I’ve made this post like six times but it still fucks me up the China’s mountains just look like that. Like I spent decades thinking it was stylistic but no, they just have different mountains over there.
For reference, here’s what my local mountains look like:
Here’s the general art style Chinese mountains are drawn in:
And here’s how some of them actually look:
What the FUCK
I’m specifically reblogging this here because I know there is a geological reason for this and I know at least one of you has to know it.
I went to a library book sale this weekend and I found a very old book called “Electronic Life: How to Think About Computers,” which was published in I think 1975? I’ve been reading it kind of like how I would read a historical document, and it’s lowkey fascinating
There’s a whole paragraph that’s like “okay, find the keyboard. Don’t panic if it has more keys than a typewriter, that’s normal. Really, it’s fine. The extra keys don’t make things harder. It’s FINE”
Thought this section was particularly interesting:
Can the computer create something? At first glance it seems obvious that it can. Animated computer graphics, with their fluid transitions and whiplash perspectives, look strikingly new. And if one watches the machine doing animation work, there seem to be lengthy periods when the computer is acting “on its own.”
But if one observes these processes in more detail, it becomes clear that creation is not occurring within the machine. First of all, computer graphics are not unique. Computers have yet to generate anything that cannot be done by hand—and usually already has been done. Second, the apparent ability of the computer to “act on its own” is the outcome of thousands of hours of patient human effort to refine its instructions. The computer can manipulate a shape for us if we have already informed it what a shape is, what the rules for shape manipulation are, what this specific shape is, and so forth.
You can start an automobile engine and it will run by itself, too, but that doesn’t mean it’s being creative. It’s just running.
thinking about what is and what isn’t allowed in frame with reference ecosystems in prairie restoration
Explanation from OP in the replies
restoration ecology tends to want to restore to a past state of an ecosystem, but magically that past state never involved people! Harvest, reciprocity, etc are all ignored because we pretend there’s such a thing as prairie without people. Turns out, that imagined prairie never existed, there were always people here and there should people involved in restored prairie too!
Anonymous
ALT
