Huge upgrade to loading speeds coming soon, especially with... DLL-heavy codebases like UE! The primary reason PDB -> RDI conversion (or PDB parsing in debuggers more generally) is a big bottleneck in startup time is because they must be converted/parsed/loaded _serially_. This may seem surprising, since intuitively it'd seem like they can be converted/parsed/loaded/etc. in parallel. This is not true in the general case due to breakpoints, and how they relate to an API like `LoadLibrary`, and how it translates into debug events. When a debuggee runs `LoadLibrary`, the debugger will receive a debug event informing the debugger that the associated module was loaded. Any time a debug event is sent to the debugger, the debuggee stops running entirely. This is so that the debugger can make decisions about how the debuggee should proceed. For example, if I have a breakpoint on `foo.c:123`, that file name and line number can only be correctly interpreted (meaning resolved into code addresses) using debug information. The debugger only knows about that debug information from the PDB - without it, that file/line combo is meaningless. But importantly, the debugger cannot *resume* the debuggee until it has resolved that breakpoint - otherwise the debuggee may execute code which *would've* hit the breakpoint, *if* it were resolved in time. So, the debugger needs to ensure that all breakpoints are fully resolved before resuming. This is a correctness detail that everyone has to pay for, basically because `LoadLibrary`s are received one-at-a-time. Obviously, if it were instead an API like `LoadLibraries`, then the debugger could prepare all of the debug info in one batch before resuming - but it doesn't know what that batch would be, given just an initial `LoadLibrary`. This is unfortunate, because *generally* you are not debugging the code loading a bunch of DLLs, but the debugger can't really know that. (It is probably a good idea to provide a `raddbg_load_libraries` API at some point, so that we can resolve this issue on the debuggee side). In any case, RADDBG now resolves breakpoints much more quickly by avoiding 99% of debug info conversion work to do a common case of breakpoint resolution - you might call this "breakpoint disqualification". Basically, if a breakpoint is set, and we can quickly determine that that breakpoint's information (file location, expression, condition, etc.) *cannot apply* to some module's debug info - more quickly than doing a *full* PDB -> RDI conversion (which entails a full parse & a bunch of work) - then we can simplify the very common case in DLL-heavy cases: you put a breakpoint on `foo.c:123`, when 99% of the DLLs do not have any line info for that file, so the debugger can resume *knowing* that breakpoint will not resolve within that file. In this demo video, you can see I place a breakpoint that only resolves within the executable's debug info - it does not resolve within any of the 100 DLLs that are loaded serially. Within the `Modules` tab, you can see that as I run the target, most of the debug info is not loaded initially, even though the debuggee is running. That debug info is loading in parallel, as the debugger knows it does not need to wait for that debug info to be prepared for this breakpoint.show more

Excited about a new debug feature in Visual Studio... Code for all languages: Triggered Breakpoints! Triggered breakpoints are activated only when another breakpoint gets hit. Really useful when looking for that one bug in code with lots of events or loops:show more

OK, I have a definitive word on the CJ... Abrams play from today's Pittsburgh Pirates at Washington Nationals game after talking with Elias Sports Bureau on this. This play will stay as a sacrifice fly. The originial ruling of NOT a sacrifice fly was for the exact same reason that I thought, which is that the infielder is not running into the outfield, which is year's past would have been correct As it was explained to me, in past years, an infielder had to be running almost in a straight line towards the outfield wall to be considered "running in the outfield". Here, since he is running, and he ends up further away from home (157 feet) than when he started (145 feet), this is going to count as a sacrifice fly. That definition is changing, in part from this play to help bring greater consistency, and to take some of the guesswork out of it (the argument that he is running into the outfield as opposed to more parallel). Now, folks all the time ask "why doesn't MLB publish the OS Manual" and I always say because it is a living document that can have the wording change, and the wording for this play will be modified to something like "more towards the outfield wall than towards home plate" to eliminate any confusion. The big key to this play is that he was running on a full sprint. Also, and this is helpful for me, but for all fly ball outs that score a run, Elias Saba reviews to ensure consistency. So, yes, it's a sacrifice fly, and now that I have that info from Elias themselves, that sort of settles this one. Sounds like the guidelines for this definition will be changing, either this season, or certainly for next season.show more

