This video features former FBI agent and body language expert Joe Navarro explaining how to identify manipulative, dangerous personalities and detect psychological discomfort in others.    Key Takeaways: Deception vs. Discomfort: Navarro explains that there is no single behavior that proves someone is lying. Instead, observers should watch for signs of psychological discomfort—such as jaw shifting (1:05-1:18), hard swallowing (1:33-1:38), ventilating behaviors (1:46-2:12), or mouth distortion (2:55-3:44)—that occur in response to specific questions.   The Power of Gut Instinct: Our brains assess potential danger in just 3 milliseconds (0:00-0:08, 37:04-37:18). Navarro urges viewers never to ignore their "gut feelings," as they are an evolutionary alarm system designed to keep us safe (38:25-39:24).   Five Dangerous Personality Types: The conversation covers traits associated with sociopaths, psychopaths, paranoids, borderlines, and narcissists (18:41, 44:59, 53:21, 54:01). A core theme is how these individuals attempt to control a victim's time, space, thoughts, and physical body (29:00-31:00).   Spotting Narcissism: Navarro defines narcissism as the overvaluation of self and the devaluation of others. A major red flag is someone who never asks questions about you, showing they are only interested in themselves (54:16-56:00, 1:08:43-1:09:52).   Breaking Free: The discussion emphasizes that no one is socially obligated to be a victim. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable, you have the right to set boundaries or remove yourself from the situation entirely (36:20-36:47, 59:58-1:01:21).

I tag you here and at nk. Warning, you will need tissue after reading

AI JP woman whose creator likes armpits  

Two men have been accused of stalking, harassing and threatening a man and woman after they left Keat Hong Community Centre. A two-minute TikTok video shows police officers attending a late-night confrontation, while the woman repeatedly alleges she was stalked and the man says he feared being attacked.   https://news.theonlinecitizen.com/2026/08/12/two-men-accused-of-stalking-and-harassing-pair-from-keat-hong-community-centre   Full Details of the Incident   Source: The Online Citizen, 12 Aug 2026 | Based on a 2-minute TikTok video posted by user @handphone_robbery_in_cck (allegations not independently verified)   Background & Allegations   - Parties involved: A man and a woman (the accusers) vs. two other men (the accused). - Sequence: The accusers said they had been using the internet at Keat Hong Community Centre (KHCC). They alleged the two men followed/stalked them from KHCC all the way back to their HDB block, continuing to harass, threaten, and obstruct them. - Specific alleged acts: - Threatened to punch them in the face and made threats to their lives/safety — reportedly done at a staircase directly facing a police surveillance camera. - Blocked/obstructed them from entering and taking the lift up to their flat. - Allegedly enlisted a male cyclist to help keep the lift doors open and prevent the pair from leaving. - Demanded they stop recording and delete footage of the alleged offences. - Counter move: The accused men themselves called the police for assistance, leading to officers arriving at the scene.   What the Video Shows   - Two police officers respond to the late-night confrontation involving four people. - One officer stands in front of the camera, with the two accused men behind him; the second officer speaks with the man and woman. - Woman (behind camera): Repeatedly shouts “He stalk me”, states they were at KHCC using the internet, urges checking CCTV, and says the accused challenged her, claiming she was taking photos — which she denied. - Man (accompanying her): Voices fear: “This is our safety, we are going back home… I'm scared we are going to get hammered or what.” Explains they just came from KHCC. - Officers separate the two men to one side while taking statements; the woman continues making allegations throughout the recording. - Identities beyond what is visible/audible are not revealed.   Important Note   All claims in the TikTok post and video remain unverified; no official confirmation, charges, or police findings are stated in the report.

💻 英国一名医学生撰写的毕业论文因“太完美”而被校方怀疑使用人工智能代写，最终被裁定学术不端并遭处分。尽管他坚称论文完全由自己撰写，并且成功就处分程序提出申诉，但这场风波仍导致他延迟毕业。   https://8w.news/4wUtByb   Truth Check: UK Medical Student Accused of Using AI   The core story is true, but the headline and some wording are somewhat sensationalised.   What is confirmed   The student is Harrison Sharples, a medical student at the University of St Andrews.   He submitted a dissertation concerning play therapy and anxiety in hospitalised children.   The university became suspicious that AI had been used.   The concerns reportedly included the paper's very polished language, highly consistent sentence structure, lack of grammatical errors, repeated expressions, and frequent use of em dashes.   Sharples denied using AI and maintained that he had written the dissertation himself.   He was initially found to have committed academic misconduct.   He subsequently appealed successfully.   However, the successful appeal does not necessarily mean the university formally proved that he had definitely not used AI. The appeal concerned problems with the original disciplinary process.   The dispute delayed his academic progress and graduation.     ⚠️ The misleading part   The headline essentially suggests:   > “His dissertation was too perfect, so the university suspected AI and punished him.”       That is an oversimplification.   It would be misleading to interpret the case as:   “The dissertation was very good → an AI detector said it was AI → the university automatically found him guilty.”   The concerns appear to have involved several human-observed characteristics of the writing, rather than simply relying on one AI detector score.   The important distinction   “AI-like writing” does not equal “AI-generated writing.”   For example:   Very consistent writing → could be AI, but could also be extensive editing.   Excellent grammar → could be AI, but could simply mean the student is a strong writer.   Frequent use of em dashes → could be an AI-style characteristic, but it can also simply be someone's writing habit.   Highly structured arguments → could be AI, but academic writing is naturally structured.     Therefore:   > Suspicion is not proof.       🚨 Another important point   Winning an appeal does not necessarily mean the university admitted that the student was completely innocent of AI use.   A successful academic appeal can mean that the original decision-making process was flawed or procedurally unfair, requiring the decision to be overturned or reconsidered.   That is different from a formal finding that:   > “It has been scientifically proven that this student never used AI.”       My Truth Verdict   Claim Verdict   A UK medical student was investigated over suspected AI use ✅ True He denied using AI ✅ True The quality/style of his writing contributed to the suspicion ✅ Essentially true He was initially found guilty of academic misconduct ✅ True He successfully appealed ✅ True The appeal demonstrated that he definitely never used AI ❌ Not established An AI detector alone proved he cheated ❌ Not supported He was punished simply because his dissertation was “too good” ⚠️ Over-simplified The controversy delayed his graduation ✅ True     Bottom line   This is not simply a story about “a student being punished for being too good.”   The more important issue is the evidential and procedural standard for accusing students of AI-assisted academic misconduct.   The biggest piece of bullshit in the viral version is the leap from:   > “The writing raised suspicion that AI might have been used.”       to:   > “The writing was too perfect, therefore the student used AI.”       Those are not logically equivalent.   The case highlights a fundamental problem with AI-related academic investigations: an AI-like writing style may justify further investigation, but by itself it is not proof of authorship by AI.