正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Makes Pandas 20x Faster using FireDucks... ...by changing JUST ONE LINE of code. Pandas has a few limitations: - a single-core computation. - creates bulky DataFrames. - always follows an eager execution mode (every op triggers immediate computation), which is why it cannot prepare a smart execution plan that... optimizes the entire sequence of operations. FireDucks is a heavily optimized alternative with exactly the same API as Pandas’ that addresses these. There are three ways to use it: 1) Load the extension: %𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝_𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗸𝘀.𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐬; 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗱 2) Import FireDucks instead of Pandas: 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗸𝘀.𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐝 3) If you have a Python script, execute is as follows: 𝗽𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗻3 -𝗺 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗸𝘀.𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲.𝗽𝘆 Done! ✅ Check this out👇show more

Akshay 🚀

251,113 subscribers

73,967 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

INTRODUCING OCBTW: THE FIRST PANDA-BACKED ASSET A FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND 2-WAY NFT NFT SWAP We just deployed a smart contract on Bitcoin that allows you to mint "OCBTW", a limited edition generative art collection by tclow.sats, solely by swapping an Alkane Pandas ⬢ OCBTW has a supply of 200 unique pieces and is inspired by Oyl | Building Alkanes's signature hexagon logo that defines all native Alkane assets (e.g., $DIESEL). It is 100% on-chain generative art using three.js code via HTML ⬢ OCBTW can only be minted by swapping a Panda using the 2:70104 smart contract. After 200 swaps have been completed, on a first-come-first-served basis, the mint will conclude. However, OCBTW can be swapped back to a Panda at any time, freeing up supply for another Panda holder to collect a OCBTW piece from the contract. ⬢ OCBTW is thus backed entirely by Pandas, meaning each piece will never be worth less than a Panda. This is the first time on Bitcoin that an NFT is minted with another NFT. This may be the first time this has ever been done on any chain. ⬢ OCBTW also effectively locks up up to 200 Pandas for perpetuity. Just like AP-69, this swap contract has no withdrawal function. The only way to get Pandas out of the contract is to swap your OCBTW back to a Panda. This operates on a last-in, first-out (LIFO) basis. ⬢ OCBTW can be minted by calling the 2:70104 contract using opcode 42 and including a Panda in the transaction, either by using or You can only mint 1 OCBTW per transaction. Rarity of Pandas has no effect on what OCBTW mint you will receive. ⬢ OCBTW can be viewed natively in browser on iDclub 💥 Building Alkanes at the following link: Please be patient after minting for their indexer to update after blocks clear. Please also note that the Ordiscan Alkanes indexer is currently down. ⬢ OCBTW is purely art. Art on Bitcoin. Forever.

Alkane Pandas

22,591 次观看 • 1 年前

Simplicity is at the heart of great software. This is one of the reasons why Claude Code has been sticky for me. As a builder, I love planning and brainstorming, and this is now a key focus of Claude Code. I use Shift + Tab a lot to cycle between brainstorming, planning, and execution. This functionality provides the appropriate interface for me to either be very involved or less involved as I please. This works particularly well when building out new and complex features or entire new projects. This saves a huge amount of time. It allows me to tune Claude Code to execute and build more effectively. It also builds a loop of trust, and I often (surprisingly) find Claude Code asking for clarifications when it's confused. Coding agents don't normally do that. I have shared before on the power of brainstorming with AI for longer times. Try it and you will not be disappointed. Vibe coding is fun, but pair it with intentional development cycles, and you watch how far you can take a project with coding agents today.

Simplicity is at the heart of great software. This is one of the reasons why Claude Code has been sticky for me. As a builder, I love planning and brainstorming, and this is now a key focus of Claude Code. I use Shift + Tab a lot to cycle between brainstorming, planning, and execution. This functionality provides the appropriate interface for me to either be very involved or less involved as I please. This works particularly well when building out new and complex features or entire new projects. This saves a huge amount of time. It allows me to tune Claude Code to execute and build more effectively. It also builds a loop of trust, and I often (surprisingly) find Claude Code asking for clarifications when it's confused. Coding agents don't normally do that. I have shared before on the power of brainstorming with AI for longer times. Try it and you will not be disappointed. Vibe coding is fun, but pair it with intentional development cycles, and you watch how far you can take a project with coding agents today.

elvis

81,765 次观看 • 9 个月前

After the Striker spends 100 MPH videos blew up not too long ago, you couldn’t find a video without seeing comments of his mechanics needing improvement and just kind of absurd reasons as to why his mechanics need to improve. Keep in mind this is a 16 year old kid throwing 100 MPH. Can he really throw 100 MPH with as many of the mechanical flaws as the Instagram comments make him out to have? Or are mechanics subjective and majority of what people think creates elite throwers just not really matter like they think it does? With that being said here are couple subjective thoughts that I have on this throw: Passive lower half, doesn’t push/jump to try to create velocity. Setting up torso in a great spot at foot plant, not forcing it True rotation, pelvis rotates torso follows, minimal counter rotation You can agree or disagree with what my thoughts are, which makes the point of speaking the same language between coaches and athletes constantly so important. What I said can be interpreted hundreds of ways if you don’t communicate with the same language every single time you communicate with an athlete.