An animal with no skeleton, no spine and no... teacher just engineered a fortress out of garbage it was already carrying. Then it vanished from the food chain in plain sight. Do not scroll past this one. Watch it with sound off, then watch it again, and this time ignore the octopus. Watch what the fish does. That is where the real story is hiding. I have spent more than ten years studying why some things explode on this platform and others die at 40 views. The pattern is almost always the same: a clip that makes the brain say "wait, that can't be right." This is the purest version of that I have ever seen. No narration. No music. No trick. A creature that has never read a manual, never met its mother, and will be dead before its second birthday, running a defense protocol that most militaries would pay billions to replicate. Below is everything the video will not tell you. Read it first and the clip hits ten times harder. Skip it and you will have watched a cool octopus. Read it and you will understand that you just watched a mind. Let's go. PART 1. NOBODY TAUGHT IT Start with the fact that should bother you most. The vast majority of octopus species live a life with zero parental contact. The mother lays her eggs, then guards them for weeks or months without eating. She fans them with water, cleans them, and fights off anything that comes close. When the eggs hatch, she dies. In many species this is not tragic accident. It is the design. Her body is programmed to shut down once the job is done. So the baby octopus enters the ocean alone. Tiny. Soft. Edible. Surrounded by thousands of animals that would eat it in one bite, and with no elder to show it which cracks are safe, which shadows are dangerous, which shapes mean food and which shapes mean death. Think about what that means for a second. A wolf pup learns to hunt by watching its pack. A crow learns which humans to hate by watching other crows. A human child gets roughly eighteen years of supervised practice before anyone lets them near a car. The octopus gets nothing. Whatever it needs to survive, it either carries as instinct or invents on the spot. And yet. Octopuses open jars from the inside. They unscrew lids. They have learned to turn off aquarium lights by squirting water at the bulb until it shorts out. A famous octopus named Inky escaped from a New Zealand aquarium in 2016 by squeezing through a gap in his tank, crawling across the floor, and sliding down a 164-foot drainpipe into the bay. Nobody saw it happen. Staff only noticed the empty tank. None of these behaviors were taught. Every one of them was figured out by an animal with a lifespan shorter than a smartphone contract. That is the first thing to hold in your head before you press play: this is not a trained animal. This is not a behavior passed down through generations of mentorship. This is a lone problem solver in a hostile place, solving a problem in real time. Everything that follows is that principle, pushed to its limit. PART 2. THE BRAIN THAT DOES NOT LIVE IN ITS HEAD Ask a neuroscientist where an octopus thinks and you will get an answer that sounds like a joke. Everywhere. An octopus has roughly 500 million neurons. That is in the neighborhood of a dog. But here is the part that breaks the usual model of how brains work: about two thirds of those neurons are not in the head at all. They are in the arms. Each arm carries its own dense cluster of nerve tissue. Each arm can taste what it touches, because the suckers are covered in chemical sensors. Each arm can decide, locally, what to do next without waiting for permission from the central brain. Cut an arm off and, for a while, it will keep reacting to touch, recoil from pain, and even grab at food. It is a semi-autonomous agent. So when you watch an octopus work, you are not watching one brain command eight limbs the way you command your hands. You are watching something closer to a committee. A central intelligence that sets the goal, and eight specialists that figure out the details on the ground. This is why octopuses are so fast at tasks that would paralyze a human with decision overload. Imagine trying to consciously control eight flexible limbs with no joints, no bones, and an essentially infinite number of possible positions. A human engineer who tries to model that in software hits what is called the curse of dimensionality. The number of possible states is too large to compute. The octopus solved this by not computing it centrally. It distributed the problem. The brain says "protect me." The arms handle the geometry. Keep that in mind when you watch what happens in this clip. The speed is the point. The coordination is the point. No part of that sequence looks like a creature thinking hard. It looks like a creature that has already decided, and a body that is simply executing. The human equivalent would be a musician who stopped thinking about individual notes years ago. What you are seeing is not hesitation. It is fluency. And fluency in a defensive maneuver, in an animal with no parents, is a very strange thing to see. PART 3. THE SKIN THAT SEES Here is a fact that sounds fake and is not. Octopus skin contains light-sensitive proteins, the same family of molecules that your eyes use to detect light. Researchers have shown that the skin of at least one octopus species reacts to light even when the eyes and brain are not involved. The animal wears a sensor across its entire body. Now add this. Most octopuses appear to be colorblind. Their eyes carry a single type of photoreceptor, which in theory means they cannot tell red from green. And yet they match the color of coral, rock, sand and algae with a precision that makes professional camouflage designers look like amateurs. How does a colorblind animal match colors it cannot see? Nobody fully knows. One idea is that the skin itself senses the surroundings and adjusts. Another is that the odd shape of the octopus pupil lets it exploit a lens effect that turns color differences into focus differences. Both ideas are still debated. What is not debated is the output: an animal that can change color, pattern and even surface texture in a fraction of a second. Smooth to bumpy. Flat to spiky. Visible to invisible. Under the skin sit millions of tiny organs called chromatophores. Each one is a sac of pigment surrounded by muscles. Tighten the muscles and the sac stretches wide and the color appears. Relax and the color shrinks to a dot. Each chromatophore is controlled directly by the nervous system, so the animal paints itself at the speed of thought. This is the standard octopus defense. Vanish into the background. Which makes what you are about to watch strange. Because the animal in this clip is doing something that does not look like the standard playbook. It is not hiding by blending in. It is hiding by becoming something else entirely. Something the predator has been trained by evolution to ignore. Camouflage is a trick. What you are watching is a lie told with architecture. PART 4. THE DISCOVERY THAT BROKE A RULE For a long time, science drew a firm line around tool use. It was supposed to be what separated the clever animals from the rest. Chimpanzees using sticks to fish termites. Crows bending wire into hooks. Dolphins carrying sponges on their snouts to protect themselves while foraging. Primates, birds, a few marine mammals. A small, elite club of big-brained vertebrates. Invertebrates were not invited. Insects, mollusks, worms. These were considered programmed machines. Reflex and instinct, nothing more. Then in 2009, researchers published a paper in Current Biology documenting something nobody had formally recorded before. In Indonesia, they watched veined octopuses, a species commonly called the coconut octopus, collect discarded coconut shell halves from the seafloor. They did not use them as a lair. They picked them up, carried them across open sand, and later assembled them into a hiding place when they needed one. The scientists argued that this met the definition of tool use. The animal was not just using an object that happened to be there. It was transporting it and deploying it later for a future benefit. That is a different cognitive category. It requires the animal to understand, in some functional sense, that an object it does not need right now will be useful in a few minutes. That is planning. And the animal doing the planning has a brain that looks nothing like ours, evolved on a completely separate branch of life that split from ours more than half a billion years ago. The paper made headlines for a reason. It forced a rewrite of one of the oldest assumptions in animal cognition. You did not need a backbone to invent. You did not need a cortex. You did not need a social group. You needed a nervous system under enough evolutionary pressure to solve a problem that could not be solved any other way. Now here is where it gets uncomfortable. The same researchers noticed that carrying the shells was expensive. The octopus could not swim or jet away efficiently with its arms full. It had to walk, slowly, on the tips of its arms, hauling its protection across open ground where everything wanted to eat it. Read that again. It deliberately slows itself down and exposes itself to danger in order to bring armor to a place where armor does not yet exist. That is a bet. A calculated, expensive, high stakes bet on a future threat. Most animals do not make bets like that. Most animals respond to what is in front of them. This one prepares. PART 5. THE WALK THAT SHOULD NOT WORK If you have ever seen the way this animal moves while hauling its gear, you already know the image I am talking about. It looks wrong. It looks like something built by an artist who had never seen an animal. Biologists call the gait stilt walking, and it is not a gimmick. It is a solution to a real engineering problem. A soft body has no rigid structure to push against. An octopus cannot sprint the way a lizard can. When it crawls, it uses its arms as flexible levers, anchoring suckers to the ground and pulling. That works fine when the arms are free. Add a load, and the problem changes. Now the arms are doing double duty: carrying and moving. A load that big would turn a normal crawl into a drag. So instead, the animal lifts its body up on two of its arms and uses the others to hold the cargo against its underside. It walks like a person on stilts, with the cargo bundled underneath. Notice what that tells you. First, the animal can reconfigure which arms do which job. There is no fixed assignment. In a human, the left hand and right hand have defined roles shaped by years of practice. In an octopus, every arm is a generalist that can switch roles on demand. Second, the animal is willing to trade speed for payload. It is not optimizing for escape. It is optimizing for survival once the escape is no longer possible. Third, and this is the part I find most chilling, the entire system is running while an enormous number of larger animals are watching. The walk is slow. The walk is visible. The walk is a dinner bell. And the octopus does it anyway, because it has done the math, in whatever way an octopus does math, and concluded that the payoff justifies the risk. You are looking at risk management from an animal that was never taught what risk is. PART 6. THE ARCHITECTURE OF A TWO-SECOND FORTRESS Let me describe what an engineer would see if you showed them the blueprint, without telling you what is in the clip. Start with the material. Natural shells are one of the most refined defensive structures on Earth. They are built from calcium carbonate arranged in layered microscopic bricks bound by a thin organic mortar. This brick-and-mortar structure is why a shell is so resistant to cracking. A crack that starts in one layer gets blunted and redirected at the next. Materials scientists have spent decades trying to copy it for body armor and ceramics. The octopus does not make this material. It borrows it. Now consider the geometry. A shell with a hinge is a pre-built enclosure with an opening mechanism already included. Two halves. One pivot. Whoever holds both halves together has a sealed container. The octopus does not need to invent a door. It only needs to hold one closed from the inside. That is the engineering insight. Do not build. Reuse. Repurpose. Notice, too, how little time this takes. Real