Shared posts

12 Nov 19:55

Web Designer-Client Translation Infographic

by Brian Herzog

My library is in the very beginning stage of redesigning our website, so I've been collecting various links on the subject. I thought this infographic was funny, and maybe actually useful too.

The "translations" down the right side are actually a nice little collection of sample ideas. And of course, when our design team starts getting input on early drafts from staff and patrons, the translations themselves will surely be invaluable.


via Lifehacker.

21 Sep 23:28

Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother

by Ken White

Surely you've heard about this. A Texas court — full of old men, reeking of misogyny — has ruled that taking upskirt photos of unwilling women is free speech protected by the First Amendment!

How ridiculous! How despicable!

I mean, at least — that's what I think happened, based on how the story has been reported and talked about.

Consider, say — the Mary Sue, a really very good blog that deals with how pop culture treats women. Here's how they headlined and wrote about it:

Kansas City, Missouri May Soon Outlaw Catcalling; Texas Lifts Proposed Ban on Upskirt Photos

. . .

Just this week, Texas’ highest criminal court threw out a state law banning “improper photography” like upskirts and other invasive images taken without consent —in a decision ostensibly meant to protect “free speech” that will just protect perpetrators instead.

You think a blog is a bad example? OK, take The Guardian:

Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures

A court has upheld the constitutional right of Texans to photograph strangers as an essential component of freedom of speech – even if those images should happen to be surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.

It's not all progressives. Look at Breitbart:

Texas Court: Ban on 'Upskirt' Photos Violates First Amendment Rights

HOUSTON, Texas — Texas' highest criminal court threw out a law on Wednesday banning "improper photography in public." Banning such photography, which includes "upskirting" or "downblousing" for the purpose of sexual gratification, would be considered a violation of free speech.

Or, on the other side, Salon:

Texas court throws out “upskirt” photo law, because banning creepshots is “paternalistic”

Texas’ highest criminal court struck down part of a law banning “upskirt” photos on Wednesday, arguing that photos taken without permission in public are entitled to First Amendment protections. Outlawing “improper photography or visual recording,” the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals panel ruled, would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a “paternalistic” effort to regulate the photographers’ thoughts.

If you read those articles — if you read most of the coverage of this decision — you would conclude that (1) Texas had a law banning upskirt photos, and (2) a Texas court struck down the law because upskirt photos are protected by the First Amendment and can't be banned.

Or, you could, you know, read the actual court decision to see what the court said. Mike Masnick at Techdirt did so, and found that the decision didn't much resemble its coverage.

First, take the statute that was at issue. It's Texas Penal Code section 21.15(b)(1).

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

That odd "not a bathroom" clause, by the way, is there because there's a separate part of the statute that deals with filming in bathrooms and dressing rooms — which the Texas court did not strike down.

So. Let's consider this a minute. Taking a picture of someone in public with the intent to gratify anyone sexually is a felony under this statute.

Is this picture a felony?


That depends on whether a jury thinks that the photographer took it for anyone's sexual gratification. Could you get arrested for taking the picture? That would depend on whether a cop thinks that you are taking the picture for sexual gratification. The picture is iconic; it depends upon apparent juxtaposition of a heavily-policed riot and a passionate embrace. I'm sure the cops will have a nuanced view of it when you're standing there taking pictures. No doubt someone finds the picture sexually stimulating. If you take the picture, with the intent to put it on the internet, and you know what the internet is like, are you committing a felony? Does it depend on whether you intended that people would be stimulated by it, or merely knew that they would?

How about this picture?


Various people find Jake and/or Maggie Gyllenhaal to be sexually stimulating. Many of these people probably read the papers and magazines that print pictures of them at the beach. The photographers know this, which is why they take the pictures, so they can sell them to the papers and magazines. Has the photographer committed a felony? Does it depend on how "hot" the picture is? Does whether it is a felony depend on whether Jake is wearing a rash guard?

Perhaps you think that's a ridiculous question, that I'm making up stupid slippery slopes. The Texas court doesn't think so.

