Vinícius Costa

Retro-Gamer louco pelo Dingoo-A320 dele e fascinado em novas tecnologias :)

[Vinícius Costa @vns_costa]

@ItsRealAlec DUO

[Chioma ❁ @bzingers]

POV: cutest compilation video of dogs being too clingy 🥹🥰

[Stormi @ortiz_remi43541]

My dog ​​became the delivery
man's best friend. 😘

[Avelino Morganti @AvelinoReAu]

Se vocês soubessem o verdadeiro motivo, ficariam assustados...

O espelho "inverter horizontalmente" não me assusta tanto quanto isso aqui.

Vcs sabiam que a imagem chega no seu olho de cabeça pra baixo? E não é só na vertical: a lente inverte nas duas direções, ou seja, a imagem chega girada 180°.

Minha teoria: a gente vive numa simulação e o Criador fez assim pra economizar processamento. Porque girar 180° é a operação mais barata que existe.

Uma imagem é uma matriz de pixels. Pra girar ela num ângulo θ qualquer, cada pixel passa por:

x' = x·cosθ - y·senθ
y' = x·senθ + y·cosθ

São 4 multiplicações e 2 somas por pixel, por frame, por observador. Somos 8 bilhões. O gasto de processamento pra renderizar a realidade ia ser absurdo.

Agora com θ = 180°, cos = -1 e sen = 0:

x' = -x
y' = -y

Zero multiplicação. É só trocar o sinal.

E na memória é melhor ainda: girar uma imagem 180° é literalmente ler o array de pixels de trás pra frente. O cérebro não "desvira" nada. Ele só lê ao contrário.

Inverter na horizontal (o que a gente acha que o espelho faz) também sai de graça: o pixel da coluna j vai pra coluna n-1-j. Nem é um calculo, é só ler cada linha ao contrário. No Python é a[:, ::-1] e nem copia a imagem, só muda a direção do ponteiro.

Mas o espelho faz algo ainda mais barato: inverte só o eixo frente/trás. A matriz é:

[1 0 0]
[0 1 0]
[0 0 -1]

Custo: 1 bit. Literalmente o bit de sinal do número. Enquanto isso, videogame renderiza a cena duas vezes pra fazer um espelho. Por isso todo jogo tem espelho quebrado ou embaçado.

Agora pensa na nossa realidade, na quantidade de espelhos que existem... água, objetos reflexivos, metálicos...

E por que parece que o espelho troca esquerda e direita? Porque reflexo tem determinante -1 e rotação tem +1. Nenhum giro te transforma no seu reflexo. O cérebro faz o giro mais barato (meia-volta) e culpa a esquerda/direita pela sobra.

Conclusão: estamos em uma simulação e o Universo faz isso pra economizar energia e processamento.

Espelho: um sinal de menos.
Olho: ler o array de trás pra frente.

E isso porque eu nem falei de mecânica quântica, observador, renderização da realidade, economia de energia...

Pixel: a energia não é contínua, ela vem em pacotinhos (os quanta). A realidade é digital.

Observador: no experimento da dupla fenda, o elétron se comporta como onda. Quando alguém mede por onde ele passou, o padrão de onda some. Igual jogo que só renderiza o que está na frente da câmera.

Resolução: existe um tamanho mínimo, o comprimento de Planck. Abaixo dele, a física que a gente conhece para de funcionar. Parece a resolução máxima da tela.

Limite do processador: nada passa da velocidade da luz. Nem informação.

Entrelaçamento: duas partículas ligadas dão resultados combinados, não importa a distância entre elas. Parecem duas variáveis apontando pro mesmo endereço de memória.

Economia de energia: a natureza sempre segue o caminho que gasta menos. Na física isso tem até nome: princípio da menor ação.

Render distance: só dá pra enxergar até uns 46 bilhões de anos-luz. Depois disso, nada carrega.

