i drew this little friend and i dont know what he is but i love him
Don’t worry, friends. Little guy is ok.
he doesnt have arms to drink that tea that is a threat in disguise
goodbye small fucker
LEAVE HIM ALONE
I’m going to help train our friend, I won’t stand to see him take this abuse any longer
We’re taking it a bit slow because he’s still recovering, but his training is coming along nicely! You can do it, little guy!
looks like all that training is starting to pay off
I will resurrect many time with more strangth.
Revenge is sweet.
goodbye small fucker
I always love these because you get to see so many different art styles but holy fuck guys someone needs to get him a spikey hat or knights armour covered in razor blades
he has evolved, and now he has a knife taped onto him! go fight lil blue friend!
You can tell a lot from a person by what ending they reblog this with
Celling of Hazrate-Masomeh’s mosque in Qom, Iran, all images courtesy of Mehrdad Rasoulifard (@m1rasoulifard)
Capturing the intricately tiled ceilings of centuries old mosques, Instagram photographer Mehrdad Rasoulifard (@m1rasoulifard) gives his followers both a history lesson and aesthetic treat. The ceilings are not only covered in rich patterns, but architecturally structured to appear like complex tessellations or honeycombs. The mosques are built to include spiraling series of domes and indents, causing the viewer to get lost in their disorienting beauty.
Often Iranian architecture utilizes symbolic geometry, incorporating an abundant use of circles and squares obvious in the photographed buildings’ symmetrical layouts. Popular colors incorporated into these tiled structures include gold, white, and turquoise which are typically layered onto dark blue backgrounds.
The oldest structure photographed is over 900-years-old which hints at the vast architectural history found in Iran. You can see more of the country’s detailed places of worship and observation on Rasoulifard’s Instagram. (via Designboom)
Celling of Hazrate-Masomeh’s mosque in Qom, Iran
Celling of Hazrate-Masomeh’s mosque in Qom, Iran
Celling of Sheikh-Lotfollah’s mosque in Esfahan, Iran
Sheikh Lotfollah mosque in Esfahan,Iran, about 400 years old
Sheikh Lotfollah mosque in Esfahan, Iran, about 400 years old
Celling of Shahe-Cheragh’s mosque in Shiraz, Iran
Celling of Jameh’s mosque in Esfahan, Iran, 900 years old
Brooklyn-based painter Iris Scott (previously) eschews brushes and palette knives in favor of using the most traditional art tools of all time: her fingers. Her color-saturated canvases of thick oil paint capture shaking wet dogs, dreamy urban cityscapes, and serene outdoor scenes. “There’s nothing between me and the paint, I feel all the tiny nuances,” says Scott. “I can manipulate thick paint with my fingers in ways brushes never could.” The physicality of using her digits brings a unique sense of motion to each piece and when coupled with nearly 100 colors for a single artwork, it’s no surprise to discover how entrancing each canvas becomes.
‘Keynes was right to predict that we would be working less but overestimated for how long that trend would continue’
Three hours a day is quite enough,” wrote John Maynard Keynes in his 1930 essay Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren. The essay continues to tantalise its readers today, thanks in part to a forecast that is looking magnificently right — that in advanced economies people could be up to eight times better off in 2030 than in 1930 — coupled with a forecast that is looking spectacularly wrong, that we would be working 15-hour weeks.
In 2008, economists Lorenzo Pecchi and Gustavo Piga edited a book in which celebrated economists pondered Keynes’s essay. One contributor, Benjamin Friedman of Harvard University, has recently revisited the question of what Keynes got wrong, and produced a thought-provoking answer.
First, it is worth teasing out the nature and extent of Keynes’s error. He was right to predict that we would be working less. We enter the workforce later, after long and not-always-arduous courses of study. We enjoy longer retirements. The work week itself is getting shorter. In non-agricultural employment in the US, the week was 69 hours in 1830 — the equivalent of working 11 hours a day but only three hours on Sundays. By 1930, a full-time work week was 47 hours; each decade, American workers were working two hours less every week.
But Keynes overestimated how rapidly and for how long that trend would continue. By 1970 the work week was down to 39 hours. If the work week had continued to shrink, we would be working 30-hour weeks by now, and perhaps 25-hour weeks by 2030. But by around 1970, the slacking-off stopped. Why?
One natural response is that people are never satisfied: perhaps their desire to consume can be inflamed by advertisers; perhaps it is just that one must always have a better car, a sharper suit, and a more tasteful kitchen than the neighbours. Since the neighbours are also getting richer, nothing about this process allows anyone to take time off.
No doubt there is much in this. But Friedman takes a different angle. Rather than asking how Keynes could have been so right about income but so wrong about leisure, Friedman points out that Keynes might not have been quite so on the mark about income as we usually assume. For while the US economy grew briskly until the crisis of 2007, median household incomes started stagnating long before then — around 1970, in fact.
The gap between the growth of the economy and the growth of median household incomes is explained by a patchwork of factors, including a change in the nature of households themselves, with more income being diverted to healthcare costs, and an increasing share of income accruing to the highest earners. In short, perhaps progress towards the 15-hour work week has stalled because the typical US household’s income has stalled too. Household incomes started to stagnate at the same time as the work week stopped shrinking.
This idea makes good sense but it does not explain what is happening to higher earners. Since their incomes have not stagnated — far from it — one might expect them to be taking some of the benefits of very high hourly earnings in the form of shorter days and longer weekends. Not so. According to research published by economists Mark Aguiar and Erik Hurst in 2006 — a nice snapshot of life before the great recession — higher earners were enjoying less leisure.
So the puzzle has taken a different shape. Ordinary people have been enjoying some measure of both the income gains and the leisure gains that Keynes predicted — but rather less of both than we might have hoped.
The economic elites, meanwhile, continue to embody a paradox: all the income gains that Keynes expected and more, but limited leisure.
The likely reason for that is that, in many careers, it’s hard to break through to the top echelons without putting in long hours. It is not easy to make it to the C-suite on a 20-hour week, no matter how talented one is. And because the income distribution is highly skewed, the stakes are high: working 70 hours a week like it’s 1830 all over again may put you on track for a six-figure bonus, while working 35 hours a week may put you on track for the scrapheap.
The consequences of all this can emerge in unexpected places. As a recent research paper by economists Lena Edlund, Cecilia Machado and Maria Micaela Sviatschi points out, urban centres in the US were undesirable places to live in the late 1970s and early 1980s. People paid a premium to live in the suburbs and commuted in to the city centres to work. The situation is now reversed. Why? The answer, suggest Edlund and her colleagues, is that affluent people don’t have time to commute any more. They’ll pay more for cramped city-centre apartments if by doing so they can save time.
If there is a limited supply of city-centre apartments, and your affluent colleagues are snapping them up, what on earth can you do? Work harder. Homes such as Keynes’s elegant town house in Bloomsbury now cost millions of pounds. Three hours a day is not remotely enough.
I haven’t played any console games for quite a while. They’re really expensive, and I don’t have as much time as I used to. There are a few console-only franchises that I miss, but not enough to buy a console to play them. I love Mario Kart, but not $300 worth.
It’s strange to think that many of the games on my phone have graphics that are superior to anything my old Xbox and Game Cube could muster. Of course, I really don’t have much time for phone games either, but at least I’m failing to get around to games that cost $5 or less. That’s an improvement.
.png)
