Provisional Logistics 2

Hi

>>55 Correction: I think we can agree on that until we have a clearer definition of neutrality.

A plane plummets out of the sky, a speed runner inexplicably jumps to a higher platform. What the? What the?! And an election recount is triggered. All because of the same invisible phenomenon that permeates the universe. On May 18th, 2003, voters in Belgium went to the polls. In many regions, voting was done on a computer, something the Belgians had been experimenting with for over a decade. But the system had a backup. Each voter would insert a magnetic card into the machine and make their selection on screen. Their vote was saved both to the computer and the magnetic card, which they dropped into a box for redundancy. Late that night, as the votes were being tabulated, one of the election officials detected a problem with the results from Schaerbeek, a municipality in central Brussels. Maria Vindevogel, a little known candidate with her own party received more votes than was mathematically possible. They knew this because of the way the preferential voting system works. So they took out the magnetic cards and started a recount. One by one, they fed each of them through the machines again, and after several hours, the recount was complete. The vote totals for every candidate were exactly the same as before, except for Maria Vindevogel. In her case, the recounted number of votes was less than the original by 4,096. So what went wrong? How had her original tally been inflated by over 4,000 votes? Computer experts were brought in to run extensive tests on the software. They combed through the code, but could find no bugs. They got the computer that had made the initial erroneous tally and tested the hardware again and again, but they could not replicate the error. Everything about the hardware seemed to be in perfect working order. And this left only one possible explanation and it is seriously weird. The clue comes from the excess number of votes Vindevogel received. 4,096. Computers work using binary, strings of zeros and ones, each corresponding to a power of two. So somewhere inside the computer tabulating all the votes was a string of bits representing the number of votes Maria received. It started the day all zeros, and then as each vote for her came in, it would increment by one. Physically, this is done by turning on a transistor for one and turning it off for zero. What's remarkable about the number 4,096 is that it is exactly a power of two. Two to the power of 12. That is the 13th bit. So for Maria Vindevogel to receive an extra 4,096 votes, only one thing needed to happen. The 13th bit had to flip from a zero to a one. But why would that happen? Computers work precisely because bits don't flip unless we want them to, or do they? Looking into the problem, Belgian investigators found reports of similar issues from big computer companies starting in the 1970s. In 1978, Intel reported some strange errors popping up in their 16 kilobit dynamic random access memory or DRAM. Ones would spontaneously flip to zeros with no apparent cause. The problem turned out to be the ceramic packaging the chip was encased in. With the demand for semiconductor packaging skyrocketing in the 1970s, a new manufacturing plant was constructed on the Green River in Colorado. Unfortunately, this site happened to be just downstream of an old uranium mill. Radioactive atoms made their way into the river and then into the ceramic packaging for Intel's microchips. Intel scientists investigating the problem found that even trace amounts of uranium and thorium in the ceramic were sufficient to cause problems. In their DRAM, memory was stored as the presence or absence of electrons in a semiconductor well.

The alpha particles emitted by uranium and thorium were energetic and ionizing enough to create electron hole pairs in the silicone. If an alpha particle is struck in just the right place, it could create a large number of free charge carriers causing electrons to accumulate in the well flipping a one to a zero. This is known as a single event upset, a type of soft error. The error is soft because the device hasn't been damaged. The bit has changed, but you could erase it and rewrite it with no problems. Investigators exposed the chips to alpha emitters with different levels of activity. And just as you'd expect, they found the number of bit flips directly correlated with the number of alpha particles the chip had been exposed to. The reason this problem was identified in the 1970s was because chip components had been miniaturized to the point where a single alpha particle could produce enough charge to flip a bit. Immediately, these findings attracted a lot of attention. Before the paper was published, it was widely circulated in the industry. And as a result, chip manufacturers were a lot more careful to avoid radioactive materials when producing their microchips and packaging. Therefore, the bit flip that gave Maria Vindevogel 4,096 extra votes wasn't caused by natural radioactivity in the computer. So where did it come from? After Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity with uranium in 1896, scientists sought a way to measure it. How radioactive were different materials? And one way to do this is with a gold leaf electrometer. When it's charged, the leaf is repelled and you can measure the amount of charge by the angle of the leaf. Now, if ionizing radiation enters the chamber, it rips electrons off air molecules, creating positive and negative charges. Opposite charges are attracted to the leaf, discharging it over time. The higher the level of ionizing radiation, the faster the device discharges. In 1910, Theodore Wolf took his electrometer to the top of the Eiffel Tower. Since radioactivity was found in the soil and rocks of earth, he expected that 300 meters up, the radiation would be just a few percent of the ground radiation. Instead he found only a slight decrease. In 1911, Austrian physicist Victor Hess decided to take this experiment further. Literally. He loaded electric scopes into the basket of a hydrogen balloon. In his first two flights, he observed the same thing as Wolf. Up to an altitude of 1100 meters, both trips revealed no fundamental change in radiation compared to the values observed on the ground. But the next year, he conducted seven balloon flights up to an altitude of 5,200 meters. And here he discovered something remarkable. While there was an initial drop in radiation for the first several hundred meters, above one kilometer or so the level increased with increasing altitude. At his maximum height, the level of radiation was several times greater than it was on the ground. The radiation appeared to be coming, not from the earth, but from the sky. Hess scheduled one of his balloon flights during a solar eclipse. And as the moon passed in front of the sun, he carefully watched his instruments. But the readings were unaffected. Even with the sun half covered, the level of radiation was the same. Since no influence of the eclipse on the penetrating radiation was noted, we conclude that even if a part of the radiation should be of cosmic origin, it hardly emanates from the sun. Victor Hess had discovered cosmic rays. High energy radiation from space. But what were these rays exactly and where were they coming from? Well, today we know they aren't electromagnetic rays as many suspected, but particles.

Around 90% are protons, 9% are helium nuclei, and 1% are heavier nuclei. Some of them are from the sun, but they have comparatively low energy. High energy cosmic rays moving very close to the speed of light come from exploding stars, supernova in our own galaxy and in others. And the highest energy particles are thought to come from black holes, including the super massive black holes at the centers of galaxies. But it's hard to pin down exactly where cosmic rays come from because as charged particles, they're deflected by magnetic fields in space. So they can wind their way through the universe for billions of years. A cosmic ray detected on October 15th, 1991 had an energy of 51 joules. That is a single subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball going a hundred kilometers per hour. For obvious reasons, it was dubbed the OMG particle. But primary cosmic rays like these don't make it down to earth's surface. Instead, they collide with air molecules around 25 kilometers above the ground and create new particles like pions. These collide and decay into other particles like neutrons, protons, muons, electrons, positrons and photons, which in turn collide with other air molecules in one long cascade. So from a single primary cosmic ray, comes a shower of particles streaming towards the earth. It is one of these particles that investigators suspect struck a transistor in a computer in Belgium, flipping the 13th bit from a zero to a one and giving Maria Vindevogel 4,096 extra votes. But how often do things like this happen? In 1911, Charles Wilson made it possible to see the cosmic rays all around us when he perfected his cloud chamber, an enclosure with super saturated water or alcohol vapor. When a cosmic ray passes through the chamber, it ionizes the gas causing vapor to condense into tiny droplets on the ions, revealing the path of the particle. Alpha particles, helium nuclei, leave short thick tracks while beta particles, electrons leave long skinny trails. In 1932, Carl Anderson identified a trail that looked like it was made by an electron, but in the applied magnetic field, it curved in the wrong direction. Implying it had a positive charge. Anderson had found the anti electron or positron. It was the first confirmed sighting of anti-matter. Four years later, also using a cloud chamber, he discovered the muon, again in cosmic rays. For his discovery of the positron, Anderson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1936. He shared the prize with Victor Hess, the man who discovered cosmic rays in the first place, invisible particles that affect our lives in ways most of us are oblivious to. This is possibly the rarest thing to ever happen in a video game. In 2013, user DOTA_Teabag was speed running Super Mario 64 on the console. In the level Tik Tok Clock, he suddenly up warps onto a higher platform. - [DOTA_Teabag] What the? - [Player] Did you get invisible wall? What? - Please say you got the--- - [DOTA_Teabag] No, that was the craziest thing I've ever seen though. - [Narrator] The move shaves off a few seconds and it seems like a newly discovered glitch in the game that could give speed runners and edge. User PenandCook12 put out a $1,000 bounty for anyone who could replicate the up warp. But so far, after six years, no one has been able to. The best explanation anyone can come up with is that a cosmic ray caused the glitch. It's been shown that a single bit flipped in the first bite of Mario's height co-ordinate could have caused the effect.

On the main level, the bite was 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1. But if you flip the last one to a zero, it changes his vertical position. And just by chance, this new height coincides with the higher floor. PenandCook12 wrote a script to manually flip the bit at the right moment and was able to achieve the same up warp. This is a particularly visible bit flip, but the truth is cosmic rays are triggering bit flips all the time. - An upset there, transient there can alter the function of these devices and we call that a single event functional interrupt. So an entire process can hang. So a blue screen of death that you get might actually have been a neutron or whatnot. - [Derek] When people see the blue screen of death, could that be caused by a cosmic ray? - Absolutely. - These days, there are a number of ways computer chips are made resilient in the face of bit flips like error correction code or ECC memory. But you can't totally prevent bit flips from happening. In 1996, IBM estimated that for each 256 megabytes of RAM, one bit flip occurs per month. And the main culprit seems to be neutrons created in the shower of particles from cosmic rays. Starting in 2009, Toyota recalled millions of vehicles due to the problem of unintended acceleration. - We were in the fast lane driving at about 70, and he said that the car was continuing to accelerate and he couldn't bring it to a stop. - Many speculated that cosmic ray induced bit flips in the electronic control system were the cause. So much so that NASA was called in to help with the investigation. But it turns out, cosmic rays were probably not the culprit. NASA identified as the main causes, sticky accelerator pedals, poorly fitted floor mats and most commonly, drivers pushing on the accelerator thinking it was the brake. But cosmic rays have caused crashes of supercomputers, especially at higher elevations. Los Alamos National Labs located 2200 meters above sea level is constantly dealing with neutron induced supercomputer crashes. So the software auto saves frequently and neutron detectors have been installed throughout the facility. If you go even higher, like climbing up to cruising altitude in a plane, you can see the radiation from cosmic rays increasing on a Geiger counter. To .5 microsieverts per hour at 18,000 feet. Up to one microsieverts per hour at 23,000 feet. Over two microsieverts per hour at 33,000 feet. And over three microsieverts per hour at even higher altitudes and towards the poles. At cruising altitude, this increases the chance of a single event upset by 10 to 30 times. This isn't critical if it happens in your laptop, but what if it occurs in the flight computer? On October 7th, 2008, an Airbus A330 took off from Singapore to Perth. Just over three hours into the flight, the plane suddenly pitched down diving 200 meters in 20 seconds. Inside the plane, everyone experienced negative 0.8 Gs of acceleration. It would have felt like the plane had flipped over. - The G-Force was enough, even with our three point harness to lift us both out of the seat and push us forward as well. - Minutes later, the plane dropped another 120 meters. 119 people on board were injured, many from bumping their heads into the ceiling. So the pilots decided to make an emergency landing in Learmonth. In the investigation that followed, the fault seem to occur with the first air data inertial reference unit, or ADIRU for short. This computer supplies critical data like airspeed, angle of attack and altitude. The way it supplies each of these pieces of information is in a 32 bit binary word. The first eight bits identify the type of information and bits 11 to 29 encode the actual data. What seems to have happened is that a bit flip in the first eight bits meant altitude information was mislabeled as angle of attack information.

