Test post from Paper

Test post from Paper

A series of decaying roses photographed by Billy Kidd. (via)

Speaking of Jupiter I was simultaneously fascinated and terrified of this particular planet as a kid. It involved my then young mind grappling with the idea of the vastness of the universe and scale of many objects that inhabit it. Which can be scary if you really start to think about it. But what’s scarier than trying to ‘imagine’ something infinitely vast was trying to imagine something that’s just at the cusp of that near-infinite space. Right where you start to lose control of the idea and it begins to hurl out uncontrollably inside your head.

For me that was the thought of opening up my eyes and suddenly discovering - I’m a tiny human satellite, being pulled into a massive Jupiter against the blackness of space. As I descend upon the planet, it’s rushing back at me, with that strange, snakelike moving surfaces, getting bigger by the seconds, covering my peripheral vision, engulfing my senses, swallowing my consciousness, being and everything around me. I gasp in sheer horror as I close my eyes. I don’t think I’m doing a good job of painting the picture but it was truly frightening to my young, hyperactive mind. I’d only think about this for few secs for fear of going mad had I lingered. 

This video above does a great job of invoking that feeling of ‘unease’ followed by ‘terror’ - almost by accident. It’s meant to give the viewer a sense of scale of Jupiter compared to other planets in the earth’s sky from a fixed and familiar distant body: the moon. But the author miscalculated and rendered Jupiter much larger (nearly covering all of night’s sky) than it really ought to be. That, paired with an excellent soundtrack that turns drone at just the right moments made this minute long video into an unexpected visual rendition of a childhood thought experiment.

p/s: view it full-screen.

ckck: Planetwide changes in Jupiter’s atmosphere during 24 rotations from October 31st to November 9th, 2000. Make sure to view it big. Compiled from photographs by the Cassini Orbiter.

ckck:

Planetwide changes in Jupiter’s atmosphere during 24 rotations from October 31st to November 9th, 2000. Make sure to view it big.

Compiled from photographs by the Cassini Orbiter.

By Yasmin Anwar

BERKELEY —There’s definitely something to be said for first impressions. New research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests it can take just 20 seconds to detect whether a stranger is genetically inclined to being trustworthy, kind or compassionate.

The findings reinforce that healthy humans are wired to recognize strangers who may help them out in a tough situation. They also pave the way for genetic therapies for people who are not innately sympathetic, researchers said.

“It’s remarkable that complete strangers could pick up on who’s trustworthy, kind or compassionate in 20 seconds when all they saw was a person sitting in a chair listening to someone talk,” said Aleksandr Kogan, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral student at the University of Toronto at Mississauga.

Two dozen couples participated in the UC Berkeley study, and each provided DNA samples. Researchers then documented the couples as they talked about times when they had suffered. Video was recorded only of the partners as they took turns listening.  

A separate group of observers who did not know the couples were shown 20-second video clips of the listeners and asked to rate which seemed most trustworthy, kind and compassionate, based on their facial expressions and body language.

The listeners who got the highest ratings for empathy, it turned out, possess a particular variation of the oxytocin receptor gene known as the GG genotype.

 “People can’t see genes, so there has to be something going on that is signaling these genetic differences to the strangers,” Kogan said. “What we found is that the people who had two copies of the G version displayed more trustworthy behaviors – more head nods, more eye contact, more smiling, more open body posture. And it was these behaviors that signaled kindness to the strangers.”

The study, which builds on previous UC Berkeley research on the human genetic predisposition to empathy, is published in the Nov. 14 online issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An earlier UC Berkeley study looked at three combinations of gene variations of the oxytocin receptors AA, AG and GG.

It found that the people who were most empathetic – in that they were able to accurately interpret others’ emotions – had two copies of the “G allele.” In contrast, members of the AA and AG allele groups were found to be less capable of putting themselves in the shoes of others and more likely to get stressed out in difficult situations.

Widely known as the “cuddle” or “love” hormone, oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, bonding and romantic love, among other functions.

Kogan pointed out that having the AA or AG instead of the GG genotype does not mark a person as unsympathetic.

“What ultimately makes us kind and cooperative is a mixture of numerous genetic and non-genetic factors. No one gene is doing the trick. Instead, each of these many forces is a thread pulling a person in one direction or another, and the oxytocin receptor gene is one of these threads,” Kogan said.

(via)

laughingsquid:

Repairing a Live High Voltage Wire by Helicopter

There’s something strangely transfixing about this video: an insanely unnerving act performed with the matter-of-factly of a routine against a quiet, serene backdrop. Also, I don’t want to imagine what a “bad day at work” looks like for these guys.

Do you think there’s a relation between nostalgia and paranoia?

— (laughs) I think there is just because all the most nostalgic people I know are also the most paranoid. So there’s clearly some kind of chemical relation in the brain or something.
— Daniel Clowes
by Yovcho Gorchev

by Yovcho Gorchev

You can see from it that in the entire history of the Earth, all of human presence comprises just 0.08% (that’s 8 one-hundredths of one percent) of all of Earth history.

Further, if you were to consider just the “interesting parts,” i.e. dinosaurs onwards, human history still comprises only 2% of that timespan.  

The graphic further uses a fairly generous definition of “human history,” i.e. the last 4 million years.  If we think of real human civilization as reasonably well-recorded history, we’re restricted to the last 4000-5000 years.  Once again, even when considered against the timescale of dinosaur existence, we’re a mere eyeblink in history.

Consider also, that potentially millions or even billions of years of history lie ahead of us.  Certainly the sun will last another ~5 billion years, and assuming no catastrophic scenario, that’s a lot more history.  Not to speak of any post-Earth pan-galactic or extra-galactic history - that’s even more billions of years.