Algoritmo de compactação: seus sentidos recebem cerca de 1 bilhão de bits por segundo, mas o pensamento consciente roda a uns 10 bits por segundo (estudo do Caltech, 2024). Você só tem consciência de 0,000001% do que chega. E a compressão começa no próprio olho: são uns 120 milhões de células captando luz e só 1 milhão de fibras no nervo óptico. Comprime 100 pra 1 antes de mandar pro servidor.

Até um filósofo de Oxford, Nick Bostrom, publicou um artigo em 2003 dizendo que essa hipótese deve ser levada a sério.

Se um dia seu reflexo atrasar meio segundo, não comenta com ninguém. Só continua cumprindo seu papel nessa simulação.

[​𝐥𝐲𝐫𝐚 @sunnkssdseraph]

No one lives your life, not your parents, friends or partners. People may claim that they understand but they don't understand your life the way you do. Guilt is attached to several decisions of our lives, guilt for staying, guilt for leaving, guilt for waiting, guilt for letting go, guilt for holding on. Maybe it's time to own our decisions and embrace the guilt that comes with it. People will say things no matter what we do. At the end of the day, you will live with what you choose, so make sure you're the one making them.

[Gandalv @Microinteracti1]

This is a genuinely great video. An American spends the entire first week of the World Cup watching football the wrong way, then explains exactly why the sport finally clicked for him.

His journey is the one every new fan goes through. He started out doing what almost everyone does at first, staring at the ball and the player carrying it, waiting for something to happen. Watched that way, football looks like 88 minutes of nothing and two minutes of chaos.

Then he stopped watching the ball and started watching the system. What are the other ten players doing right now? Who is dragging a defender out of position? Who is quietly closing down a passing lane thirty yards from the action? The moment you stop following the ball like a puppy chasing a tennis ball, a completely different game appears. That is the next level.

And this is the part I want to add for everyone making the same discovery this summer. When you watch all eleven players and the tactics underneath, the ideas each team is trying to impose on the other, you enter a dimension that has nothing to do with counting goals. A 2-1 scoreline sounds almost insulting if goals are your only currency. But a goal in football is not a point on a scoreboard. It is the end product of an enormous collective effort, sometimes twenty passes deep, built on runs that never receive the ball and pressing that started in the opponent’s half three minutes earlier.

Ten men work in the shadows so one man can finish in the light. That scarcity is exactly what makes a goal detonate a stadium of 80,000 people in a way few things in sport can match.

So to everyone watching the world’s most beautiful game for the first time this month, whether you’re in America, Europe or anywhere else on the planet: welcome. Every single one of us started out staring at the ball. The game simply rewards you the moment you look up.

Stay connected,
Follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

[Anish Moonka @anishmoonka]

A psychologist watched thousands of couples argue for 40 years. The ones who stayed together and the ones who divorced fought just as much. How often you fight barely predicts anything. The clearest warning sign is quieter: one partner rolling their eyes at the other.

His name is John Gottman. He wired couples up to heart monitors, filmed them fighting, then waited years to see who broke up.

The couples who lasted shared one habit. For every cold moment in a fight, a snap, a jab, a nasty look, they had about five warm ones. A joke, a hand on the knee, a quiet "okay, fair." When they were getting along, the warm stuff outweighed the cold by far more. The couples heading for a split were running close to even, more digs than make-ups. The warmth around the fight is what held them together.

The worst sign of all is contempt. That word covers eye-rolling, sarcasm, mocking how your partner talks, treating them like they are stupid or beneath you. Gottman could watch a couple fight for fifteen minutes and guess who would divorce with about 90% accuracy, mostly by counting moments like that. Plain old anger barely registered. Some of the couples who yelled the loudest turned out to be the happiest, as long as they were kind to each other the rest of the time.

There is also a physical reason the calm conversation he wants is nearly impossible in the heat of a fight. When your heart races past about 100 beats a minute, your body drops into survival mode, and the part of your brain that listens and feels for someone else goes quiet. Gottman called it flooding. Your body needs a full twenty minutes to settle, and only if you stop replaying the fight in your head. Loving someone does not switch off the adrenaline.