Inside the cockpit, alarms went on for over speed and stall simultaneously, something that should be impossible. But the plane nose down sharply to correct what it thought was a stall, throwing passengers and crew into the ceiling. Investigators looked into software bugs, software corruption, a hardware fail, physical environment factors and electromagnetic interference. But each of these possibilities was found to be unlikely based on multiple sources of evidence. The other potential triggering event was a single event effect resulting from a high energy atmospheric particle striking one of the integrated circuits within the CPU module. One of the challenges with single event upsets is that they are soft errors. They don't leave a trace, but interestingly, the Airbus A330 was built in 1992 when there were no specific regulatory or aircraft manufacturer requirements for airborne systems to be resilient to single event effects. With the space shuttle, redundancy was built in from the start. For navigation and control, there were four computers simultaneously running identical software. If one computer had a soft error, the other three would overrule it. And using this setup, they could also track the frequency of bit flips. On one five day mission, STS 48, there were 161 separate bit flips. Above the atmosphere, cosmic rays are so energetic sometimes you can even see them. - Once in a while you have your eyes closed and you're not asleep yet. And if you wait a little while, you occasionally will see a flash of light. And we think it is heavy particles or individual bursts of energy coming from radiation that are either going through the eyeball itself or going through the optic nerve. And they, the way that your body registers radiation going through it is amazingly enough by showing you a little flash in one of your eyes, just to remind you that you are subject to the radiation of not only our sun, but every star of the universe, that is radiating at you. I picture back to the first astronauts who must have closed their eyes and seen that radiation and gone, "I'm not going to tell anybody about this "because no one's told me about it. "I'm not talking." I can just imagine the first two guys that said, "Hey, I am, "sometimes I see flashes of light. "Do you see flashes of light?" And then it's, "Oh, we all see flashes of light." "Oh, okay, well, that's all right then." (narrator laughing) - [Narrator] For missions to other planets, protecting electronics is critical. - If a single bit of information controls a critical function on your spacecraft, let's say your thrusters, and that goes from a one to is zero, from a on to off, or vice versa, you could lose the mission. - [Narrator] That's why the computer on the Perseverance Rover that just landed on Mars is 20 years old. It's a power PC launched in 2001 with only 256 megabytes of Ram and two gigabytes of flash storage. But it is radiation hardened, meaning the design, materials, circuits and software are built to withstand 40 times the radiation of an ordinary computer. It's been used on over a dozen space missions going back to 2005. - In fact, when we first started doing the power PC testing years ago, the way we did it, we just simply stuck an operating system processor in a beam line where we generate these particles on the planet and look for blue screens of death. You can kind of figure out what's going wrong and try to undo that. So you don't get to the blue screen of death because a spacecraft that gets into that mode is basically unrecoverable. - As the Voyager 1 spacecraft departed the solar system, one of the ways we could tell was by an increase in the flux of cosmic rays it experienced. Although on earth, the particles streaming from the sun and the solar wind are a source of radiation, further out these same particles maintain protective bubble. The heliosphere. It helps deflect and slow cosmic rays from interstellar space protecting the solar system from ionizing radiation.

But the sun has an 11 year activity cycle. So this protection fluctuates. The flux of cosmic rays on earth is much lower when the sun is active than when it's dormant. In the history of our planet, cosmic rays may have played an even larger role flipping bits, not in electronics, but in the genetic codes of living organisms, providing some of the variation on which natural selection acts. Maria Vindevogel is now a member of the Belgium Chamber of Representatives, elected by people, not a particle, but her story is a reminder of the zillions of particles winding their way through the universe for millions or billions of years. One of which might at any moment, change your life by passing through a tiny transistor and cra.... (electronic disturbance) Discovering the origin of cosmic rays or where 4,096 extra votes came from or how to protect the Mars Rover from radiation requires problem solving, which is a perishable skill. And the best way to keep your problem solving skills sharp is to solve a diverse range of problems, which you can do with the sponsor of this video, Brilliant. Brilliant is a website and app that teaches you STEM concepts in an interactive way. They have courses on topics from applied computer science to special relativity. Two courses I would recommend if you enjoyed this video, are computer memory and algorithm fundamentals. Brilliant have really upped their interactivity recently. So instead of reading about algorithms, you're taught how to write algorithms yourself. Brilliant engages you in active learning. Instead of telling you the right answer, they allow you to figure it out for yourself with plenty of helpful hints and guidance along the way. And for viewers of this channel, Brilliant is offering 20% off an annual subscription to the first 200 people to sign up. Just go to brilliant.org/veritasium. I'll put that link down in the description. So I want to thank Brilliant for supporting Veritasium and I want to thank you for watching.

Why is negative narrative so prevalent in modern society?

Is it wrong to stylise a sentence in the translation process? Maybe it's also a question of degree.

If my son doesn't become independent, it's not good for him or for me. Supporting independence is not a correction.

If you can't use it as it is, maybe you can refer to it.

My scrotum is consistently flaccid, even though my penis is capable of becoming erect enough to masturbate. Wouldn't this be trivia?

Never before in human history have we been richer, more advanced or powerful. And yet we feel overwhelmed in the face of rapid climate change. It seems simple on the surface. Greenhouse gases trap energy from the Sun and transfer it to our atmosphere. This leads to warmer winters, harsher summers. Dry places become drier and wet places wetter. Countless ecosystems will die while the rising oceans swallow coasts and the cities we build on them. So why don’t we just like… prevent all of that? Well, it’s complicated. The public debate about stopping rapid climate change often focuses on a few key features, like coal plants, cars or burping cows. And so the solutions are often simplistic – rows of solar panels, biking to work, something something sustainability. And a huge talking point is personal responsibility. How YOU should change your lifestyle to prevent rapid climate change, which we will find out together in the next few minutes. This is one of those videos where we want to encourage you to watch to the end, because to discuss real doable solutions, we first need to understand the problem. A Fuller Picture Modern industrial society as we constructed it in the last 150 years, is inherently destructive to the planet. Basically everything we do to make our lives easier, safer and more comfortable is making things worse for the biosphere. The food we eat, the streets we walk on, the clothes we wear, the gadgets we use, the way we move around and the pleasant temperatures we artificially create around us. While most people know about the serious impact of energy, beef, cars and planes, many major polluters are barely ever talked about. The emissions leaking out of landfills are as significant as the emissions of all the jets in the air. More CO2 is released to run our homes than from all cars combined. And the emissions produced when making a new car is equivalent to building just two metres of road. So it is nice to switch to electric cars but they won’t solve anything if we keep building roads the same way. Fixing one small part of the industrial system is not enough. Each of the many different parts needs its own solution and many of them aren’t straight forward. But even where we know what to do, just because a solution exists doesn’t mean we are able or willing to implement it. There are many gray areas in the fight against rapid climate change, the most prominent one is the divide between rich and poor. Emissions vs poverty There is a clear connection between the prosperity of a nation and its carbon emissions. In other words, richer people tend to cause more emissions. So the key to fixing climate change is simply for the world’s richest to cut back on their extravagant lifestyles right? While this would help, it wouldn’t make the problem go away. This is because 63% of global emissions come from low to middle income countries. Countries where most people are not living extravagantly but are trying to escape poverty at worst, and achieve a comfortable lifestyle at best. The unfortunate reality is that, currently, escaping poverty and becoming middle class creates unavoidable emissions. So asking developing countries to cut emissions just looks like an attempt to keep them down. It is very hard to argue that a region should protect their primeval forests and spend money on solar panels instead of burning wood, when it can’t meet basic needs for significant parts of its population. So, cutting back is not a popular demand, especially if the countries making these demands got rich by causing environmental damage in the past. For billions of people, more emissions are a good thing personally. When we forget about this, we tend to propose unworkable solutions. Take concrete. 8% of CO2 emissions are released by the concrete manufacturing industry.