armor, in the human world, takes weeks of manufacturing. A castle takes years. A suit of plate took a craftsman months. The octopus's fortress is constructed from loose parts in seconds, on a flat open plain with no scaffolding, no tools other than its own body, and while a predator is actively closing in. That is a response time most security teams would kill for. And it is modular. If one shell breaks, grab another. If the threat is gone, drop the whole thing and walk away light. There is no sunk cost, no attachment, no maintenance. A defensive system that exists only when it is needed and costs nothing when it is not. Engineers call this just-in-time architecture. Biologists call it behavior. I call it the most elegant piece of improvised design I have ever seen in nature. Now take that and ask the question that actually matters. Does it work? PART 7. THE FISH IS NOT STUPID Here is where most people watching get it wrong. They assume the predator is the fool in this story. They assume the fish is dumb, and the octopus gets away because its enemy cannot tell the difference. That is not what is happening. Predatory fish are some of the most efficient pattern recognition machines on the planet. A hunting fish does not scan the seafloor like a human reading a book. It runs a high speed filter. Does this shape move like food? Does it have the outline of prey? Is there an eye? A limb? A body plan I know how to eat? Biologists describe this as a search image. The predator holds a template in its head of what a meal looks like, and everything that does not match the template is, to its visual system, invisible. This is why a stick insect works. It is not that the predator cannot see the stick insect. It is that the stick insect does not match the template of anything edible. The octopus is exploiting exactly this. It does not need to be invisible. It needs to be irrelevant. A shell on the seafloor is not food. A shell on the seafloor is not interesting. A shell on the seafloor is part of the ground. The moment the octopus converts from "eight legged soft body" into "inedible object," the predator's filter rejects it, and the fish moves on to look for something else. Think about how remarkable that is. The octopus is not fighting the predator. It is not outrunning the predator. It is not even hiding from the predator. It is editing the predator's perception of reality by changing the category of object it belongs to. That is not camouflage. Camouflage says "I am hard to see." This says "I am not what you are looking for." It is the difference between hiding in a crowd and changing your uniform. One relies on not being noticed. The other relies on being noticed and dismissed. And the entire trick depends on one thing: timing. Too early, and the predator learns the pattern. Too late, and the predator has already committed to the strike. The octopus has to cross from one category to another inside a window that is a fraction of a heartbeat wide. Now go back and watch the fish. Watch how long it takes to lose interest. PART 8. THE ECONOMICS OF PARANOIA There is an ugly math underneath all of this, and it explains why evolution built an animal that behaves like this. An octopus lives fast and dies young. Many species live for one to two years. Some live only months. Compare that to a dog at ten or fifteen years, or a human at eighty. The octopus has to learn everything, achieve everything, and reproduce everything inside a window shorter than a school year. That is a brutal constraint. It means the animal cannot afford to make many mistakes. A single failed escape erases a life that took months to build. And it means every unit of energy has to be spent where it pays off. Carrying armor is expensive. It burns calories, slows the animal, and exposes it. Dropping armor is cheap. So why bother? Because the alternative is worse. When you live in the open, soft, and edible, with no claws, no poison and no speed advantage over the things hunting you, the expected cost of being caught without a defense is total. Not a scratch. Not a wound. Death. The only way to make that math work is to invest in protection before you need it, at a price that looks wasteful on any day when nothing attacks. This is paranoia, optimized by natural selection. And it is correct. That is the part that stays with you. The octopus is not being irrational by dragging a pile of hardware across the sand on a quiet afternoon. It is being exactly as rational as it needs to be. Thousands of generations of ancestors who did not carry armor are not here to argue the point. There is a lesson buried in that, and it applies far beyond octopuses. The people and companies and systems that survive long enough to matter are almost never the ones that optimize for the average day. They are the ones that stay ready for the worst day, and pay the small, boring, invisible cost of readiness every single time. Everyone loves the dramatic escape. Almost nobody notices the thousand quiet days of preparation that made the escape possible. The clip you are about to watch is the escape. Remember it is also the receipt for all the preparation that came before. PART 9. WHY ENGINEERS CANNOT STOP STARING AT THIS There is a reason robotics labs obsess over octopuses, and it is not cute factor. Almost every robot built in the last century is rigid. Metal frames, joints, motors, gears. That design is predictable and easy to model, but it fails in messy environments. Rigid machines break on uneven ground, get stuck in tight spaces, and cannot adapt when the shape of a task changes. The octopus has none of those problems. It can squeeze through any opening larger than its beak, the only hard part of its body. It can wrap around an object of any shape. It can change its effective length, thickness and stiffness in real time. It operates in three dimensions without a single bone. This has spawned an entire field called soft robotics. In 2016, a team at Harvard unveiled what they called the octobot, a small autonomous robot made entirely of soft materials, with no batteries and no electronics, powered by a chemical reaction that moves fuel through tiny channels. It was a toy compared with the real animal. But it proved something important: you can build a machine without a skeleton. Researchers are now working on octopus-inspired grippers for handling delicate objects, surgical tools that can navigate tight anatomy without damaging tissue, and search and rescue machines that can wriggle through rubble. Others are studying the way the skin changes texture and color, hoping to build adaptive materials that could shift appearance on demand. And all of that is chasing the hardware. Nobody has come close to copying the software. How does a distributed nervous system coordinate eight arms and a brain without a single central controller? How does it decide, in less time than it takes to blink, which of a million possible responses is the right one? How does it learn from a single experience and generalize to a situation it has never seen? These are the questions that keep the best researchers in the field awake. Not because they are hard to ask, but because the octopus answers them every day, in the open water, without apparent effort, and refuses to explain how. What you are about to see is not a nature clip. It is a field demonstration of a computing architecture that humanity does not yet know how to build. PART 10. THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD KEEP YOU UP Now the big one. Humans and octopuses last shared a common ancestor more than half a billion years ago. That ancestor was a tiny, simple, wormlike creature with little more than a nerve net. It had no complex brain, no eyes worth the name, and no culture. From that same starting point, two lineages went on to build minds. One of them gave rise to mammals, then primates, then us. We got a centralized brain, a cortex, language, tools, cities. The other gave rise to cephalopods. They got a distributed nervous system, eyes that look uncannily like ours and evolved completely independently, skin that thinks, and a capacity for problem solving that rivals animals with far more familiar brains. Intelligence did not happen once. It happened at least twice, by completely different routes. Sit with that. For most of human history, we assumed that our kind of mind was the destination. That evolution was a ladder and we were at the top. The octopus is evidence that it was never a ladder. It is a bush. And on a very different branch of the bush, something else built a brain, and used it to invent armor out of seafloor debris. The philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith has described octopuses as the closest thing we will ever have to meeting an intelligent alien. Not a metaphor. A literal observation. A mind that arose with no shared architecture, no shared history and no shared senses, and yet recognizes problems, weighs risks, makes plans, and appears to enjoy playing. Their genome is stranger still. The first octopus genome sequenced revealed roughly 33,000 protein coding genes, more than we have. It showed expanded gene families linked to neural development and a surprising amount of editing at the RNA level, a trick that lets the animal rewrite the instructions of its own nervous system on the fly, in response to temperature and environment. This animal does not just run software. It patches it live. And it does all of this without a childhood, without a culture, without a language, and without a single other octopus to learn from. If a mind like that can exist, and invent a defense system from scrap, what else is out there that we have not recognized as thinking, because it does not look the way we expect thinking to look? One more thing before you press play, because it changes how the ending lands. The animal in this clip has no way of knowing whether the plan will work. There is no feedback loop in the moment. No second attempt if the first one fails. It commits fully, with its whole body, to a story the predator may or may not believe. Every defensive success you have ever read about in nature is really a record of a gamble that paid off, written by the survivors. PART 11. HOW TO WATCH THIS You have the context now. Here is the operating manual. First pass: just watch. Let the strangeness of it wash over you. Do not try to analyze. Second pass: forget the octopus. Watch the fish. Its attention. Its speed. The moment the interest drains out of its body. That is the moment the entire trick either works or fails, and it happens faster than you will believe. Third pass: watch the timing. Count how long the whole sequence takes from first move to finished shape. Then remember what I told you about weeks to build a castle and months to forge armor. Fourth pass: ask yourself what you would have done. Two seconds. No tools. No time to think. No one to ask. Just you, a threat approaching, and whatever you happen to be holding. Most people, honestly, freeze. The animal in this clip does not. It does not hesitate, does not panic, does not look around for help. It executes a plan it was never taught, using materials it carried in advance, at the exact moment the plan becomes necessary. If that does not make you feel something, I do not know what will. I have posted thousands of clips. Almost none of them have made me feel quietly humbled. This one did. Not because it is beautiful, although it is. Not because it is surprising, although it is. Because it is a reminder that intelligence is far more common, far more inventive and far more alien than we ever gave it credit for. And that somewhere right now, in a stretch of ocean you will probably never visit, a creature the size of your hand is solving a problem you would not have been able to solve, with a brain you would not be able to recognize, and it has never once needed our permission to be brilliant. Press play. Then press it again. And when it ends, tell me honestly: who was really the predator? If this changed how you think about minds, reposts are how the idea spreads. Follow for more clips that make you question what you thought you knew. P.S. Save this post. In a week you will remember the fish, not the octopus, and you will want to watch the whole thing again with fresh eyes. Send it to the one friend who still says animals are simple.show more

