mmdts

@mjgranger1 @ihtesham2005 @KaniniJoann Importanr business deals are convergent thinking, and have nothing to do with this. No one makes them on a treadmill or the Stanford courtyard.

@ihtesham2005 @KaniniJoann So is this why important business deals are made on the golf course? ⛳️

A Stanford psychologist spent 4 years proving that the simple act of walking generates 60% more creative ideas than sitting, and the experiment she designed to kill every alternative explanation is one of the most decisive findings in modern psychology. Her name is Marily Oppezzo. 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. The result was almost too clean to publish. 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. This is the part of the study that hit hardest when I read it the first time. 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. The history of this is the part that should haunt anyone who still does meetings in chairs. Charles Darwin built a gravel loop behind his house in Kent called the Sandwalk and walked it 3 times a day for the rest of his life. The theory of evolution was developed one lap at a time on that path. Nietzsche walked up to 10 hours a day during the years he wrote his most important books and openly said the work was conceived on his feet. Beethoven composed for the morning and walked for 5 hours every afternoon with a pencil in his pocket for when something landed. Kahneman said the best thinking of his Nobel Prize-winning career happened on leisurely walks with Amos Tversky. Steve Jobs refused to take important conversations sitting down. He held them on foot. Every one of them was using the system Oppezzo would not measure until 2014. They just did not know what to call it. The question worth sitting with is the one almost nobody asks. Every meeting you have ever attended sitting around a table was a meeting held at a fraction of the brain power that was actually available to the people in the room. Every brainstorm that got stuck inside a conference room. Every problem you tried to solve at a desk and gave up on. Every idea you could not quite get to. The intervention is the easiest one in modern science. No supplement. No app. No subscription. No training program. Just a pair of legs and 15 minutes. The Stanford lab proved it. The philosophers knew it. The neuroscience explains it. And almost everyone reading this is still trying to think their way out of problems sitting completely still.

@f_the_leftists @BladeoftheS I am not asking you to feel anexiety. I am asking you to feel empathy. 50% of homeless people are in that situation due to their choices, but 50% aren't (not an actual statistic but I hopemy point comes across).

@mmdts @BladeoftheS OK. I will feel the appropriate anxiety about that. Zero.

Never forget which side you are on.

sketch final

@francidellamora these have been horses and cars, swords and guns, grandfather clocks and watches, and the like, more so than beautiful things from my experience. I haven't studied any of this so I have little confidence what I say about men translates to other cultures, but it's an observation.

@francidellamora Yes, each culture has it's own thingamajig that women find beautiful, be it jade, pure gold, or shiny glittery stuff. Women from that culture are conditioned to find that thing beautiful, and seek it materially. Men seem to have a thing for status symbols too, but historically1/2

sometimes i think growing up as a girl in the 2000s permanently altered our brains in a very specific way i was washing my hands today and my engagement ring caught the light for a second and immediately my brain went: this is beautiful. and tbh it makes complete sense. every single thing marketed to us growing up was covered in glitter. barbie movies had sparkling castles and diamond graphics floating across the screen. lip gloss tubes looked like treasure artifacts. our pencils had rhinestones on them. our shoes glittered. our bedroom walls glittered. even the plastic packaging glittered. we were basically raised inside a tiny magpie simulation of course we became adult women emotionally attached to jewelry and shiny things. they spent years training our pattern recognition system to associate sparkle with happiness, status, fantasy, femininity, achievement, romance, magic, literally everything good.

@tarori634 Handy if you don't want these sink stubs affecting some high power signal I guess!

VishayのThermal Jumper使ってみた 熱だけ通す絶縁体らしい 温度は5度ぐらい下がったかな？うまく使えば便利そう

The code in the Godbolt snippet is claude-generated from the python code in the comment at the top. Needless to say, it does something a bit complex, and was spitted out correct the first try. I didn't even have to read any of it. AI is a bad creator but an efficient translator.

I believe one day, advanced compilers will be able to optimize this is_even function into just "n % 2". Today, a human-driven proof is required to establish the truth of this through empirical results, so we have a long way: gcc.godbolt.org/z/Kn5P67YeG

@_MG_ @GriFdotpy How am I supposed to get that promotion submachine gun now?!

@_MG_ @GriFdotpy laughed at this more than I should, damnit people will find out I'm on twitter at work

Prior to 9/11, it was very common for people to carry a submachine gun to work, as seen here with the MAC 10. Notorious NYC rapper, Biggie Smalls, even mentions it as part of a job promotion: “I used to have the tre deuce & the deuce deuce in my bubblegoose. Now I got the MAC in my knapsack”

@francidellamora When a girl from Egypt or Sudan that hasnt engaged with a lot of eu media looks at one of those 12K gold thin engagement rings with shiny gemstones she say "What the fuck is this flimy shit". She'd rather prefer a thick band ring of 21K gold, and no gemstone.

@francidellamora It translates to other cultures and history as well, not just Eurocentric 2000s. In many cultures across the African continent, heavy weights of gold are seen by women as beautiful. Pre-exploitation, these cultures had immense amounts of gold, and dowries were usu in gold 1/2

@fishPointer @CaptainSurefire Not sure wtf naming is going on in this Egypt map. It's neither purely historical (Beni Suef and Fayyum are kinda modern iirc) nor is it purely modern (some of the names here havent been used in the last 1000 years). :P

@yacineMTB Do retired people count?

I wonder if there is anyone out there that is a serious programmer that has a totally unrelated day job Like, really serious stuff. E.g. simulators or game engines. But like works at radioshack or something

@ProgramMax fully banned, while toxic players otherwise not breaking any game rules get shadow banned tonplay against other toxic players (their rating means something and can be used as reference for skill, they're still playing without cheating).

@ProgramMax The problem with both approaches though is rating. You can't give cheaters a different rating system (otherwise they remake) and putting them in the same rating system as other players sucks for other players even if cheaters shadow banned. Thats why cheatees historically get 2/3

@ProgramMax A closer reality thats also engaging for cheaters is to shadow ban them against each other, rather than bots, since the moment they realize they playing against bots they create another acc, but playing against other cheaters is engaging and levels the playing field. 1/2

@f_the_leftists @BladeoftheS You'd be surprised how quickly medical bills piling up can drive you into homelessness were you, God forbid, diagnosed with some critical uncurable disease. Homeowners I know had to sell homes for treatment. Just dying and leaving money for kids is an option, but, yeh...

@BladeoftheS No. I make good life choices, not like the homeless. More like the billionaires, if I was smarter and harder working, with a great vision, I'd be a billionaire. I aspired more to be a billionaire than a homeless. And no, I've got my shit worked out, I will never be homeless.

@TheBrancaShow @BladeoftheS Well, despising and alienating them isn't tbe solution. Look at how billionairss despising and alienating the middle class turned out for capitalist society.

@BladeoftheS No. I may not be a billionaire, but I strive to be as productive and capable as God has granted me the skills to be. That differentiates from the street-corner in a refrigerator-box homeless drug addict who has chosen a life of intoxication.

@0xcharlie That escalated quickly

Me in Ida Pro once I hit 50.