Ok cool, stop using concrete, right? But right now, concrete is also a cheap and easy way for growing populations in developing countries to build affordable housing. And there are many examples like that. Even rich countries aren’t immune from disagreeing about rapid climate change solutions. Banning coal, gas and oil from the energy mix is slowed down by heated discussions about what should replace them. Citizens can be strictly against nuclear power but also oppose wind or solar infrastructure in their backyards. In principle all of these issues can be overcome – but there are things we don’t currently know how to overcome. The most problematic one is food. Emit or Die We will soon need to feed 10 billion people, and we don’t know how to do that without emitting greenhouse gases. Because of the nature of modern food production that requires fertilizers or manure, it is impossible to have zero-emissions food. Rice alone emits so much methane each year that it practically equals the emissions of all the air traffic in the world. What’s worse is that the foods we like the most emit the most. 57% of food emissions come from animal-based foods, although they make up only 18% of the world’s calories, and 37% of its protein. And as people across the world grow richer, they want more meat. Traditional diets in most cultures were primarily plant based with a little meat on top. But with the rise of industrial style meat production and factory farming, meat has become a staple food; a regular indulgence in developed countries and a symbol of status and wealth in developing countries. Today about 40 percent of the world’s habitable land is used for meat production in some form or another, the size of North and South America combined. This is land on which we could otherwise allow native ecosystems to regrow, like forests in the Amazon, and suck carbon out of the atmosphere, but instead most of it is used to feed animals. The available solutions are uniquely able to make everybody on the political spectrum, rich or poor, unhappy. Meat is highly emotional and there are a lot of whataboutism arguments floating around, like comparing it to the worst sources of emissions. In the end it is pretty simple: eating less meat alone won’t stop climate change, but we also can’t stop climate change without eating less meat. The same holds true for other things that are less crucial to our survival but frankly not realistic to make go away. Like air travel, oversea shipping, mining and the production of devices that play youtube videos. So what does this mean? Do we need to give up our way of life and can the poor never achieve it? Can’t some technology save us so we can continue to drive our big cars and eat meat every day? Solutions vs Expenses In principle, this technology already exists: Direct Air Capture of CO2 draws carbon dioxide from the air so that it can be stored underground or transformed into products. So why aren’t we implementing it in every industry, everywhere? Because with the technology we have right now, this would cost some ten trillion dollars per year, or half the United States’ GDP. This money has to come from somewhere and currently no-one is offering it. Just dumping these costs on massive polluters like steel mills and coal power stations would double the cost of their products – and so these industries that operate on very tight profit margins would go bankrupt. Getting the government to pay for it seems logical but a lot of state resources are actually tied up doing the opposite, like subsidizing oil and gas. Which seems counter intuitive but follows clear incentives. By artificially keeping fuel prices low, shipping and everyday goods are kept artificially cheap too. Which has a major social impact on billions of people around the world. That creates political lobbies and incentives that perpetuate this cycle that makes it so hard to cut off fossil fuel production.

Meanwhile, very costly solutions for a far-off problem like carbon capture seem like they can wait, as technically nobody benefits from it right now. Some argue that a move away from capitalism is the only solution to this mess, others insist that markets should be even freer, without any interventions like subsidies and some suggest that we need what’s referred to as “degrowth” and to cut back as a species overall. But the truth is at least as of now, no political system is doing an impressive job at becoming truly sustainable and none have really done so in the past. We also don’t have the time to figure this out and do a lot of experiments. We must implement solutions now. Not just to halt the release of all possible greenhouse gases, but also to start reducing the amount of CO2 in the air. It’s too late to just mend our ways, we have to actively correct our past mistakes. With every year we waste, more extreme changes will be unavoidable. Ok. Let’s take a deep breath. Rapid climate change and the world we live in are complicated. So here is where YOU, dear viewer, come in again. Could YOU please fix the climate? A narrative of our time is that we are all responsible for rapid climate change. That everyone needs to play their part. Why don’t you buy a new electric car? Why don’t you replace your gas stove with an electric one? How about you double glaze your windows, stop eating meat and switch off your lights? Shifting responsibility from the largest carbon emitters to the average person, you, is much easier to do than solving problems. There’s an extra bonus if solving rapid climate change sells a new product. If you don’t have the money or time for these things, you should feel bad. It’s an effective message because it is true. The quickest way to cut CO2 emissions would be if all rich populations on Earth drastically changed their lifestyles and if the people on the rise would not seek to achieve it. Favouring the climate over comfort and wealth. If you are able to watch this video, this includes you. But we’ve just witnessed a global experiment in staying at home, not using transport and consuming less during the coronavirus pandemic. And all it did was reduce CO2 emissions by 7% for 2020. Asking average people to solve rapid climate change breaks down when we look at the scale of the problem. Personal contributions toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions are nice, but they are dwarfed by the systemic reality of global emissions. The concept of your personal carbon footprint was popularized by the oil producer BP in a 2005 ad campaign. Arguably one of the most effective and sinister pieces of propaganda that still seriously distracts all of us from the reality of the situation. If you eliminated 100% of your emissions for the rest of your life, you would save one second’s worth of emissions from the global energy sector. Even the most motivated person can’t even make a tiny dent. When we put together the dangers of rapid climate change, the scale of emissions and the lack of consensus over how to solve it, the challenge seems insurmountable. It can cause decision fatigue and moral licensing, where you no longer feel bad about behaving in a counter productive way. We have struggled a long time with this, which is why this video took us so long to make. So. What can you actually do? There are many different takes and they are passionately discussed. We don’t know who is right, so we can only offer you the Kurzgesagt perspective and opinion. Opinion Part: What can you ACTUALLY do? We need a different way to think and talk about rapid climate change. An all-encompassing systemic approach, nothing less than changing the fundamentals of our modern industrial societies. As discussed in frustrating length, the personal responsibility angle is overplayed. For systemic changes in technology, politics and the economy of this magnitude, we need to influence the people at the levers.

Politicians need to know and feel strongly that the people care, that their own success depends on tackling rapid climate change. When governments and local politicians are reluctant to change laws that affect their biggest tax contributors or campaign donors, we need to vote them out and vote in people who respect science. We need to hold them accountable for implementing the most effective climate change strategies. Not waste our time with things like banning plastic straws but by moving the big levers: Food, transportation and energy while not forgetting the smaller ones like cement or construction. When industries fight against changing their ways, for fear of losses or in an honest attempt to protect their own, we need politicians to change the laws and incentivise the deployment of existing technologies and massively invest in innovation for the fields where we don’t have great solutions yet. There is no reason that the profit interests of industries could not match the need to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible. And if they still don’t cooperate harsh punishments and regulation need to force or bankrupt them. It's still unrealistic that change of that scope can be forced onto a worldwide economy quickly enough, because many low carbon technologies still need a lot of time and research – which means they are expensive. But more companies will make more efficient carbon capture systems, tasty meat alternatives, better batteries, cement alternatives and so on, if there is a clear and growing demand. And if you are affluent enough, you can do your part by investing in these things right now while they're still expensive. These are the mechanisms that will drive the prices down later on. So this is basically what you can do. Vote at the ballot, vote with your wallet. There are too many opposing interests and complicated grey zones. In the end if we truly get the systemic change we need, everybody will be unhappy about some aspect of it. Only if we all accept that some solutions will have negative impacts for us, can we have an honest conversation and make progress. Everybody will be a little unhappy. And that is ok. This is the best you can do. You can deal with the reality of the situation and promote your priorities through your behaviour and your actions. And while you do so, you can eat less meat, fly less or get an electric car. Not because you should feel guilty if you don’t or because you naively believe that you alone can stop rapid climate change – but to do your tiny, tiny part for the systemic change we need. This video was supported by Gates Notes, the personal blog of Bill Gates, where he writes about global health, climate change, and more. Check out gatesnotes.com to learn more about ways the world can work together to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions, or use the link below. And in the spirit of transparency, if you want to learn more about how we handle Sponsorships like this one, we also have a medium article describing how we do it.

We have to live as people born in a country of losers and it is important and beneficial for us individually and for this country to be aware of this.

What's up?

The driving ideology that has shaped the history of religious development is to be as logically invincible as it can be. Whatever it is.

Poetry is one of the most effective ways to compress information, I guess.

A disturbed lifestyle creates a disturbance in the autonomic nervous system, which inhibits all production behaviors including cooking rice.

"I've never seen someone with strabismus before! Do they still have bad vision?" - I feel that I have slight exotropia, but I have never had any particular problem with my vision.

"Instant miso soup is the best!" - I don't really like instant miso soup, and I don't consume it on a daily basis, but that's because I'm brazenly dependent on this minimal community. You probably live off the money you earn.

The fact that you can only unlock security with facial recognition is purely a handicap. There are times when I'm glad I have in-screen fingerprint recognition, but never when I'm glad I don't. It should definitely be on.

And yet, it's still not available in 13. It doesn't make sense anymore. I don't care if you're obsessed with face recognition, but I really want fingerprint recognition too.

The reason why sexual activity is one of the most widespread forms of entertainment is because motivation is automatically generated in the brain.

Please don't cry in front of my prostate.

Dishonesty comes from desperation.

Well, I think it was a reasonable reimbursement.

This is more realistic, I guess.

Mr. Slow Internet: I have the impression that your problem is probably of a solvable kind.

>>85
Sorry, I shouldn't have used a colon.
Correction: Mr. Slow Internet - I have the impression that your problem is probably of a solvable kind.
Wait, I feel like this is wrong too, but I don't know what to do.

I'll hyphenate for the time being.

[Verification] I tried to live by sipping muddy water! - If I had been able to recognise and advise you sooner, I might have been able to stop your heinous act.

Apparently, as far as I can observe, fappable content requires a certain immorality.

To be honest I'm starting to get fed up with bicycles and increasingly see them as an inefficient means of transport, especially in city centres. A significant contribution to this is the constant squeaking noise from around the front wheel of my bike while driving.

From birth we have been educated to turn away from the tremendous sin that everything we see is an accumulation of the embodiment of the human ego.

One person was very interested in my story "I recently realized that if I use pictures of characters as the object of my study, I will never be able to write a theory of character pictures", so I mentioned fappability and zero-fappability and said "In short, 'Moe' is a concept in the field of literature and art, and that it is impossible to make a rational analysis in the field of visual art research without introducing "fappability", he listened to me with great interest, which may have increased my motivation to write a book about “fappability”.

Source: https://twitter.com/pinetree1981/status/1201044260541218818

Every action is just a way to postpone the other actions.

If I die one of these days and something asks me what I think of my life, I'll probably say “it was itchy as hell.”