A friend of mine just recently got his first... gun, a striker fired Glock 19. He is terrified to leave a round chambered. To anyone reading this who has this same fear, I want to alleviate your concerns. I'm going to explain why there is nothing to be afraid of. First and foremost, I fully understand your concern. It's not irrational. And you're not stupid for being nervous about a bullet being aimed at your leg with the striker cocked back under spring tension about an 1/8 of an inch from the primer. I get it. I shared this concern when I was new to carrying. But your fear is due to a lack of understanding of the internal safety features of a modern striker fired handgun. On a properly maintained modern striker fired pistol the striker CANNOT hit the primer on the chambered round without the trigger being pulled. Can't. Not shouldn't. Can't. (If you have any good Sig P320 jokes, this is the proper place to share them) There is a block that the striker will hit and stop if it is released without the trigger being depressed. It works just like a lock and key. There is a channel in the blocker that the striker can pass through if it is in the fire position. It only goes into the fire position if the trigger is pulled which pushes the blocker into the fire position. A spring keeps the blocker firmly in the block position until then. The blocker is a solid piece of steel that won't break. And if your gun is securely in a hard sided Kydex holster nothing can move the trigger unless it is unholstered. Many guns like Glocks have a trigger safety that prevents the trigger from moving due to force of dropping. Your finger has to be on the trigger safety to move it. So the gun cannot fire unless you pull the trigger. And it's easy for you to test this safety feature to see how it works! See the video below. You can try to push the striker forward by moving that piece at the back of the slide forward. That piece is the back of the striker. Push it forward and it will stop. The tip won't come out through the breach. You see it trying to come through but it gets stuck. Now push that little button in. That is the actual blocker. When you push it in you will now be able to move the striker forward through the breach and see how it will strike the primer. You can test this easily every time you disassemble your pistol to verify it is still working. You can break this safety feature by removing the blocker or losing the spring. But if it's there it will work. (You would be the first person in firearms history who has ever lost a spring. Literally the first one. It has never happened before. 😐) But it doesn't come out as part of regular maintenance. You have to disassemble the firing assembly to get it out. That won't happen by accident. And if you do that on purpose you should do this blocker test when you reassemble it to make sure the safety feature is working. My video shows a Glock slide. All Glocks will look like this. Other brands may put the blocker in a different spot or it may be a slightly different shape. But they all (mostly) have the same design. If you test yours as demonstrated and it works like mine does, your gun WILL NOT fire without pulling the trigger. (If you just thought of another P320 joke, this is another good place to toss that out there)show more