This statute could easily be applied to an entertainment reporter who takes a photograph of an attractive celebrity on a public street.

How do we know it won't? We don't. We're supposed to rely on the discretion of cops and prosecutors. We're supposed to believe that when a statute allows the government to arrest and prosecute you for a wide range of conduct based on its subjective evaluation of your mental state, that they won't abuse it to go after people they don't like. But experience teaches that cops will, in fact, harass photographers given a chance.

But wait, you say. The Texas court didn't just say that! They said that upskirts are protected by the First Amendment!

No. They didn't. In fact, they explicitly said they weren't saying that.

Here's what the court did. Faced with a challenge to the statute, it first addressed whether photography in general is protected by the First Amendment. The answer — which I hope you will be happy to hear — is yes.

The second question is a bit trickier. Is photography an inherently expressive act that triggers the First Amendment, or does it depend on whether any given photograph has a "particularized message?" The Texas court weighed the precedents — parades are inherently expressive, flag-burning may or may not be expressive depending on the circumstances — and decided that photography is inherently expressive. The court quoted Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, which pointed out that demanding an individualized show of "particularized message" tends to chill and suppress speech:

As some of these examples show, a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a "particularized message," cf. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 411 (1974) (per curiam), would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schönberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll.

The third question is also tricky. Even if photography is generally protected, is this statute limited at only specifically unprotected types of photography? That's what the state argued — that because the statute only applied to photography intended to cause sexual gratification, it only applied to unprotected photography. Not so, said the court. Not everything designed for sexual gratification is unprotected. In fact, a large amount of sexual expression is protected. Here, the law bans both protected expression — say, taking a photograph of an attractive celebrity on the street — and unprotected expression, like child pornography or obscenity. The fact that something is designed to cause sexual arousal doesn't take it outside the protections of the First Amendment:

Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or gratification is the regulation of protected thought, and such a regulation is outside the government’s power . . . .

But what about the "without consent" clause? Can the government ban non-consensual photographs? The state thought so — they argued that the lack of consent makes the ban constitutional, even though it would still apply to the hypothetical celebrity on the street. But, as the Texas court points out, the state is vague on the details. The state conceded in this case that we all effectively consent to being photographed when we go out in public to some extent, but argues there are some circumstances — which it can't define — in which that consent is no longer implied. But the First Amendment doesn't permit such ambiguity. Here the Texas court found that the state's definition of consent was so vague that it wasn't clear whether or not the defendant's conduct (taking pictures of women and children in bathing suits at a water park) would be illegal or not.

So, does that resolve the issue? No, it does not. That merely means that the statute bans some protected conduct. The next question is whether the state has a sufficiently compelling reason to ban that conduct. Here's where the coverage was the most woefully misleading. The court explicitly suggests that a law banning upskirts may survive First Amendment analysis:

We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.

But this statute doesn't do that. This statute bans non-consensual photography (with a definition of consent that is not clear even to the state prosecuting under the statute) if someone has sexual intent. As the court points out, the state is perfectly capable of drafting a narrower statute, and does so in the next subsection by banning nonconsensual photography in bathrooms and private dressing rooms.

So — shouldn't the court just uphold convictions when they are for clearly unprotected conduct (say, a photo of a child that qualifies as child pornography, or a picture that qualifies as obscenity, or an unquestionable invasion of privacy like an upskirt), and strike down the ones that are for protected conduct? That's not how First Amendment analysis works. Under the overbreadth doctrine, if a statute poses a "realistic" risk of banning a "substantial" amount of protected speech, the whole thing fails. Here, the court found that the statute's reach was "breathtaking." Therefore, even though there might be some constitutional applications, the statute is unconstitutional.

But wait. What about that extremely douchey part where the Texas court said that banning non-consensual pervy photography was "paternalistic" to the women it sought to protect? What assholes!

Well, actually, that's not what they said at all.

Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of “paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind” that the First Amendment was designed to guard against. [emphasis added by irritable blogger]

The court was talking about being paternalistic to defendants by regulating sexual thoughts, not paternalistic to victims of creepshots.