The largest things in the universe are black holes. In contrast to things like planets or stars they have no physical size limit, and can literally grow endlessly. Although in reality specific things need to happen to create different kinds of black holes, from really tiny ones to the largest single things in the universe. So how do black holes grow and how large is the largest of them all? This video will not discuss how black holes work or how they form since we’ve looked at that in detail in our black hole and neutron star series, you can check them out afterwards. For now we are interested in finding the largest thing in the universe. Let us start really, really small. Primordial Black holes The smallest kind of black holes may or may not exist. If they do, they are probably the oldest objects in the universe, older even than atoms. They would have formed just after the big bang, when the universe was so dense with violent energy, that any tiny pocket that was just slightly more dense than its neighbors could produce a black hole. The smallest Primordial Black Hole that could still be around would be a trillion kilograms or so, the mass of a big mountain. And yet they would be no bigger than a proton. A Primordial Black hole with the mass of earth would barely be larger than a coin. This makes them very hard to find, so we haven’t actually observed any yet – if they exist they may even be the mysterious dark matter that holds galaxies together. Let’s move on to the kinds of black holes that we know for sure ARE out there. Stellar Black Holes To make a black hole we need to compress enough matter so that it collapses into itself. After that, the more mass we throw at it, the larger it becomes. In today's universe, only the most violent cosmic events can create the necessary conditions, such as the merger of neutron stars or when the core of a very massive star collapses in a supernova. To have a unit to work with here, we’ll use the mass of our sun, about 2 million trillion trillion kilograms. The smallest known black hole has 2.7 times the mass of the sun which works out as a sphere around 16 km in diameter, large enough to cover Paris. Another lightweight black hole is the companion to the V723 Mon red giant star. This star is 24 times larger than our sun, 30 million kilometer in diameter. And yet, it is thrown around by a tiny black hole just 17.2 km wide. This tiny thing bullying the star is so much smaller that we can barely even show them in comparison. One of the largest known stellar black holes is M33 X-7. It currently spends its time eating a 70 solar mass blue giant, bit by bit. As all that stolen matter circles towards the black hole, like water going down a drain, friction heats it up to temperatures high enough to shine 500,000 times brighter than our Sun! And yet, X-7 is ‘only’ 15.65 solar masses and 92 km wide, just big enough to cast a shadow on Corsica. To grow much larger, black holes have to either devour a lot of stars or better, merge with one another. The instruments that make it possible to detect these mergers are very new so we are currently discovering a lot of exciting things. Like two massive black holes that we detected in a galaxy 17 billion lightyears away. As they spun around each other violently, they released more energy in the form of gravitational waves than the combined light from all the stars in the milky way in 4400 years. The new black hole they formed is about the size of Germany and is 142 solar masses. And here we hit a curious gap in scale. There are lots of black holes up to 150 solar masses. And then there is nothing for a long time. Until we suddenly hit black holes, that are millions of times more massive. Which is a bit confusing, because we had this idea that black holes are consistently growing and growing. But for the most massive black holes this process is not fast enough to explain their existence today. The universe is simply not old enough for these supermassive black holes to have formed by eating stars and merging with each other.

Something else must have happened. To explain how we got the largest black holes in the universe, we might need the largest stars that ever existed: Quasi Stars. To get a sense of scale, we can compare them to the largest stars that exist today. Our Sun is like a grain of sand next to them. We don’t know if Quasi Stars actually existed but they are an interesting concept when it comes to supercharging black hole development. The idea is that the matter in the early universe was so dense that quasi stars could grow to thousands of times the mass of our sun. The cores of these stars might have been crushed by their own weight so much to actually collapse into black holes while the star was still forming. In contrast to stars today that would destroy themselves in the process, inside quasi stars, a deadly balance could emerge. Gravity pressed the supermassive star together, feeding the black hole and heating the material falling in to such a degree that the radiation pressure kept the star stable. And so these quickly growing black holes might have been able to consume the quasi star for millions of years and grow far bigger than any modern stellar black hole. Black holes several thousand times the mass of the Sun and wider than the entire earth. These black holes might have become the seeds for supermassive black holes. Supermassive black holes So now, we arrive at the kings of our universe, the largest single bodies in existence. The centers of most galaxies contain a super massive black hole, and they are monstrous. In the Milky Way we have Sagittarius A Star, a super massive black hole with about 4 million solar masses that is calm and collected and just does its thing. We know it sits there because we can see a number of stars being thrown around by a seemingly empty spot. And despite its incredible mass, it’s radius is still only 17 times our sun. Smaller than most giant stars, but millions of times more massive. Because Supermassive black holes are so massive and located at the center of galaxies, many people imagine them as being a bit like the Sun in the solar system. An anchor that glues everything else together and forces it into an orbit. But this is a misconception. While the sun makes up 99.86% of all the mass in the solar system, SuperMassive Black Holes usually only have 0.001% of the mass of their galaxy. The billions of stars in galaxies are not gravitationally bound to them, instead it is the gravitational effect of dark matter which holds them together. Many supermassive black holes aren’t gentle giants, especially when they are feeding on the clouds of mass in their galaxy. The one at the center of the BL Lacertae galaxy is devouring so much material that it produces jets of plasma accelerated to nearly the speed of light. If Earth were orbiting this huge body, it would seem 115 times larger than our Sun in the sky… and we’d be burnt to a crisp in seconds by its glowing hot accretion disk. At this point black holes become so large that stars seem ridiculously tiny compared to them. The galaxy Cygnus A has a super massive black hole with 2.5 billion solar masses and 14.7 billion km wide, which would mean that if it took the place of our Sun, it would swallow all the planets and stretch halfway to the edge of our Solar System. It is devouring so much mass and material that it churns its disk into a kind of magnetic funnel, spewing gas out making tremendous radio lobes, towering over the galaxy, half a million light years in diameter. That is 2.5 Milkyways wide. Another pretty large Super Massive Black hole sits in the galaxy Messier 87. It has 6.5 billion solar masses and was the first black hole we got an actual photo of. Or rather of the glowing gas around the edge of a menacing shadow. This sphere of darkness is so large that it covers our entire Solar System. And yet, there is a scale even above these kinds of objects... Ultramassive black holes Now we reach the most massive black holes, perhaps the largest single bodies that will ever exist.

These black holes have eaten so much that they've grown to tens of billions of solar masses, their gravity the engine for a ‘quasar’- an accretion disk shining brighter than thousands of galaxies full of stars. So massive that they deserve a title of their own - Ultramassive Black Holes. The Ultra Massive Black Hole at the center of galaxy OJ 287 is 18 billion solar masses. It is so big that it has a Super Massive black hole, nearly forty times larger than sagittarius A star, orbiting it! This thing defies imagination and is really hard to compare to anything. It can comfortably fit three Solar Systems side by side inside of it. Let us end this insane competition and get to the king of kings. TON 618, a black hole that we can observe consuming galaxies worth of matter is shining with the brightness of a hundred trillion stars, visible from 18 billion light years away. It has an incredible 66 billion solar masses. A black hole so large that it would take light a week to reach the singularity after crossing the event horizon. About 11 Solar Systems could sit inside of it side by side. It may very well be the largest single body in the universe. But in reality, it is probably even larger. Since TON 618 is so far away, we only see what it looked like 10 billion years ago. In any case, black holes are scary and mysterious and gigantic. They will be here after everything else dies, and growing larger and larger. So now let us do the trip again. From the smallest possible black hole, all the way up to the largest. Let’s try something new today, we can call it: “Behind the Lies” a short behind the scenes bit about the necessary inaccuracies in this video because it's really not actually possible to rank black holes like trading cards. How so? Well, while we have catalogued millions of stars, we really only have good data on a couple of dozen black holes. That’s because black hole gazing wasn’t really a thing until 50 years ago – and technically still isn’t, because we can’t see black holes. We can only derive their properties from studying their gravitational effects on the matter around them, like the orbit of stars that come close to them. This effect depends on the mass of the black hole, which we can approximate at the most basic level with Kepler’s Laws. But this comes with huge uncertainties and error bars. Then we have to convert mass to size next, which brings new uncertainties. For example, we calculated the radius from the mass using the Schwarzschild equation which for the sake of simplicity assumes black holes are perfectly round and don’t spin: a kind of black hole that doesn’t really exist. The reality is that physics on these scales is a bit fuzzy. So some of the black holes we talked about here may be way smaller or way bigger. We just don’t know for sure. We shimmied around this problem by comparing different sources with different kinds of values and using different mass calculations to arrive at a standardized list that allowed us to be as accurate as humanly possible. You can look at all of this in our source doc. As a result this script was written with the tears of experts we drove crazy with our obsession for the best values they could live with. In this process, tons of stuff got cut and didn’t make it into the final video – but luckily we found a way to not waste all of it: We created a lot of black hole merch, spanning the whole range from somewhat bonkers to more serious. This way we get to explore a topic from different angles – and you get to continue having fun with black holes after this video ends.

I'm Merek Reichman. [dramatic music] And I'm now gonna talk you through all the Aston Martin cars that appear in the James Bond movies. I'm an industrial designer and I trained as an automotive designer. Wanted to be a designer all my life. And have been designing Aston Martin's for 15 years. [raucous music] DB5, "Goldfinger," 1964. It was an evolution of the DB4, very successful car for us, used in racing. But it was very mechanical in a way. And the consumer wanted more luxury, bigger seats, electric windows. Therefore the wheelbase had to grow and the car needed more power. Beauty comes through proportion. The body to window height, the overall length to the length of the cabin, the width of the car to the grill, all fit within the golden proportion. - You'll be using this Aston Martin DB5 with modifications. Now pay attention, please. - It's so difficult to pick a favorite gadget from the car, but a few I gotta mention, the wheel spinners and the bulletproof shield. But really the tracking system, which was a form of satellite navigation system, way back in '64, advanced technology. We were inspired by the anniversary of "Goldfinger" to make some continuation cars. So we made 25 continuation DB5s, that have all of the gadgets that you would see in the movie. The only thing that was missing was the actual ejector seat system and an opening roof. One year later, it was 1965, and "Thunderball" featuring the DB5 again. "Goldfinger" made DB5 a huge success. By the time we got to "Thunderball" DB5 was going out of production because we oversold. We could only make 11 cars a week, and there was a demand for 50. There were no differences between the DB5 in "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball." It was a year later, and actually we'd only just started production of the DB5. So it was so successful in the prior movie that it was used again, and there were no differences. Same color, same color interior. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," 1969, with the Aston Martin DBS. Bill Towns, or William Towns, was a designer, like myself, for Aston Martin. And was responsible for the Aston Martin DBS and some of the Lagondas. One of the leaders really, and a hero of mine, because he brought some of the Americana type design to the UK. The layout with this brilliant engine in the front, and where you sit relative to the engine, makes the car and gives it that presence. But it had real power. [engine rumbling] I like all of the movies. I particularly like this one because of the change of pace, the change of scenery, the lighting, the actor, the gadgets on either car. The DBS didn't have gadgets because the car itself was the gadget. It was an incredibly modern, powerful car. A new generation of Aston Martins. But it did have an ArmaLite AR-7 in the glove box. [man yelling] [dynamic music] "Diamonds are Forever," 1971, and briefly, the Aston Martin DBS. The DBS appears in "Diamonds are Forever" with rocket missiles being loaded into the bonnet. It doesn't appear driving in the movie at all. "The Living Daylights," in 1987, with the V8 Volante. After an absence of eight films, "The Living Daylights" featured the Aston Martin V8 Volante, in 1987. There is a little bit of confusion about the actual car that was in "The Living Daylights" because it starts life as a V8 Volante, which is a retracting soft top, so an open-top car. But it gets winterized, i.e. it becomes a coupe. - Mind your head. - Then it becomes the coupe version, so a V8. The V8 can be driven in snowy and icy conditions. The addition of winter tires, spike tires, would allow Bond to drift and drive the car beautifully on snow and ice. The retractable outriggers is probably the only request we haven't had for any of our cars. We've had lots of requests for many other things, obviously ballistic protection, stowage of weapons, et cetera. But no one's ever asked for outriggers. I do think absence makes the heart grow fonder.