Red mercury, in the language of the alchemists, is... not a metal but the hidden fire of the blood; the condensed, living current that refuses to be captured by surface, by ego, by the world of appearances. The mirror can only reflect what has already hardened into form; it cannot hold what is still becoming. Garlic however, the pungent guardian of the threshold, does not repel a demon so much as it names the boundary: the dense, earthy, solar body will not host what feeds on shadow and imitation. So the experiment is not about a forbidden compound. It is about whether you know the reflection is you. When the substance of the soul will not appear in the glass, and when the old protections of the earth still work, you are being shown that consciousness is not an image, it is a current that can only be known by what it refuses to become.show more

Apparently, I saw this video online and I decided... to share. What this worker is applying is called bitumen, or what many of us know as bituminous coating. Most people think a wall is a solid, impenetrable block, but in reality, it is more like a sponge. Concrete and blocks have microscopic pores that pull water from the earth through a process we call capillary action. This thick black substance is the shield that stops that water from climbing up into the house. It is not about making the wall look good because this part will be buried under the dirt forever. It is about creating a skin that water cannot breathe through. When do you need to do this? The need for this arises because the soil is a very aggressive environment. Water is not your only enemy.. The ground also contains salts and sulfates that want to eat away at the cement. If this moisture finds its way to the steel bars inside the columns, those bars will start to rust. And when steel rusts, it expands, and that expansion is what cracks the concrete from the inside out. This coating is the only thing standing between your foundation and that kind of slow destruction. Thats is why if you see wet patches at the bottom of your walls inside your house, it usually means someone skipped this step or did it poorly during construction. You can apply this anytime you are building parts of a structure that will stay in contact with the ground. It is common in areas where the water table is high or where the soil stays damp for most of the year. This is a one-shot opportunity. Once you backfill the soil, you can never go back to fix it without a lot of expense and a lot of digging. It is about having the foresight to protect the heart of the building while it is still exposed. Please don’t ignore this if you need to. If you ignore it now to save a bit of money, you will be funding the future decay of your own home. I hope this helps.show more

My first PhD paper!🎉We learn *diffusion* models for code... generation that learn to directly *edit* syntax trees of programs. The result is a system that can incrementally write code, see the execution output, and debug it. 🧵1/nshow more