Most of what couples fight about never gets fixed anyway. Around 69% of it comes from the basic ways two people differ, in personality and in what they want out of life, and that does not change. Happy couples have the same three or four arguments for thirty years. They just stop trying to win and learn to argue without cutting each other down.

So the line in the tweet has it backwards. A couple that never fights is often the one quietly falling apart. Usually it means one person stopped speaking up, and the warmth drained away while the room stayed calm.

[Anish Moonka @anishmoonka]

A kid drew himself sleeping in bed between mom and dad and labeled it 'safe.'

In Japan, this exact sleeping arrangement has a name. They call it 'the river.' Mother is one bank. Father is the other. The child between them is the water. Roughly 70% of Japanese mothers sleep this way with their kids, sometimes through the teenage years. The Western model of putting a kid alone in their own bedroom is barely 200 years old. For most of human history, in most cultures still alive today, kids slept beside their parents.

James McKenna runs the Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Lab at Notre Dame. He spent decades watching what happens when parents and kids share a bed. The bodies sync up. Heart rates align with the parent's, breathing falls into the same rhythm, and by morning even sleep stages have started matching. The parent's body, in McKenna's words, acts as a kind of biological jumper cable for the child's.

In 2013, researchers in the Netherlands tracked 193 babies through the first year of life. They measured cortisol, the brain's main stress hormone. Babies who had spent more weeks co-sleeping in the first six months produced less cortisol under stress at 12 months. Sleeping near a parent had rewired the kid's stress system to be calmer under pressure.

Inside the kid's brain at night, the amygdala, the fear alarm, gets more sensitive as the body gets tired. Darkness makes it worse. A 2021 paper in PLoS One from Australian researchers showed that light directly suppresses amygdala activity. Lights off, alarm louder. The whole brain is wired to read 'alone in a dark room' as a threat.

Now add a parent's body to that bed. The kid's nervous system reads warm body, breathing nearby, familiar smell. The threat alarm dials down. Two parents on either side dial it down twice. The drawing is the kid's brain calculating maximum safety: I am surrounded by the people who keep me alive, and nothing can reach me without going through them first.

The arrangement in this drawing is what most of human history called 'sleeping.' Sleeping the kid alone in another room is a 200-year-old Western invention that we forgot was an invention. Every kid who has ever padded into your room at 3am and crawled into the middle of the bed is just trying to redraw the picture.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihteshamali]

A community college professor taught the same study skills lecture for 30 years, and the video quietly became one of the most watched educational recordings on the internet.

His name is Marty Lobdell. He spent his career as a psychology professor watching students fail not because they were lazy, but because nobody had ever taught them how their brain actually works under the pressure of learning something hard.

The lecture is called "Study Less Study Smart." Over 10 million views. Passed around in Reddit threads, Discord servers, and university study groups for over a decade. And the core insight buried inside it has been sitting in cognitive psychology research for years, waiting for someone to explain it in plain language.

Here is the framework that completely changed how I think about effort.

Your brain does not sustain focus the way you think it does. Studies tracking real students found that the average learner hits a wall somewhere between 25 and 30 minutes.

After that, efficiency doesn't just decline. It collapses. You're still sitting at your desk, still looking at the page, but almost nothing is going in.

Lobdell illustrated this with a student he knew personally. She set a goal of studying 6 hours a night, 5 nights a week, to pull herself out of academic probation. Thirty hours of studying per week. She failed every single class that quarter.

She wasn't failing because she lacked effort. She was failing because she had confused time spent near books with time spent actually learning. The 25-minute crash hit her at 6:30pm every night. She spent the next five and a half hours sitting in the wreckage of her own focus and calling it studying.

