THERE ARE SEVEN CONSECUTIVE VOWELS IN THIS WORD
WHO AUTHORIZED THIS
HOW DO YOU EVEN PRONOUNCE THIS
Coloring embryos by injecting dye into eggs before they hatch has been practiced for a number of years. It is done to identify the young of certain hatches or groups. And it makes it easier to observe movements of wild birds (especially water fowl) after they leave the nests.
The process of coloring chicks by injecting dye into the eggs also provides an opportunity to study early feather growth. Juvenile plumage will replace the colored down in about two weeks. As this happens, the dyed background amid new growing feathers provides a constantly changing pattern.
While it is possible to inject eggs from about the 10th to 19th days of incubation, the period from the 11th to 14th days appears to be ideal. Only one treatment is necessary if the injection is done at this time. When injections are made after the 14th day the color usually remains localized because the embryo occupies most of the egg; so it may be necessary to inject the egg in more than one place.
Harmless vegetable dyes, such as food coloring dyes sold in grocery stores, work very satisfactorily.
This does not harm the chicks in any way, and eventually as they mature their adult feathers push through and they develop normally with their standard coloured feathers.
The coloring is really interesting but just watch this video because it’s a bunch of chicks chasing a shiny piece of wrapper and it’s so freaking adorable.
Your daily rainbow chick foil fight video.
for this meme
What is your dream pet?
snake. SNAKE. i want a western plains hognose more than life itself tbh. THE CUTE WIDDLE NOSE. THE GOOFY SMILES. I JUST LOVE THEM SO MUCH BABIES.
What is something you could eat every week for the rest of your life?
Quesadilla. Properly made Pho. Sghetti toast sandwiches (plain buttered sghetti between two slices of buttered toast). tostinos pepperoni frozen pizzas.
the thing to remember is until i started this trip, i did eat all of those at least once a week, and had for years (not counting pho, which was more recent)
for this ask meme
What is a quality you dislike in a person?
The obvious one is bigotry, but i’m not gonna cop out with that since my stepfather is a standing testament to how that will drive me across the globe to get away and it seems a bit cheap.
so let’s run with rudeness. I cannot stand when people are rude to other people, or inconsiderate/unaware of those around them. I’ve always sort of known that, but traveling has just made me more aware. It costs nothing to politely inquire if a person speaks your language. It costs nothing to not cut in queue of something, nothing to not be loud all hours of the night.
it’s all just unspeakably rude and i immediately think less of people who do these things.
(there’s a reason i like hannibal, and some of it is id-level glee at rudeness being assaulted)
I admit I sometimes find myself flailing a bit when I read all these questions on tumblr which read, “Can I be a…?” Can I be a woman who is also ____? Can I be this gender or that gender? Or the corresponding answers: Yes, you can be that thing, or combination of things, and don’t let anyone tell you different.
This verb “to be” is a very dense and complicated one. Do they mean, can I survive living publicly in this position? Do they mean, can I survive the psychological state that is this position? Do they mean, does DNA or society create a human who feels that they are this way, against anybody’s will? Do they mean, is it respectful and non-oppressive to take up this position?
If we’re not careful I think these, “Can I be?” “Yes, you can be” question-and-answer questions begin to seem a bit like botany. “Can it be, that there is a plant with the appearance of a thistle, but that spreads by sending runners over the soil?” “Can it be, that there is a fruiting pepper which thrives in cold climates?”
And if so, what kind of “-ist”, if not a botanist, is the person giving the answers? The basic article of faith, it seems, is that if a kind of taxonomic list or spectrum has been circulated, you can “be” on it. But because these “orders of being” are authenticated by the fact that people “are” them, they can themselves be derived from collections of those who “be”.
Ultimately it seems to come down to, “Yes, you can be this thing, because you can imagine this thing”. Which is itself a version of, “Yes, you are this thing, because you feel yourself to be this thing”. It’s really an authentication-by-assertion, it just takes a quick jaunt via collectivity (a collectivity of asserting Selves) in order to round up a little authority on the way.
I don’t really mind this mass democratisation of, I guess, a sort of existential epistemological authority. It seems a lot better than some of the previous authorising bodies we’ve had to wrangle with! But I think it also exposes the limits of politics of being in the static sense. All this being of novel identities is happening. People are believing it of themselves. And they’re surviving that, more or less.
My concern is that this process is effectively putting up a lot of scaffolding around Selfhood in a very particular minority-world tradition of the defined Self. We’re talking a lot more about being (in the static sense) a thing, and not enough about doing a thing. You know, for me, what matters a lot politically for me is what happens when I do trans womanhood. I can “be” it all I like but the real political questions and issues come up in the doing - even in self-reflexive doing (doing with myself).
If the original question was, “Can I do a particular thing?” “Well, when you try to do that, here are some of the things society might do back”, I think our discourses would immediately become a lot more political. And whether or not identity questions (“Am I an X?”) can be rephrased as doing questions (“Can I do Y?”) might be a good litmus test of the political reality around identities. Because not all ways-of-being (active) are politically identical.
Why don’t dogs get to see the world too?
This dog is literally smiling.
Oh my god
what happened in roughly 1870 though
why was there temporary internet
with a few people searching for pokemon?
It’s a search of Google books, but the question still stands, what the Fuck happened in 1870
I CAN ANSWER THIS!!
In the Cornish dialect of English, Pokemon meant ‘clumsy’ (pure coincidence).
In the mid 1800s there was a surge of writing about the Cornish language and dialect in an attempt to preserve them with glossaries and dictionaries being written. I wrote about it HERE.