After the Striker spends 100 MPH videos blew up not too long ago, you couldn’t find a video without seeing comments of his mechanics needing improvement and just kind of absurd reasons as to why his mechanics need to improve. Keep in mind this is a 16 year old kid throwing 100 MPH. Can he really throw 100 MPH with as many of the mechanical flaws as the Instagram comments make him out to have? Or are mechanics subjective and majority of what people think creates elite throwers just not really matter like they think it does? With that being said here are couple subjective thoughts that I have on this throw: Passive lower half, doesn’t push/jump to try to create velocity. Setting up torso in a great spot at foot plant, not forcing it True rotation, pelvis rotates torso follows, minimal counter rotation You can agree or disagree with what my thoughts are, which makes the point of speaking the same language between coaches and athletes constantly so important. What I said can be interpreted hundreds of ways if you don’t communicate with the same language every single time you communicate with an athlete.

Praise Thorsen

122,497 次观看 • 1 年前

My project has 39,205 lines of code, and Cursor can't answer questions about it. Cursor's context seems to be capped at around 10,000 tokens. Unfortunately, this is not enough for any decent-sized project. If you have a large codebase, check out Augment Code. This thing is faaaast! I'm currently using their Visual Studio Code plugin, but you can also use them on JetBrains, Neovim, and even Vim. (I'm a Neovim fan, but Copilot's implementation for Neovim is nowhere as good as Augment Code.) Augment Code was gracious enough to sponsor this post. After you install their extension and run it for the first time, it will index your entire codebase. This is why it can answer questions as fast as it does, regardless of the size of your codebase. Augment Code supports chat and completions like every other AI coding assistant, but its killer feature is "Next Edit." When you make a change, two things happen: 1. The model analyzes the change to determine the ripple effects across your *entire* codebase. 2. The model suggests everything you need to update to ensure everything works correctly. This is pretty wild!

My project has 39,205 lines of code, and Cursor can't answer questions about it. Cursor's context seems to be capped at around 10,000 tokens. Unfortunately, this is not enough for any decent-sized project. If you have a large codebase, check out Augment Code. This thing is faaaast! I'm currently using their Visual Studio Code plugin, but you can also use them on JetBrains, Neovim, and even Vim. (I'm a Neovim fan, but Copilot's implementation for Neovim is nowhere as good as Augment Code.) Augment Code was gracious enough to sponsor this post. After you install their extension and run it for the first time, it will index your entire codebase. This is why it can answer questions as fast as it does, regardless of the size of your codebase. Augment Code supports chat and completions like every other AI coding assistant, but its killer feature is "Next Edit." When you make a change, two things happen: 1. The model analyzes the change to determine the ripple effects across your entire codebase. 2. The model suggests everything you need to update to ensure everything works correctly. This is pretty wild!

Santiago

247,833 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.

Dustin

22,390 次观看 • 1 个月前

Most chiral molecules arise from carbons being bonded to 4 different atoms, which are called sterocenters. The makes the molecule have a different mirror image that cannot arise from simple rotation. But, you can have chiral molecules not from stereocenters. You can have chirality that doesn't come from a single point in the molecule. It comes from some global property. The classic example is helicene, which doesn't have any stereocenters, but has chirality because of hits helical structure. This means you cannot capture this molecule with a graph, and thus SMILES or a string representation cannot capture this. Of course natural language comes to the rescue (just say in words if it's left-handed or right-handed helix), but it's an interesting failure mode for viewing molecules as just a graph. Another example of a molecule with helical chirality is DNA. DNA is actually chiral in two ways, which is kind of confusing. It has both helical structure and stereocenters. You won't find the stereocenters ever flipped, but left-handed helical DNA can exist (called Z-DNA). Interestingly, making the flipped stereocenter of DNA could be part of an entire mirror organism (mirror RNA, DNA, AAs, sugars) that would then be potentially invisible to our immune systems. This has been recently proposed as a "mechanism" for how a runaway AI system could cause harm to Earth. I find it to be a pretty tedious and difficult way to cause harm, but it is intellectually cool. Anyway - this came up in a PhD defense and I have a lot of arcane knowledge about this I wanted to dump.

Most chiral molecules arise from carbons being bonded to 4 different atoms, which are called sterocenters. The makes the molecule have a different mirror image that cannot arise from simple rotation. But, you can have chiral molecules not from stereocenters. You can have chirality that doesn't come from a single point in the molecule. It comes from some global property. The classic example is helicene, which doesn't have any stereocenters, but has chirality because of hits helical structure. This means you cannot capture this molecule with a graph, and thus SMILES or a string representation cannot capture this. Of course natural language comes to the rescue (just say in words if it's left-handed or right-handed helix), but it's an interesting failure mode for viewing molecules as just a graph. Another example of a molecule with helical chirality is DNA. DNA is actually chiral in two ways, which is kind of confusing. It has both helical structure and stereocenters. You won't find the stereocenters ever flipped, but left-handed helical DNA can exist (called Z-DNA). Interestingly, making the flipped stereocenter of DNA could be part of an entire mirror organism (mirror RNA, DNA, AAs, sugars) that would then be potentially invisible to our immune systems. This has been recently proposed as a "mechanism" for how a runaway AI system could cause harm to Earth. I find it to be a pretty tedious and difficult way to cause harm, but it is intellectually cool. Anyway - this came up in a PhD defense and I have a lot of arcane knowledge about this I wanted to dump.