This is gonna be so long omg but when... it comes to translating in Korean, it’s very very important to take in consideration of 1) Culture 2) Seniority, the Closeness & Intimacy of the people involved in a conversation. Because this gives an entire different vibe for the context. And we have to keep in mind that there are Korean phrases and expressions that simply don’t have just One way, exact words that can be translated in English. Translators can find ways to convey the meaning, but it requires more explanation and understanding of the context while conveying it, and not relying on assumptions. How about “인상 덜 쓰기” or “인상 쓰다“ then? Here, a direct translation can simply be 인상 덜 쓰기 - be less grumpy/ frown less, etc 인상 쓰다 - being grumpy, frown, make a face, etc Here, I include an educational video of an English speaker talking with a Korean speaker where they’re discussing a similar expression, “인상 좀 쓰지마!“ (which in word by word in English, it sounds something like “Don’t frown/ Don’t make a face”) Now, as an English speaker, that sounds a bit harsh doesn’t it? That’s because such expression doesn’t exist in just One interpretation in English, so if we only read it as it is, without considering the context and the speakers’ closeness, we’re bound to misunderstand the context. Quoting some parts of this video, 💚: “Now, Tyler’s expression for today is ‘인상 좀 쓰지마!’. Have you ever heard of this expression? 🩶: I’ve heard something like that before 💚: Then doesn’t this mean there’s a same expression in English too right? 🩶: Oh! I’ve only heard it in Korea 💚: Ah really? The guy then explained that if you say something like this in english, it can be rude. so it’s better not to say it in English-speaking countries. He gave examples like “If you do that, you’ll get wrinkles”, and the other guy added something like “If you make an ugly face, you’ll have wrinkles” and said that “If someone (an English speaker) hears this they would think I must be crazy” Here, they’re talking about the cultural differences. A phrase like this, when expressed directly, without considering people’s closeness, and being translated exactly like that, would sound so negative to English speakers. *also notice how this phrase is being worded in various ways??? ‘HOW’ it can sound to someone, really depends on their culture, their closeness with the person, and context* So later on, he gave a few more examples like, “stop making such a long face”, and “stop wrinkling your forehead”. And concluded that: 💚: Well in that case, the phrase “인상 좀 쓰지마” is basically a phrase that doesn’t exist in English. 🩶: It’s an expression that we don’t use. It’s not that it doesn’t exist. (This part, he’s explaining that there’s no such a thing as word by word to explain this phrase in English, bcs we English speakers use different wordings that is more suitable for a situation’s nuances.) Then again, we have to consider speakers’ closeness as well because in Korea, it’s a huge thing. If you don’t understand how this works, you won’t understand the nuances of a conversation. You’re bound to misunderstand. If you refuse to understand it then, I don’t think you want to respect their culture. Because again, this is a huge thing.show more

Think you’ve got the diagnosis? Think again!! This is... a case where the diagnosis is not as important as the lesson it teaches you. Watch the video and then check back for hidden portion of this post to see what the answer is... And what lesson you should have learned from it ! Avidly enhancing T2 dark lesions in the subependymal region with increased diffusion signal. If I said that description to you—even without seeing the images—you would say lymphoma! Was that your answer? It was mine! And we are both wrong! It turned out to be metastatic melanoma. But the lesson here is that just because you were wrong by pathology, doesn’t mean you were wrong on the imaging If I saw a case like this again, I would still say lymphoma! You won’t be right every time—there will be weird cases. But you are making a bet on the imaging appearance and you should always bet the odds—with the risk that every now and then you might be wrong! So don’t remember from this case that metastases can look like lymphoma—remember that sometimes it’s ok to be wrong as long as you read the case rightshow more

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I... work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:show more

If you're building apps with and bolt.new, chances are... that you're using Supabase Edge Functions. They can be tricky to debug, so I created a guide for the Buildcamp students who are currently on the bootcamp. I'm happy to share this with you guys if it helps? It a repeatable process that gets me through 100% of my edge function problems. Just like this post and comment "Bugs" and I'll ping you a copy.show more

While I have premium I definitely want to do... a long post breaking down the main scene from this show that I obsess with. There's so much that I feel could be learned from it. Not just for expansion animators either. There's honestly a LOT that can be learned from how this show directed its expansion scenes that can be applied to even safe for work animations. Obviously yes, the expansion alone is really good. What makes it so good though is just the fact that there's things you pick up on that you likely don't even realize until you re-watch. I'm using this scene as an example as it's not AS good I would say, but it still has a lot going for it. One thing I've always loved from it that I want to use in my own animations someday is that the expansion sort of comes in waves as opposed to one consistent growth. In a way, it makes it feel more natural while also selling how tight the top is getting. It could have been accompanied by showing the knot getting tighter or smaller with each growth. It's a small part of the animation but just that one thing already adds another layer to appreciate. It's not like most expansion scenes where there's very little outside of just "growing" on its own. There's a bunch of little things that subtly improve it without being obnoxious. The first expansion scene has WAY more that I want to talk about honestly. Far more than this one has. It will probably be a really long post now that I think about it...show more