I still have a backward view of Uba Yoshiyuki's work, and I think that is mainly due to his creative attitude. Also, the characters' faces might be a little too big.

To tell you the truth, I'm pretty pissed off because I have two mouth sores on the back of my lower lip that haven't healed in a couple of days.

If this situation continues for some time, we are in danger of having to resort to force before we can issue a statement of guilt. This means that we may have to present you with a dizzying monstrosity of pleasure in the name of the person who run this place.

We call the methodical use of certain meanings, which are central to phenomenological clarification, formal pronouncements. Phenomena are seen in the light of, and in the direction of, the meanings in which formal pronouncements are embedded. What must be understood from the methodological reflection is why the formal statement, though it leads the reflection, still does not bring into the matter any pre-established view.

In the conduct of this formally indicative question, theoretical and conceptual preconceptions and conventions inherited from some philosophical position, theoretically formed in some way in relation to the 'ego' or 'self', must not be active.

Philosophy is basic and concrete, so it is not surprising that the masses, who hate the concrete and prefer the basic, are bewildered.

Subtle and literally iconic. Love it.

I'm very pleased to see majiko's update, but unfortunately it has only been about 7 hours since the last masturbation, so I cannot review it immediately. I will do it as soon as I recover.

>>106 Sorry, this explanation is inadequate. I'll get on with it as soon as I'm feeling better physically and mentally.

The more we seek freedom, the further away from it we get.

Farting a lot feels good.

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but I think it's a good idea. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'm sure it's a good idea. It's important to note that I don't normally eat beef, but I really want a thick steak. I'm sure you've heard of it, but I'm not sure if you've seen it or not. I think it was a 400g thigh, coated with sodium fondamate and salted to taste [music] Okay, 30 minutes on the timer, 30 minutes to let the flavors soak in, 30 minutes of service, 30 minutes of waiting while I eat my latest diet snack, my favorite baby cheese, with almonds, by the way. I think they are the best, but there are premium and normal black almonds. I don't know why my local supermarket sells them for 100 yen for four, but the premium ones have more stuff and are better, and I think they are almost sugar free, so I think they are great for dieting, and I eat a lot of them, but I don't know why I can't lose weight. I'm not sure what's wrong with my body, but it's a wonder the human body works the way it does. I'm sure you'll be able to find something that works for you. In the event that you have any questions regarding where by and how to use it, you can call us at the web site. I'm on a diet and I don't want to eat fat if I can help it. 2 [music] I bake it in the best oven in the water Invert for about 15 minutes at 150 degrees. I'm sure you'll be able to find something that works for you. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'm sure it's a good idea. I'm sure you'll be able to find something to suit your needs. I'm sure you'll be able to find something that works for you. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that I'm not the only one who has a problem with that. I'm sure you've heard of it, but I've never heard of it. I'm sure you'll be able to find something to suit your needs. I'm sure you'll be able to find something that works for you.

The amount of information in the real world is the largest we know, but there are still technical challenges in searchability, verifiability and reliability.

Take every possible measure to relieve your stress.

Je me suis levé à huit heures.

However, I don't think my feeling of "dislike" should be something that I have to keep bottled up in my heart. And it is not good to explain the feeling by saying, "I don't like it because I don't like it," but it is necessary to think about why I don't like it in order.

I am sorrow

Dear Nepi
If you are reading this letter, it means that I am no longer in this world line. I'm not sure if I understand the world line. It's not so difficult. It doesn't mean that I will disappear from this world, but it does mean that wherever you look in the world now, I will not be there. It just means that I'm somewhere else in a similar world.
It's been very hot lately, but it looks like the cooler weather of autumn is finally here in Japan. I hope you're not suffering from heat stroke. Take good care of yourself.
I'm thinking of starting something new these days. What do you think? Oh, it's not swimming. I've had enough of that. I'm going to keep a diary. Isn't that boring? No, not really. Keeping a diary is a very good thing. It's a good thing to keep a diary, because it allows you to write down the details that you forget more and more every day. You can look at them later and think about them. But it's not about regret. Write down what you did, what you thought, what other people did, what other people told you, what you can remember, from the most trivial to the most serious. Include things you might be embarrassed about later. The whole thing.
I'll show you a few things from today's diary.
Wednesday, 05 September 2018
It was a cool day today. But I'm writing this with the air-conditioner on. It seems I have a habit of turning on the air conditioner whenever it's even a little hot or humid. I'll work on that. I'm also reading a book. It's a book by Sumino Yoru, called "Somebody to Remember My Father By". It's more of a booklet than a book. I was wondering whether the girl on the right of the cover was a boy or a girl, but after reading it I've solved the mystery. It was short, but I enjoyed it a lot. Maybe I'm just a fan of the everyday. I got bored in the middle of the special dialogue, so I didn't finish it.
The evaluation of the original work was divided. I guess it depends on what you like. Do you like literature? The film was good as entertainment.
The film was good as entertainment. I'm not very good at empathising with people, so I'm not sure if those who are into it (if there are any) enjoyed it. I don't know what human emotion is. I don't know what human emotions are, I don't know if they exist or not. Maybe it's because I'm not confident in my ideas and knowledge. There are so many "maybes". Well, I can't help it. It's just like me.

I'm sure you'll get tired of reading this if it gets too long, so I'll leave it at that. I'll leave another letter for another time.

From me

>>115 What's wrong?

Drinking for psychological immune tolerance?

Decide what you value, and thoroughly eliminate any entity that harms it, using the most humane methods possible if it is a person.

I wish I had enough time to cover everything but I don't so I'm gonna pick out kind of the most important things and make sure I get to those right off the bat. So is it going? Okay, I the red light. I'm gonna ask you a question. I want you to think for a moment and tell me how long would you estimate the typical college freshman can read material in their book or in their notes and effectively be learning what they're reading. Okay. 5 minutes says Chris. 25 minutes. Hour. Now, let me ask, anybody think more then an hour? How long? By the way, I had a guy, last time I did this, he said I can do it about 6 hours. And I just (scoffs). Well then I found out he is a medical resident, just finished medical school, his wife was in my class and indeed, my daughter's 4th year med, oh yeah 4, 5 hours but that's not typical I can tell you, okay. Anybody less then 5 minutes? Okay. So we've got 5 to maybe 4 or 5 hours. A study was done, believe the University of Michigan, they asked students to do the following thing. When you're ready to study, you've got all your materials, you're back in your little dorm room or your place you live. Check your watch, start working, the moment you feel that sense of I've read it but it's not coming through, and it's like eh I'm wasting my time, we all get that feeling, note what time it is. Record that, bring it back. And they had many, many hundreds of freshman and sophomores do this and then somebody took the time to compile it. And typically, right about 25 to 30 minutes. By the way, it's also true of lectures and you've all proved it to yourself. You come in to a lecture, you're really alert, check the clock at about 25 after it's like...yeah. And I see it in every class I teach but how long do we teach? 50 minutes. And yet probably most of learning, if it's gonna happen, is in the first 25-30. Okay. I'm gonna talk about a person cause I also like to teach by anecdote. Woman named Janette. I was a junior at Western, she was a freshman, because I was a junior I could live off campus, those days, colleges where your parents had abstentia. She had to live in a dorm cause she didn't have a relative in town. We were dating. She got her first quarter at Western a D average, 1.0, 15 credits of D. She decided she really needed to buckle down, plus the school said if you don't make it up you're gonna be kicked out. So the second quarter of her freshman year, she set the following goal, to study for 6 hours a night, non-stop, 6-midnight, Sunday night through Thursday night. Friday, Saturday she could party, rest of the week she was gonna study. Now one would assume, my gosh going from little study to 6 hours a night, 5 nights of the week, she should've aced everything. Want to guess her grade point second quarter? 0.0, she failed every class. This is why telling people to study more is not necessarily help. In some cases it might actually worsen their performance. What I want to do is show you graphically what I'm talking about. Let's say this is efficient studying, and I know there are no numbers there but higher means more efficient, lower means low or no efficiency. And this axis we're looking at time. Here's what happens for the average student. For her, 6 o' clock in the evening, after her supper at the residency dining hall, she plopped herself down at her little study area and started studying. Here's what happened. By about 6:30, she was in a major slump. But what was her goal? To study 6 hours, so she continued to sit at her little desk and stare at pages until midnight. She was at her desk 6 hours. How long did she actually study? About 20, 30 minutes. Now, there's a simple conduct in psychology all of you are aware of, things that are reinforced we tend to do more of. Things that are punished or ignored, we tend to do less of, and we operate by those principles to a large degree. If you are sitting there for 6 hours, are you feeling good? No.