Andrew White 🐦‍⬛

15,039 次观看 • 4 个月前

Wondering if you are “quad dominant” in your throw and if you should change it? Maybe you shouldn’t 🤷‍♂️ A coach’s post coming from Austin Roark 🚀⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ One question I get from a lot of athletes is whether they should change their lower half because their knee is over their toe during their loading phase down the mound. ⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ The biggest thing that I look for when trying to figure out if it is an issue or not is to see how they are able to get out of that position. Some guys are able to leverage and rotate from that position extremely well, which then I would say that it’s not an issue.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ On the other hand, there are some guys who will get out of this position by driving extension out of their back leg, killing their ability to rotate their pelvis and get it in an open position into landing.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ This is when I would suggest trying to make a change. I think a lot of people jump into certain ideologies that you shouldn’t do certain things because it’s “inefficient” or it looks “wrong”. ⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ Take a look at these pitchers shown in the video. All 3 of these high level arms have some degree of knee flexion over their toe. Now, granted, they all have insane levers to help them, but the way they are moving is what makes them efficient in how they throw. ⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ I think if you told Dustin May that he had to hold a vertical shin down the mound, it would be a disaster and mess a lot of things up upstream that would impact him in a negative way.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ The big takeaway here is that there are no absolutes. One thing that may look inefficient to you could be the thing that makes someone else very efficient.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ When trying to figure out if you should change something about someone's delivery, make sure to look at the entire unit as a whole and don’t jump into any quick changes.

Wondering if you are “quad dominant” in your throw and if you should change it? Maybe you shouldn’t 🤷‍♂️ A coach’s post coming from Austin Roark 🚀⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ One question I get from a lot of athletes is whether they should change their lower half because their knee is over their toe during their loading phase down the mound. ⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ The biggest thing that I look for when trying to figure out if it is an issue or not is to see how they are able to get out of that position. Some guys are able to leverage and rotate from that position extremely well, which then I would say that it’s not an issue.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ On the other hand, there are some guys who will get out of this position by driving extension out of their back leg, killing their ability to rotate their pelvis and get it in an open position into landing.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ This is when I would suggest trying to make a change. I think a lot of people jump into certain ideologies that you shouldn’t do certain things because it’s “inefficient” or it looks “wrong”. ⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ Take a look at these pitchers shown in the video. All 3 of these high level arms have some degree of knee flexion over their toe. Now, granted, they all have insane levers to help them, but the way they are moving is what makes them efficient in how they throw. ⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ I think if you told Dustin May that he had to hold a vertical shin down the mound, it would be a disaster and mess a lot of things up upstream that would impact him in a negative way.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ The big takeaway here is that there are no absolutes. One thing that may look inefficient to you could be the thing that makes someone else very efficient.⠀⁠ -⠀⁠ When trying to figure out if you should change something about someone's delivery, make sure to look at the entire unit as a whole and don’t jump into any quick changes.

Tread Athletics

25,070 次观看 • 8 个月前

Today's real crypto news killed me in a video game 💀 This is Crypto Crash. I built it this afternoon with the ChainGPT AI skill for Claude Code. It's a Chrome dino-style runner, but every system in it is plugged into a live source. The ground you run on is BTC's actual 24-hour price chart. Hills are the pumps. Valleys are the dumps. When the market is bearish, you literally run downhill toward the FUD. The sky and the world's color palette flip based on the market's emotional state, scored 0 to 100 by the ChainGPT LLM reading today's headlines. Anxious days look like an orange storm. Euphoric days look like a parade. The obstacles are goblins, ghouls, wolves and a flying bird. Each one carries a real bearish headline pulled live from the ChainGPT News API. When one hits you, the game-over screen tells you exactly which piece of FUD ended your run. Three ChainGPT capabilities, woven into a single experience: the LLM, the News API, and live price data. The skill stitched them together in a single afternoon. I just had the idea. Here's what's interesting beyond the game itself. Web3 products have always had access to live data. What's new is that AI can now turn that data into experiences, environments and feedback loops on demand, with one prompt. ✅ A trading dashboard that gets more aggressive when fear spikes. ✅ An NFT marketplace whose homepage matches today's mood. ✅A token site that visibly reacts when its chain is under attack. ✅A streamer overlay that changes with every breaking headline. The plumbing is done. The hard part now is deciding what you build on top of it. Open Claude Code. The skill is one install away. /plugin install ChainGPT-org/chaingpt-claude-skill

Today's real crypto news killed me in a video game 💀 This is Crypto Crash. I built it this afternoon with the ChainGPT AI skill for Claude Code. It's a Chrome dino-style runner, but every system in it is plugged into a live source. The ground you run on is BTC's actual 24-hour price chart. Hills are the pumps. Valleys are the dumps. When the market is bearish, you literally run downhill toward the FUD. The sky and the world's color palette flip based on the market's emotional state, scored 0 to 100 by the ChainGPT LLM reading today's headlines. Anxious days look like an orange storm. Euphoric days look like a parade. The obstacles are goblins, ghouls, wolves and a flying bird. Each one carries a real bearish headline pulled live from the ChainGPT News API. When one hits you, the game-over screen tells you exactly which piece of FUD ended your run. Three ChainGPT capabilities, woven into a single experience: the LLM, the News API, and live price data. The skill stitched them together in a single afternoon. I just had the idea. Here's what's interesting beyond the game itself. Web3 products have always had access to live data. What's new is that AI can now turn that data into experiences, environments and feedback loops on demand, with one prompt. ✅ A trading dashboard that gets more aggressive when fear spikes. ✅ An NFT marketplace whose homepage matches today's mood. ✅A token site that visibly reacts when its chain is under attack. ✅A streamer overlay that changes with every breaking headline. The plumbing is done. The hard part now is deciding what you build on top of it. Open Claude Code. The skill is one install away. /plugin install ChainGPT-org/chaingpt-claude-skill

