与「Children_of_Nobody」相关的搜索结果

[NOTICE] Heart-touching voice♬ gugudan HAEBIN♥ OST "그때부터" recording behind the scenes #HAEBIN# painting with voice MBC drama #Children_of_Nobody# OST #그때부터# recording behind the scenes📷 have been released on Jellyfish Post ggyu😄 ▶

[VIDEO] [MV]해빈(구구단) - 그때부터 [붉은 달 푸른 해 OST Part.5 (Children Of Nobody OST Part.5)] ▶ ▶ #구구단# #gugudan# #해빈# #HAEBIN# #MBC# #수목드라마# #붉은달푸른해# #OST# #그때부터# #MV⛤#

[NOTICE] #gugudan# #HAEBIN# participated MBC drama #Children_of_Nobody# #OST# #그때부터# has been released ggyu✌HAEBIN's sorrowful voice song🙊 Dear Friends, let's listen together ggyu🎧

A Norwegian neuroscientist spent 20 years proving that the act of writing by hand changes the human brain in ways typing physically cannot, and almost nobody outside her field has read the paper. Her name is Audrey van der Meer. She runs a brain research lab in Trondheim, and the paper that closed the argument was published in 2024 in a journal called Frontiers in Psychology. The finding is brutal enough that it should have changed every classroom on Earth. The experiment was simple. She recruited 36 university students and put each one in a cap with 256 sensors pressed against their scalp to record brain activity. Words flashed on a screen one at a time. Sometimes the students wrote the word by hand on a touchscreen using a digital pen, and sometimes they typed the same word on a keyboard. Every neural response was recorded for the full five seconds the word stayed on screen. Then her team looked at the part of the data most researchers had ignored for years, which is how different parts of the brain were communicating with each other during the task. When the students wrote by hand, the brain lit up everywhere at once. The regions responsible for memory, sensory integration, and the encoding of new information were all firing together in a coordinated pattern that spread across the entire cortex. The whole network was awake and connected. When the same students typed the same word, that pattern collapsed almost completely. Most of the brain went quiet, and the connections between regions that had been alive seconds earlier were nowhere to be found on the EEG. Same word, same brain, same person, and two completely different neurological events. The reason turned out to be something nobody had really paid attention to before her work. Writing by hand is not one motion but a sequence of thousands of tiny micro-movements coordinated with your eyes in real time, where each letter is a different shape that requires the brain to solve a slightly different spatial problem. Your fingers, wrist, vision, and the parts of your brain that track position in space are all working together to produce one letter, then the next, then the next. Typing throws all of that away. Every key on a keyboard requires the exact same finger motion regardless of which letter you are pressing, which means the brain has almost nothing to integrate and almost no problem to solve. Van der Meer said it plainly in her interviews. Pressing the same key with the same finger over and over does not stimulate the brain in any meaningful way, and she pointed out something that should scare every parent who handed their kid an iPad. Children who learn to read and write on tablets often cannot tell letters like b and d apart, because they have never physically felt with their bodies what it takes to actually produce those letters on a page. A decade before her, two researchers at Princeton ran the same fight using a completely different method and ended up at the same answer. Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer tested 327 students across three experiments, where half took notes on laptops with the internet disabled and half took notes by hand, before testing everyone on what they actually understood from the lectures they had watched. The handwriting group won by a wide margin on every question that required real understanding rather than surface recall. The reason was hiding in the transcripts of what the two groups had actually written down. The laptop students typed almost word for word, capturing more total content but processing almost none of it as they went, while the handwriting students physically could not write fast enough to transcribe a lecture in real time, which forced them to listen carefully, decide what actually mattered, and put it in their own words on the page. That single act of choosing what to keep was the learning itself, and the keyboard had quietly skipped the choosing and skipped the learning along with it. Two studies. Two countries. Same answer. Handwriting makes the brain work. Typing lets it coast. Every note you have ever typed instead of written went into your brain through a thinner pipe. Every meeting, every book highlight, every idea you captured on your phone instead of on paper was processed at half depth. You did not forget those things because your memory is bad. You forgot them because typing never woke the part of the brain that would have made them stick. The fix is the thing your grandmother already knew. Pick up a pen. Write the thing down. The slower road is the faster one.

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry. The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine. The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true. The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either. The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought. The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to. The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus. He is confident. He has always been confident. The confidence has never been the problem. The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.

This kind of safety research is utter nonsense. It's safety theater. Nobody asks the model if they can shut it down. We just shut it down. Its a blob of code. The IT team simply turns it off. Done. This is nothing like "testing an airplane" in the real world to see if it will crash. It's worse than nonsense. It has no practical value whatsoever for security or safety. Anthropic repeatedly and deliberately creates these sensational headlines and paints itself as the only wise, kind, safe, special people who can be trusted to guide AI because their strategy is to get Washington to pass legislation that boosts them and harms competitors. But when your safety "research" is on par with the TSA confiscating children's toys that look like guns and pretending it means anything for actual airline safety, why should they be trusted for anything?