Once you get here, you're looking at your book going I hate geography, I hate literature, I hate psychology, all the things we're trying to get you to fall in love with, you're hating it. And so her actual good studying was followed by 5 and a half hours of pain and misery. I would bet you, I don't know for a fact, that as the quarter progressed she sat down and finally she was done before she even started. She sat down and just stared at a book and she flunked every class. Now, had she taken this little seminar or had figured things out on her own, she'd know what to do. First rule, the moment you start to slide, you're shoveling against the tide. What you need to do is what? Take a break. Here's what's cool about it. You can study for a half hour. It doesn't take a half hour break to recharge your batteries. For most people about 5 minutes. This is where you go away, do something fun for 5 minutes. Call a friend, talk to a child, talk to a parent, a roommate, enjoy some music, do something you enjoy and actually say this is my treat for having studied for 30 minutes effectively. Go back, and here's what happens. Your efficiency is nearly 100%. Study a half hour, take a break, study a half hour. Had she done that over a course of 6 hours, she would have got about 5 and a half hours of serious studying and about a half hour of total break time. I really don't believe she would've flunked out. Now I get students complaining I don't have enough time to study. Look for a break at work. Look for a break at home. Those little 15-20 minutes can be very efficient if you apply them efficiently. Unfortunately, sometimes it's really tough to get those moments but you need to build them in somehow. You gotta have at least sometime to study. It's not gonna happen through osmosis. I'm gonna ask you a final question. Lets say you've studied till midnight, what do you want to do after your last study 20-30 minutes? No, not yet. You want to give yourself a big treat, okay. Whenever you're studying time is done, plan something special. Now for most women, especially with kids, it's a calgon bath with candles and the bathroom door locked and the statement if you bother me I will take your head off. This is where guys go "what?" Yeah, moms have no privacy, kids walk in while you're using the toilet, while you're in the tub, they'll bring their friends with them, won't they? Dads don't put up with that. When dads are in the bathroom it's lock the door, tough luck, go elsewhere. For you guys, I'll give you mine. This is politically incorrect. I liked beer, kay. My goal was to knock out all my studying, go to the Iron Bull Tavern in Bellingham, knock down a couple beers for my treat. Now my buddies they'd say Lobdell how're you getting straight A's? Well I'd studied starting about 3 in the afternoon. By 9 o' clock at night, when pitchers went on cheap, I'd done all my studying. I went and enjoyed my beer. These yahoos started drinking in the afternoon, then went to the tavern planning to go home and study. You know that's not gonna happen. You're not gonna study, and even if you do, what's called state dependent memory you'll typically only remember if you're intoxicated and I don't recommend getting drunk before a test. It's kind of a stupid thing. If you plan your day right, you can have those little study breaks but the coolest part is this. Because you're now reinforcing it with those little breaks and something fun, you extended. And you'll find you can go 30, 40, 50, an hour, an hour and a half. This is training. Those of you who go on to advanced degrees, you're gonna have to study incredible lengths of time without taking a break cause you've gotta get it done like my daughter in med school. Just amazing, I've told her I couldn't do it now, or actually I wouldn't do it. You're training yourself and if you do it right it becomes progressively easier, okay next question. How many of you have a true study or library in your place of residence? Okay. 2, 2 of you if I'm seeing correctly. I've always envied that.

A quiet place to actually do reading or studying, kay. I'm gonna make a predicition. Many of you study in your bedroom. Okay, how many of you study in your bedroom? We'll raise high so everybody can see. Mmhmm, that's where I studied a lot, especially when I did go to community college. If you don't study in your bedroom hmm...I bet some of you study at the dining room table/kitchen table or bar. How many of you study at the dining/kitchen/bar? Okay. Now if you don't study in those 2 places and you don't have a study or library, study in the family room/rec room/living room...the place where your TV and stereo is, your couch, easy chair. How many of you study there? Okay. Now some of you might actually might drive to a school or library, any do that? Go to a...okay. A few of you do. I still remember living at home going to Highline Community College, my folks bought me a little desk. I still have it. Little desk, I'd come home cause I did work then at Albertsons, typically got off at 9, home about 10 and I'd start studying. I still remember reading Billy Bud Melville. I lie there sitting there studying and my eyes are just...and then the bed started calling to me. "Marty, come lie upon me." Now those of you who've studied Greek, the idea of Sirens calling sailors to the rocks, oh it's real. I'd hear the bed call me and I'd finally go oh I'll just lie down for a moment. Next thing my mom to be yelling "Marty you're late for your English class" I was like "Oh god. I didn't read Billy Bud and I'm screwed." Let me ask you, what's the primary function of a bedroom? What's the secondary function? Good. Most groups go...and I go take psych 20..or 225 and learn about it. It's functional, okay. Primary function of a dining table, eating. Primary function of a living area... Recreation, socializing, right? Now, a lot of students don't realize how much we're controlled by environmental cues. How many of you have been to the Tacoma Mall? Funny, isn't it? Why do you raise your hand? Have you ever been to Tacoma? You answered, why didn't you go like this? Why? Cause if I'm asking the entire class, you've been trained to do what? And you don't even think about it. How many of you been Tacoma Mall? Hands go up. But if I walked up to you, Chris you ever been to Seattle? Totally stupid right? When you're talking face to face you respond verbally. When you ask a group, hands come up. Now, here's what's bad...now that I've tricked you, you won't raise your hands. I'm not gonna raise my hand. But can you see how powerful it is? Without thinking cause we're in a classroom, how many of you have been to Tacoma Mall, hands shoot up. Same is true of going in your bedroom and trying to study. You're in the bedroom. Now, piece of research done in University of Hawaii. Researchers asked the students what's the biggest problem with studying, they said we can't get into it. The university in question had primarily dorm rooms. Very few commuter students to the university. Most of you have seen a dorm room. Oh okay. Most of you have seen a dorm room. They're usually rectangular if it's a 2 plex. One side bed, other side a bed, everything kinda mirror imaged, study area, study area, right...You've got a closet or wardrobe so it's real interesting. In one room you sleep, you groom, talk with people, you socialize, you study, you snack, you're all in 1 room. It's a multi-purpose room and yet you're supposed to study. If your door's open, what happens? Everybody "Hey Lobdell what's up?!" You know and then they got to come in and talk to very quickly you can't get to study. Well the professors heard that the students couldn't get into studying. But they knew what the dorms looked like and the Hawaiin dorms, all of the rooms had a goose neck lamp, so the professors said we're gonna try a little experiment. Take that lamp, make a little sign and put it on it, "Study Lamp".

Use it only for studying, you don't dress by it, you don't have bs sessions by it, you don't snack by it, you don't clean the room by it, nothing. You use the other lights for all other functions. Here's the way it works and it's so easy. Every one of you can do this. Get a little lamp, probably have one already, if you don't my gosh. Yard sale, garage sale, you can pick 'em up for nothing. Get that lamp and it becomes your study lamp, so if you have to study in your bedroom, turn your desk away from the bed. That's the like how many of you been to the mall, it makes you want to go to sleep. By the way, you can't study in the bed, it's also bad for your back if you know about posture. Turn your back to the bed, have a blank wall, have your lamp, have your books ready to go cause you could futz away a lot of time getting ready, can't you? How many of can futz and futz yeah? You're ready to go, turn on the lamp and start studying. The moment you lose your edge, 15 20 30 minutes later, turn the lamp off, get up and leave the desk. What you're training yourself to study while seated there, and it becomes increasingly automatic as did the raising of the hand. You sit, turn the lamp on and you're ready to go. It's like magic. The students who did that were 1 grade point higher the next term compared to the controlled group that didn't do it. 1 grade point simply by creating a study area. Now if you study in the kitchen/dining, remove all food cues cause I know what happens there. You start thinking turkey in the fridge, yeah swiss cheese in the fridge, oh yeah sandwich time. How many of you have studied and created sandwiches, takes about a half hour to make a really good one. So damn good, what do you do? Make another one! And pretty soon not only are you not studying, but you're getting the spread going, okay. You're really frustrated then. The living area, I'm gonna tell you, you can do this experiment. You try to study in the living room and you're focused, and other people are listening to music, watching a movie, watching TV, they won't leave you alone. "Hey Marty. Marty look, look look it's really good." "Excuse me I'm studying." And then they get angry at you. "Well boo on you too." You can't study in the living area. It's not designed for that unless you're all by yourself, and you turn off the TV, turn down the stereo so it's truly background. If you're singing along to your favorite song, you're not studying. You're singing along to a song. Your brain has to be focused to be really studying, not time sharing back and forth between singing and studying. So living areas, very tough to create but if that's what you have to do it bring your little study lamp in, everything else off, turn on your study lamp, create a study there. Are you getting the idea? Now, I'm gonna go through a lot of suggestions. Break it up into chunks, reinforce it, simple to do. Create a study area, simple to do. And you'll be amazed if you take these ideas and do them. I'm gonna make a challenge to all of you. It's so easy to sit through a presentation, say yeah yeah that sounds good and then walk away and do nothing. Technically as a psychologist, if it doesn't change your behavior you haven't learned it. It's just in your head. To be a true learning experience you have to behave differently. So my hope is you all make a promise I'll try at least one or 2 of what I talk about today, and when you find out it works, say gosh I'll try a 3rd one, maybe a 4th. I went back to grad school in the mid-80s, second time around, I actually aced every class. PLU gives pluses, I got pluses in all but one class. I didn't do that first time, okay. I was a good student but not that good. I used the principles I learned about in teaching psych to become a student. I wish somebody had told me these things when I was a student the first time. It would have been a lot easier. So we got 2 things going. Break your study up into little pieces with reinforcement. Create a study area, if you don't have one.

