> turns on my computer
> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default
> opens my email
> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default
> launches a software
> disables a new AI fea
Stranger Things
Game of Thrones Daily


祝日 / Permanent Vacation
hello vonnie
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
h

Love Begins
occasionally subtle

Discoholic 🪩
$LAYYYTER

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Keni
Cosimo Galluzzi
Claire Keane
Sweet Seals For You, Always
tumblr dot com
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
we're not kids anymore.
seen from Cuba

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Cuba
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
@psychictoastmaker
> turns on my computer
> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default
> opens my email
> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default
> launches a software
> disables a new AI fea

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
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)
[runs hands down face]
Okay this is the problem with sharing pop science stuff online and content aggregation accounts
The study is real, it's very easy to find by searching up the author's name + study. Give it a read yourself. It's written in a pretty accessible way imo.
Note that it does not put forward any explanations for why this effect happens, only that it does. In the conclusion it posits many possible reasons for why, and that it's most likely nothing to do with the specific action of walking, merely any semi automatic repetitive activity. They also acknowledge the study did not account for the social company the walkers were in, which is a pretty massive factor imo. Considering the conclusion brings up MANY alternative explanations and future experiment possibilities, it's decidedly not "killed every alternative explanation" like the tweet says. The actual paper ends like most scientific papers, listing alternative possible explanations, these are preliminary results, more research is needed, wider demographics of people need to be included, etc.
Another thing is the phrasing of these tweets are like red flags flapping in the wind to me. Any short form social media content that's 1. Pop science 2. Conveys absolute certainty 3. Ends with self improvement biohacking adjacent advice, should set off alarm bells.
Look at the implications that if the tweets were true, it would mean wheelchair users and people with mobility issues would be inherently worse at creative tasks.
So who is this person that's tweeting this, rephrasing this paper in a "helpful" way that is sure to get shares from people who really value being creative and are looking for any way to become more creative in their -
OFC ITS AN AI BRO
You wanna see what his recent articles look like?
CAN WE STOP GETTING BAITED INTO PLATFORMING GRIFTERS
Thank you! There were so many red flags in the first post's language. The original paper straight up says that the mechanisms weren't isolated! Also there is no single part of the brain responsible for creative idea generation, it involves communication between multiple brain networks.
Glad I wasn't the only person who looked at this and thought that it was weird to say this study is SO perfect when the way it's framed here directly implies that people who can't walk are inherently less capable of being creative than people who can.
I can't leave a reply but to the disabled people in the notes who now genuinely seem to believe their mobility issues have robbed them of their ability to be creative pls don't think that! That's not what this study said! You're dealing with ableist misinformation from an AI bro, the study did not make these claims. I encourage everyone who's shared the version without the corrections to take them down, this misinfo is hurting already clearly hurting disabled people and should not be spread.
Link to the article
We regret to inform you that the sunshine and friendship app is actually a children killing app.
"ugh forced marriage? this plot is so toxic"
That's the kink
"they can barely/can't control themself from ravishing their partner? How is that portrayed as ROMANTIC??"
That's the kink
"why is the plot so fixated on how tiny the main character is compared to the love interest?"
Grisps your shoulders so firmly
Buddy you're not gonna believe this
they got pussy on this app?
Gold in the comments
Official Pussy Post

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
"you're romantasizing problematic behavior" actually i'm doing something worse, i'm sexualizing it
These pescatarian birds are directly exposed to PFAS contamination due to the island's position near the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Over fifty years of data show a peak in PFAS (also known as "forever chemicals") content in seabird eggs in the 90s, followed by a decrease as regulations went into effect. The most recent findings show a 70% decrease of most common PFAS.
While continued vigilance a regulation is needed, this data indicates that regulations are working to reduce PFAS concentrations in marine ecosystems.
Yes!!!! I did a review of literature on PFASs in human drinking water about half a year ago, and there is a lot of really good progress! Please celebrate this, please don't let this solution be forgotten (at least so quickly) as the ozone layer or acid rain.
We are making genuine progress! Producers are dramatically altering how much they use PFAS and how much gets released in effluent, but also there's a lot better understanding of how to remove PFAS from the environment!
Environmental problems CAN BE SOLVED.
female-presenting vitruvian
i appreciate the amount of people reblogging this despite me not really tagging this at all. im glad many of people feel the same anger i do.
A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou
Let’s fucking go
This is HUGE.
1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.
2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.
3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."
4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.
TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.
5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.
Out of Touch

