AnnYoung

Passion will rise above all wisdom

[positive side of X 🌞 @positivityofx]

The cat saves chicken from foxes

[Simons @Simon_Ingari]

✅ Correct Answer:

Candidate: "Based on my research and considering my experience, skills, and the industry standard, I'm looking for a salary in the range of [specific range]. In my previous role at [Previous Company], I gained extensive experience in [relevant skills/industry], which has prepared me well for this position. I believe this range reflects my qualifications and the value I can bring to your team."

🔵 Correct Answer:

Candidate: "I would expect a salary that is in line with the market rate for this position and my level of experience. For instance, in my last role at [Previous Company], my salary was [specific amount], and considering my additional skills and the responsibilities of this new role, I believe a salary in the range of [specific range] would be appropriate."

🟢 Correct Answer:

Candidate: "I’ve done some research on the typical salary for this role in this region and, considering my background and the demands of the job, I’m looking for a salary in the range of [specific range]. At [Previous Company], I had the opportunity to enhance my skills in [relevant skills], which I believe adds value to this role and justifies this expectation."

For CV revamp, email your current CV via [email protected] with subject 'Revamp '

[#WOMENSART @womensart1]

Japanese photographer Miyoko Ihara's photographs of her grandmother, Misao's loving bond with her cat Fukumaru #WomensArt #JapaneseArtistsWeek

[⚡️🇧🇼 @Priceless_MCI]

Did haaland just scare himself 😭😭

[Harko de Jong @HarkodeJong]

Enkele weken geleden verscheen De #Asielloterij van @Ruud_Koop_mans, hoogleraar sociologie in Duitsland. Dit boek krijgt erg veel aandacht en terecht! Het is een bijzonder informatief en lezenswaardig boek en verdient dus.. een 🔋... van 17!
#Leestip

[Restoring Your Faith in Humanity @HumanityChad]

A week old baby elephant taking a nap and being the cutest little thing

[BrightSelect🌈 @takumijp7]

大切な人間の赤ちゃんを、まるで自分自身の子であるかのように、深い愛情を持って見守る犬たちの賢さと優しさに涙が出そうになります🥹❤️
This video of good dogs protecting babies is one of the most beautiful videos you’ll see on the internet today ❤

[Hellywood @HellywoodGaming]

This is pure propaganda to frame activists as members of Hamas or antisemetic.

The actual footage shows nothing at all.
The people who are being interviewed are framing the entire episode and they are framing global activists without any single proof.

Another sad attempt of the zionist pigs to discredit people who stand up for humanity.

At this point, it's just funny. Pathetic scum.

[Ryan Hart @thisdudelikesAI]

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts.

So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world.

What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable.

Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations.

The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead.

Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described.

The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding.

The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months.
Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.

Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now.

She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

[theselongwars @theselongwars_]

still not quite over the fact that i watched 15 year olds get sued for millions of dollars for downloading twelve songs and now we all have to accept AI slop because every tech company in the known universe decided that IP laws don't exist now that they're inconvenient for them

[Steve Lawrence @SteveLawrence_]

We've known for well over 100 years. Internalising the shape of the letters through the motion of the arm and hand changes the structure of the brain.

Take a look at Solange Denervaud's brain research in Geneva too.

More and more brain research is telling us the same thing.

What follows from this is that writing precedes reading.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihteshamali]

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.

[Dr. Simon @goddek]

This tweet is going viral from a user who created their account in June 2020. In that same month, they posted a “prediction” claiming the COVID pandemic would end in 2023 and that Hantavirus would emerge in 2026.

And this is how these ‘SCAMS’ work:

Someone creates an X account, sets it to private, and posts hundreds of different predictions with every possible virus name and scenario imaginable. Then, once one event vaguely lines up with reality, they delete all the other failed predictions and leave only the “correct” one visible.

People do the exact same thing with predictions about the Pope dying, celebrity deaths, wars, and other major events.

You’re welcome.

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

Two thousand years ago, Roman engineers discovered a secret that modern science is only beginning to understand: a concrete that gets stronger with time.

Their legendary “marine concrete” was made by mixing volcanic ash, lime, and seawater — a combination that allowed structures like harbor piers and breakwaters to not only survive millennia of ocean waves but actually strengthen underwater.

Modern research has revealed the secret ingredient: a rare chemical reaction that produces aluminum tobermorite, a mineral that forms and expands over time, sealing cracks and reinforcing the material.

While modern cement crumbles in decades, Roman concrete endures for centuries. Engineers today are studying these ancient formulas to design self-healing, eco-friendly concretes that could revolutionize the building industry and drastically cut CO₂ emissions.

[Mindset Machine  @mindsetmachine]

A brain expert just said what no one wants to hear about screen learning.🤯

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

Sweden is committing more than €100 million to a sweeping classroom overhaul: replacing tablets and screens with traditional printed textbooks to help reverse falling student performance and sharpen focus.

After more than a decade of embracing digital-first education, Swedish authorities are now pivoting back to paper-based learning. Official data and recent studies cited by the Ministry of Education show that prolonged screen use in class has been linked to shorter attention spans, weaker reading comprehension, and reduced critical-thinking abilities.

Research consistently finds that reading on illuminated screens requires greater mental effort and invites more distractions compared to the calm, linear experience of physical books—factors believed to have contributed to declining academic outcomes in recent years.

Under the new plan, every student will receive printed textbooks for all core subjects, restoring books as the central learning tool. Digital devices and online resources will remain available as supportive tools, but they will no longer dominate daily instruction.

This bold €100+ million investment signals Sweden’s leadership in rethinking the role of technology in education. It underscores a broader, growing recognition worldwide: while screens provide speed and access, the hands-on, distraction-free engagement of physical books supports deeper concentration, stronger memory retention, and more effective long-term learning.

By choosing paper over pixels, Sweden is charting a path toward a more balanced, evidence-informed classroom future—one that puts proven pedagogical principles ahead of unchecked digital trends.

[VΩX @VoxExVeritas]

Proof that no one with money is trying to fix real problems.

[Sheldrick Wildlife Trust @SheldrickTrust]

An elephant-sized pacifier for one of our tiniest babies! Much like human infants, baby elephants derive great comfort from suckling. The orphans love to mouth their Keepers’ fingers and when the Keepers have their hands full, a bottle teat serves as an excellent stand-in.

Discover what nearly a century of raising orphaned elephants looks like in Kenya with your support: https://t.co/Vv7yll9JJt

[The Ocean Cleanup @TheOceanCleanup]

Our work continues in Jamaica, where our nine Interceptors located in Kingston stop trash from flowing into the Caribbean Sea.

[roxy demento @falseroxy]

this is exactly what she means, babe. if you aren't a fun and cool enough person to have a silly conversation or talk about something that isn't your absolute favorite topic without suddenly talking like a reddit mod who has let his power go to his head, you're a bad date.