Dave Rossiter

Since there seems to be interest, I've published my dissertation on resilience to my medium account. link.medium.com/8WAo6hOdUfb

As a sport/motorsport photographer myself I need to say that we are very few, we need more female photographers!!

@IsabelleKirkham I can't find any single good source for it but this one seems to cover what it's about. familycourtinfo.org.uk/news/theatre-p…

@davearossiter Thanks Dave!!

Hello Twitter 👋 I’m on the hunt for some texts/scripts/plays that are about Care (and written by Care Experienced people ideally!!) Any recommendations?

I am still looking to speak to more UK-based autistic adults who have been assigned the "challenging behaviour" label (like I have). Participation in my research can be over email, video call/chat (camera on or off), or in a public place in London. Supervisor: @drstevenkapp

The scariest finding in this paper: the subjects couldn't tell it was happening. UPenn ran this study on 48 healthy adults. One group slept 8 hours. Another slept 6. Another slept 4. For 14 straight days. They tested cognitive performance every 2 hours from 7:30am to 11:30pm. The 6-hour group's reaction times, working memory, and sustained attention deteriorated on a near-linear curve. By day 14 they were performing at the same level as someone who hadn't slept at all in 48 hours. The 4-hour group hit that threshold by day 6. Here's the part that should unsettle everyone who thinks they "do fine" on 6 hours: the subjects' self-reported sleepiness flatlined after the first few days. Their brains kept getting worse. Their perception of how impaired they were stopped updating. The cognitive decline was invisible to the person experiencing it. The researchers found a hard threshold. Any wakefulness beyond 15.84 hours in a day produces cumulative neurobiological cost. That cost compounds every single day you exceed it and does not reset with a weekend of sleeping in. About 35% of American adults sleep less than 7 hours a night. 40% of those get 6 hours or less. In 1942 that number was 11%. We built an entire professional culture around a sleep schedule that this paper says is functionally equivalent to pulling consecutive all-nighters. "I'm fine on 6 hours" is the most common response to sleep research. The first thing chronic sleep debt destroys is your ability to notice chronic sleep debt.

@Joseph_Fasano_ Here he is again, summarising what good character looks like.

I need more men to understand that two men crying and hugging in space after one of them announced they were naming a moon crater after the other one’s late wife is actually what peak masculinity looks like

There's a physicist at Stanford named Safi Bahcall who modeled this exact principle and the math is wild. He calls it "phase transitions in human networks." When you're stationary, your probability of a lucky event is limited to your existing surface area: the people you already know, the places you already go, the ideas you've already been exposed to. Your opportunity window is fixed. When you move, your collision rate with new nodes in a network increases nonlinearly. Double your movement (new conversations, new cities, new projects) and your probability of a serendipitous encounter doesn't double. It roughly quadruples. Because each new node connects you to their entire network, not just to them. Richard Wiseman ran a 10-year study at the University of Hertfordshire tracking self-described "lucky" and "unlucky" people. The single biggest differentiator wasn't IQ, education, or family money. Lucky people scored significantly higher on one trait: openness to experience. They talked to strangers more, varied their routines more, and said yes to invitations at nearly twice the rate. The "unlucky" group followed the same routes, ate at the same restaurants, and talked to the same 5 people. Their networks were closed loops. No new inputs, no new collisions. Luck isn't random. Luck is surface area. And surface area is a function of movement. The lobster emoji is doing more work than most people realize. Lobsters grow by shedding their shell when it gets too tight. The growth requires a period of total vulnerability. No protection, no armor, soft body exposed to the ocean. That's the cost of movement nobody posts about. You have to be uncomfortable first. The new shell only hardens after you've already moved.

Nice people stay silent. Kind people speak up.

They might find something new on the moon now they’ve sent a woman up to look.

As this thread is proving popular. Here are some piece I've written on urban nihilism. They may help provide the setting to what is happening. seenandunseen.com/when-urban-nih… jideehizele.substack.com/p/urban-nihili…

Urban nihilism is what happens when a society retains material comfort but loses its moral centre. Order no longer feels meaningful, so disruption becomes stimulating.

I've never sen anything more accurate

The biggest metaphor of life‼️

Reuters didn't just "reveal" Banksy. They reminded us what journalism is capable of which makes the silence around Epstein even louder.

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. - Max Planck (1858 - 1947)

This sentence by Dostoyevsky hits so hard. “You sensed that you should be following a different path, a more ambitious one, you felt that you were destined for other things but you had no idea how to achieve them and in your misery you began to hate everything around you.”

An amazing poem. • Paul Durcan •