BIOS

I like fantasy and mechposting. 23

[bios-0307]

woag, pinned post. come check out the stuff i write, it's all tagged "#my writing"

it's good i promise

edit: I also now have an AO3! I’m going to Eventually™ upload everything I’ve written here to there as well.

https://archiveofourown.org/users/BIOS_0307/pseuds/BIOS_0307

[mxrderscenes]

writing is so funny because i could write nonstop for 9hrs and then hit a block where im like "how do i transition between this moment and the next?" and then i just dont touch it for 6 months

[galadrieljones]

Serious advice tho if this happens, it's likely because you already wrote past the end of the scene and wandered too far from the more logical transition point, and you should go back to the last time the writing felt "unforced" and cut everything after.

You can also just skip the transition. Really good writing can span years in a single sentence, like you can just authoritatively state fact and your reader will go with it.

[xalphafox]

This is GOLD! You just saved me like thousands of therapy costs lmao

[headspace-hotel]

When I was writing my fic last few months the strategy I used was "just skip all the scenes I don't want to write" and it worked great in my opinion

[fforsythiaaa]

Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as “problematic” in class and our professor was like, “That’s cool, but ‘problematic’ doesn’t really mean anything. It means that the thing you’re describing has a problem, and in and of itself that’s not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else it’s not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like you’re trying to say that this is bad, but you don’t want to say ‘bad.’ Is that right?”

So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the “bad” thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, “I’m uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.”

Once we stopped calling things “problematic” and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, “that’s racist” or “that’s misogynistic” or “ew capitalism gross” out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, “Uhhh... I’m not sure what’s so bad?” and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.

Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I can’t help but think of this professor being like, “Good starting point, now let’s get specific.” I think when we have to commit to saying “that’s ___” it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever we’re claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes it’s art, and it should be full of problems, because that’s what art is.

[tieflingkisser]

[twiststreet]

She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.

She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.

81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.

The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.

Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.

Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.

The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.

She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.

Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.

When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.

The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.

When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.

The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.

You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.

Edited down a long tweet. (x)

[litttleprincess-deactivated2017]

Don't ever hesitate. Reblog this. TUMBLR RULE. When you see it, REBLOG IT.

[trappedinmyoldways]

Depression Hotline: [phone]

Suicide Hotline: [phone]

LifeLine: 1-800-273-8255

Trevor Project: 1-866-488-7386

Sexuality Support: 1-800-246-7743

Eating Disorders Hotline: [phone]

Rape and Sexual Assault: 1-800-656-4673

Grief Support: 1-650-321-5272

Runaway: 1-800-843-5200, 1-800-843-5678, 1-800-621-4000

Exhale: After Abortion Hotline/Pro-Voice: 1-866-4394253

If you ever want to talk, my ask box is always open

[jaydove-writes]

Please reblog this. I don’t care what your blog’s theme or aesthetic is. This is important.

[thestuffedalligator]

“When we were kids, the Phonics Wizard came to our town to show off how the letter E can change the sounds of vowels. He turned a can into a cane, a pin into a pine. This one kid had a cap and he changed it into a cape, that kind of thing.

“And we loved it, we were all having a great time, but then he saw my sister and I, and he just got this - this look in his eyes, and then-”

She hesitated, worrying the coarse material between her fingers. “Things got pretty bad after that,” she muttered. “I know it’s silly, but I try to keep - her - comfortable. We don’t know if she can still hear us, or see us, or if she’s even still in here, but I like to think she is. I talk to her when I can, I leave music on when I’m out of the house. I tried to convince my parents to bring her with us when we went to Disneyland, but they didn’t - didn’t really take that well.”

After a moment, she put the ball of twine back onto its pillow. “Anyways. They tried to arrest the Phonics Wizard, but he had a plan in case something went wrong and he turned it into a plane and flew away. Last time anyone heard from him was when he turned Pete Crow-Armstrong into a box.”

[capsule-169]

The spaceport bar was much like any, and the girl next to me could've been anyone. Literally; she was using a remote body. She said something strange: "Why do you think they call them 'ghost ships'? We're definitely alive." I looked over, and the body was idle. The logs said it had been for 6 hours.