ChainGPT

25,510 次观看 • 2 个月前

Two posts in one day calling for the end of John Cleese. One says he has allied himself with the darkest forces in Britain and has become the caricature he once mocked. The other, from a Muslim outlet, argues plainly that he should be de-platformed by respectable institutions. De-platformed. Respectable institutions. Say those words slowly and try to hear how they would have landed in 1972. The man co-wrote a film so blasphemous the BBC would not touch it, that was banned outright in Norway and by councils across England, and that two bishops went on television to denounce while he sat there and let them. Life of Brian survived the actual Church of England. It is now being reviewed by a newsletter. And the accusation is that he has become the caricature he once mocked, which is a remarkable sentence to write about a man whose entire body of work was aimed at exactly this. The Ministry of Silly Walks was a joke about a government department funding nonsense with a straight face. Now we have men in offices deciding which comedians remain permissible, and doing it with no jokes at all. At least the Ministry had the decency to be funny. Let me be fair, because I am always fair, and because being fair is what makes the rest of this land. Criticism is not censorship. Both of those men have every right to say Cleese is wrong, tasteless, or past it. That is speech. Nobody owes an 86 year old comedian applause. But there is a hard line between you are wrong and you should not be permitted to speak, and one of those posts crossed it in the headline. The first is an argument. The second is an eviction notice. And notice what the eviction is actually for. He said things about a religion. Not about a person. A religion, which is a set of ideas, and ideas do not have rights. People do. In England you can still say anything you like about the Church of England, and Cleese made a career of it, and nobody drafted a newsletter about respectable institutions. Here is what is wrong with Britain, and I say it with real affection because I am going there next month. A country that gave the world Magna Carta, the common law, and the funniest people who have ever lived has developed the habit of asking whether a joke is allowed. That question has an answer over here. John, if it gets any worse, come to America. Say every single thing you think. Say the wrong ones. Say the ones that would end you at home. Nobody will de-platform you and nobody will send a constable. Bring the silly walk. We have room. 🦋

Two posts in one day calling for the end of John Cleese. One says he has allied himself with the darkest forces in Britain and has become the caricature he once mocked. The other, from a Muslim outlet, argues plainly that he should be de-platformed by respectable institutions. De-platformed. Respectable institutions. Say those words slowly and try to hear how they would have landed in 1972. The man co-wrote a film so blasphemous the BBC would not touch it, that was banned outright in Norway and by councils across England, and that two bishops went on television to denounce while he sat there and let them. Life of Brian survived the actual Church of England. It is now being reviewed by a newsletter. And the accusation is that he has become the caricature he once mocked, which is a remarkable sentence to write about a man whose entire body of work was aimed at exactly this. The Ministry of Silly Walks was a joke about a government department funding nonsense with a straight face. Now we have men in offices deciding which comedians remain permissible, and doing it with no jokes at all. At least the Ministry had the decency to be funny. Let me be fair, because I am always fair, and because being fair is what makes the rest of this land. Criticism is not censorship. Both of those men have every right to say Cleese is wrong, tasteless, or past it. That is speech. Nobody owes an 86 year old comedian applause. But there is a hard line between you are wrong and you should not be permitted to speak, and one of those posts crossed it in the headline. The first is an argument. The second is an eviction notice. And notice what the eviction is actually for. He said things about a religion. Not about a person. A religion, which is a set of ideas, and ideas do not have rights. People do. In England you can still say anything you like about the Church of England, and Cleese made a career of it, and nobody drafted a newsletter about respectable institutions. Here is what is wrong with Britain, and I say it with real affection because I am going there next month. A country that gave the world Magna Carta, the common law, and the funniest people who have ever lived has developed the habit of asking whether a joke is allowed. That question has an answer over here. John, if it gets any worse, come to America. Say every single thing you think. Say the wrong ones. Say the ones that would end you at home. Nobody will de-platform you and nobody will send a constable. Bring the silly walk. We have room. 🦋