I think you said you do have a study. There you go. Okay. Next thing. The more active you are in your learning, your're more effective. And yet increasingly I have students who think studying is reading it over and over and they're gonna have some magical thing where they suddenly understand it and remember it well. When your reading it over and over, or saying it over and over, the term for that is rote memorization. Spelled r-o-t-e. It can work. It is the way most of us were taught in elementary school. The way I understand it, a lot of Asian schools depend heavily on rote. Some of you may be darn good at it and if you can memorize and actually understand by repetition and its effective for you, don't change. But for most of us it's not the most efficient or effective way. The way to learn efficiently in college, first you have to decide what am I learning. Is it a concept or a fact? A fast is the discreet little piece of information, Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis, that's a fact. Okay, but understanding what psychoanalysis is is a concept. Okay. Understanding the name of a bone is a fact. Understanding what it does in the body gets into a concept, okay. So, in studying, sometimes there are a lot of facts. In fact, I use anatomy as a good example. You gotta memorize bones, muscles, organs, tissues, a lot of it. But if you simply memorize and don't understand the function of it. The comprehension of the actual concepts, it's a lot of wasted learning, really. Just to know a name of a bone is like yeah, so what. Okay. What does it do? How does it function? So, if it's a fact or a factoid, you have to approach it one way and I'll talk about how you do that. But in most college classes, what we as professors are most concerned about is that you grasp the concept. Because concepts, once grasped, will stay with you a lifetime. Facts can easily get confused, but that's why we have Google, why we have reference books. If you know the concept, you can quickly look up the fact if you have to know that for a particular fact. Neat thing is, I get questions who has more advantage, younger students or older students? Depends on what you're talking about. Most of us as we get older realize concepts are what are really important to make our lives better, to be effective in our work, effective in our personal lives. Facts though, we realize we can lookup. We can get those if we need them. Young people actually often learn facts very quickly but they never think about the concept. I'll give you a simple example, I'm an old guy, when I was a bit younger, I would sing along with the radio with my adolescent daughter in the car. Oh Dad, if you don't know the words don't sing the song. I'd say okay Beth, you're right. I'm not singing exactly what he or she is singing, but it's conceptually the same. What? I'd say what's the song about? I don't know. She couldn't tell me what the song was about but she could tell me every word in the song. That's earning or learning facts and not seeing the concept. I as an adult, I know the concept, I just make up my own lyrics, okay. Because I don't worry about the factual. Now, some of you are going yeah but my teacher does. I got to know the facts as well as the concepts, so we'll first deal with concepts. Here's the question, can you put the concept in your own words. If you can't, you don't really understand it. It's not meaningful to you. To make it meaningful is a struggle. It's probably the biggest struggle you have as a student. But its a struggle you need to do or you're wasting your study time. Now I'm gonna give you an example. Only 1 of you probably in this room will understand what I just say or what we say. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. I knew she would get that. How many of you know exactly what I'm talking about? Rog, you do? Cool. 2 of you. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Most of you are going it's all Greek to me, it's actually probably more Latin but I'm not certain of that.

When I was a biology student, I learned about the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and if you try to learn that and you don't understand it, it's gonna go in one ear and out the other. You can't hold onto it. But if I take a moment to break it down, ontogeny means your own development as a being. You as a human for example. Recapitulates means goes back through or recaptures, retraces. Phylogeny, which is the development all the way from single cell to complex mammal. Now to make sense of that, how did all of you start in utero? A single fertilized cell. An ovum that's fertilized and then it starts dividing and you get all that. But you get a little peer and this is what they first looked at embryos, where we look like a little thing that looks like a tadpole. Right? Yeah, tadpoleish. So we start with a single egg that's fertilized and then we get this little thing that looks kinda like a tadpole and they thought these were gill slits. They're not, they're just what becomes the pharisaic area. But there's no legs it looks like a little tail. We had a tail! Got the idea? Well then we get our arm buds and we get them growing you know, so we now get arms and legs and gradually we start looking more like a human being but we take an embryo of every mammal, you probably couldn't tell one from the other. Human, pig, doesn't matter, they all look very much alike don't they? Now, you understand ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, but if the instructor doesn't take the time to tell you that and you just read it and eh whatever I'll memorize it, you would forget it about as quickly get through it. I'm not gonna prove this, you all get to do a little memory task. Gotta find where...here we go! I'm gonna read to you 13 letters from our alphabet, you all know the alphabet right? Should be meaningful. As soon as I finish I want you to say them back to me in the same sequence that I give them to you. So I'll say them and then I'll go like that, you say 'em back. Y-T-R-H, don't write 'em, A-U-S-P-D-P-A-Y-H...Boy, somebody sounded like they got quite a few but did any of you get all 13? By the way, the fact that you took notes is a good thing. It's one of the best things to help you remember, and I sit in front of classes where they just go...for 50 minutes. I'm givin' them wisdom and they're not taking a damn note, and then they wonder why they don' remember. You can't remember everything in a lecture. I'm gonna rearrange the letters a little bit, see if you do any better. H-A-P-P-Y-T-H-U-R-S-D-A-Y. The letters in sequence. Shh... letters. Most of you got all 13, and you thought coming to this lecture might be nothing. I've just taken your short term memory span, which is usually 5 to about 9 letters and expanded 13. Can you give 'em again? What are they? Damn you're good. Or I'm good. Now, obviously it was a little easier. Those were the same 13 letters, same ones. If you're studying anything conceptual, and you're trying to memorize it, it's like Y-T-R...it doesn't make any sense. It's in one eye out the other, if it's out loud one ear out the other. But if you take the time discover the meaning, suddenly it clicks. And I could probably ask you next week what were those 13 letters and most of you tell me. At the end of the quarter I could ask you and most of you could tell me. You might be confused was it happy wednesday or thursday but you'd guess probably thursday. Now, some of you are in my intro class this quarter. I do something that I wish I had time to do. I divide the class in 2, using a card so half reads 1, the other half reads another card. I have one group try to estimate the number of vowels in a series of words that I read to them. So they're thinking about the words, we'd say that's superficial thinking. How many vowels in mosquito? How many vowels in bottle? How many vowels in elephant? And they get to write down what they think is the number of vowels. The second group are instructed, they're told you need to think about how valuable this item would be.

If you were stranded on a deserted island, and you then rate its value on 5 point scale, 1 being no value, 5 being highly valuable, that's called deeper processing. You're now thinking about it in terms of its application or use. By the way, I think elephant is a fun one, I'd give it a 5. Not really company but if you got really hungry you got a lot of food there right? I then read, I think it's about 30 words, everybody's writing down their numbers. I then have them do a stalling exercise where they write their name phone number and address, that's to dump short term memory cause they might be thinking about the words I just read. If you're now writing your name and address, it changes your focus. Short term memory only lasts about 20-30 seconds, its pretty brief. So I counted on the clock, after 30 seconds I say now write down as many words that you can recall. This one is so powerful, the group that's counting vowels on average remembers out of about 30 words. Time and time again. The group that's thinking about usefulness on a deserted island remembers 10. It's slightly more 5/5, 5.5 vs 10.5 but very close to it doubling without doing any more effort, simply by thinking about it instead of just trying to superficially think about it. And this is where, as a student, the more you get into the understanding the better. Now this then raises a fun question, what is the meaning? If I say something is meaningful or meaningless, what am I really saying? Now I'm not gonna through a big drill which is kind of fun of teasing it out of you, but a meaningful piece is a piece that relates to something you already know, and the best little analogy is its like a file system that you've already got established, you add a new entry to it so its all neatly organized and its very easy if you got a file system to add a new entry. We do it with computers also. The other way, meaningless. It's where something new doesn't fit with something already established and so its Greek to you. Its ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. What did you say? If its something brand new, you can't relate it. You have to create a new entry, so you have to grapple with it saying what does that mean? But as I broke it down, I bet you could associate it with something you already understood. You've probably all seen little embryos, you got the idea of an egg, the idea that it kinda recaptures our development from a primitive one cell to a very complex mammal, get that idea. That's the meaning of meaningfulness. Now as a teacher, I think all of us, as we are teachers we all try to make things meaningful in our classes. So we give stories, we give examples, but sometimes our examples don't work for you. This is where you have to tease it out. So I'm gonna go to a couple things to help you there. First, study groups. We underutilize them, especially in community college. Would people get through med school without study groups. Not very many. Do we have vet tech back there? Dental hygiene, vet tech, pretty sophisticated stuff they have to learn, right? Do they do study groups? No? Oh my...I would hope they do. I would encourage them to do it. Where I've got students to form study groups, performance of the groups go up dramatically. Now, part of it is probably because they're motivated to do that so its a bit confounding but I'm convinced there's also the power of studying with other people. I know these concepts its like so well I can't see how they're confusing, but another student who's just found the answer can sometimes turn and say Thursday, here's what its about. They go ah is that what Mr. Lobdell was saying, god. So easy. But I can't do that because I don't see where the problems lie in that particular concept. Study groups are great. I'm not gonna tell you how many of you totally hurt yourself in studying. How many of you magic mark, highlight, whatever you call it, textbooks. A little yellow, pink, green, glow in the dark sort of thing? How many of you use the markers? Those were invented '65, year I started college. So I bought one.

Sexual preferences are so closely linked to personal experience that it feels almost impossible to market to the exact sweet spot of most people.

When I wore MUJI's "Men's Organic Cotton Mix Heat Generating V Neck Long Sleeves T-Shirt" as a nightgown last night, I experienced sudden and severe itching. This was presumably due to the thermal storage function of the product, which contributed to the increase in body temperature. I therefore prohibit the wearing of all thermal storage underwear, including the product in question, at bedtime and freeze indefinitely any plans to purchase more of the product in question (17:12, 22/11/2021)

Traits controlled by a single gene

The ABO blood group is determined by the ABO gene, which carries information about a protein called glycosyltransferase. The ABO gene carries information about a protein called glycosyltransferase, which is mainly responsible for adding another sugar to the end of the sugar chain exposed on the surface of the cell. However, the DNA sequence of the ABO gene can be divided into three main types depending on the function of this protein. In genetics, different types of the same gene are called alleles. In the case of the ABO gene, there are three alleles, A, B and O. These alleles contain information about the same type of protein, but the proteins produced from these alleles have slightly different functions. This is because the sequence of bases is slightly different between the alleles, resulting in a slight difference in the amino acid sequence. All genes have such different types and alleles.

In the ABO gene, the enzyme synthesized from the allele classified as O is an enzyme that cannot link sugars. A adds the sugar N-acetylglucosamine. B adds the sugar galactose. There are also three types of alleles that produce type O. In one case, the 261st base is missing. So that the correct enzyme cannot be synthesized. There are several differences between the sequences of the A and B alleles compared. Four of these differences, at bases 526, 703, 796 and 803, all result in amino acid differences when translated into protein. This difference in amino acids causes the enzymes synthesized from each allele to function differently.