[zoctopode]

full lesbian robot comic

thats it! all 8 pages! i had a lot of fun drawing this, thank you for everybodys kind words on the preview post.

if you wanna be SUPER COOL you can throw me a few bucks on my patreon B)

[kitamars]

remember our promise

[zoctopode]

hello. i made a comic about death and the value of temporary things. its 11 pages. hope you like it. or dont im not your boss

[anexperimentallife]

Also applies to "AI" "artists" and "musicians."

[voughtwifeannie]

Zoom In, Don’t Glaze Over: How to Describe Appearance Without Losing the Plot

You’ve met her before. The girl with “flowing ebony hair,” “emerald eyes,” and “lips like rose petals.” Or him, with “chiseled jawlines,” “stormy gray eyes,” and “shoulders like a Greek statue.”

We don’t know them.

We’ve just met their tropes.

Describing physical appearance is one of the trickiest — and most overdone — parts of character writing. It’s tempting to reach for shorthand: hair color, eye color, maybe a quick body scan. But if we want a reader to see someone — to feel the charge in the air when they enter a room — we need to stop writing mannequins and start writing people.

So let’s get granular. Here’s how to write physical appearance in a way that’s textured, meaningful, and deeply character-driven.

1. Hair: It’s About Story, Texture, and Care

Hair says a lot — not just about genetics, but about choices. Does your character tame it? Let it run wild? Is it dyed, greying, braided, buzzed, or piled on top of her head in a hurry?

Good hair description considers:

Texture (fine, coiled, wiry, limp, soft)

Context (windblown, sweat-damp, scorched by bleach)

Emotion (does she twist it when nervous? Is he ashamed of losing it?)

Flat: “Her long brown hair framed her face.”

Better: “Her ponytail was too tight, the kind that whispered of control issues and caffeine-fueled 4 a.m. library shifts.”

You don’t need to romanticise it. You need to make it feel real.

2. Eyes: Less Color, More Connection

We get it: her eyes are violet. Cool. But that doesn’t tell us much.

Instead of focusing solely on eye color, think about:

What the eyes do (do they dart, linger, harden?)

What others feel under them (seen, judged, safe?)

The surrounding features (dark circles, crow’s feet, smudged mascara)

Flat: “His piercing blue eyes locked on hers.”

Better: “His gaze was the kind that looked through you — like it had already weighed your worth and moved on.”

You’re not describing a passport photo. You’re describing what it feels like to be seen by them.

3. Facial Features: Use Contrast and Texture

Faces are not symmetrical ovals with random features. They’re full of tension, softness, age, emotion, and life.

Things to look for:

Asymmetry and character (a crooked nose, a scar)

Expression patterns (smiling without the eyes, habitual frowns)

Evidence of lifestyle (laugh lines, sun spots, stress acne)

Flat: “She had a delicate face.”

Better: “There was something unfinished about her face — as if her cheekbones hadn’t quite agreed on where to settle, and her mouth always seemed on the verge of disagreement.”

Let the face be a map of experience.

4. Bodies: Movement > Measurement

Forget dress sizes and six packs. Think about how bodies occupy space. How do they move? What are they hiding or showing? How do they wear their clothes — or how do the clothes wear them?

Ask:

What do others notice first? (a presence, a posture, a sound?)

How does their body express emotion? (do they go rigid, fold inwards, puff up?)

Flat: “He was tall and muscular.”

Better: “He had the kind of height that made ceilings nervous — but he moved like he was trying not to take up too much space.”

Describing someone’s body isn’t about cataloguing. It’s about showing how they exist in the world.

5. Let Emotion Tint the Lens

Who’s doing the describing? A lover? An enemy? A tired narrator? The emotional lens will shape what’s noticed and how it’s described.

In love: The chipped tooth becomes charming.

In rivalry: The smirk becomes smug.

In mourning: The face becomes blurred with memory.

Same person. Different lens. Different description.