Putin’s speeches should be listened to through a special... filter. Criminal and prison language is now the primary language of Putin’s power. Therefore, the Valdai speech should be listened to as a kind of street-criminal conflict scenario: "you don’t respect me," "they started it first," "we warned you," "you didn’t get it the nice way," "now we’ll have to respond." This is not just a style of speech, but a ready-made scheme through which the Kremlin explains and justifies escalation. I would interpret the Valdai speech as follows: ◾️"He started it first." This is the basic scheme of the entire argumentation. Not "I decided to use force," but "I was forced to respond." Putin literally says about Ukraine: "it wasn’t us who wanted it and it wasn’t us who started the war," and then that Russia was "deliberately put" in a situation where it was "forced" to take up arms. This is a classic street-domestic formula for removing responsibility from oneself: violence is acknowledged, but moral responsibility is shifted onto the one who supposedly "started it first." ◾️"He asked for it." The next step is to make the victim responsible for what will happen to them. This is especially visible in the logic regarding NATO: if Western states provide intelligence, technical support, and help Ukraine strike deep into Russia, Putin already defines this as their "involvement in the war with Russia." He does not say that Russia will not strike; he only says that Russia is not going to do it "tomorrow." The structure is simple: if a strike happens, the previous argumentation already allows one to say - "you were warned, you yourselves crossed the line." ◾️"You don’t respect me." The question of status constantly looms behind the security language. Putin returns again and again to the fact that after the collapse of the USSR the West did not accept Russia as an equal, did not listen to its objections, expanded NATO, and supposedly tried to finally weaken Russia. This is very close to the logic of conflict through "disrespect": the problem is not only in concrete harm, but in the fact that the other side demonstrates that it does not recognize your status. In street and criminal culture, precisely the inability to respond to an insult calls status and authority into question. ◾️"For something like that you have to answer." In this logic, a response ceases to be a choice and becomes an obligation. Putin constantly uses precisely such a causal construction: Ukraine started hitting tankers - "we began to respond"; started hitting oil refineries - "got a mirror response." Linguistically this is very close to the concept of "payback": after a certain action the response is supposedly already dictated by the code of behavior itself. The subject does not say "I decided to strike," but "you can’t not respond to something like that." ◾️"If you swallow it - they’ll stop respecting you." This directly links violence to the preservation of status. In yard and criminal culture it is important not only to win, but not to allow a situation where others decide that you can be humiliated with impunity. That is why the question from Lukyanov about European factories is formulated so interestingly: if Moscow has already named them potential targets, "the warning… will have to be confirmed by something." This is pure logic of reputational compulsion: a public threat itself creates a problem, because refusal to realize it under certain conditions can be treated as weakness. ◾️"You don’t understand the nice way." Violence is presented as a last resort after supposedly repeated warnings. In Putin’s narrative about NATO and Ukraine it is constantly repeated: we said "don’t do it," "stop," they didn’t listen to us - and therefore what happened, happened. This is a familiar scenario of domestic violence: "I warned you," "you didn’t get it the nice way." Its function is to turn a conscious choice of aggression into a supposedly inevitable result of the other side’s behavior. ◾️"If they can - then we can too." Here the yard code already directly transitions into a normative theory of international relations. Explaining Yugoslavia, Putin essentially formulates it literally: the West used force, everyone saw that "if someone is allowed to, then everyone else is allowed too." This is a very important pattern. Law or a universal norm stops working here. The main thing becomes the precedent of the other’s behavior: "you violated the rules - therefore I am no longer bound by them." This is already international relations "according to the code." ◾️"It’s not that we’re like that - life is like that." This is another strong Russian domestic formula, although it is not purely criminal. In the speech it manifests through the words "inevitably," "we will be forced," "we have no other way out." Even the possibility of using all means against NATO Putin explains not by his own decision, but by the balance of forces: NATO is bigger and stronger, therefore Russia "will be forced" to use its "competitive advantages." This creates an image of a world where Russia supposedly does not choose escalation - circumstances force it into it. ◾️And there is one more pattern that is very important for the current situation - "the client answers together with the executor" / "you’re fighting with someone else’s hands." Putin literally uses the formula "fighting against us with someone else’s hands" when speaking about Western support for Ukraine. Its practical significance is great: it allows gradually transferring the status of the adversary from Ukraine to the states that help it. Then a European factory, a satellite system, or a military specialist ceases in the Russian construction to be a "third party" and becomes part of the conflict itself. If this is reduced to one scheme, it sounds almost like a typical yard conflict: "You don’t respect me → I warned you → you started it first → you didn’t get it the nice way → for something like that you have to answer → you asked for it → now don’t complain." This formula allows the Kremlin to simultaneously be the initiator of the next step and psychologically and rhetorically not recognize itself as its author. And this, in my opinion, has direct significance for assessing the risk of a strike on NATO. A dangerous signal will not necessarily be the phrase "we have decided to attack." It is much more important to watch whether this linguistic sequence is completed: "this is already direct participation in the war" → "we warned" → "they didn’t understand" → "we are forced to respond." In such a linguistic system a decision to strike can be presented not as a new aggression, but as the fulfillment of an already announced "rule of response."show more

