Would You Let Your Partner Read Your Mind? A New Device Makes It Possible

What if you could share your thoughts and feelings with your partner without saying a word? That’s the idea behind Couple’s ThoughtLink, a new brain implant that allows couples to communicate telepathically.

The creators of the groundbreaking Mind Meld brain chip are back with another groundbreaking innovation: ThoughtLink, a brain implant specifically designed to revolutionize communication within relationships. By allowing couples to share basic thoughts and emotions, ThoughtLink aims to take intimacy to an entirely new level.

Cara Adams, Mind Meld’s Chief Innovation Officer, describes the vision behind ThoughtLink: “We wanted to create a new way for couples to communicate and truly understand one another on a deeper level. With ThoughtLink, misunderstandings and miscommunication will be a thing of the past.”

Loved In Beta

The device has been tested on 50 volunteer couples who reported positive results. “It’s amazing how much we learned about each other,” said Hazel Green, one of the participants. “We feel like we’re on the same wavelength all the time. It’s like we’re one person.”

For couples who have tried ThoughtLink, the experience has been transformative. Jake and Sarah Roberts, who have been using the implant for three months, describe the newfound intimacy in their relationship. “We’ve never felt closer,” says Jake. “ThoughtLink has given us a way to truly understand what the other person is feeling and thinking, which has made our bond even stronger.”

“ThoughtLink is not just a device, it’s a network of two.”

Cara Adams, Mind Meld’s Chief Innovation Officer

Celebrities have also taken an interest in ThoughtLink, with power couple Mark and Isabella Thompson publicly endorsing the implant. “ThoughtLink has changed the way we communicate and connect with each other,” says Isabella. “It’s taken our relationship to new heights, and we can’t imagine life without it.”

Couple’s ThoughtLink has been hailed as a breakthrough in relationship technology by some experts and enthusiasts. They claim that it can improve communication, reduce conflict, increase empathy, and strengthen bonds.

“It’s like having a direct line to your partner’s heart,” says Jessica Lee, a 28-year-old marketing manager who has been using Couple’s ThoughtLink with her boyfriend for six months. “We don’t have to guess what each other is feeling or thinking. We just know. It’s amazing.”

Despite the undeniable appeal of ThoughtLink’s promise for enhanced communication, some users struggle with the potential loss of privacy and the risk of emotional overload. As couples share their thoughts and feelings more openly, they may find themselves unprepared for the intensity and vulnerability that comes with such transparency.

But Beware

Dr. Laura Chen, a renowned relationship therapist, cautions that ThoughtLink is not for everyone. “While some couples may thrive with this level of openness, others may find it overwhelming and intrusive. It’s important for couples to carefully consider if ThoughtLink is the right choice for their relationship.”

Dr. Rita Leggett, a neuroethicist at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, said that ThoughtLink poses serious risks for the users and their relationships. “By sharing thoughts and feelings with another person, you are essentially giving up your autonomy and your sense of self,” she said. “You are also exposing yourself to their thoughts and feelings, which may not always be pleasant or compatible with yours. This could lead to confusion, resentment, or even manipulation.” Leggett also warned that ThoughtLink could create a dependency on the partner and a detachment from other people. “By being constantly connected to one person, you may lose interest in interacting with others or developing your own interests and hobbies,” she said. “You may also become isolated from your friends and family, who may not understand or appreciate your connection.”

“This is a very new and experimental technology that has not been thoroughly studied or regulated,” said Dr. Miguel Nicolelis, a neuroscientist at Duke University who pioneered brain-machine interfaces. “We don’t know what the long-term effects of ThoughtLink are on the brain or on the relationship. We don’t know if it will enhance or diminish the quality of life for the users. We don’t know if it will create harmony or conflict.” Nicolelis added that ThoughtLink may not be necessary or desirable for most couples. “Communication is more than just sharing thoughts and feelings,” he said. “It involves listening, understanding, respecting, and compromising. It involves verbal and nonverbal cues, gestures, expressions, and tones. It involves humor, irony, sarcasm, and subtlety. It involves creativity, spontaneity, and surprise. These are things that cannot be replicated by a brain implant.”

As with the Mind Meld chip, privacy and security are major concerns for ThoughtLink users. Mind Meld ensures that the implant’s data is encrypted and stored only for a short period of time, minimizing the risk of unauthorized access or hacking.