Selene Mariposa

269,739 次观看 • 15 天前

What Actually is Sei Network's “Giga” Upgrade? Sei Network’s (Sei) Giga upgrade is a major overhaul designed to make the network faster, more scalable and better suited for high-performance onchain trading. Put simply, Giga is rebuilding three critical parts of the blockchain: consensus, execution and storage. (1) The first track focuses on consensus, with upgrades such as Autobahn designed to improve how Sei validators agree on the state of the chain. (2) The Ares upgrade targets execution, the part of the blockchain responsible for actually processing transactions. (3) Eidos focuses on storage, which is becoming increasingly important as blockchain throughput rises. Why does storage matter? Every transaction a blockchain processes has to be recorded. If the database cannot write data as quickly as the network executes transactions, higher throughput eventually becomes meaningless. Eidos is designed to solve that bottleneck. (4) Sei plans to replace the traditional Merkle-tree structure used for EVM state with FlatKV, a flat key-value database where updating one piece of state requires essentially one write. A lattice hash, or LtHash, is then used to maintain a verifiable fingerprint of the entire state without repeatedly recalculating an entire hash path. (5) Eidos also separates live EVM state from other blockchain data. This means transactions accessing current state no longer have to compete with historical data for the same database resources. (6) Sei is also introducing LittDB-backed storage for blocks and receipts. These records are written once but queried repeatedly, making them a different workload from constantly changing blockchain state. Older historical data will eventually move away from active nodes into archival storage, allowing nodes to focus their resources on the data needed for real-time operations. The interesting part is how Sei plans to deploy all of this. Instead of shutting down the network and migrating the entire database at once, Eidos is designed to migrate storage while Sei continues producing blocks. The old and new systems can run side by side during the transition, with data moved in batches and integrity checks performed throughout the process. The first phase arrived on Sei mainnet with the v6.6 release in August 2026, beginning the separation of EVM state and introducing improvements to the pruning process. The broader Eidos architecture, including FlatKV, LtHash, the new receipt store and off-node archival storage, is expected to arrive through subsequent releases. Sei’s ultimate Giga target is 200,000 transactions per second. But reaching that kind of execution speed requires more than a faster transaction engine. The blockchain also needs a storage system capable of keeping up. That is essentially what Eidos is trying to build. Giga is not just about making Sei execute transactions faster. It is about rebuilding the infrastructure underneath that speed so the network can actually sustain it.

What Actually is Sei Network's “Giga” Upgrade? Sei Network’s (Sei) Giga upgrade is a major overhaul designed to make the network faster, more scalable and better suited for high-performance onchain trading. Put simply, Giga is rebuilding three critical parts of the blockchain: consensus, execution and storage. (1) The first track focuses on consensus, with upgrades such as Autobahn designed to improve how Sei validators agree on the state of the chain. (2) The Ares upgrade targets execution, the part of the blockchain responsible for actually processing transactions. (3) Eidos focuses on storage, which is becoming increasingly important as blockchain throughput rises. Why does storage matter? Every transaction a blockchain processes has to be recorded. If the database cannot write data as quickly as the network executes transactions, higher throughput eventually becomes meaningless. Eidos is designed to solve that bottleneck. (4) Sei plans to replace the traditional Merkle-tree structure used for EVM state with FlatKV, a flat key-value database where updating one piece of state requires essentially one write. A lattice hash, or LtHash, is then used to maintain a verifiable fingerprint of the entire state without repeatedly recalculating an entire hash path. (5) Eidos also separates live EVM state from other blockchain data. This means transactions accessing current state no longer have to compete with historical data for the same database resources. (6) Sei is also introducing LittDB-backed storage for blocks and receipts. These records are written once but queried repeatedly, making them a different workload from constantly changing blockchain state. Older historical data will eventually move away from active nodes into archival storage, allowing nodes to focus their resources on the data needed for real-time operations. The interesting part is how Sei plans to deploy all of this. Instead of shutting down the network and migrating the entire database at once, Eidos is designed to migrate storage while Sei continues producing blocks. The old and new systems can run side by side during the transition, with data moved in batches and integrity checks performed throughout the process. The first phase arrived on Sei mainnet with the v6.6 release in August 2026, beginning the separation of EVM state and introducing improvements to the pruning process. The broader Eidos architecture, including FlatKV, LtHash, the new receipt store and off-node archival storage, is expected to arrive through subsequent releases. Sei’s ultimate Giga target is 200,000 transactions per second. But reaching that kind of execution speed requires more than a faster transaction engine. The blockchain also needs a storage system capable of keeping up. That is essentially what Eidos is trying to build. Giga is not just about making Sei execute transactions faster. It is about rebuilding the infrastructure underneath that speed so the network can actually sustain it.

BSCN

27,310 次观看 • 9 天前

THE CLIMAX EVERYONE REMEMBERS IS BUILT FROM THE SECOND WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS A ronin. An army. One continuous shot. The frame most people miss is the one that makes everything land: a beat of pure black right before the explosion. Here’s what that sequence actually teaches: 1. Contrast is something you spend, not a setting you turn on. Stay bright the whole time and you’ve got nowhere left to go when it counts. Hold the darkness long enough and a single bright frame feels blinding. 2. One accent color in a monochrome world hits harder than a full palette. Charcoal, ash, pewter… and exactly one slash of violet neon. Your eye goes straight to it every time. Add a second accent and you halve the power of both. 3. The blackout isn’t just a transition — it’s the turning point. Everything before it is descent. Everything after is release. The structure is disguised as lighting. 4. Flat, faceless enemies aren’t lazy. They’re deliberate hierarchy. Identical grey soldiers and helmets make the ronin pop. Give them personality and you split the audience’s attention for nothing. 5. One continuous shot forces every decision to matter. No cuts to hide behind. Framing, movement, and light have to carry the whole thing — and that’s exactly why it holds up. 6. Quiet frames buy the loud ones. There’s a moment with zero neon — just black and white, hair streaming across the frame like spilled ink. It gives you nothing… which is why the next frame hits so hard. 7. End by taking the light away. Katana lowered, tip toward the ground, no glow left on the steel. The brightest thing in the entire piece disappears. That’s what makes it feel like an ending instead of just a stop. Why this matters: Most people build climaxes by adding more — more light, more motion, more color. This one does it by subtracting first. A dead beat costs nothing and pays off everything that follows. Restraint reads as confidence. Overloading reads as insecurity. Audiences feel it before they can explain it. You don’t need a bigger budget or a better model. You just need the discipline to hold back. The real lesson isn’t “make it dark.” It’s that impact is relative. You can’t have a true peak without spending time in the valley first — and most creators rush straight to the peak, then wonder why nothing lands. This version keeps all your original insights, tightens the flow, and sounds like a thoughtful filmmaker or editor sharing something they noticed — not like generated content. Ready to post.

