#They call it an Experimental feature but I've never had any problems with it

[ofluminance-a]

Cute. Hanma watches Takemichi's ears flicks backwards and rat him out. But his vague intrigue sharpens at the sudden and unusual expression that appears on Takemichi's face. That was new. Gold eyes brighten with surprise and then his darkens with interest as he lets Takemichi reach up and unbutton his shirt, seeing how far this brave act might go.

This was all such a bold and new change that it instantly perked his interest into a sharp level of intensity. He wasn't even stuttering - it was like a whole new person. He grins at the comment and hums approvingly beneath the chaste kiss to his throat. But as if someone like Hanma would simply observe.

Hanma cranes his his head down and then tugs on blonde hair (careful to avoid his ears) enough to pull him back so he can crash his lips against Takemichi's in a bold kiss, skilled and demanding all in once. " Sure, kitten ~ " Hanma murmurs against his lips, playfully licking Takemichi's bottom lip. " We can find out all sorts of noises you can make. How's that sound?" He grins, pressing forwards again for another demanding kiss.

takemichi often forgets how tall hanma is, when he's not slouched. reaching the buttons wasn't that hard, but continuing to stand at that height and reach his neck? takemichi's poor tip toes were going tp be aching later, surely. thankfully, hanma assisted him with their little height problem, closing what space remained between them, if any at all.

long fingers slip into blonde waves and takemichi feels the breath hitch in his chest. the tug is what gets his attention, making his ears flatten once again when hanma pulls takemichi back, to kiss him. the kiss is.. well, takemichi hadn't kissed anyone before, so he had nothing to really judge it against. but, all he did know, was that he liked it. in return, takemichi was in too much shock to do much of anything. that, and -- he wasn't quite sure how too. still, he'd attempted, and that had to count for something, right?

when hanma's lips left his own, takemichi's bottom lip trembled against hanma's tongue, blue eyes lifting to search hanma's. slowly, takemichi's ears lift back up, twitching at the new .. pet name he'd been given. " k- kitten ? " swallowing thickly, takemichi can't stop the red radiating into his features. " i -- " he can feel his adam's apple bobbing. a shy smile. " haven't been called that since i was a kid.. " with his thumb, takemichi brushes it along hanma's strong and chiseled jawline. then, he gives a nod of approval. " but -- coming from you? i.. like it. " takemichi liked a lot of things about hanma.

licking his lips as his ear flicks in anticipation at the unhinged smile. yet, just when takemichi is going to answer hanma's question, the reaper surges forwards and takemichi gives him the answer he more than likely had been looking for with a gasp of air followed by a pleased squeak of surprise. " !!! " on this second kiss, takemichi tries to match hanma's movements, though it's all sloppy and a bit experimental on his side-- but, when he can slip his tongue into hanma's mouth, takemichi finally figures out he can purr. & that stirs a whole other side of him.

pushing against hanma's chest, takemichi backs him against the nearest wall and breaks the deep kiss to breathe. eyes half-lidded, the hand beneath hanma's chin has settled with his other behind his neck. there, takemichi continues his previous string of kisses against hanma's collarbone and then down his throat with another purr of excitement. " i've -- never done this. any .. of it. " the blonde whispers between kisses. " but you.. " takemichi pulls back with a soft smile, and a little laugh. " brought it all out of me. you're.. so special to me, s-shuji. " takemichi wanted to say it once aloud, as if tasting something for the first time to see if he liked it ort not. he'd liked everything else hanma had given him, and the smirk on his lips, spoke for him. takemichi playfully nipped at hanma's ear, and then grinned into the next rough kiss he gave hanma shuji.

#under a readmore just in case #THIS #THEM #BRITT WHAT HAVE WE DONE LMAO #catemichi!!! 🐈😸 #⋆ ― ✧ way up. way up. way up to the moon! / answered ask. #⋆ ― ✧ crybaby hero. / takemitchy. #⋆ ― ✧ m: takemichi hanagaki #.. he's getting a tag wtf #deathfavor #hanma tag tba #tw: nsfwish #tw: petnames

[hephaestuscrew]

oh wow I also use podcast addict and did not know it had that feature (having it play at the same time as regular music app) thanks!!

You're welcome!! Enjoy being able to consume double the amount of audio content at once! (If anyone's wondering how to do this in Podcast Addict, you just go in Settings > Player > then tick 'Ignore Audio Focus Requests'.)

#They call it an Experimental feature but I've never had any problems with it #Apart from forgetting I have it turned on and pressing play on a video and hearing a horrible moment of 2 sets of voices at once #But that's on me #I'm spreading the news for anyone else who sometimes finds that a podcast alone isn't enough stimulation lol #Asks

[thefallennightmare]

Time-Nine

Pairings: 1940'S Bucky Barnes x Reader/ Present Bucky Barnes x Reader.

Warnings: angst, fluff, swearing, some smut in places maybe

Summary: Before the war, Bucky and Reader had the picture perfect life together. When she lost him, she thought that she would never find that kind of love again. However, someone from a different time returns to give her that love once more. Will she follow them through the unknown or come to terms that her once in a lifetime love is truly gone?

A/N: I hope you guys are ready for angst because this one is going to hurt

TAGS: @overthinkinggotmedrinking @igothroughphasesalot @veralyonn @shannonleanna182 @white-wolf-buckaroo @whatawildone @jessyballet @sebby-staan @multiyfandomgirl40 @andeys-obsessions @spid3rgwen @slut-for-buck @spideyyypeter @voguekristen @justmeandmyfuckeduplife @kenziekugler22 @hoodedbirdie @ginger-swag-rapunzel @bluemoon-icecream @crazylittlereader2474 @browneyedgirl365 @amyvandijk

July 1, 1943.