So, to sum up, allow me to mainsplain:


Sometimes the rule of law — due process, application of established rules, procedures, and rights — result in nasty people getting away with bad things. That makes us angry. But it's not about how we feel.

The Texas court didn't say upskirts are protected by the First Amendment. Texas could probably ban upskirts, if it did a halfway-competent job of drafting a sufficiently narrow statute.

But who's going to get outraged about that?

If you're wondering why I give a shit, consider this: our freedoms are recognized or denied based on court rulings. Our understanding of those court rulings often derives from media coverage of them. When we do a lousy job of covering law, or when we put up with journalists doing so, we're doing a lousy job as citizens.

Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother © 2007-2014 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

05 Nov 06:13

throw your ballot out

Today on Married To The Sea: throw your ballot out
04 Nov 08:43

hell yeah votin

Today on Married To The Sea: hell yeah votin
03 Nov 13:38


by Xeni Jardin

As ferocious as this dinosaur may seem, he is most often consumed by human children. (more…)

02 Nov 19:16

rmsk8r05: Since I can’t log into Tumblr at work, I just use my...


Since I can’t log into Tumblr at work, I just use my phone to share this comment at Kotaku regarding Anita Sarkeesian’s appearance on the Colbert Report.

30 Oct 16:10

Pride & Prejudice & Zombies Debuts Its Zombie-Fighting Bennet Sisters

by Meredith Woerner

Pride & Prejudice & Zombies Debuts Its Zombie-Fighting Bennet Sisters

Who knew the Bennet sisters could look so badass? The very first picture from Pride and Prejudice and Zombies looks fairly ridiculous, which is the entire point. Call me insane, but I'm kind of excited about this silly movie.


20 Oct 20:30

Inspiration: John Cleese on How to Be Creative

Legendary writer and actor John Cleese is known more for his sense of humor than almost any other attribute. But as he demonstrates brilliantly in the above video, he also has an inspirational outlook and deep interest in the subject of creativity.

In the half hour speech, Cleese talks about creativity and how it relates to both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ modes of thinking, each of which come with their own benefits and results. The open mode allows us to be curious, ‘playful’ and toy with ideas until we latch on to one… the closed mode allows us to be deliberate and followthrough with that idea once we’ve got it.

Creativity, it seems, requires the ability to switch between these modes quickly and easily — to alternate from playful creative thinking to deliberate directed action and back again at will… something the most creative among us are very skilled at.


Of course, this is only part of what Cleese is getting at. To try and summarize or give an adequate overview of the full 30-minute speech would be as difficult as talking about creativity is in the first place.

And so, instead, we’ll leave you with a worthwhile quote about what creativity isn’t, and just let Cleese take it from there.

Creativity is not a talent, it is a way of operating. [It] is not an ability you either have or do not have.

(h/t Reddit)

31 Oct 12:05

My 4 year old daughter's homemade xenomorph Halloween costume =)

29 Oct 12:16

the Halloween Costume

by The Awkward Yeti

the Halloween costume

25 Oct 16:09

A proposal for a new mandatory shopping label

by Xeni Jardin
28 Oct 16:21

Uncropped photos of famous album covers

by Mark Frauenfelder

Communication agency Aptitude created uncropped versions of iconic album covers.

28 Oct 06:25

Amazing Carved Dodo O’Lantern (Dodo’lantern?)

by David Malki

Reader @Stringerplz shared these great pictures of her carved dodo pumpkin!


finally in the DARK

@malki not Halloween Keith. Also not a sea lion. In other words an utter failure. I beg forgiveness #notallpumpkins

— Paul Bunyip (@Stringerplz) October 27, 2014

Modeled after, of course, the dodos with the time!

A New Piranhamoose-O’Lantern

In her tweet above, Stringerplz mentions “Halloween Keith.” Some of you older readers will no doubt remember Halloween Keith from your childhood.

I'll never understand how it came to pass that everyone's happy to play along with "Santa Claus" but Halloween Keith never really caught on.