THE CLIMAX EVERYONE REMEMBERS IS BUILT FROM THE SECOND WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS A ronin. An army. One continuous shot. The frame most people miss is the one that makes everything land: a beat of pure black right before the explosion. Here’s what that sequence actually teaches: 1. Contrast is something you spend, not a setting you turn on. Stay bright the whole time and you’ve got nowhere left to go when it counts. Hold the darkness long enough and a single bright frame feels blinding. 2. One accent color in a monochrome world hits harder than a full palette. Charcoal, ash, pewter… and exactly one slash of violet neon. Your eye goes straight to it every time. Add a second accent and you halve the power of both. 3. The blackout isn’t just a transition — it’s the turning point. Everything before it is descent. Everything after is release. The structure is disguised as lighting. 4. Flat, faceless enemies aren’t lazy. They’re deliberate hierarchy. Identical grey soldiers and helmets make the ronin pop. Give them personality and you split the audience’s attention for nothing. 5. One continuous shot forces every decision to matter. No cuts to hide behind. Framing, movement, and light have to carry the whole thing — and that’s exactly why it holds up. 6. Quiet frames buy the loud ones. There’s a moment with zero neon — just black and white, hair streaming across the frame like spilled ink. It gives you nothing… which is why the next frame hits so hard. 7. End by taking the light away. Katana lowered, tip toward the ground, no glow left on the steel. The brightest thing in the entire piece disappears. That’s what makes it feel like an ending instead of just a stop. Why this matters: Most people build climaxes by adding more — more light, more motion, more color. This one does it by subtracting first. A dead beat costs nothing and pays off everything that follows. Restraint reads as confidence. Overloading reads as insecurity. Audiences feel it before they can explain it. You don’t need a bigger budget or a better model. You just need the discipline to hold back. The real lesson isn’t “make it dark.” It’s that impact is relative. You can’t have a true peak without spending time in the valley first — and most creators rush straight to the peak, then wonder why nothing lands. This version keeps all your original insights, tightens the flow, and sounds like a thoughtful filmmaker or editor sharing something they noticed — not like generated content. Ready to post.

Nexlow

12,680 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.

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.

Ryan Fleury

17,527 次观看 • 1 年前

Making OpenCode as lean as Pi agent? Just trimmed 25k out of OpenCode's system prompt (from 30k to 4-5k tokens) How? Just disable skills and get rid of massive skill definition bloat. Who needs skills anyway? Just kidding, this is the not the way. It makes the agent lame and defeats the point of using one. But it sets a precedent: Find a way to use skills without their definitions pre-loaded into the system prompt every single turn. Another interesting stuff: Upon testing this temporary "no skill setup" with two of hottest OpenCode Zen free models, Mimo V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: One thinks more and talks less One thinks less and talks more Check the video to see which is which If you made it here, I'm finding a way to leanest OpenCode setup that I can get I simply don't believe that OpenCode can't be as lean as Pi Upon tinkering, I made a plugin that temporarily extracts the system prompt while I test, and noticed the hundreds of definitions in it from my .agents/skills directory which is shared across all my coding agents (Cursor, Antigravity, Claude, etc.) Of course disabling skills is not the answer, but it just proved that there is a way to strip the system prompt of these massive skill defs Aside from the system prompt hierarchy that injects confusion imo if you have a conflicting and redundant AGENTS.md which I discovered upon digging into OpenCode's source code Apparently it has prompt.ts/system.ts/instruction.ts/llm.ts and loads base .txt prompts based on model family (claude/gpt-o/gpt-5/codex/gemini/others) that all work together to make OpenCode aware of who it was and how it should use tools and become a "coding agent" Gotta find the most minimal mix that fits right into my workflow Make OpenCode as lean as Pi? We'll see. All in

