please god let chatgpt die out like nfts did. With a fast and graceless fall into irrelevancy
Like to charge, reblog to cast.
This spell has a very low hit ratio, so we need a lot of us to do it.
DEAR READER

Kaledo Art

if i look back, i am lost
Game of Thrones Daily

pixel skylines
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Monterey Bay Aquarium
cherry valley forever

titsay

#extradirty
AnasAbdin
tumblr dot com
Sade Olutola

oozey mess
NASA
RMH
Keni

tannertan36

blake kathryn
d e v o n
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Netherlands
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Ukraine
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Saudi Arabia
@teddycaca
please god let chatgpt die out like nfts did. With a fast and graceless fall into irrelevancy
Like to charge, reblog to cast.
This spell has a very low hit ratio, so we need a lot of us to do it.
If you tell neurodivergent people they need to "get comfortable with being uncomfortable" I am putting gravel in your shoes. No you can't take the gravel out. You have to deal with it. Dealing with it makes you a better person. What do you mean "pointless suffering".
A bus may have only a couple of passengers, especially at the beginning or end of its route. But let's also take fuel efficiency into account.
If there's one person on a bus because that person cannot or doesn't want to drive, the bus is succeeding.
I read a study once on the fuel efficiency of various types of commuter vehicles (car, bus, train) on a per person basis and the number of people needed riding public transit to match the "efficiency" of cars is shockingly low. A bus needs to carry like 3-4 people to be fuel efficient, and trains require 2-3 per train car. Both often carry two dozen or more during peak hours, more than justifying any perceived requirements for efficiency for the train or bus to provide service the entire day.
the problem with movie remakes is that they always remake something that was already good, meaning at worst you ruin it and at best your remake is largely redundant. to make a truly good remake you need to start with source material that is absolute dogwater. ignore the pull of nostalgia. redeem the sins of moviemaking past.
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)
I can't stress enough how much I miss StumbleUpon
StumbleUpon once sent me to a supercut of Lion King, Lion King 1 1/2, and Lion King II, the main edit being that the scenes of Lion King and Lion King 1 1/2 were interspersed so that they happened in the order they actually happened.
stumbleupon not existing anymore can be directly traced to a dramatic decline in my mental health, I could do a thesis on it.
bestie stumbleupon very much still exists its just called cloudhiker now. i use it all the time.
mini compilation of suggestions from the replies:
The Bored Button - "Press the Bored Button and be bored no more."
The Useless Web
Cloudhiker - "Discover the most interesting, weird and awesome websites of the Internet" (not really a rebrand, it's a different person running it but they have the same intention in mind)
Astronaut.io - "These videos come from YouTube. They were uploaded in the last week and have titles like DSC 1234 and IMG 4321. They have almost zero previous views. They are unnamed, unedited, and unseen (by anyone but you)."
Marginalia - "This is an independent DIY search engine that focuses on non-commercial content, and attempts to show you sites you perhaps weren't aware of in favor of the sort of sites you probably already knew existed."
I used to love take me to a useless website
Chinos: CHristian In Name Only.
Per @spoonstrek
I think we all should.
dont ever hesitate. reblog this.
Depression Hotline: 1-630-482-9696
Suicide Hotline: 1-800-784-8433
LifeLine: 1-800-273-8255
Trevor Project: 1-866-488-7386
Sexuality Support: 1-800-246-7743
Eating Disorders Hotline: 1-847-831-3438
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
Trans LifeLine: 1-877-565-8860
Human Trafficking Hotline: 1-888-373-7888
Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
BDSM Partner Abuse Hotline: 617-742-4911
Substance Abuse Helpline: (800) 784-6776
Tell me more about NASA's scientific accuracy ratings for movies.
For those who are curious...
The Worst:
1) 2012 (2009): Neutrinos from a solar flare heat up the Earth's core, setting off the end of life as we know it. The plot conveniently ignores the fact that neutrinos pass straight through matter—even us—without doing much of anything.
2) The Core (2003): The Earth's core has stopped rotating and scientists have to drill into it to start it back up. The moviemakers go nuts with basic geology, ending up with something the New York Times called “monumentally dumb.”
3) Armageddon (1998): A team of drillers is sent to an asteroid on its way to strike Earth to split it into two parts they say will fly safely past the planet, completely ignoring Newton's First Law of Motion ("an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force"), which says that all they did was make two asteroids that would hit the Earth.
4) Volcano (1997): Los Angeles is destroyed by a volcano that springs up in the city. Bad science mingling with cheesy dialogue and effects.
5) Chain Reaction (1996): Keanu Reeves. Bubble fusion. A government plot to prevent the spread of the technology. The perfect recipe for bad.
6) The 6th Day (2000): Arnold Schwarzenegger is cloned. Because one of him just wasn't enough?
7) What the #$*! Do We Know? (2004): Read the synopsis on Wikipedia. It'll make your head hurt.
And the Best:
1) Gattaca (1997)
2) Contact (1997)
3) Metropolis (1927)
4) The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
5) Woman in the Moon (1929)
6) The Thing From Another World (1951)
7) Jurassic Park (1993)
The space agency lists their favorite flicks
holy crap gattaca mentioned
CONTACT! CONTACT MENTIONED!
Reblog if you too do not want to share outside with them.
people who dont experience it cannot comprehend how awful executive dysfunction is. I WANT to do the task, i have the resources TO do the task, i will feel better having DONE the task
but i cant fucking do the task