Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Five studies. Every single one reaches the same conclusion: the vaccinated are sicker. Not one retrospective study anywhere in the world, by any government, any health agency, any institution, has ever shown us that vaccinated children are healthier. Not one. The entire premise of this program has never been...

56,208 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

"If you are pro-vaccine, you are anti-science." Del sat down with Dr. Brandon Crawford to discuss the award-winning film "An Inconvenient Study." Del: "There is not a single study in the entire world - not from one single health department in any nation in the world - that can show you a study that compared their vaccinated kids to their unvaccinated kids and showed that the vaccinated are the ones who have better health outcomes... Why? Why can't anyone in the world show us a study that the vaccinated are healthier? It doesn't exist. You would think they could manipulate it. And that's why I think when you look at the Henry Ford study, you realize why they can't. The disparity between these two is so vast. There's no way to manipulate the study to somehow get the vaccinated to look like they're healthier. And now what we're left with is a scientific body is never going to admit it was wrong because it's liable. They're liable for trillions of dollars in damages now because they made us take these products, telling us it was making us a healthier nation.... So, we're in a position now where you could sit as a parent, I'm going to have to use my own intuition now, and I'm going to have to do my own deep research, and I'm going to have to start making decisions because I don't want my child's health to be based on a coin toss. It's worse than a fifty-fifty coin toss if your child is going to be free of chronic disease or not. Much worse.."

The HighWire

70,721 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

your agent has thirty tools. it calls two of them. the other twenty eight are not sitting idle somewhere. they are in the request, every request, and they are doing damage in two places at once. first the obvious one. tool schemas go into the prompt, and a schema is not a name. it is a description, a parameter list, types, required fields, an example. thirty of those is a few thousand tokens that ship with every single call, including the ones where the agent just says thanks and stops. you are paying rent on twenty eight tools that have never fired. second, and this is the one that costs more. when the request says cancel the order, the model picks by matching against everything available. four of your tools are plausible: cancel_order, refund_order, update_order, void_order. it is choosing among them based on the descriptions you wrote, one afternoon, months ago. every tool you add is another candidate in that shortlist. the twenty eight you never call are not neutral. they are noise in the one decision that determines whether the run works. > why it grows without anyone deciding to nobody adds thirty tools on purpose. you add one for a task, it works, it stays. six months later the registry is a catalogue and no one has ever removed anything, because removing a tool feels risky and adding one feels free. and there is no feedback telling you otherwise. the unused ones never error. they never appear in a failing trace. they are invisible in exactly the way that lets them accumulate. > what to actually do count calls per tool over the last thousand runs. this is one group-by and it usually shocks people. the ones at zero are pure cost. ship the tools the task needs, not the whole registry. a research phase does not need deploy. a writing phase does not need the database. swap the set between phases instead of loading everything up front. same agent, different tools, depending on where the run is. and when two tools could both plausibly answer the same request, that is not redundancy you can ignore. it is a coin flip you built into the system. the twenty eight tools are not unused. they are used every time, by the part of the run you cannot see.

Hanako

24,656 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

92,124 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce