This adorable little robot is designed to make sure its photosynthesising passenger is well taken care of. It moves towards brighter light if it needs, or hides in the shade to keep cool. When in the light, it rotates to make sure the plant gets plenty of light. It even likes to play with humans.
Oh, and apparently, it gets antsy when it’s thirsty.
The robot is actually an art project called “Sharing Human Technology with Plants” by a roboticist named Sun Tianqi. It’s made from a modified version of a Vincross HEXA robot, and in his own words, it’s purpose is “to explore the relationship between living beings and robots.”
I don’t care if it’s silly. I want one.
Author: michellegruppetta8387
Kim Kyung Soo, Korean Vogue//
The woven ramie of the hanbok— the indigenous dress of Korea— is so diaphanous and the muted, earthy colors are stunningly contrasted by the vibrant hues. This editorial is such a striking contrast of old & new, like so much of contemporary Korean culture…
What you won’t see companies talk about on Earth Day
Just 90 corporations are responsible for two thirds of man made climate change, and thanks to climate change, world hunger is on the rise.
Climate change is a capitalism problem, not an individual problem.
In science communication you hear about “natural frequencies” and communicating large numbers.
People’s minds shut down when you try to feed them numbers. No matter how good they are at adding up their grocery bill, if you try to get someone to comprehend the weight and meaning of a billion, they just nod along blankly, with a teakettle whistling sound happening behind their eyes. A shut-down mind can’t receive your message. And often a mind will do a preliminary shutdown if you make it feel Bad or Guilty.
That’s a huge, huge problem with trying to communicate science. Especially the science that needs to enter people’s brains to give us a hope of survival. Especially in a political climate in which people genuinely feel that they can pick which facts to believe in, and dismiss competing facts as conspiracy theories.
That’s why one should express scientific concepts and Big Numbers in ways that people will recognise and understand. For maximum impact, use things that people can immediately visualise. Say, “in a room full of 100 people, three of them are at risk.” Say, “this could fill a football field.” Say, “the dinosaur was the size of a golden retriever.” Say, “if you got in your car and drove, this distance would take a week to cover.” Say, “that amount of money would be like you and everyone you know having an extra £500 in your bank account every month.”
The first article linked in the OP is by The Guardian. And it has a splendid example of this.
It tells you that the decision-makers of climate change – the people holding the reins – the humans responsible for 2/3 of the planet’s emissions – “could fit on one or two Greyhound buses.”
If you have the space, just allow that mental image some headroom for a bit.
Climate change feels so big that maybe you feel that it’s hopeless; you could never do anything about it; you didn’t even recycle that plastic fork. The neoliberal idea is that everyone else is your enemy – that everyone else (those fuckers) is eating up your future, and it can’t be stopped because you can’t stop All Humans. You picture all those hungry mouths jostling and competing and gobbling, and perhaps complain edgily about overpopulation, thinking that the Unstoppable Greed of Humanity Is Ushering Us All To Our Inevitable End. In this worldview (which is rather deliberately inculcated) everyone is responsible, and everyone has failed. The insidious idea is that destruction is a key part of humanity (those fuckers) and obviously your horrible neighbors are GOING to water their lawn anyway, so we all deserve to die horribly together, as the punch line for some meta-SF novel. Or maybe you’re a vegan and If Everyone Else Was Too Then We’d All Be Saved, but they’re not, so in the meantime you can prance about explaining this at length on social media, which probably feels amazing? Or something. I don’t know, I don’t really read those subreddits and I’m not on Insta, but they’re extremely common reactions. And of course plenty of people have conveniently decided that it isn’t a problem at all, which is a brilliant decision because they’re obviously untroubled by any speculation.
So perhaps sit with this image instead. Of the decision-makers fitting on two Greyhound buses. That isn’t All Humanity. That’s 90 corporations. A few dozen people. They’re the ones doing it (although they’re quite happy for you to be An Jaded Vegan ™ or to perpetuate Overpopulation Discourse ™ – both are so marvellously distracting and enjoyable – bread and circuses.)
While we run about in a panic forgetting to carry canvas shopping bags, and furiously glaring at our neighbors for leaving their engines running? That handful of people could change the world with remarkably little inconvenience; they just rather prefer not to.