Making OpenCode as lean as Pi agent? Just trimmed 25k out of OpenCode's system prompt (from 30k to 4-5k tokens) How? Just disable skills and get rid of massive skill definition bloat. Who needs skills anyway? Just kidding, this is the not the way. It makes the agent lame and defeats the point of using one. But it sets a precedent: Find a way to use skills without their definitions pre-loaded into the system prompt every single turn. Another interesting stuff: Upon testing this temporary "no skill setup" with two of hottest OpenCode Zen free models, Mimo V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: One thinks more and talks less One thinks less and talks more Check the video to see which is which If you made it here, I'm finding a way to leanest OpenCode setup that I can get I simply don't believe that OpenCode can't be as lean as Pi Upon tinkering, I made a plugin that temporarily extracts the system prompt while I test, and noticed the hundreds of definitions in it from my .agents/skills directory which is shared across all my coding agents (Cursor, Antigravity, Claude, etc.) Of course disabling skills is not the answer, but it just proved that there is a way to strip the system prompt of these massive skill defs Aside from the system prompt hierarchy that injects confusion imo if you have a conflicting and redundant AGENTS.md which I discovered upon digging into OpenCode's source code Apparently it has prompt.ts/system.ts/instruction.ts/llm.ts and loads base .txt prompts based on model family (claude/gpt-o/gpt-5/codex/gemini/others) that all work together to make OpenCode aware of who it was and how it should use tools and become a "coding agent" Gotta find the most minimal mix that fits right into my workflow Make OpenCode as lean as Pi? We'll see. All in

raymel 👋

37,939 次观看 • 3 个月前

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)

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)

Spaceballs The X Account

195,545 次观看 • 16 天前

The clinical term is malignant narcissism. There is a specific kind of man who walks into a room and immediately begins rearranging it. Not the furniture. The people. By minute four, he has forgotten the names of half of them. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the system. The clinical term is malignant narcissism. It sits at the intersection of four things: narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial features, paranoia, and sadism. The sadism part is what people miss. He does not simply lack empathy. He has inverted it. He reads your emotional state with the precision of a surgeon, then uses that information like a scalpel. Maximum discomfort. Minimum legal risk. Otto Kernberg, the psychiatrist who formalized the concept, called it one of the most dangerous personality structures a human being can carry. Not because it is loud. Because it is effective. And because it is almost impossible to name while you are standing inside it. History keeps producing the same man. Robert Maxwell looted his employees’ pension funds while they trusted him completely. Hundreds of millions. He knew the whole time. There is no evidence he experienced this as a problem. Silvio Berlusconi governed Italy like a man who had confused the country with his personal property. Laws bent to fit his legal situation. Courts were hollowed out when they became inconvenient. People who spent time close to him reported the same thing afterward: you left the conversation certain you had agreed to something. You just could not remember what. Charm makes you feel good about yourself. This makes you feel good about him. There is a difference. It takes most people years to locate it. The pattern has a shape. Once you see it you cannot unsee it. It begins with grandiosity so complete it functions as a worldview. Other people exist in one of three categories: instruments, obstacles, or audiences. He is perfectly pleasant to all three, for exactly as long as they remain useful. The moment that changes, so does he. The switch is not gradual. It is a door closing. It continues with a specific relationship to truth. He does not lie the way ordinary people lie, defensively, to avoid consequences. He lies the way a chess player moves pieces. If I can make you accept a false thing, I have demonstrated power over your reality. If you push back, I do not retreat. I escalate. The goal was never the fact. The goal was always the submission. It sustains itself by dismantling anything capable of judgment. Independent courts. A free press. Rival centers of power. These feel to him not like inconveniences but like attacks. The structure that can judge him is the structure that must be broken. This is not calculated. It is reflexive. It is as automatic as flinching. The frightening thing is not that these men exist. The frightening thing is the gap between when the room starts rearranging itself and when anyone names what they are watching. That gap can last years. Decades. Sometimes it outlasts the man entirely, and the next generation inherits the rearranged room and calls it normal. By the time someone says it plainly, the furniture is long gone. And he is already in the next room. Gandalv

The clinical term is malignant narcissism. There is a specific kind of man who walks into a room and immediately begins rearranging it. Not the furniture. The people. By minute four, he has forgotten the names of half of them. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the system. The clinical term is malignant narcissism. It sits at the intersection of four things: narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial features, paranoia, and sadism. The sadism part is what people miss. He does not simply lack empathy. He has inverted it. He reads your emotional state with the precision of a surgeon, then uses that information like a scalpel. Maximum discomfort. Minimum legal risk. Otto Kernberg, the psychiatrist who formalized the concept, called it one of the most dangerous personality structures a human being can carry. Not because it is loud. Because it is effective. And because it is almost impossible to name while you are standing inside it. History keeps producing the same man. Robert Maxwell looted his employees’ pension funds while they trusted him completely. Hundreds of millions. He knew the whole time. There is no evidence he experienced this as a problem. Silvio Berlusconi governed Italy like a man who had confused the country with his personal property. Laws bent to fit his legal situation. Courts were hollowed out when they became inconvenient. People who spent time close to him reported the same thing afterward: you left the conversation certain you had agreed to something. You just could not remember what. Charm makes you feel good about yourself. This makes you feel good about him. There is a difference. It takes most people years to locate it. The pattern has a shape. Once you see it you cannot unsee it. It begins with grandiosity so complete it functions as a worldview. Other people exist in one of three categories: instruments, obstacles, or audiences. He is perfectly pleasant to all three, for exactly as long as they remain useful. The moment that changes, so does he. The switch is not gradual. It is a door closing. It continues with a specific relationship to truth. He does not lie the way ordinary people lie, defensively, to avoid consequences. He lies the way a chess player moves pieces. If I can make you accept a false thing, I have demonstrated power over your reality. If you push back, I do not retreat. I escalate. The goal was never the fact. The goal was always the submission. It sustains itself by dismantling anything capable of judgment. Independent courts. A free press. Rival centers of power. These feel to him not like inconveniences but like attacks. The structure that can judge him is the structure that must be broken. This is not calculated. It is reflexive. It is as automatic as flinching. The frightening thing is not that these men exist. The frightening thing is the gap between when the room starts rearranging itself and when anyone names what they are watching. That gap can last years. Decades. Sometimes it outlasts the man entirely, and the next generation inherits the rearranged room and calls it normal. By the time someone says it plainly, the furniture is long gone. And he is already in the next room. Gandalv