In each individual, one allele of the ABO gene is transmitted from each parent. The cell then synthesizes an enzyme from both alleles. Thus, the two alleles of the ABO gene in each individual can be one of six possible combinations. If both alleles are O, the ABO blood group will be type O. If A and A or A and O, type A. If B and B or B and O, type B. If A and B, type AB. Therefore, it is possible to distinguish any of these six types by examining the above sequence of the ABO gene. Then, we can predict the blood group from only a little genetic information without studying the blood group of parents, the actual blood group, or the whole ABO gene sequence. However, there are basic exceptions in living organisms, and even in this case there are special alleles which cannot be estimated by the above combinations. For example, some of the alleles classified as O consist of different sequences and are present in low frequency in the population.

The natural avoidance of spontaneity may be a remote cause of autonomic dysreflexia.

Howdy?

>>128 I think it will function properly as a nightgown only under unheated conditions below 10 degrees Celsius.

In the first place, without basic bodily mechanisms and skills based on biological evolution, culture itself would not exist. In this sense, we can say that culture is a mechanism to extend biological body mechanisms and skills. Culture extends humanity's biological skills: many tools are extensions of the hand, microscopes and radio telescopes are extensions of the eye, loudspeakers and printing technology are extensions of the voice, trains, automobiles and other means of transportation are extensions of the foot, computers are extensions of the brain, and fire is an extension of the digestive system. Moreover, only human beings are capable of not only making tools, but also of extending such body extensions to any extent by flexibly combining them in many kinds and many layers: we make the tools needed to make tools, we make the means of transportation needed to carry tools, we make the tools needed to convey information... and so on. Culture is a device for the multiple and flexible extension of humanity's biological mechanisms and skills to any extent.

Voulez-vous arrêter de penser?

Velim ut pubes meas etiam exhauriat.

Il y a du sang frais qui sort de l'anus.

Lorsque j'ai porté le "Men's Organic Cotton Mix Heat Generating V Neck Long Sleeves T-Shirt" de MUJI comme chemise de nuit la nuit dernière, j'ai ressenti des démangeaisons soudaines et sévères. Cela était vraisemblablement dû à la fonction de stockage thermique du produit, qui a contribué à l'augmentation de la température corporelle. Par conséquent, j'interdis le port de tout sous-vêtement à stockage thermique, y compris le produit en question, au moment du coucher et je gèle indéfiniment tout projet d'achat du produit en question.

Une personne était très intéressée par mon histoire "J'ai récemment réalisé que si j'utilise des images de personnages comme objet de mon étude, je ne serai jamais capable d'écrire une théorie des images de personnages", alors j'ai mentionné la fappabilité et la zéro-fappabilité et j'ai dit "En bref, 'Moe' est un concept dans le domaine de la littérature et de l'art, et qu'il est impossible de faire une analyse rationnelle dans le domaine de la recherche en art visuel sans introduire la "fappabilité", il m'a écouté avec grand intérêt, ce qui a peut-être augmenté ma motivation pour écrire un livre sur la "fappabilité".

La croyance qu'une préparation méticuleuse fera naître nos désirs n'est ni bonne ni mauvaise en soi.
Les organes génitaux féminins bipolaires et décentrés : le sein et la vulve sont littéralement des symboles du corps féminin et sont essentiels à l'histoire de l'industrie du sexe.
Pourquoi le récit négatif est-il si répandu dans la société moderne ?
Nous devons vivre en tant que personnes nées dans un pays de perdants et il est important et bénéfique pour nous individuellement et pour ce pays d'en prendre conscience.
Underachiever ou Procrastinator - quel est mon véritable alias ?
Je veux être une sorte d'agent de circulation pour notre société en tant que collectif intellectuel.
Il n'y a rien de naturel ou de fondé sur des principes à ressentir un sentiment d'appartenance à un système politique tel que l'État.

Une perspective fantomatique, une vision fantomatique, une vue fantomatique (17:52, 2021/06/10)
Voir la vraie nature des fantômes et des fleurs à queue flétrie (17:52, 10 juin 2021)
L'univers agité (17:54, 2021/06/10)
A Senior Conflits entre raison et instinct (2021/06/13/0:30)
D'aussi loin que je me souvienne, une motion de défiance à l'égard du parti au pouvoir, l'ego, a été proposée au parlement de mon cerveau, ma plus haute instance de décision (11:01, 16/06/2021).
La compréhension de Mario-like comme sous-catégorie de la gamification (22/07/2021, 7:25 pm)
Heattech peut remplacer le chauffage, mais Airism ne peut pas remplacer le refroidissement (16:01, 27/07/2021)
S'il y a quelque chose à rechercher, c'est bien l'accomplissement de la justice (07/08/2021, 0:01)
La peur de l'effondrement des constructions intellectuelles décourage la pensée et l'action constructives, quelles qu'elles soient. (2021/08/09/5:04)
Seuls ceux qui peuvent utiliser la boussole du devoir lorsqu'ils nagent dans une mer de droits illimités sont libres (21:45, 2021/09/02)
À la recherche d'une intelligence externe (ht 22:12, 2021/09/02)
C'est pratique de mettre toute sa monnaie dans une caisse automatique et elle ressort avec la plus petite combinaison (23:31, 10 septembre 2021).
Penser horizontalement quand on manque de sommeil (8:02, 12/09/2021)
Les informations véritablement utiles devraient être les plus personnalisées, n'est-ce pas ? (2021/09/14/0:29)
Je veux être un guide de circulation pour la société en tant que collectif intellectuel (23:07, 10/04/2021)
Déconstruire la problématique (19:55, 29/10/2021)
L'objectif suprême d'Apple pourrait être l'égalité des chances grâce aux machines (3:56, 11/09/2021)
Des philosophes qui possèdent et luttent avec un Hiroyuki altéré (0:41, 21 novembre 2021)
Sur ses propres caractéristiques physiques.

Comment allez-vous tous?

Je pense personnellement que la raison pour laquelle les personnes intelligentes ont une vision positive de la mort, ou pourquoi les personnes âgées s'accrochent à leur emploi mal payé, est un problème qui peut être résolu en formant une sorte de communauté appropriée pour chaque personne, en leur donnant une nouvelle réalisation sociale, et en développant des divertissements inconnus au-delà de notre imagination. Pensez-vous qu'il est possible de créer un avenir où les gens ont une vision plus positive de la vie en stimulant leurs loisirs d'une manière plus rationnelle pour leur cerveau?

Le rêve changeant, le souvenir d'un monde de brume matinale illusoire. Ce monde actuel, assis sur une fondation de sable qui s'effrite. L'histoire d'un rêve fabriqué, racontant un monde ancien et profond. En plein jour, une ville coule.

Est-ce une illusion, ou une tour construite sur du sable ? Ce rêve, jusqu'au lever du jour, est un rêve de papillon.

Le rêve change, la couleur voyante d'un manoir écarlate illusoire. Ce monde actuel, assis au sommet d'une froide fondation de pierre. Le conte de fées d'un rêve fabriqué, racontant une ancienne et belle capitale. En plein jour, une ville est corrompue.

D'un point de vue fantomatique, d'une vision fantomatique, d'une perspective fantomatique, mes aînés, qui luttent entre la raison et l'instinct de l'univers, qui voient la vraie nature des fantômes et l'agitation au sein des fleurs à queue fanée, ont été dans le plus haut organe de décision de mon cerveau, la Diète, depuis aussi longtemps que je me souvienne, il y a eu un vote de défiance dans le parti au pouvoir, l'ego. Avec la compréhension de Mario de la gamification comme sous-catégorie, le heattech est un substitut du chauffage, mais l'airism n'est pas un substitut du refroidissement, donc s'il y a quelque chose à rechercher, c'est seulement la réalisation de la justice. Je vous ai appris à maintes reprises que la peur de l'effondrement des constructions intellectuelles nous fait nous abstenir de pensées et d'actions constructives, quelles qu'elles soient, mais seuls ceux qui savent utiliser la boussole du devoir sont libres lorsqu'ils nagent dans une mer de droits infinis, et il est commode de mettre toutes ses pièces dans la caisse automatique de l'intelligence extérieure, car elles en ressortent dans la plus petite combinaison possible. La pensée horizontale pendant la privation de sommeil est également vraie, et j'ai dit que l'information véritablement utile devrait être la plus personnalisée, et je veux être un guide de circulation pour la société en tant que collectif intellectuel, et le démantèlement de la conscience des problèmes et la suprématie d'Apple peut être l'égalité des chances par la machine, et possédée par l'altéré Hiroyuki. Les philosophes qui se débattent avec leurs propres caractéristiques physiques sont éliminés ou torturés.

OC2(h)

By Hanako and Shinichi's first intercourse, estimated about 2 hours ago.

Contemporary Individualism was born at 23:19 on June 9, 2020. Today, January 18, 2021, at 8:56 pm, it has lived a little over seven months and has been completely deleted from the trash. There is no need for pessimism, as I will be irresponsibly raising its descendants. Please keep in mind that the descendants will be purely cultivated and gradually propagated at https://ha10.net/ and https://jeison.biz/casphy/.

>>147 It's 8:56 am, not pm.

Me: I'm cold.
Siri: I'm relieved to hear that.

The intelligible truths underlying all of our thoughts are clear but subtle, and depend on nothing more than the differences that are actually possible, since none of them are good. In order to achieve complete clarity in our thinking about an object, we need only consider the practical kinds of perceptible effects that the object has. In other words, what sensations we should expect from it and what reactions we should prepare for.

(Ramanujan's work) did not have the simplicity and inevitability of truly great work. It would have been greater if it had been less strange. But there was a natural talent there that no one could deny. It was a deep and invincible originality. If he had been discovered and acclimatized at a younger age, he probably would have become an even greater mathematician, making new and more important discoveries. On the other hand, he might have become less "Ramanujan-like" and more European professorial, losing more than he gained.

Airi(h), estimated 8 hours ago.

Uncensored Girl from the North Country, estimated 20 minutes ago.

>>153 This is the quintessential serendipitous/algorithmic discovery. I sacrificed the synchronicity to identify her genuineness. Consequently, I'm kind of grateful to her and her appendage.

In French and German, they say I'm rather grateful for her appendage. Don't distort the facts.