🔥 Popular | Latest

Candy, Charlie, and Dad: karik evayna Violet Beauregarde should've won Wonka's chocolate factory Have I watched the movie in the last decade or more? No. Do I have iron clad evidence to support my argument? Yes. 1. She's the most knowledgeable about candy She's committed to it, and knows her stuff. When Wonka holds up a little yellow piece across the room, she recognizes it immediately. She was able to switch to candy bars for the sake of the contest, so we know she has personal discipline and is goal oriented. Also, two major projects play directly into her strong suits: the 3-course- meal gum that Wonka failed to make safe (gum) and the neverending gobstopper (longevity) 2. She's the most fit to run a business. Violet is competitive, determined, hard working, and willing to take risks. Her father is a small town car salesman and politician, so she could easily pick up knowledge and support from him. (Veruca's dad is also a business man, and in a compatible market (nuts), but it's made very clear that Veruca has no respect or knowledge of business practices or hard work.) 3. Shes the most sympathetic to the Oompa Loompas. She critiques Veruca when Veruca demands to buy one. More importantly, Wonka has been testing the 3-course-meal gum that always goes wrong' on Oompa Loompas while he presumably just watches. Violet is ready to put herself on the front line, instead of treating the Oompa Loompas as disposable, and would therefore be a better boss. 4. Her personality flaw' is the most fitting for the company. In the moralizing Oompa Loompa song, they just say gum is pretty cool, but it's not socially acceptable to chew it all day. The thing is, we already know that she can stop if she wants, because she already did that to win the golden ticket. And yeah, she is defensive about the perceived impoliteness of her hobby (like when her mother tries to shame her about her habit during a televised interview) but the obsession with candy and neglect of social norms is EXACTLY what Wonka is all about This is on brand. 5. Her misstep in the factory is reasonable. Wonka shows everyone a candy he's very proud of. Violet is like "oh sick, that's gum, my special interest." Wonka is then pulls a "WRONG! It's amazing guml So in the very moments before she takes the gum Wonka has mislead her just to belittle her. So when he's like I wouldn't do that" why should she give a shit what he has to say? She's not like Charlie over here who's al Sure Gramps, let's stay behind while the tour leaves and secretly drink this thing that has been explicitly stated to fill you with gas and is too powerful for safe consumption, oh and also I just saw what happened to Violet so I actually KNOW what this stuff can be capable of" Also, Violet is not selfish about her experience, she tells everyone what she's tasting and feeling, and everyone is eager to hear it. Taking a personal risk to share knowledge with everyone. Violet is Prometheus: fact. So Augustus contaminates the chocolate river. Charlie sneaks around and contaminates the vent walls. Veruca destroys and disrupts the workspace. Mike knows exactly what will happen to him and transports/shrinks himself deliberately. Violet had no idea what the gum could potentially do to her, and caused no harm to anyone or anything but herself Lastly: Can you imagine Charlie filling Wonka's shoes? That passive, naive boy? Violet is already basically Wonka. She's passionate sarcastic, candy-obsessed, free thinking, and a total firecracker. She's even better than Wonka, because she doesn't endanger others. Violet should've been picked to inherit the chocolate factory. Source: evayna #charlie and the chocolate factory 123,693 notes Blueberry Boss
Save
Advice, Brains, and Coca-Cola: Peanut butter spaceorphan18: sulkingheals: downtroddendeity: jacemp3: monkeysaysficus: audrey-hepbae: catchymemes: 10 tricks you didn’t know you could do with your food. By Blossom The internet went from showing food recipe videos to alchemy in less than a decade. There’s going to be a quick video on how to make the philosopher’s stone from tomato sauce next week.  