In conclusion – by all means eat mindfully, and limit your consumption, and strategically place your canvas bags in places where you’ll remember to grab them. But when you feel yourself blaming The Humans for the next wave of nebulous fear and panic about the future: stop it. And think of those greyhound buses instead.
michael b. jordan but the b actually stands for boruto
If you truly and genuinely want to help male victims of abuse, you will start speaking about them independently. You will stop bringing them up only when women are talking about their own abuse. You will stop using them as a ‘gotcha’ to discredit claims of male violence. You will stop saying things that you know are are factually incorrect such as “If the victim were a woman, everybody would be talking about this.” or “If the victim were a woman, this already would have been dealt with.” Your misogyny is thinly veiled, and everybody knows your true intentions.
I just….?? She is awesome for all this, but can someone please explain to a foreigner how trump having an affair is a legal matter and what any of it has to do with his taxes? I can’t figure out what she is taking legal action about.
It’s not the actually affair she’s suing him over. From my understanding she is suing him over a nondisclosure agreement that shouldn’t be valid because trump didn’t actually sign it and she signed it under duress or threat or retaliation if she didn’t. Shes trying to get it deemed invalid
There are several issues involved that make it a legal matter, rather than a sex scandal:
>the above mentioned legality of the the NDA –> this is disputed and murky because of an argument as to whether or not Trump is legally the party in the agreement or an interested third party, supposedly, as the agreement technically is between Ciffords (Daniels’ legal name) and an LLC (limited liability company) seemingly created simply to pay her off while providing (not even) plausible deniability.
>Additionally, both sides point to violations of the contract–that Trump and his people would leave her and her family alone (she claims she was threatened in front of her child, but also suggests other violations), and they’re upset that she’s talking (which could cost her $1Million each instance) and that she has not destroyed all electronic communications and images related to the relationship.
>A little more complicated but more of an issue is the question of the $$. On the one hand she took it, implying a contractual agreement to abide by the terms. On the other hands, it was $130K paid days before the election to keep her from talking about a 10+ year old sex scandal. It strains credulity that it wasn’t about protecting Trump’s election chances. IF THAT IS THE CASE, it almost certainly violates campaign finance laws, especially since Trump’s personal lawyer cum attack dog, Michael Cohen, has claimed he paid it out of his pocket [house financing] out of friendship.
While he almost certainly did so to try to provide cover for Trump 1) it’s been a running joke that we all need friends and lawyers like these bc absolutely no one believes this and there’s reporting that Cohen was grousing that Trump hadn’t reimbursed him (surprise) and also was blowing up Trump’s phone around the time of the election, trying to get reimbursed, to no avail.
Basically, if it was Cohen, he and Trump violated campaign finance laws and if it was Trump, there are some other campaign finance reporting laws that I don’t really understand but which keep getting invoked that are an issue. But since Cohen is sticking to story 1, he sort of put Trump and himself into more jeopardy accidentally, is my understanding.
>Daniels has been very clear the sex was consensual and she was not a sexual assault survivor, and she doesn’t want her case to hurt the cases of sexual assault survivors.
To me, the issue with people on the left constantly gleefully emphasizing that Cliffords is a “porn star” is the way they use her (as she points out, legal) work to stand in for the tawdriness of Trump, his sexual predation, and corruption. Basically, it’s implied, we wouldn’t have this terrible dirty thing [Cliffords] in our political spotlight if it weren’t for Trump, and the “shame” of her work basically becomes a metaphor for Trump’s corruption and willingness to sell off important office to people who destroy the government function while personally profiting. In other words, He’s a political pimp and they’re all prostitutes whoring out the government, and she’s a perfect condensed figure to materialize all of the frustrated disgust at the corruption Trump openly facilitates and participates in.
The problem is, of course, that this logic is deeply infused with blatant puritanism and misogyny, leans on a presumed hatred and dehumanization of sex workers in particular and reinforces the treatment of them as social lepers, which is profoundly uncomfortable and under-examined.
The reality is that most of Trump’s followers don’t care about his sex scandals-they voted for him after the Access Hollywood tape. So basically beating up on sex workers in this way is not only horrible on its own account, it’s useless politically except as a sort of smug confirmation that Trump is an embarrassment, with sex workers as collateral damage.
>I listen to too many politics podcasts