So when it comes to time travelers coming to visit “our period,” we are talking about, at most, a 5000-year period out of billions.  Colloquially-speaking, you’re probably really only thinking of the last 200 years as “our period,” further narrowing the window to something practically infinitesimal.  When you’re spinning the little time-destination dial to decide where to go on your time-travel backpacking adventure, our entire “period” is probably smaller than one little “tick” in the dial.

Think about what you do when you travel, geographically-speaking.  You typically visit only three types of locations:

  1. Culturally-significant, metropolitan locations where lots of people can be encountered in a dense area, increasing personal transaction volume.  Big, interesting cities, like New York, London, Tokyo, etc.
  2. Vacation locales, typically areas with exceptional climates.  Cabo San Lucas or Hawaii, those sorts of places.
  3. Extremely remote locales, untouched by human presence and notable primarily for their natural, unspoiled beauty.  Alaska, a national park, an African safari, perhaps even Antarctica.


Our time period is a time period that is none of those.

We are certainly not a time-travel metropolis - I imagine such a time period would be a central “New York”-esque base of operations for time travelers and time travel operations.  We certainly don’t have that in our day and time.

Likewise, we are not a time of unspoiled natural beauty.  If a time traveler wanted that, there are hundreds of millions of years of dinosauria or other prehistoric periods they could journey to.

I’m not sure what a time-travel “vacation locale” would be, but presumably climate is not something you time travel for, so maybe there is no equivalent.  The Earth was certainly a lot warmer in the distant past, so maybe there are a few million years in the Cretaceous with a dinosaur-proof resort somewhere.  There’s certainly no point in traveling to the present time where all the good beachfront property has already been occupied by the “locals.”

No, instead, the current period is probably the temporal equivalent of flyover country.  You might say, “What do you mean, it’s a time of unprecedented technological and cultural change!”  Maybe so, you time-hick, but a small town in South Dakota that’s finally getting hooked up to teh internet or getting their first Olive Garden isn’t interesting to someone who already has ultra-fast broadband or lots of family-owned local Italian restaurants.  You have to remember that these are people from the future.  There’s nothing interesting to see here that they don’t already have.  They have technology and civil rights and cuisine that you and I can’t even begin to imagine.  You don’t visit small towns unless you have family still living there, and when it comes to time travel, family doesn’t really work that way.

So the likely reason that time travelers from the future aren’t visiting our period is (other than time travel perhaps being physically impossible) that we’re just not that interesting, and we’re not really that large.  It’s only temporal-centric egotism that makes me believe otherwise.

— Yishan Wong

all print short-sleeved (cotton) from vanishing elephant

all print short-sleeved (cotton) from vanishing elephant

“Pick it up.”

“I can’t. You do it.”

“What - why not?”

“It’s making me nauseous. Never seen a more hideous thing in my life.”

“Who said every lifeform in the universe has to be pleasant looking?”

“Yeah but they don’t have to be this creepy either. And gross.”

“What’re you gonna do — “

“Look what’s sticking out of it - some kind of branch: two on top, two at the bottom. Something coiled up on it’s head - notice how it’s moving?”

“I see it.”

“Doesn’t that make you sick?”

“Yea but you know we gotta take one with us.”

“Well, I can’t - I won’t touch something like this.”

“You’re wasting time.”

“You know what’s so upsetting?”

“What…”

“The way it moves… see how it kind of wiggles?”

“Yep. Looks like the upper portion can spin. And there’re holes! And stuffs pushing out in places.”

“Those holes are all wet! So gross. Yuck!”

“Something red just came out from that middle hole and then sneaked right back in!”

“Did you notice those woolen bits sticking out on top? It’s tangled up in some places - what the hell!”

“I see that. Now would you shut up and just pick one up, please? We don’t have much time.”

“Can’t do it. I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you classify it as intelligent. That way we don’t have to take it.”

“Yeah but you know that’s not true. Intelligent species don’t destroy themselves.”

“You’re right.”

“Alright, let’s take one.”

“Fine. But this is the last time. Never am I touching one of these creepy fuckers again.” 

“Noted.”


* * * * * * *

Couple of aliens examining the earth carefully picked up a human on their spaceship.

— Zafar Iqbal (translated by yours truly)

Louie’s wonderful homage to ‘Manhattan’. To say I’m excited for the new season is an understatement. 

Celine Floral Print Suit

Celine Floral Print Suit

Braun RT20

Braun RT20

Michael Fassbender as David, a character in the film “Prometheus”

An advanced android designed to be indistinguishable from humans, that begins to develop “its own ego, insecurities, jealousy and envy”. He is the ship’s butler and maintenance man. Writer Damon Lindelof stated that the character provides a non-human perspective on the film’s events, saying “what does the movie look like from the robot’s point of view? If you were to ask him, ‘What do you think about all of this? What’s going on? What do you think about these humans who are around you?’ Wouldn’t it be cool if we found a way for that robot to answer those questions?” Fassbender noted that “there are a lot of interesting quirks and niches to him.” In developing his character, Fassbender avoided watching the performances of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen as androids in Alien and Aliens respectively, but instead watched Scott’s 1982 science fiction film Blade Runner. Additionally, he took inspiration from the performances of David Bowie in The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), Dirk Bogarde in The Servant (1963), Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and the “funny walk and economy of movement” of Olympic diver Greg Louganis. Fassbender stated “Louganis was my first inspiration. I figured that I’d sort of base my physicality roughly around him, and then it kind of went from there.” David’s blond hair was modeled after T. E. Lawrence, the key inspiration for his creator Peter Weyland. (via)

Note: This little character piece is far more stimulating than many big budget featured-length films. Fassbender is sublime as the humanoid prototype; not to mention the marvelous art direction, and understated sound design.