I WANNA DRINK THE TRANSPARENT SODA leave milk out unrefrigerated in your house for 2 days Some days ago, my sibling sent me this video out of the desperate hope I could provide the catharsis of seeing it torn to pieces. It has now been coming on 72 hours, and only now have I recovered enough to be able to do much of anything but scream, “WHAT?!” and “NO!” at the screen. We had a long discussion about what in the twelve hells this video even is. A surreal, dadaist parody so obscure that our brains aren’t operating on enough levels to comprehend it? The Instagram lifehack equivalent of those terrifying procedurally-generated animated Youtube videos that farm ad revenue by playing millions of times to babies whose parents left the iPad on autoplay? A coded message designed to activate the combat programming of brainwashed cyborg sleeper agents? A post that slipped through a wormhole from an alternate dimension where the laws of reality are different? An emanation of a vast and alien chaos god? I cannot bring myself to confront the claims in this video in the order they are put forth without losing my will to live after the first one, so I will start with the least crazy and work my way up. Bananas to ripen things: More or less true. You’ll sometimes see advice to cooks to store underripe fruit in a paper bag with one piece of overripe (but not rotten) fruit to ripen it more quickly.Misrepresentations: It will probably take longer than overnight to ripen something as green as some of those tomatoes, and it doesn’t have to be a banana. Coca-cola and milk: The coke is more acidic than the milk and curdles it, resulting in solid globs of milk protein which settle out. The brown dye in the coke sticks to the milk protein globs, leaving the excess liquid more or less clear.Misrepresentations: The video has been enormously sped up, which the editing does not make clear; the reaction takes hours. Ketchup to clean metal: To my mild surprise, this is actually a thing (though you could just make a paste out of salt, flour, and vinegar and scrub with that and not get ketchup stains on everything)…Misrepresentations: …for cleaning copper and bronze. Which the jug shown in the video is not. The acid in the ketchup might take some of the tarnish off, say, aluminum, but at that point you might as well just use vinegar. Sparkling water omelet: Omelet souffles are a thing.Misrepresentations: You… literally do not need the sparkling water… you can just beat the eggs until they’re fluffy… “Warm water clears wax from fruits!”: This is a mysterious and arcane procedure called “washing.”Misrepresentations: I don’t know what the hell they even did to the video on this sequence but as a person who has washed many apples in warm water, it does not look like that and the thin layer of edible wax applied to make them look good in the grocery store does not come off that easily. Sprite to clean earrings: Again, this will take tarnish off some metals just due to the acid, but…Misrepresentations: DO YOU WANT GROSS STICKY EARRINGS AND EAR INFECTIONS? JUST USE VINEGAR WATER. Also, “dirt” is not a kind of molecule. (Incidentally, if the earrings are silver, there is a vastly better method that actually reverses the tarnish instead of removing it.) Insta-freeze bottle: This is a real thing…Misrepresentation: …which absolutely will not happen if you follow their instructions, because a) they neglect to mention an important caveat (the water needs to be purified/distilled) and b) 5 minutes is not long enough for a water bottle to supercool. If you google any of the myriad videos and articles of people doing this trick, you’ll see numbers like “3 hours in the freezer” or “40 minutes in a salted ice bath.” There is video of the trick working. Either that footage was taken from someone else, or they knew how to do it, did it, and then deliberately lied about the time for no apparent reason. Putting a broken plate in milk for two days magically fixes it: To my immense surprise, they didn’t make this one up; the idea is that the milk protein casein can form into a plastic at high temperatures and bind to the ceramic. Googling it turned up some hobbyist potters commenting that they’d used it to salvage things that had cracked slightly in the kiln.Misrepresentations: Once again, they’ve misrepresented the method: everything I saw talking about how to do it said to boil the milk and then soak for an hour, not leave it out for two days like an offering to the pixies. And most of what I saw reported about it also said it only really works on hairline cracks, not full breaks, and doesn’t hold up long-term because the real structural damage isn’t repaired. And may leave a faint and persistent odor of boiled milk. Just use superglue. “Reveal the genetic memory of the honeycomb”: This is the kind of gibberish predicated on so many nonsensical assumptions that unpacking it would be more trouble than it’s worth. Plus, well, I can barely see anything with the low video quality, but what I can see of the vague blur doesn’t look much like a honeycomb in the first place. Suffice to say: “Honey looks like a honeycomb” isn’t even in the ballpark of what’s generally meant by “genetic memory,” what’s generally meant by “genetic memory” is also complete hooey, and fluid dynamics