lyric credit: "I Love You" by Fontaines D.C. image sources: Spider-Gwen (2015B) #20 credit Robbi Rodriguez & Rico Renzi; Ikrash Muhammad on Pexels
View on AO3

Love Begins
Not today Justin

titsay

⁂

Kaledo Art
KIROKAZE
Game of Thrones Daily
d e v o n
RMH
No title available
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Misplaced Lens Cap

if i look back, i am lost

izzy's playlists!

ellievsbear
Mike Driver
wallacepolsom
No title available
DEAR READER
taylor price

seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from Morocco
seen from Portugal
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
@inkforhumanhands
lyric credit: "I Love You" by Fontaines D.C. image sources: Spider-Gwen (2015B) #20 credit Robbi Rodriguez & Rico Renzi; Ikrash Muhammad on Pexels
View on AO3
stab scene intimacy coordinator
I would like to share the story of a very understandable but unfortunate mistake i made at work recently
So I'm weeding our ancient and terrible collection of children's books for the first time in possibly ever, and I'm making a decision about a book about migrant workers by Sandra Weiner, called Small Hands, Big Hands. And I'm not 100% sure and I go to just see if there's anything out there about this book's being notable in any way so I do an open web search for
"small hands big hands weiner"
And then I look at my results for a moment
and then at last I somberly add to the end of my search, "BOOK"
I have one like that:
In mathematics, you often consider the two-dimensional plane - you know, the idealised flat two-dimensional object that extends infinitely - which can be real or complex (doesn't matter what that means)
On this, you can perform a mathematical operation called a "blow-up" (resulting in a more complicated geometry)
I needed to look up a formula related to this, so I confidently typed into the search bar:
"Blow up real plane"
The results were not what I wanted and I am not sure if I'm on a terror watchlist now.
everyone shut da fuck up this is the only thing that matters
Oh My God Damn
RYAN GOSLING in The Fall Guy (2024)
Meet the Pittlings!
Art challenge where you have to finish what you're making
Obssesed with this comment
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)
his average daily screen time is eighteen hours.
(also this is coincidental that I’m drawing him in purple for like the fifth time but I think it just suits him :) )
Princess Dela Cruz, the icon you are 👑
(I really do love seeing Filipino representation on the Pitt though. They’re not there just for comic relief or as a stereotype, they’re fully human and respected right alongside everyone else.)
The way adult fandom people hold indie online creators and cartoons to a much higher standard than their actual local politicians. You could be putting that energy into terrorizing and protesting conservatives at your town hall and actually make a good material impact on the world but instead you're background checking everything the trans woman who made the amazing digital circus has ever said
The point isn't "stop criticizing indie artists" or "defend your favorite show under this post". I don't even watch Digital Circus and no one is above criticism. Literally every indie show is getting torn to shreds on twitter right now and I'm not saying this to defend anyone I don't know. The point is "someone who actually has the power to kill us all and get away with it deserves way more ire and accountability than a cartoonist and I expect grown adults to understand this"
This is a worm? Or perhaps some sort of slug?
And it's gonna getcha
"girl dinner" "boy kibble" can y'all just eat a meal gender neutrally
gender neutrients
HUGS | PROJECT HAIL MARY (2026)
Hand-kissing
It's 2026 and i haven't seen anyone come up with a way to get the human body to curl up in a little comfy circle like a cat or a dog why don't we have the technology where i can look like this ⚫ like what are we even doing anymore