OFFICIAL: It has been 134 days since the release... of Totenreich, which is longer than the search for both Samantha's Drawing, and Gong COMBINED. With the release of s6 next week, it felt fitting to use our platform to get as many eyes on it as possible. As a quick disclaimer, just because things have been 'tested' does not mean it is not the solve. This post is also not an invitation to share your personal thoughts on datamining/leaks. This relic, by everything shown in the game files, can NOT be datamined: "Even in the current state of the game, relics are a lot harder to solve via datamining and ingame hack tools... For relics, only the sequential item ones (like Dancing Arnie and Agarthan device) are incredibly easy. Agarthan device with the helmet, radio, and mr peeks is actually the easiest. Dancing Arnie becomes hard due to it becoming a kill challenge for the lobster and you cant datamine that". Because of that, the leading theory is that the missing piece has to be something kill condition related, or player action related. Below is literally all of the information I could find on the belt that I thought was worth mentioning, to try and help the community solve this together. CONFIRMED: There is a magazine with a sticker of Mr Peeks holding a Geiger Counter that has a pickup interaction, and is located at the top of the lighthouse while you are picking up the Jotunn Star. This only appears in cursed mode, and appears without any relics active. Considering the only other grim relic (power switch) is solved, we know this mag fits in with the wrestlers belt in some way. The sticker comes directly from intel located on Paradox Junction. THEORIES: Treyarch Dev Tweet - One Treyarch dev tweeted out: "It feels very fitting this is the final unsolved relic given the reward... good luck" Coda Wallbuy Sounds - In a video, a user hears a distinct ding sound when buying ammo off of the coda wall buy in spawn. This has been difficult to replicate, but has been replicated by the original user. Disappearing Boxes - There are 7 boxes around the map that have a hit box, and disappear when hit/shot (they disappear fast with melee macchiato). Currently it is believed by the majority of the community that this is nothing Clocks - There are five clocks near Richtofen's office. Dataminers have said "The hour, minute and second hands are all separate individual models stacked on top of the base model. lol I mean it could mean something or it could just be nothing. Their design choices on some stuff is weird But it is a model without a script and isn’t setup to move in any way" Swordfish - The mag located at the top of the lighthouse is the same model of a mag from the Swordfish A1. Some people believe that is a hint for the swordfish being needed from the box in order to complete the relic. Here are links to a spreadsheet managed by one community member that has things that community members have tested directly. Feel free to look through it, and see if you have an idea that has not already been tested: If you are interested in hunting this with other community members, please feel free to join the Mystery and ZoneX discords, as many of the community is hunting throughout there regularly. You can also feel free to comment under this post anything you might have found interesting.show more

Reading the comments on this post told me everything... I need to know about art. So many of you wrote to say you felt the exact same thing I did standing in front of the Starry Night. That strange pull, the sense that the painting is somehow alive... It turns out the feeling is completely universal. I am not someone who gets emotional easily. But every so often a piece of art really gets to me. And that is exactly what happened the first time i walked up to Van Gogh's magnum opus. I know how that sounds, it is one of the most famous paintings on earth, almost a cliché to be moved by it. But maybe it is that famous for a reason... It genuinely looks like it is moving while you stand there, shifting in a way I cannot explain and have never seen in any of the thousands of paintings I have looked at in my life. The same day I took the photo below, I also filmed this short video. It still comes nowhere near the real thing, but you can at least catch a little more of it here, the thick ridges of paint, the way the stars and swirls lift right off the canvas. This technique is called "impasto", from the Italian for mixture. It means paint laid on so thickly that every brushstroke and ridge stays visible on the surface. Van Gogh piled it on with a loaded brush, building the stars up thick so they would blaze as bright as possible against the dark. But no video and no explanation of technique can really convey what it feels like to stand in front of it. And the fact that so many of you felt the very same thing says something true about what art is really for. Tolstoy said it best: "The receiver of a true artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the work were his own and not someone else’s, as if what it expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist. In this uniting of it with others lies the great attractive force of art."show more

They started with 50. Now they say they’re 18,000... In 1996 there were fewer than 50 of them. Today, according to the organizers, up to 18,000 walked through Copenhagen. From Dronning Louises Bro to the Imam Ali Mosque. Look at the curve. This is how it happens. First a handful. Then a few hundred. Then it fills a bridge, a district, a capital. A little at a time, until it is no longer a little. And let me be fair, because fairness is the point. There is nothing strange about them holding this mourning procession. They have done it as part of their faith for more than a thousand years. It is theirs, and they believe in it. There is nothing strange about that at all. What should stop us is the other half. There is nothing strange about Europe allowing it either, and that is exactly the problem. Europe allows it because Europe has forgotten who it is. A people that remembers what it stands for does not need to ban anything, it simply knows where its own line runs. We have lost that. And so the issue was never them. The issue is us. Now look at what actually moved through the streets. Men in front. Women in the second row. That is not a detail, that is the whole point. It is a view of women set into a system and marched out into the public square, in a city where generations fought for women and men to stand as equals. The real question is not whether people may believe what they want. They may. The question is why our capital should cultivate a political law-religion that commemorates a 7th-century power struggle by dividing people by sex on Nørrebrogade. One of the organizers is the Imam Ali Mosque, repeatedly described as the Iranian regime’s extended arm in Denmark. The same regime that hangs women and young men from cranes. We are not importing culture. We are importing a system. And we let it grow, not because they are strong, but because we forgot why we were. First a little. Then a lot. Then too late.show more

This is the most egregious 180 degree break I’ve... ever seen in my life. The only reason I’m putting this chick on blast is the fact that she’s deleting comments, blocking anyone who mentions safety, AND thinks it’s the camera angle that is off. Not that she pointed her loaded pistol at, I don’t know?, EVERYONE. If you compete in shooting competitions, YOU WILL DQ. It’s not a matter of if, but when. I’ve seen the highest level of paid sponsored shooters DQ in some scary ways, but NEVER by pointing their firearm at everyone, posting the video, and arguing that they didn’t do it. This is at a range back home that puts on a local 2 Gun match and this girl SHOULD HAVE BEEN DQ’d!! The fact that it’s just a local match doesn’t matter. This is the first place to DQ a shooter SO THAT THEY LEARN A LESSON. As a shooter myself, if I ever did this, I’d be apologizing to everyone on the range, would DQ MYSELF, and spend some time on the range working on performing a safe retreat with a loaded pistol before I shot again. Check your ego at the door folks. Safety is the only thing that matters with firearms. It can be a tough learning lesson, but if you can’t accept the fact you endangered lives, then you haven’t learned anything.show more