is weird and swirling a thick, viscous, water-soluble liquid with a layer of water on top is going to do weird things. But at least that I could potentially attribute to ignorance rather than deliberate intent to deceive, unlike… Hot coals and peanut butter This is the reason it’s taken me this long to post this. Every time I think about it my soul starts to leave my body. It’s such a mind-boggling level of bullshit that every time I’ve tried to put words around an explanation I’m quickly reduced to staring at the screen and mouthing “No” to myself in a voice of quiet despair, because I can’t even figure out where to start. Well, okay, I guess I might as well start by saying I think their… let’s say inspiration on this was articles about scientists who made diamonds out of peanut butter and carbon dioxide. …With a press that’s designed to recreate the conditions of the earth’s mantle, and which is prone to exploding. So, you know, not something you can do in your kitchen. Unless you have one hell of a kitchen. You can see the direct links to this in the nonsensical claim that this “works” because peanut butter contains carbon dioxide. (It doesn’t, particularly. It’s crushed peanuts mixed with oil. You know what would have a lot of carbon dioxide? The fire you pulled that glowing lump of charcoal out of.) It also mentions “pressure” when no particular pressure is involved, presumably because we’ve all heard about turning coal into diamond under heat and pressure. Chemically speaking, there’s very little to make that crystal out of except carbon, unless you want to posit a mass migration of all the sugar molecules in the peanut butter to the center of the coal. And “carbon crystal” = “diamond,” and do you think if it was that easy to make diamonds they’d be that expensive? I will guarantee you that crystal is a lump of quartz they covered in black crud and then peanut butter to pretend it was the charcoal. But, of course, all of that is irrelevant, because by reblogging this at all, even to performatively despair that the internet does not seem to have come all that far since the days of Infinite Chocolate, I’m playing into their hands. Lifehack clickbait has done this forever- they deliberately seed in wrong or awful advice because people will share that to say how stupid/wrong it is. They led with complete insanity to get attention, and I gave them eyeballs on the video watching this, and I’ll be giving them more from writing this. Maybe I’ll stick to the chaos god theory. It’s less depressing. @ohnofixit I apologize for being stupid enough to believe that video so reblogging the breakdown of why it was wrong. Why you shouldn’t believe everything on the internet. 
Save
Bad, Bored, and Children: St. Louis day care accused of running a toddler 'Fight Club' 😮😮😳 A day care center in St. Louis encouraged toddlers to viciously brawl with each other in a "fight club," according to a lawsuit from the mother of one of the children and video of the incident that was released Wednesday. Nicole Merseal said her then-4-year-old son, and another child were instructed by teachers Mikayla Guliford and Tena Dailey, to punch and hit each other at the Adventure Learning Center in December, 2016, according to the suit filed earlier this year. Merseal, of St. Charles, Missouri, accused the day care in court documents of permitting another child "to intimidate and harm" her son while directing a "fight club." The video shows Merseal’s youngest son and another boy wearing Incredible Hulk toy fists and punching each other while a teacher looks on. One of Merseal's sons recorded the episode on his iPad and sent it to her. She then called the police and had them visit the day care and interview the director and staff. Her children were also questioned by investigators. In documents released by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Jennifer Scott, the director of the center, said that when she confronted Guliford about the incident, she said the children "were bored" and that "we ran out of things to do." Scott fired Guliford and Dailey and contacted the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, according to the health department. Guliford admitted to having the children fight, according to state documents. She said she took the children to the lower floor of the building because of a broken heating system on the other floors. "I meant for the fighting with the Hulk Hands to be a stress release exercise," she said. "It did not last more than three or four minutes." Guliford said no children were hurt in the incident but "it was still a bad judgment call on my part." But the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the teachers.
