Validation. <3 T.J. Thyne

Ernten Ernten…

Fuck Yeah Sarah Silverman! Can’t believe they blurred the zoomed mouth just because she put it there…

Robin Williams in 1991. Looking weirdly like David Duchovny.

thegreatbigfour:

lil-miss-choc:

608474:

Lucy (2014)

An action film.

With a female lead.

Played by Scarlett Johanssen

With no love interest.

With superpowers.

And Morgan Freeman.

I had no idea how much I wanted this until this moment.

image

(via laughingstation)

Mindy Kaling is so fucking awesome!

deadlifts-and-donuts:

killthechallenge:

tyleroakley:

entropiaorganizada:

hookteeth:

… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.
So you might end up with more donuts.
But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?
Hrm.
HRM.

A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.
tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

Thank you donut side of Tumblr.


The more you know… deadlifts-and-donuts humblydominate

The donut side of tumblr.

deadlifts-and-donuts:

killthechallenge:

tyleroakley:

entropiaorganizada:

hookteeth:

… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.

So you might end up with more donuts.

But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?

Hrm.

HRM.

A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.

The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (
R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.


tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

Thank you donut side of Tumblr.

The more you know… deadlifts-and-donuts humblydominate

The donut side of tumblr.

(Source: nimstrz, via dumbbellsandfastcars)

Surprise who?

(Source: sizvideos, via laughingstation)

alexsegura:

SHAKE IT SO.

Fuckyeah @SirPatStew

alexsegura:

SHAKE IT SO.

Fuckyeah @SirPatStew

(Source: geekyasfuck, via kopflabor)

Buffering…

Buffering…

(Source: knusprig-titten-hitler, via kopflabor)

elartistaguapisimo:

so 90s it physically hurts

OMG.

elartistaguapisimo:

so 90s it physically hurts

OMG.

(Source: 7hc, via theonlineblog)

sokpoppet:

nicolakay:

oh-no-zo:

symmetrism:

Art’s great nudes have gone skinny

Italian artist Anna Utopia Giordano has created a visual re-imagination of historic nude paintings, had the subjects conformed their bodies to what the 21st century considers an ideal of beauty. The results are revealing—and quite shocking in what they say about the modern attitude toward women’s bodies.

This is genius

This makes me uncomfortable

(via dumbbellsandfastcars)

druesli:


I actually had this issue.  How cool was my mom to hook me up with a subscription to this?


Awwwwww. Loving that tiny floppy disk!

druesli:

I actually had this issue.  How cool was my mom to hook me up with a subscription to this?

Awwwwww. Loving that tiny floppy disk!

(Source: dbreunig, via solipsism)

Thunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening! And Beautiful!

(Source: stars-in-streams, via bookoisseur)

Thanks Tumblr! Theme by Thijs.