6. Specificity is Your Superpower

Generic description = generic character. One well-chosen detail creates intimacy. Let us feel the scratch of their scarf, the clink of her earrings, the smudge of ink on their fingertips.

Examples:

“He had a habit of adjusting his collar when he lied — always clockwise, always twice.”

“Her nail polish was always chipped, but never accidentally.”

Make the reader feel like they’re the only one close enough to notice.

Describing appearance isn’t just about what your character looks like. It’s about what their appearance says — about how they move through the world, how others see them, and how they see themselves.

Zoom in on the details that matter. Skip the clichés. Let each description carry weight, story, and emotion. Because you’re not building paper dolls. You’re building people.

[kessadie]

⋅•∙∘☽SIGNALIS️☾∘⋅•⋅

.・゜゜・.・゜゜・.・゜゜・.・゜゜

she has nothing to smile about in her life

.・゜゜・.・゜゜・.・゜゜・.・゜゜

I'm rushing in with a beautiful one. They should have been there six months ago, but then my skill did not allow me to fully implement it.

Now I'm ready to show you the LSTR-512 and Ariane in all its glory. I've been thinking for a long time about what I want to see and draw, but I think it turned out great. Special thanks to my friend for introducing me to the beautiful.

.・゜゜・.・゜゜・.・゜゜・.・゜゜

Well, who doesn't know what kind of game it is, I advise you to watch and pass->Signalis

[sourdough-seal]

“how did you get into writing” girl nobody gets into writing. writing shows up one day at your door and gets into you

[orbitalmirror]

"how did you get into writing" girl i've been tormented by the visions since i was eight years old

[bios-0307]

In Every Life

Characters are not my own, they're from Undertow: https://archiveofourown.org/works/44781550

[crazy-brazilian]

[puppygirllaika]

#if the portals don't share a reference frame then there's sound logic that gets either answer unfortunately#it isn't properly defined and the vibes can lead you to A or B being correct

wait no please explain, how could it be A? like, genuinely, what is the chain of reasoning for that?

[puppygirllaika]

okay i woke up to find that this has generated a ridiculous amount of discussion so let me lay out my thinking here. Let me start with a few assumptions:

A portal is a single 2D object with two sides, not two objects. it is effectively just a hole in the universe that connects two points in space, like a wormhole, and there is 0 distance between the two sides.

Portals are free energy devices, by virtue of the fact that if you place one above another you get to take infinite advantage of gravity and accelerate to terminal velocity (or infinitely, if there's no air resistance). Basically, they allow you to arbirarily increase the amount of energy - or potential energy - an object has purely by virtue of it's position. If you walk through a portal at low elevation and exit it at high elevation, you have gained gravitational potential energy.

With this understanding in mind, the answer can only be B.

As many arguers in favor of A have suggested, let's imagine a doorway passing around you. You are floating in space and a doorway approaches you at a speed of ten m/s. It passes around you and then proceeds away from you at the same constant speed. your position has not changed, but you have experienced a doorway pass around you like that.

now imagine you are falling through space at a constant speed of ten m/s. below you is a doorway, and you fall through it. Lacking any other reference frame, the experience is identical to that of the doorway moving around you. You approach the doorway at 10m/s, you exit the doorway at 10/mps.

Now decouple the two sides of the doorway. One side is moving towards you at 10m/s. The other side it stationary, sitting right next to you. As the moving side of the doorway passes around you, you will exit the stationary doorway at the same relative speed, because relative to you and to the portal, there is no difference between falling into one side at 10m/s and the portal passing around you at 10m/s. The relative velocity between you and the moving side is constant, therefore the relative velocity between you and the stationary side must also be constant, and you will exit the stationary side going 10m/s.

Therefore:

If a train traveling at 10m/s with one half of a portal mounted on the front were to "hit" you, portal first, you would exit the other side traveling at that same 10m/s relative to the exit portal, regardless of the material conditions around the exit portal, like the rest of the world being stationary to it.

[puppygirllaika]

you will exit the orange portal at the same velocity at which you enter it. if the portal is moving relative to you, then you are moving relative to it from the portals frame of reference, and will exit at the same relative velocity.