It’s The 4th Day Of MerMay So Here’s MerRey!!!

Fourth day of quarantine in Italy: italians dancing and singing to macarena in their balconies

Feel free 🌻❤️  Bologna | 30/06/2019

sensory

yes its 2020, yes i still love mmd

R. I. P. oppy!! we love you so much

Summer Milky Way at Beverley, Western Australia Nikon d5500 - 50mm - ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - Foreground: 7 x 13s - Sky: 32 x 30s

The Science Has Spoken: Pluto Will Never Be A Planet Again

“What’s perhaps most remarkable is that we can make a simple, mathematical relationship between a world’s mass and its orbital distance that can be scaled and applied to any star. If you’re above these lines, you’re a planet; if you’re below it, you’re not. Note that even the most massive dwarf planets would have to be closer to the Sun than Mercury is to reach planetary status. Note by how fantastically much each of our eight planets meets these criteria… and by how much all others miss it. And note that if you replaced the Earth with the Moon, it would barely make it as a planet.”

It was a harsh lesson in astronomy for all of us in 2006, when the International Astronomical Union released their official definition of a planet. While the innermost eight planets made the cut, Pluto did not. But given the discovery of large numbers of worlds in the Kuiper belt and beyond our Solar System, it became clear that we needed something even more than what the IAU gave us. We needed a way to look at any orbiting worlds around any star and determine whether they met a set of objective criteria for reaching planetary status. Recently, Alan Stern spoke up and introduced a geophysical definition of a planet, which would admit more than 100 members in our Solar System alone. But how does this stand up to what astronomers need to know?

As it turns out, not very well. But the IAU definition needs improving, too, and modern science is more than up to the challenge. See who does and doesn’t make the cut into true planetary status, and whether Planet Nine – if real – will make it, too!

NaNi

And I noticed something strange on Internet. If you share an opinion and you are a male, it's ok. If you write the same thing and you are a female, they have the urge to correct you and making you feeling sorry/shut up.

Listen, if performing femininity is an “empowering choice,” then it needs to be an actual choice. Meaning that woman can opt out of it without negative consequence. Meaning a woman can go to an academic event without heels or in a simple suit and still be “professional.” Meaning that a woman can go to a job interview without a full face of makeup and not be “tired” or “disheveled.” Meaning that a woman can walk around in shorts with unshaven legs and not be a dirty, unclean gremlin. Meaning that a little girl can play and break barriers and like STEM while wearing jeans and a t-shirt and not be considered less empowered or “just trying to be a boy.”

Meaning that a woman’s femininity and womanhood is not contingent upon the extent to which she buys and performs a time-consuming, expensive, uncomfortable mold of a very specific type of packaged femininity. 

This isn’t even going into the effect these double standards have on women who in some way, by their very existence, do not fit the standard white western beauty mold and are expected to perform hyperfemininity to be “women” at all. I.e. women of colour esp. darker-skinned women of colour, hijabi women and tznius-keeping women, fat women, disabled women, trans women, etc.