— MALKenstein ! (@malki) October 26, 2014

Halloween Keith was the best! Dressed as a mummy, eyes two dripping eggs, bag of candy on his face like an oatbag, footprints always wet.

— MALKenstein ! (@malki) October 26, 2014

I remember going to the cornbake and offering Halloween Keith a ceremonial cob. Of course now I realize it was just a man in a costume.

— MALKenstein ! (@malki) October 26, 2014

The only thing we still have of the Halloween Keith mythos in culture today is the game Truth or Dare

— MALKenstein ! (@malki) October 26, 2014

I have written some more about Halloween Keith.

Some say Halloween Keith was a corn farmer who died in a drought year, through laziness or ill-management of his crop; others say he was born from the cornfields themselves, a new form of smut who took legs in an attempt to become a man. Inside his wrappings are either bony limbs hung with rotted flesh, or bulbous, fungal lumps of corn. Perhaps both, working in concert…

Once a year, on the eve of All Saints’ Day, children from the local parish used to go door-to-door collecting food donations to help the less fortunate. Because charity is most virtuous when done anonymously, the children would wear masks, or dress up in costume — sometimes as adults, but other times as monsters and evil things, as a reminder that even the demons may repent and do good works.

This presented the perfect opportunity for Halloween Keith to also disguise himself and collect food from unsuspecting families, enough to feed him for another year…

Malkidian Geometry: The Forgotten Mythos of Halloween Keith

OBLIGATORY REMINDER: Only two days and a bit remain on the Go Away, Sea Lions shirt!
25 Oct 00:00


New Cyanide and Happiness Comic.
26 Oct 04:01

Fun With Baby’s Clubfoot

by shaenon


Shaenon: Yeah, I’m drawing baby comics now.  Deal with it.

Channing: I love how adorably surly Robin looks.

Shaenon: Since I drew this Robin has graduated from casts to braces, so I have to make up a whole new set of lies.

And hey, Jeff’s birthday was this past week!  Kay Gilbert threw a webcomics mascot party in his honor.  Check it out:


Writes Kay: Artie and Helen felt that Jeff deserved some serious props for helming Skin Horse in Shaenon’s absence, and thought they’d throw a combo birthday and congratulations party in his honor.  To that end, they consulted party planner extraordinaire Pinkie Pie, who put together this blow-out.
            Here’s a picture of the crowd, captured in the process of singing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” (which nobody can deny): Wanda the Wasp Eater (Girl Genius), Pintsize (Questionable Content), Pinkie Pie herself, Liz the Lizard of Guilt (Oglaf), Helen, Winslow (QC) and Artie.  Oh, and of course, Artie’s BFF Albert Einstein, who seems to show up whenever there’s an open bar.
            The one downside: Pinkie Pie accepted Helen’s offer to provide the punch.  I leave to your imagination what the group looked like an hour later!  (Hint: Picture lemurs with wings and fangs.)

Thank you so much!  I’m just sorry we don’t have any Skin Horse plushes to round out the party.

24 Oct 00:00


New Cyanide and Happiness Comic.
22 Oct 06:09

Girls with Slingshots - GWS #1920

by (Danielle Corsetto)
New comic!
Today's News:

Okay, these write-ups are taking up WAY more time than I'd intended them to, so this one's short! Which is a shame, 'cause these are two favorite topics of mine: feminism and booze.

In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was passed, which means UTERUS-HAVERS COULD FINALLY VOTE, good fucking LORD why did this happen less than a hundred years ago.

BUT! a few months before that, prohibition was put into effect so that none of those power-lusting pink glittery baby-making sandwich-birthing girly girls could raise a glass in celebration of their newfound Permission to Have A Fucking Opinion. Coincidence? Of course not! What assholes.

Luckily the next year women everywhere voted in the election and wrote in "INFINITE WINE O'CLOCK" for their president and it won, so now it is acceptable to drink wine all the time, thank you voting ladies of the 1920s.