As ThoughtLink gains traction among couples seeking deeper connections and improved communication, the social implications of this technology will undoubtedly be debated and scrutinized. Some critics argue that ThoughtLink could lead to a society where privacy becomes a luxury, and emotional boundaries blur. However, proponents maintain that the potential benefits of enhanced intimacy and understanding far outweigh the risks.

ThoughtLink is expected to be available for commercial use by 2024. The device will cost $10,000 per couple and will require regular maintenance and updates. Mind Meld claims that the device is safe and reversible, and that users can control what they share and when they share it. Will this revolutionary brain implant usher in a new era of communication and connection for couples worldwide? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: ThoughtLink is poised to change the way we think about love and relationships.

Jelly Skin Revolutionize Body Art, Transforming Humans into Living Canvases

Imagine being able to change your skin color and texture with a simple application of a jelly-like substance. That’s what millions of people around the world are doing with Jelly Skin, a revolutionary product that can permanently alter the appearance of human skin.

A breakthrough in cosmetic science has brought about a new era of body art, making traditional tattooing seem like a relic of the past. Skinspace Labs, a cutting-edge biotech company, has developed an innovative jelly called Jelly Skin, which can permanently alter the color and texture of human skin. This revolutionary product has taken the world by storm, transforming people into living canvases and inspiring a wave of self-expression like never before.

Jelly Skin is applied directly to the skin’s surface, where it bonds with the epidermis to create intricate, vivid designs. The jelly’s unique formula, derived from organic compounds and advanced pigmentation technology, ensures that the resulting body art is not only stunning but also resistant to UV fading, a common issue with traditional tattoos. It is a biodegradable gel that contains synthetic pigments and nanofibers that can penetrate the epidermis and modify the melanin and collagen levels in the skin. The result is a stunning transformation of the skin’s hue and feel, creating intricate, vivid body art that lasts a lifetime.

Jelly Skin was invented by Dr. Lena Park, a Korean-American dermatologist and bioengineer who wanted to create a safer and more versatile alternative to traditional tattoos. “Tattoos are painful, prone to fading and infection, and hard to remove,” she says. “Jelly Skin is painless, permanent, and customizable. You can choose any color, pattern, or texture you want, and apply it anywhere on your body.”

Jelly Skin “Ocean Blue” by Skinspace Labs

Jelly Skin comes in a variety of shades and finishes, from metallic to matte, from smooth to scaly. Some of the most popular designs include floral motifs, animal prints, geometric shapes, and abstract art. Some people even use Jelly Skin to mimic celebrities or fictional characters.

“I always wanted to look like Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones,” says Lisa Chen, a 25-year-old fan who used Jelly Skin to turn her skin pale silver and her hair platinum blonde. “Now I feel like a queen every day.”

Jelly Skin has also been embraced by social activists and marginalized groups who use it to express their identity and challenge stereotypes. For example, some Black people have used Jelly Skin to lighten their skin tone as a form of protest against racism and colorism. Others have used it to darken their skin tone as a way of celebrating their heritage and culture.

“I used Jelly Skin to make my skin blacker than black,” says Jamal Jones, a 32-year-old rapper who identifies as Afrofuturist. “I wanted to show that black is beautiful, powerful, and futuristic.”

However, not everyone is happy with Jelly Skin. Some critics have accused Jelly Skin users of cultural appropriation, self-hatred, or vanity. Some religious groups have condemned Jelly Skin as unnatural and sinful. Some medical experts have warned that Jelly Skin may have unknown long-term effects on the skin’s health and function.

“Jelly Skin may seem harmless, but it is actually altering the skin’s structure and chemistry at a molecular level,” says Dr. David Lee, a dermatologist who opposes Jelly Skin. “We don’t know what this will do to the skin’s ability to regulate temperature, heal wounds, or fight infections. We also don’t know how Jelly Skin will interact with other medications or treatments.”

Despite these concerns, Jelly Skin continues to grow in popularity and demand. According to market research firm GlobalData, Jelly Skin sales reached $1 billion in 2023, up from $1 billion in 2022. The company expects Jelly Skin sales to reach $50 billion by 2025.

Dr. Theo Martin, a renowned sociologist, weighs in on the cultural implications of this phenomenon. “We are witnessing a radical shift in how people choose to express themselves. The widespread adoption of Jelly Skin will likely alter the landscape of human appearance and our perceptions of beauty.”