My body lay across the couch in my living room, wrapped up tight in a blanket as I aimlessly watched whatever channel was on. I hadn't paid attention at all, mind somewhere else; on someone else.

Bucky had been gone for a few weeks now and my heart had yet to recover. The morning he left was filled with heartbreak and tears. I promised that no matter what happened I would be here waiting for him. Bucky, however, couldn't promise anything because he wasn't sure what the future held. He couldn't promise that he would come back unscathed or come back at all.

I couldn't hold that against him, of course. We both were unsure of what the war meant for us. All we did know was that Bucky needed to do this and I couldn't hold him back. He needed to make a life for his mom, Rebecca, and us.

The last few weeks had been incredibly hard for me to get through the day. Not only was Bucky on the other side of the world, Steve had gone M.I.A. He never came to my apartment that weekend and he didn't even call. My mind raced with different scenarios on what could have happened to him. I was so filled with sadness from Bucky leaving that I hadn't noticed my bestfriend was missing.

The clock on the wall across from me had struck eleven in the evening, another day wasted by. The decision to move my pity party to my bedroom came easy but as my feet hit the ground, a knock at my door halted me.

"Who is it?" I called out, worry etched in my voice.

I had to prepare myself for whoever was on the other side of the door now, unsure of what kind of news they would deliver.

"It's Steve."

My feet ran to the door, quickly opening it. No words were spoken as I wrapped my arms around him in a overdue hug.

"Where the hell have you been?" I questioned, letting him inside.

We both sat on our usual spots on my couch and he sighed, an apologetic look on his soft features.

"I know I've been gone when you needed someone and I'm sorry for that."

I patted his knee, letting him know that it was alright.

"You haven't find a new best friend, have you?" I joked.

Steve shook his head with a chuckle. "No, of course not."

"Girlfriend?" I wiggled my brows at him.

"No one wants to date a guy like me, not when I look like this," he scoffed, motioning to himself.

The way Steve looked had been an issue with him for a long time now. His body was riddled with medical problems and no matter how hard he tried to put on the weight, he couldn't.

"Oh, Steve. Any girl would be lucky to have you. You're a dreamboat," I reassured him.

He shifted in his seat, body rigid with worry.

"I have a way to change it all," Steve spoke.

My eyes were clouded with confusion. "What are you talking about?"

"The last few weeks I've been in New Jersey-."

"What the hell were you doing in Jersey?" I interrupted.

Steve sighed, unsure how to find the right words to say. "The night before Buck left, I met a doctor who gave me a chance. A chance to fight in the war alongside Bucky. It's an experimental program."

"Steve-," I started.

"I have to do this, Y/N. This is my only chance," He argued.

"Wait," a word that Steve said rang warning bells in my mind. "Experimental Program?"

He hesitantly nodded. "They'll inject me with a serum, make me a super soldier.

My mouth fell agape at his words. Super soldier? Inject?

I stood to my feet, anger and disappointment fueling me. How could he do this to himself? Allow these strangers to inject him with something he knew nothing about?

"Oh lord, Steve. You're such a knucklehead for even thinking this," I exasperated.

"Bucky had the choice to fight in the war. It's only fair that I do as well."

I turned swiftly on my heels and tears welled in my eyes.

"Bucky never had a choice," I seethed while pointing a finger at him.

Steve let out a few breaths, wondering how to take his next few steps. I knew he didn't mean those words in a negative way but the wound of Bucky leaving was still raw.

"I didn't mean to upset you, Y/N." Steve said.

Tears were rolling over my cheeks and I chocked out a sob. "Bucky left me and now you're going to leave me also. I lost my two best guys and I'm going to be alone."

Steve reached for my hand and pulled me down on the couch next to him. The sobs wrecked my body as I cried into his chest. How could Bucky and Steve both leave me? Didn't I mean anything to them?

His hand ran soothing circles on my back, hoping to calm my cries.

"You're not alone. You have Winnie and Rebecca here. They're the part of Buck that's missing."

I nodded. "I just miss him so much, Stevie. I don't know what's going on over there."

"I know," Steve soothed. "He can take care of himself."

We sat in silence for a long while, him continuing to rub circles on my back and I clutching onto his sides. He was my bestfriend and the thought of loosing him as well broke whatever was left of my heart. It hurt to breath knowing that I was going to be completely alone.

"You know," Steve spoke, "Dr. Erskine mentioned I can bring you with to the procedure tomorrow."

I immediately shook my head. "I don't think I can stomach watching what they're going to do to you."

Steve sighed but nodded, knowing that he unable to change my mind.

I pulled away from his chest and looked into his eyes. "Promise you'll come say goodbye before you head overseas?"

His eyes shone bright as he nodded. "Of course."

"Also, I need to see how well this serum is going to work, changing you into a super soldier and all," I joked, leaning back into the couch with him.

Steve chuckled and we spent the rest of the late night watching crappy movies together, unsure if we would ever get to again.

#bucky barnes #1940 bucky barnes and reader #1940's steve rogers #1940 james buchanan barnes #james buchanan barnes #bucky banres and reader #james buchanan barnes and reader #bucky barnes and reader

[says-the-thief-to-the-piper2]

CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman

Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of it did. But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world. Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how much there was. At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she quietly appears and settles into the bath with me. One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this beautiful nude babe?" I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her, I'm, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?" "Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a massage table nearby. I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of anything like that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel it, "he says. "I feel a kind of dent--is that the pituitary?" I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!" They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "It's reflexology!" I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating. That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to cheek on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress-- in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals. Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with. We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't land. We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease. But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results. I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's not giving scientific advice. Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A. I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control. She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens. Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen" he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands. All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before. The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell. He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell. Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running. I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science. Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science? This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology. And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent-- not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity. So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

Return to Donald Simanek’s home page.

#words