08 Oct 06:05

Presidential Misgivings

by Greg Ross

George Washington: “So much is expected, so many untoward circumstances may intervene, that I feel an insuperable diffidence in my own abilities.”

John Adams: “If I were to go over my life again, I would be a shoemaker rather than an American statesman.”

Thomas Jefferson called the presidency “a splended misery.” He said, “To myself, personally, it brings nothing but unceasing drudgery and daily loss of friends.”

John Quincy Adams called his term “the four most miserable years of my life.”

Andrew Jackson: “I can say with truth that mine is a situation of dignified slavery.”

Buchanan to Lincoln: “If you are as happy, my dear sir, on entering this house as I am at leaving it and returning home, you are the happiest man in the entire nation.”

Lincoln: “I am like the man who was tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. When they asked him how he felt about it, he said that if it were not for the honor of the thing, he would rather have walked.”

Ulysses Grant: “I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.”

Rutherford B. Hayes, on leaving office: “The escape from bondage into freedom is grateful indeed to my feelings. Even with my constitutional cheerfulness, the burden of office has not been light. Now I am glad to be a freedman.”

James Garfield: “My God! What is there in this place that a man should ever want to get in it?”

Grover Cleveland: “I believe I shall buy or rent a house near here, where I can go and be away from this cursed constant grind.”

Teddy Roosevelt, to the incoming Taft: “Ha ha! You are making up your Cabinet. I in a lighthearted way have spent the morning testing the rifles for my African trip. Life has compensations.”

Taft: “I’ll be damned if I am not getting tired of this. It seems to be the profession of a president simply to hear other people talk.”

Taft to Wilson: “I’m glad to be going — this is the lonesomest place in the world.”

Woodrow Wilson: “I never dreamed such loneliness and desolation of heart possible.”

Warren G. Harding: “This White House is a prison. I can’t get away from the men who dog my footsteps. I am in jail.”

Herbert Hoover: “A few hair shirts are part of the wardrobe of every man. The President differs from other men in that he has a much more extensive wardrobe.”

Harry Truman: “Being president of the United States is like riding a tiger. A man has to keep riding, or be swallowed.”

Bill Clinton: “Being a president is a lot like running a cemetery: There are a lot of people under you, but nobody’s listening.”

17 Oct 06:30


by Greg Ross

“Man is an exception, whatever he is. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head.” — G.K. Chesterton

19 Oct 22:31

Bears would just eat zombies right up

by Rob Beschizza
"Zombies are just walking meat," says David Mizejewski, who explains in this video just how many they'd get through daily as part of Team Nature's cleanup operation. Check back next week to see how another type of beast would deal with the walking dead, and support the National Wildlife Federation to make sure they're around when the next major outbreak occurs . Previously.
16 Oct 21:01

Journal Comic: Daddy’s little helpers

by meaghan

Hey babes, I was on my friends’ Rachel and Leigh’s podcast: Pop Porn! We walk about the Take off! ending, Godslave, Gotham and American Horror Story!

ALSO YEAH! French and British readers! Tell me where to go!!

14 Oct 07:00

Unshelved on Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Get a free Debut Authors eSampler
Unshelved strip for 10/14/2014
link to this strip | tweet this | share on facebook | email us | signed print

Library Ranger Badges available from the Unshelved store while supplies last

26 Sep 08:15

bebinn: youngmarxist: So if we have to show women what the baby looks like in their womb and tell...



So if we have to show women what the baby looks like in their womb and tell them how the process works before allowing them to get an abortion, does that mean we should teach our soldiers about the culture of the lands we’re invading, and explain to them that the people we want them to kill have families and feel pain, just like Americans?