The fix sounds almost too simple. The moment you feel the slide, stop. Take five minutes. Do something that actually gives you a small reward. Then go back. That five-minute reset returns you to near full efficiency. Across a six-hour window, the difference is not marginal. It is the difference between thirty minutes of real learning and five and a half hours of it.

The second thing he taught destroyed something I had believed about how memory actually works.

Highlighting feels productive. Going back over your notes and recognizing everything feels like knowing. But recognition and recollection are two completely different cognitive processes, and your brain is very good at making you confuse them.

You can see something you've read before and feel completely certain you understand it, even when you couldn't reconstruct a single sentence from memory if the page were blank.

He proved this live in the room. He read 13 random letters to his audience. Almost nobody could recall them. Then he rearranged the same 13 letters into two words: Happy Thursday. The whole room got all 13 without effort.

Same letters. Same count. The only thing that changed was meaning.

The brain stores meaning. Not repetition. The moment new information connects to something you already understand, the retention changes entirely.

This is what the cognitive psychology literature calls elaborative encoding, and it is the mechanism underneath every effective study technique.

The third principle was the one that hit me hardest, and the one almost nobody applies.

Lobdell cited research showing that 80 percent of your study time should be spent in active recitation, not passive reading. Close the material. Say it back in your own words.

Teach it to someone else, or to an empty chair if no one is around. The struggle of retrieval is where the actual learning happens. Reading your notes again is watching someone else do the work.

His parting line has stayed with me longer than almost anything else I have read about learning.

He told the room that if what he shared didn't change their behavior, they hadn't actually learned it. It would just live in their heads as something they had heard once and felt good about.

He was right. And most people leave every lecture exactly like that.

The students who remember everything aren't putting in more hours.

They stopped confusing the feeling of studying with the fact of it.

[Aakash Gupta @aakashgupta]

There's a physicist at Stanford named Safi Bahcall who modeled this exact principle and the math is wild.

He calls it "phase transitions in human networks." When you're stationary, your probability of a lucky event is limited to your existing surface area: the people you already know, the places you already go, the ideas you've already been exposed to. Your opportunity window is fixed.

When you move, your collision rate with new nodes in a network increases nonlinearly. Double your movement (new conversations, new cities, new projects) and your probability of a serendipitous encounter doesn't double. It roughly quadruples. Because each new node connects you to their entire network, not just to them.

Richard Wiseman ran a 10-year study at the University of Hertfordshire tracking self-described "lucky" and "unlucky" people. The single biggest differentiator wasn't IQ, education, or family money. Lucky people scored significantly higher on one trait: openness to experience. They talked to strangers more, varied their routines more, and said yes to invitations at nearly twice the rate.

The "unlucky" group followed the same routes, ate at the same restaurants, and talked to the same 5 people. Their networks were closed loops. No new inputs, no new collisions.

Luck isn't random. Luck is surface area. And surface area is a function of movement.

The lobster emoji is doing more work than most people realize. Lobsters grow by shedding their shell when it gets too tight. The growth requires a period of total vulnerability. No protection, no armor, soft body exposed to the ocean.

That's the cost of movement nobody posts about. You have to be uncomfortable first. The new shell only hardens after you've already moved.

[lauro @lauromandela]

peguei um livro de contos do machado de assis já no começo ele manda “a ausência diminui as paixões medíocres e aumenta as grandes, como o vento apaga as velas e atiça as fogueiras”. tá maluco

[Time Brasil @timebrasil]

Aura. 🥇

[Wholesome Side of 𝕏 @itsme_urstruly]

Everything about this was perfect, but my favorite part was the world shaking with that initial paw stomp

[iti malias @itimaliasof]

Parecendo criança que o olho tá fechando mas não vai dormir só 😂

[capiria mais apaixonada desse calçadão @AScouti]

@lucasbarrosd_

[iti malias @itimaliasof]

Ele procurando com a patinha pra não perder o foco do olhar.😂😂

[Gilberto Gil @gilbertogil]

Se você precisasse apresentar a música brasileira em dois discos, quais seriam?