blocks of organic life.

According to the researchers, this finding constitutes a step toward understanding how digitized information—knowledge and software—can ensure its own survival over time by continually generating variable copies of itself, like our DNA does, preserving valuable data indefinitely. As long as it has a physical container capable of computation, anyway.

“In the real world, everything falls apart. The mountains fall apart. Things deteriorate.For such a system to work, you need to be able to maintain long polymers—long molecules—that contain information,” Steen Rasmussen, the head of the FLinT center, told me. “I think that these autocatalytic, or self-maintaining, networks are very robust. So you can perturb them, you can take away some of the components, and they will immediately be regenerated.”

The team’s approach, described in a paper published in Europhysics Letters, involved creating a virtual pool of information strings (combinations of binary numbers, or “polymers”) made to act like the ingredients of a chemical reaction.

Continue Reading.

(via science-fantasy)

Anonymous Asked:
Because Elementary is the proof that a good diversity cast isnt enough to save a boring show

science-fantasy:

trick-or-treat-yo-self:

lyrangalia:

I’ll grant you, anon, that diversity isn’t enough to save a show from poor writing. However, let’s talk about a few other things, shall we?

Let’s talk about how shows with all white male protagonists can churn out straight-up racist episodes still be utterly beloved by its fanbase and the Emmys. Let’s talk about how shows with all white male protagonists can kill off every female character it’s ever had for ten years and still have a massive popular following heralding it as progressive for gay representation. Let’s talk about how movies with with all white male leading men (most of them named Chris), with POCs and women only in supporting roles, is hailed as progressive.


No? Don’t want to talk about that?


Then let’s talk about how before Elementary started, before a single episode script had been seen by the public, Sherlock fans and its creators derided the show for daring to make Watson a woman, and called its leading lady ‘a dog’ on televised interviews. Let’s talk about how the Sherlock fandom hurled racist, sexist, and painfully country-centric abuse at Elementary before the show even premiered.

Let’s talk about how a certain show’s fandom is so bad there’s an entire Tumblr dedicated to documenting misogyny in the fandom (hey, sherlockfandomhateswomen!)

Let’s talk about how a number of people who responded to my comment about Tumblr fans admitted that they never gave Elementary a chance because the fandom reaction had been so virulent before a single scene of writing was made public.

Let’s talk about how there are literally fans who defend their dislike of Elementary because “Watson has to be a man” or “how dare they make Moriarty a woman.”


Don’t want to talk about that either?

Read More

diversity might not save a show from bad writing but good writing certainly doesn’t save a show from being racist

I’m really confused by this post because none of those arguments had to do with the writing of the show and all of them had to do with the fandom. That’s a really bad way to persuade people that something is good. I’m sorry, but Sherlock having a shitty fandom is not suddenly going to make me see Elementary in a more positive light.

I love Elementary (despite its less than excellent writing and ocasional boring episodes) for their take on the characters. It’s pretty much the only version where Sherlock not only evolves but actually acknowledges his own flaws and takes steps into solving them. Also has one of the few portrayals of Watson where the character is competent and stands for their own (besides the original character from the books and the 2009 and 2011 films). Yes, the show has flaws but it takes risk in pushing a familiar concept; making Lestrade an alcoholic, making Irene Adler be Moriarty; and while some episodes are weird or straight up silly (although never CSI levels of silly, gosh no) I think trying is worth something even is the executions is at times flawed.

dexbonus:

Maybe the best shirt I own… @lookhuman

dexbonus:

Maybe the best shirt I own… @lookhuman

vicemag:

There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapon
Late last month, the spill of headlines calling out the Hong Kong authorities’ use of non-lethal weapons against democracy demonstrators gathered international attention and condemnation from NGOs like Human Rights Watch. For onlookers in the US, such news dovetailed with a St. Louis neighborhood’s standoff with riot police that spread 12 miles north, where yet another young black man was recently shot and killed by an off-duty officer.
From the 1960s Civil Rights movement to the Arab Spring, these events fall in line with a decades-long history of televised protests during which police weaponry has alarmed the media, activists, and the public. The use of non-lethal weapons on civilians (like the use of any type of weapon on anybody) is often the spark that leads to city streets devolving into war zones and the police beginning to act like an army. Deaths, accidental or otherwise, start to pile up.

But we should be clear about something: There’s really no such thing as a “non-lethal” weapon. A weapon’s lethality is, ultimately, not up to the object itself. Arguing otherwise is an attempt to shift one of our greatest moral responsibilities onto an inanimate object that has no agency.
Continue

vicemag:

There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapon

Late last month, the spill of headlines calling out the Hong Kong authorities’ use of non-lethal weapons against democracy demonstrators gathered international attention and condemnation from NGOs like Human Rights Watch. For onlookers in the US, such news dovetailed with a St. Louis neighborhood’s standoff with riot police that spread 12 miles north, where yet another young black man was recently shot and killed by an off-duty officer.

From the 1960s Civil Rights movement to the Arab Spring, these events fall in line with a decades-long history of televised protests during which police weaponry has alarmed the media, activists, and the public. The use of non-lethal weapons on civilians (like the use of any type of weapon on anybody) is often the spark that leads to city streets devolving into war zones and the police beginning to act like an army. Deaths, accidental or otherwise, start to pile up.

But we should be clear about something: There’s really no such thing as a “non-lethal” weapon. A weapon’s lethality is, ultimately, not up to the object itself. Arguing otherwise is an attempt to shift one of our greatest moral responsibilities onto an inanimate object that has no agency.

Continue

(via science-fantasy)

Each main Legend of Korra villain represents a different political ideology.

Even the more minor villains like Varrick (who is not always necessarily a villain) and the Earth Queen represent ideologies as well:  Capitalism and Monarchy, respectively.

Yet they aren’t villains so much as antagonist, for they aren’t extrictly evil (except Unalaq maybe) but rather are trying to create a better world by extreme, less than friendly means

(Source: skrillexbeifong, via teamsenju)

nabegewell:

cviperfan:

excuseyoukyofu:

"All anime is the same"

Let me explain you a thing

a major catastrophe causes the brown-haired protagonist to join an organization with matching uniforms and characters of varying personalities, heights and sexual orientations that exists for a seemingly straightforward purpose while also struggling with a hidden aspect of their identity that can be helpful but also makes things complicated in unexpected ways

and they both suck

(via teamsenju)

crassbrass Asked:
Even though the back looks outdated, and is no longer really in line with Magic's current aesthetic, I still can't see any upside to changing the backs other than "It will look cooler." Is there any upside I'm missing that isn't purely aesthetic?

science-fantasy:

markrosewater:

It’s the thing most iconically connected to the product. It not matching the current game’s aesthetic is a big deal. For some, it’s one of the first things they see about Magic. While I’m on the con side, the pro side has a lot of very valid arguments.

I don’t really agree that it doesn’t fit the current aesthetic for the game, I think it set the aesthetic for the game. Not only is it not ugly in my opinion, it would kinda be a pain for existing players who don’t use completely opaque sleeves.

Also what makes the whole Library-Deck metaphor resonate is the fact that it looks like an ancient leatherback spellbook from D&D or something