It took some work but Tablet II is here! 🌟 Grok Imagine is amazing. Emerald Tablet II: The Halls of AmentiCinematic Short Film (Doreal Translation) Thoth descends into the mysterious Halls of Dark Death, stands before the radiant Children of Light around the Flower of Life, and witnesses millions of soul-flames rising through darkness — quenched yet unquenched, dying into shadow and reborn into greater light. “Know ye that in the pyramid I built are the Keys that shall show ye the Way into life.” Full cinematic journey now available 👇 Emerald Tablet II: The Halls of Amenti | The History of Thoth the Atlant... via @YouTube

𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝗻𝗲 / 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿 Isolet 이솔렛 photo. TAKING @ta_King_photo #룬의아이들사랑해# #고전러들룬아팀코해# #나빼면섭섭해#

Mark Zuckerberg on why a "ragtag group of children" built Facebook when Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo couldn't: Zuckerberg returns to a question he's thought about from time to time: why was his small team able to build Facebook when much bigger companies didn't? "It wasn't like it was a super novel idea. There was Friendster before, there was MySpace, there's all this stuff. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, they all had versions of it. Why didn't they do it?" It wasn't talent or resources. If anything, the odds were against him: "We were like a ragtag group of children. And they had all these serious engineers and serious infrastructure." So what was the difference? According to Zuckerberg, big companies lose because they can't see the value in new ideas early enough: "I kind of think the reason is because people doubt new ideas before they come to fruition." He traces the exact sequence of doubt that social networking had to survive: "The narrative with social networking is like, this is just a college kid thing. Okay fine, maybe not college kids, but it's probably a fad. Maybe it seems like it's going to be around for a while, but it's probably not going to make money. Okay, it's making money, but the switch to mobile is going to be pretty hard. And then by the time we figured that out, it was too late. The companies had lost their advantage." The failure, he suspects, rarely comes from a total absence of belief. Somewhere inside every big company, someone saw it: "There's probably some team buried deep inside those companies that believed in it, and probably some VP person who is like, eh, that's probably not the biggest priority, and just pours sand in the gears." His conclusion is a prediction about where opportunity actually lives. Even when a large company holds an obvious distribution advantage, he doesn't think it protects them: "I would guess that big companies are going to fumble two-thirds of those." And the opportunities that don't come with an obvious incumbent advantage, the ones that plug into existing distribution channels are, in his words, "just kind of free."

Let me lay out the unpleasant arithmetic of the replacement rate, and why a modern society finds it so hard to reach. A population of 100 women in an advanced economy needs 210 children to replace itself. Why? Absent sex-selective practices, roughly 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. Evolution overshoots male births because boys are more prone to early death from accidents and disease. Therefore, of 210 children, about 108 are boys and 102 are girls. Not all girls reach the midpoint of their fertile age: accidents, suicide, homicide, and illness take some. In an advanced economy, about 98% of them survive, leaving 100 women to replace the original 100. Now consider the distribution of children per woman. Imagine 15 women have no children. Five do so by choice, for various reasons (professional, affective, religious). Ten face unfixable fertility problems, theirs or their partner’s. The 10% figure is conservative: the medical literature points to around 13%, and that does not even count male fertility problems. Of the remaining 85, 10 have one child, 60 have two, 10 have three, and 5 have four. I am stopping at four to keep the post concise; very few women in younger cohorts have five or more children, but I could adapt the example to account for them. Hence, the 100 women in this population have 180 children, for a completed fertility rate of 1.8. Interestingly, this is roughly the rate we saw in many advanced economies until the early 1990s, and in the U.S. until around 2008. But we are still 30 children short of replacement! Voluntary childlessness is only 5%. Three-quarters of women have two or more children. Look around: most of your friends will have two, plenty will have three or four. And yet, we are well below replacement. You would not look at this population and call it selfish (is having two kids hedonistic?) or accuse it of losing family values (only 5% of women are choosing voluntarily not to have children). The point is simpler. To reach 210 births, you need a substantial share of women to have three or more children. Two as the “normal” pattern will not get you there. And modern society makes three or more a costly proposition for most families. Of course, current fertility rates in most advanced economies are well below 1.8. But my point is that, under present social arrangements, we should not expect 2.1, even if (to humor last weekend’s debate) we banned smartphones and TikTok. We need many, many more families with three or four children. More pointedly, there is no self-regulating mechanism that pushes a society back to 2.1. The market-clearing analogy many economists use is flawed; scarcity feedback does not work the same way. (Another post on this another day.) And, as I often read, the claim that “nature” somehow regulates current overpopulation is just childish mumbo jumbo. So yes, the arithmetic of replacement rate is unpleasant.