It's giveaway time! Win a Warhammer 40,000: Dark Heresy alpha key — like and repost this post to enter, simple as that. The winners will be announced after December 16th, so hurry up. Please ensure your DMs are open so we can contact you. #owlcatadvent

Average European morning

cat food protest

This wins the internet.. 😂 Sound on

Ok I officially love this cat.

Flying over Los Roques archipelago in Venezuela, 160 kilometers north of the capital Caracas in the Caribbean Sea. 📹 alexeysaff, jenjen.cova

How lenses and prisms bend and reflect light [📹 edmundoptics] x.com/Levandov_2/status/1727…

This mom gives broccoli to one child and cookies to the other to see if they'll share. He is a brother who loves his sister very much! 🤗🤗

As with your previous post, it is difficult to comprehend why you believe these comments will improve the situation. First, I agree that it is unfortunate you dragged Adam Grant into this. I use the active voice here, because unlike the passive "got dragged into this", the reason Grant is now implicated is because you felt it necessary to subject Coleman's talk to pseudo-scientific verification. That was your choice. By appealing to him for verification, you are implicitly suggesting Adam Grant is either an equal or more authoritative source on this topic than Coleman Hughes. That is on you, not the internet. The internet is merely responding to your appeal to authority. On the subject of authority itself, a tweet is a difficult place for a debate about whether organizational psychology is a functioning science, and whether it has achieved the kind of institutional competence necessary to vet a race-relations talk. In brief, replication in psychology journals is generally abysmal. It was recently found to be 50% or less for several prominent journals. It is the field whose poor performance made the term "replication crisis" a household word. If you are asking us to take the citation of a meta-analysis - an aggregation of studies in the field - seriously, my mouth is agape. Aggregating information with 50% or less verifiability means you are effectively getting noise. A psychology meta-analysis today is the scientific equivalent of a subprime mortgage-backed security from the 2008 financial crisis. You don't get accurate research by combining lots of inaccurate research. You might as well have told us you consulted a coin to see if Coleman's talk was scientifically sound, and it came up tails. Furthermore, calling Grant's remarks a "nuanced summary of the evidence" is thoroughly confusing, unless you are referring to private remarks you have yet to publish. All I have seen from Grant thus far is a few brief comments on a meta-analysis - which is paywalled - with links to 3 other papers, all of which are paywalled. There is no discussion about why we should believe these particular papers, or these particular authors. There is no explanation of what makes these findings credible in a field already widely discredited for its lax standards, small sample sizes, poor controls, overinterpretation of results and unacceptably low replication rates. There is no enumeration from Grant of why the studies comprising the meta-analysis are likely to be accurate or trustworthy. In short, actually determining if any of these citations supports Grant's conclusion is left completely as an exercise for the reader - a reader who must then pay hundreds of dollars in journal access fees to not only buy these papers, but the papers they meta-analyze and reference. You also spend a paragraph discussing the assertion that, "Some commenters below just don’t understand how anyone could be upset by a talk arguing for color blindness". I'm sure we can find a few commenters among the thousand that fit that characterization. You can find anything in a big enough comments thread. But read the bulk of the comments more carefully and you will find this is not their complaint. Rather, they don't understand how an institution could be more upset about a color blindness talk than a color-conscious talk, of which TED has had several. In fact, you helpfully cited one right in your post (TED 2014's “Color blind or color brave?”). Where was the pseudo-scientific vetting then? Where was the required debate? Where were the outraged employees? Where were the internal machinations to scuttle the VOD? Overwhelmingly, that is what the comments are actually about. Nobody would even know about this incident, let alone complain, if the only thing that had happened was that some employees watched the talk and didn't personally like it. Presumably that happens all the time, with all kinds of TED talks. That is not the gravamen here. Why pretend it is? You then assert that the reason people might feel this way is due to "their own lack of immersion in the rich debate that has swirled on this topic in recent years". If I may hyperbolize for a moment: every news source, every social network, every political podcast in America has been having nothing but this debate for the past five years or more. Is your argument really that the people critical of TED's behavior have heard none of this? That they are unaware of what the arguments are? Is that how you are drawing the dividing line? You believe that people demanding equal treatment for Coleman Hughes simply "don't understand" the debate? You closed with, "I see a growing number of people yearn for something better than having our conversations dominated by the angry and the judgmental. What if we tried giving each other the benefit of the doubt?" I will close with that as well: TED failed precisely this mission statement. That is why people are upset. TED's employees dominated the conversation we wanted to have with Coleman by being angry and judgmental. They in no way gave his talk the benefit of the doubt. TED's employees tried to prevent his talk from being published. TED's "town hall" attendees took to the microphone and called him "dangerous", "irresponsible", and "racist". They implicitly accused him of supporting Plessy vs. Ferguson. You apparently had no problem with any of this. You have not apologized for TED's behavior. You didn't admonish the hostile attendees for their tone, and I imagine they are more than welcome back next year. Nobody believes your platitude because they saw how Coleman Hughes was treated by TED and by its attendees. You're chastising the chorus for lack of harmony, but your section was the one loudly singing in discord. Your organization participated in and facilitated something deeply offensive to the tenets of open, honest intellectual exchange. Stop trying to recontextualize it. Own your mistake. Publicly apologize to Coleman Hughes, institute policies for TED to ensure this never happens again, and move on. Anything less is not a serious response.