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
today i learned that Fidel’s mother (a poor cuban) was originally his father’s (a well off, domineering Spaniard) domestic servant. one doesn’t need a full biography to extrapolate the levels of exploitation and coercion that kind of relationship entails. and she raised a man who would go on to dedicate his entire existence fighting for women and all oppressed peoples the likes of which latin america has never seen before or since
(via @allieinarden )
You listen to music regularly? Why? Have you even tried quitting? Could you quit? You get music stuck in your head? Wow. You're so ruined and music brained. I bet you make your partners listen to music with you when you have sex. Music addiction has really ruined a whole generation. You know it's not realistic to expect reverb in real life, right? You're probably so desensitized that you don't even feel anything anymore when you hear a bird singing that it wants some fuck.
I don't have a problem with people listening to music per se, but I do have a problem with the music industry exploiting & mistreating artists.
Personally, I abstain from all music in order to keep my hands clean but really music should just be illegal outright to protect musicians from abuse.
holy shit this person in the notes
Highly unlikely to be of use but I want a card I can carry in my wallet that says “If I Die First In A Traumatic Survival Scenario I Want You To Know I’m Okay With You Cannibalizing Me, It’s Fine, Don’t Be Weird And Guilty About it”. And then on the back there could be like. A list of recipes n shit
To be clear, I don’t WANT to be cannibalized. It’s not my personal preference. It’s just that if I beef it out in the open somewhere and some poor starving fuck has to have a crisis of ethics over using the protein or dying in a hole, I’d want to some way to let them know my dead ass is rooting for them
New Hot Take: I Think An Organ Donor Card Counts In A Pinch, Actually
New Hot Take: I Think
An Organ Donor Card Counts
In A Pinch, Actually
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
Because I’m from the part of Canada where every kid has to learn about cold weather survival because it’s -60 all winter; a fun thing someone told me once about cannibalizing someone who has starved to death in a survival situation is that a body that has died of starvation has very low caloric value due to the depleted tissue reserves and degradation to muscle quality. So between the poor quality of the meat and the danger of refeeding syndrome if you’ve been starving for a long time and suddenly have access to food, eating a person who died of starvation while you are also starving runs the risk of burning more calories than it provides you with and making you starve faster.
(I’d make more effort to fact check this for you all but my source is just “this is the kind of shit people talk about in the tundra” and google is useless now)
I can't work out if I'm more shocked by cannibalism being a necessary talking point in parts of Canada or by Haiku Bot thinking "actually" is only two syllables.
Reblogging this manually. Op doesn't want credit for fear of being terminated.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
thoughtcrimes arent real but also it stops becoming a thought once you actively post and read and interact with things. like its not equatable to hurting someone irl but its also not a thought once its outside of your head. if someone has an entire blog dedicated to thirsting over fictional minors and ships that are underage noncon like thats not a thought anymore that someone being a pedophile
You're a fucking idiot if you genuinely can't tell the difference between a cartoon character and a real child and this mindset literally leads to innocent people who wouldn't hurt a fly beating themselves up over their intrusive thoughts 24/7 until they're trapped in constant OCD cycles, and some have even killed themselves because they couldn't live with the guilt anymore.
If you promote this mindset, then you are promoting hurting real people over their treatment of fake concepts that don't exist and you should feel fucking ashamed of yourself. If shooting pixels in Counter Strike doesn't make me a real terrorist, then no amount of thirsting over paper dolls can make you a real pedophile you dumbass selfish piece of shit moron. Maybe instead of sending bullshit like this to me you should work on the fact that you think how people treat Barbie dolls is some kind of real glimpse into a person's moral character instead of literally just mashing dolls together. The way you treat a literal inanimate object is apparently a real pressing issue in a world where Donald Trump became president of the fucking United States and has been using his power to rape real children for decades. How can you even CONSIDER your line of reasoning, especially at a time like THIS???
Start carrying a potted plant with you everywhere you go, please, because that's the only way to replace the oxygen you waste being a shaming tribalistic puritan.
And people wonder why moral OCD seems to just keep getting worse? Grow up.
I can already tell some asshat is going to look at this and accuse me of being too harsh, but this is NOT a benign opinion to have. The idea that fantasies and fiction are reflective of your true real-world desires is genuinely dangerous.
If I write a story about a doctor treating patients, it doesn't mean I want to be a doctor in real life. If I write a story about a murder where the murderer gets away with it in the end, it doesn't mean I have some secret desire to be a real murderer. If I play Guitar Hero for hours a day, it doesn't mean I'm automatically going to be good at playing a real guitar. The violence in video games debate has long since been settled.
And if you can understand why T-bagging someone in a video game doesn't mean you like real gun violence, then why the fuck are the rules so different if someone is thirsting over cartoon characters??? Are you people going to address this fucking ludicrous double standard????
According to your logic, blow-torching a Barbie doll is some Fruedian slip that reveals someone's secret desire to create a real life burn victim.
And of course, let's not forget that this mindset is inherently queerphobic.
Plenty of lesbians have been attracted to male cartoon characters, and plenty of gay men have been attracted to female cartoon characters, and it doesn't invalidate their queer identity. Doesn't anyone remember the way Markiplier kept thirsting over Craig from Dream Daddy despite knowing for sure that he's straight in real life?? Let's also not forget that plenty of aroace people are still attracted to fictional characters, that's called being fictosexual, and you can have F/Os like that while still having no desire to tango with any real person in real life. It's actually quite common!
So no, thirsting over a cartoon character that just so happens to have a "14" on their character bio is not the same thing as being attracted to real life living breathing children. If you seriously don't understand that, then I don't know what to say to you.
sounds very similar to a radio story i heard in 2014 ago about credit card debt. the debt got sold to a collection company and a couple received a court summons. they knew they had taken on debt, but they were confused about who this new company was and where specifically the number they were supposed to owe came from.
they show up in court and just ask the lawyer for the collection company: can you prove where this number comes from? Do you have a contract showing that you purchased our debt? probably luckily for them, a reporter researching a book on the topic showed up and asked the same questions.
10 minutes later they get in front of the judge and the collection company drops the whole case and theyre free to go. story is below, it has a transcript in the link too
Ira talks to reporter Jake Halpern about a scene he saw take place in a Georgia courtroom where a couple uttered some magic words that seeme
https://twitter.com/BrianManookian/status/1674963884703088642
Link to the twitter thread for accessibility!
Alert citizen of Bitch Nation @sobekcrocodile brought this to our attention and we're sharing, but with a caveat:
WE HAVE NOT YET LOOKED INTO THIS.
... but holy shit it's worth pursuing if you're drowning in debt and these are your circumstances. I'll definitely be adding this to the Big List of Future BGR Topics. Here's more of our advice on debt:
MASTERPOST: Everything You Need to Know about How to Pay off Debt
Our Final Word on Student Loan Forgiveness
This only works with private student loans NOT FEDERAL!!!! The government has the right to transfer your student loans between contracted servicer's per your MPN