Save
Anaconda, Bad, and Love: GOOD INTENTIONS GOOD IMPACT < ON OTHERS BAD IMPACT ON OTHERS BAD INTENTIONS thedreadvampy: egyptiann: exigencelost: closet-keys: why none of them got into The Good Place What I love about this is its acknowledgment that Jason had no intentions at all this is all 100% true but it always made me really mad that Chidi’s “crime” was having a severe anxiety disorder like he needed understanding and therapy, sending him to the Bad Place for something he had literally no control over was incredibly fucked up I feel like a less-surface theme of the show is that they’re all in a situation where they have been forced into bad patterns by forces outside their control - Chidi has SEVERE anxiety; Eleanor was forced by abuse and neglect to adopt a self-centered attitude from early childhood and, like many people with traumatic pasts, responds by not dealing with difficult emotions; Jason was very overtly raised in an environment where he got no education and all his models for behaviour were criminal and/or self-destructive; and Tahani has been raised in an environment where everything is performative and she is shot down for any genuine expression of unhappiness or non-material want. Just as Michael and Janet are made one way but changed by their experiences, the moral of the story is that things outside your control shape you but you can move away from them. That could easily be really insulting, in a sort of ‘just get over it’ way, but the idea isn’t that they change solely because they decide to be better - all six of them change because their circumstances change and give them the OPPORTUNITY to be better, because they’re finally given the support system they lack. I like The Good Place because the whole show has since day 1 been predicated on the idea that black and white moral judgements made in a vacuum are bullshit, and that moral choices are informed by things outside our control, whether that be education, behaviour modelling, unfair treatment or mental health issues. That doesn’t mean we aren’t responsible for our actions but it DOES mean we have to understand morality in the context of people’s varied experiences AND asks for the possibility that if their environment is improved, their ability to function as moral agents also improves.
Save
Anaconda, Bad, and Love: GOOD INTENTIONS GOOD IMPACT < ON OTHERS BAD IMPACT ON OTHERS BAD INTENTIONS thedreadvampy: egyptiann: exigencelost: closet-keys: why none of them got into The Good Place What I love about this is its acknowledgment that Jason had no intentions at all this is all 100% true but it always made me really mad that Chidi’s “crime” was having a severe anxiety disorder like he needed understanding and therapy, sending him to the Bad Place for something he had literally no control over was incredibly fucked up I feel like a less-surface theme of the show is that they’re all in a situation where they have been forced into bad patterns by forces outside their control - Chidi has SEVERE anxiety; Eleanor was forced by abuse and neglect to adopt a self-centered attitude from early childhood and, like many people with traumatic pasts, responds by not dealing with difficult emotions; Jason was very overtly raised in an environment where he got no education and all his models for behaviour were criminal and/or self-destructive; and Tahani has been raised in an environment where everything is performative and she is shot down for any genuine expression of unhappiness or non-material want. Just as Michael and Janet are made one way but changed by their experiences, the moral of the story is that things outside your control shape you but you can move away from them. That could easily be really insulting, in a sort of ‘just get over it’ way, but the idea isn’t that they change solely because they decide to be better - all six of them change because their circumstances change and give them the OPPORTUNITY to be better, because they’re finally given the support system they lack. I like The Good Place because the whole show has since day 1 been predicated on the idea that black and white moral judgements made in a vacuum are bullshit, and that moral choices are informed by things outside our control, whether that be education, behaviour modelling, unfair treatment or mental health issues. That doesn’t mean we aren’t responsible for our actions but it DOES mean we have to understand morality in the context of people’s varied experiences AND asks for the possibility that if their environment is improved, their ability to function as moral agents also improves.
Save
Save