07 Oct 23:54

He Did The Crime, But She’s Doing Time

by Andrew Sullivan

Sometimes staying in an abusive relationship means enduring more than beatings. Alex Campbell reports on the horrifying case of Arlena Lindley, a domestic violence victim who was sentenced to 45 years in prison after her child, Titches, was killed by her abusive boyfriend, Alonzo Turner, for failing to prevent the child’s death:

Lindley’s case exposes what many battered women’s advocates say is a grotesque injustice. As is common in families terrorized by a violent man, there were two victims in the Lindley-Turner home: mother and child. Both Lindley and Titches had suffered beatings for months. But in all but a handful of states, laws allow for one of the victims — the battered mother — to be treated as a perpetrator, guilty not of committing abuse herself but of failing to protect her children from her violent partner. Said Stephanie Avalon, resource specialist for the federally funded Battered Women’s Justice Project, “It’s the ultimate blaming of the victim.”

Lindley’s not the only woman to suffer this injustice, either:

No one knows how many women have suffered a fate like Lindley’s, but looking back over the past decade, BuzzFeed News identified 28 mothers in 11 states sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for failing to prevent their partners from harming their children. In every one of these cases, there was evidence the mother herself had been battered by the man.

Almost half, 13 mothers, were given 20 years or more. In one case, the mother was given a life sentence for failing to protect her son, just like the man who murdered the infant boy. In another, the sentences were effectively the same: The killer got life, and the mother got 75 years, of which she must serve at least 63 years and nine months. In yet another, the mother got a longer sentence than the man who raped her son. In one more, a father fractured an infant girl’s toe, femur, and seven ribs and was sentenced to two years; for failing to intervene, the mother got 30.

Amanda Hess comments:

Campbell’s story demonstrates how the criminal justice system is scapegoating domestic violence victims in order to cover for its failures to properly investigate and prosecute instances of child and intimate partner abuse. Shortly before he began dating Lindley, Turner was charged on two separate occasions, first with burglary and later “unlawful restraint,” after he broke into an ex-girlfriend’s home, pushed her, and stole her belongings, then returned three weeks later, grabbed her by the neck, covered her mouth, and forced her outside. The woman escaped after a neighbor stabbed Turner in the leg; months later, Turner was out on probation from the burglary charge and was still awaiting trial on the restraint charge when he murdered the boy. On the day of Titches’ murder, another neighbor called police after she witnessed Turner kicking Titches on the floor, but when police arrived and couldn’t locate Turner or the toddler, they failed to pursue the report. It is outrageous that the justice system in this case only took a hard line against domestic violence after a child was killed.

10 Oct 18:23

Girls love the pedipalps

by toni

girls love the pedipalps

And that, my friends, is how you know which spiders are boys.

03 Oct 19:07

Alien Head Mask Just Won All Halloween Costume Contests, Forever

by Meredith Woerner

Alien Head Mask Just Won All Halloween Costume Contests, Forever

Go home all other masks, this mask is the best mask.


03 Oct 16:06

[Comic 10-3-14] Everyday Is Halloween

27 Sep 20:16

Sat Stat: Staggering Graph Reveals the Cooptation of Economic Recoveries by the Rich

by Lisa Wade, PhD

The graph below represents the share of the income growth that went to the richest 10% of Americans in ten different economic recoveries.  The chart comes from economist Pavlina Tcherneva.

1 (2)

It’s quite clear from the far right blue and red columns that the top 10% have captured 100% of the income gains in the most recent economic “recovery,” while the bottom 90% have seen a decline in incomes even post-recession.

It’s also quite clear that the economic benefits of recoveries haven’t always gone to the rich, but that they have done so increasingly so over time. None of this is inevitable; change our economic policies, change the numbers.

Via Andrew Sullivan.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

(View original at

01 Oct 15:10

costumes for the blog

by toni

all the costumes

Just in case you are looking at this in RSS, or in the future (insert spooky futuristic music here), I made the fall animals some halloween costumes!

29 Sep 21:15

Celebrating Coffee, Astronaut-Style

by Mika McKinnon on Space, shared by Charlie Jane Anders to io9

Celebrating Coffee, Astronaut-Style

It's International Coffee Day, a high-caf holiday made far more entertaining by its celebration in low-Earth orbit by our astronauts on the International Space Station. Warning: this contains the most adorable real-life astronaut-buddy-movie clip yet.