I'm sick of dysfunctional people screaming and thrashing around in shared public spaces while the people who work and pay to maintain society have to quietly tiptoe around them. This is a sick arrangement that benefits no one but delusional activists and ineffective politicians.

Wood opal is a form of petrified wood which has developed an opalescent sheen or, more rarely, where the wood has been completely replaced by opal. Considerable deposits are in Queensland, Australia [read more: buff.ly/2INve8m]

“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.” -Isaac Asimov

Colorful Rainbow Obsidian 🖤🌈 Both sides of this piece are very different... Which side is your favorite? (1 or 2)

It takes 31 elements (four that come from conflict zones) to make a smartphone. This periodic table visulises their quantity and rarity [source, read more: ow.ly/m16P30ncD9R]

This is an actual picture of a molecule taken by IBM created by using a technique called Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). (Credit: IBM)

The hug that saved a life In 1995, the twins, Kyrie and Brielle Jackson, were born 12 weeks premature, each weighing only about 2 pounds. They were placed in separate incubators. One twin was not expected to survive. She went into critical condition. Her heart rate was rising while her oxygen level was dropping significantly. They were about to lose her. It was then that one nurse, Gale Kasparian, went against the hospital rules and standard procedure, putting the healthy twin next to her struggling sister in the same incubator. This decision turned out to be life-saving. Once the twins were close to each other, the struggling sister (Brielle) snuggled up to the healthy sister (Kyrie) who put her arms around Brielle. Almost immediately after, Brielle's vital signs started stabilizing. Her heart rate and oxygen levels normalized. Both twin sisters eventually survived and grew into strong young women. The picture below came to be known as the rescuing hug and would change a part of our understanding of medicine. Hugging that is coming from the heart is proven to have calming and healing effects. Maybe there is someone in your life that can use a warm and heartfelt hug right now.

I'm in the running to win one of THREE Baldur's Gate 3 Collector’s Editions (PC)! Follow @Fextralife for all the details! #Giveaway #BaldursGate3 #BG3 baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife…

🔴Fextralife #Giveaway LIVE In anticipation of #BaldursGate3's full release, we're giving away 3 CEs! Includes: ⚔️PC digital code ⚔️160-page hardcover art book ⚔️A mind-flayer-inspired collector's box & plenty more! ENTER NOW: baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife…

#LostArk is an action packed f2p MMO-ARPG where you can embark on an odyssey in a vast, vibrant world: explore new lands, seek out treasure, and test yourself in thrilling action combat! Learn more! ⚔️ bit.ly/35aO8mV RT for a chance win a Closed Technical Alpha code!