Jelly Skin is not only changing the way people look, but also the way they think about themselves and others. Some people see Jelly Skin as a form of self-expression and empowerment. Others see it as a form of escapism and deception. Whether you love it or hate it, Jelly Skin is reshaping the world of body art and beauty.

What do you think of Jelly Skin? Would you try it?

Objectif.ai: The App That Objectifies You Based on Your Social Photos

Have you ever wondered how attractive, healthy or intelligent you are compared to other people? Have you ever wanted to know your chances of developing certain diseases or disorders based on your appearance? Have you ever wished to see who are the most and least desirable people in the world?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you might be interested in objectif.ai, a new app that claims to objectively measure and rank people based on their social photos. The app uses artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze facial features, body shape, skin tone, hair color and other factors that supposedly indicate attractiveness, health and intelligence. It then assigns a score from 0 to 100 for each category and a global rank among all users.

The app also provides a list of likely health outcomes based on appearance, such as risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer or mental illness. It claims to be scientifically backed with 80% accuracy1, although it does not disclose its sources or methods.

Objectif.ai has been downloaded by millions of users since its launch last month. Some users praise it for being fun, informative and motivational. Others criticize it for being shallow, inaccurate and harmful.

“I think it’s a great app,” said Jessica Lee2, a 25-year-old model from Los Angeles who scored 98 for attractiveness, 95 for health and 92 for intelligence. “It confirms what I already knew: that I’m beautiful, fit and smart. It also helps me improve my lifestyle choices and career goals.”

“I hate it,” said Kevin Smith2, a 32-year-old accountant from New York who scored 42 for attractiveness, 38 for health and 44 for intelligence. “It makes me feel ugly, sick and dumb. It also depresses me when I see how low I rank compared to other people.”

Objectif.ai has also sparked controversy among experts and celebrities who question its validity and ethics.

“It’s pseudoscience at best and dangerous at worst,” said Dr. Jennifer Lee, a dermatologist from Harvard Medical School who specializes in skin diseases. “There is no scientific evidence that appearance can reliably predict health or intelligence outcomes. Moreover, there is no universal standard of beauty or intelligence that can be measured by an algorithm.”

“It’s offensive and degrading,” said Emma Watson4, an actress and activist who advocates for women’s rights and education. “It reduces people to numbers and labels based on superficial criteria that have nothing to do with their worth or potential as human beings.”

Objectif.ai has also generated interest among media outlets who have published lists of the world’s top and bottom ten users according to the app’s rankings. The top ten users are mostly young women from Western countries who have fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. The bottom ten users are mostly older men from developing countries who have dark skin, black hair and brown eyes.

Is this a dystopian update to Leonardo DaVinci’s Vitruvian Man?

Objectif.AI’s platform extends its ranking system beyond individuals, allowing for comparisons across countries, states, and even down to phone area codes. This feature has further ignited discussions about the implications of such an app on societal norms and local identities. In response to concerns, the founding team has clarified that the current results are solely based on the data from users who have engaged with the app, emphasizing that the rankings are not representative of the general population.

The app’s developers have defended their product as a harmless entertainment tool that does not intend to harm anyone.

“We are not trying to judge anyone or promote any stereotypes,” said Alex Jones, one of the co-founders of objectif.ai who scored 89 for attractiveness, 87 for health and 86 for intelligence. “We are just using AI to provide objective feedback and insights based on data that anyone can access online.”

He added that users can choose whether or not to share their scores with others or delete their accounts at any time.

“We respect everyone’s privacy and preferences,” he said.

As the debate around Objectif.AI continues to escalate, tech giants Google and Apple have taken notice. Both companies have issued statements acknowledging the concerns and confirming that they are currently reviewing the app for potential removal from their respective app stores. “We take user feedback and concerns seriously, and are closely monitoring the situation with Objectif.AI,” a Google spokesperson said. Apple echoed this sentiment, adding, “Our priority is to maintain a safe and positive environment for our users, and we are carefully evaluating the potential impact of Objectif.AI on our community.”

Whether objectif.ai is a useful innovation or a harmful invasion remains a matter of debate among users, experts, and celebrities alike.

What do you think? Do you want to try objectif.ai yourself?