Gandalv

23,407 次观看 • 5 个月前

‼️DECLASSIFIED: New 2024 Infrared UAP Footage Released — Military Still Can’t Identify It 👀 As part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System (PURS), the Department of War just cleared for release a stunning new video. This isn't a leaked cellphone clip—it is one minute and 39 seconds of high-definition infrared footage submitted by the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. The 2024 Incident: This footage was captured by a U.S. military platform in 2024, proving that these incursions are not just "historical" relics but an ongoing reality of our current airspace. The "Unresolved" Status: Unlike previous clips that the Pentagon tried to dismiss as "parallax" or "tricks of the eye," this Indo-Pacific footage remains an unresolved case. The government is officially admitting they cannot determine the nature of the observed phenomena. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stated that this release is part of a mandate to find, review, and declassify these files expeditiously. The days of "justified speculation" are being replaced by raw data. This footage follows a series of other chilling reports from 2024, including government contractors witnessing a "large metallic cylinder" the size of a commercial airplane that vanished in mid-air. We are seeing objects with morphological features and behaviors that defy the state of the art. The Reality: The "War for the Mind" includes keeping us in the dark about what is actually in our skies. But with the unsealing of these files, the "scales" are finally being removed. 🏛️📉 If these objects can't be identified by the most advanced military sensors on the planet, then who is flying them? The Department of War has even invited private-sector analysis to help resolve these cases. That means the "Noticing" community is now officially part of the search for the truth. RT to spread the declassified proof. The era of secrecy is over. 👇

‼️DECLASSIFIED: New 2024 Infrared UAP Footage Released — Military Still Can’t Identify It 👀 As part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System (PURS), the Department of War just cleared for release a stunning new video. This isn't a leaked cellphone clip—it is one minute and 39 seconds of high-definition infrared footage submitted by the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. The 2024 Incident: This footage was captured by a U.S. military platform in 2024, proving that these incursions are not just "historical" relics but an ongoing reality of our current airspace. The "Unresolved" Status: Unlike previous clips that the Pentagon tried to dismiss as "parallax" or "tricks of the eye," this Indo-Pacific footage remains an unresolved case. The government is officially admitting they cannot determine the nature of the observed phenomena. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stated that this release is part of a mandate to find, review, and declassify these files expeditiously. The days of "justified speculation" are being replaced by raw data. This footage follows a series of other chilling reports from 2024, including government contractors witnessing a "large metallic cylinder" the size of a commercial airplane that vanished in mid-air. We are seeing objects with morphological features and behaviors that defy the state of the art. The Reality: The "War for the Mind" includes keeping us in the dark about what is actually in our skies. But with the unsealing of these files, the "scales" are finally being removed. 🏛️📉 If these objects can't be identified by the most advanced military sensors on the planet, then who is flying them? The Department of War has even invited private-sector analysis to help resolve these cases. That means the "Noticing" community is now officially part of the search for the truth. RT to spread the declassified proof. The era of secrecy is over. 👇

Project Constitution

64,986 次观看 • 3 个月前

Why is the national guard handing out coffee and donuts? The ret*rds among the Amerimutt right don't understand why the National Guard of Minnesota are giving out donuts and coffee to the locals in Minneapolis. They're too inexperienced to understand basic COIN principles. You must win over the locals. You have to meet with them, create every opportunity to connect. Make them like you and do it in a genuine, and human way. Once you do that 90% of your operations are basically done. This is how the US gets to stay in extremely dangerous places around the world, and the unit responsible for it is CAPOC. It's manned by extremely charismatic and intelligent officers. Every event and encounter is accounted for, studied and eventually every loss is turned into a win. In Vietnam era terminology it's called winning hearts and minds. The majority of humans, by their core nature, are unwilling to attack a friendly face. Furthermore, when they connect with someone, genuinely, they are unlikely to betray them most of the time. Stack these events and the likelihood of immersion with the locals becomes high. Then you facilitate your strategic objectives, without any interference from the locals, because they're already on your side. What you don't do is a road-side execution, fit for a terror organisation. This doesn't just lose you the locals but creates an environment where people around the world want to actively see you harmed, or lose. Every local you kill has hundreds of friends and potentially thousands of associations. Do this enough times and the entire city will want to hunt you down. So, while the e-right laugh at the competent national guard, they're busy winning, one hot coffee, one donut, one hand shake and one conversation at a time.

Why is the national guard handing out coffee and donuts? The ret*rds among the Amerimutt right don't understand why the National Guard of Minnesota are giving out donuts and coffee to the locals in Minneapolis. They're too inexperienced to understand basic COIN principles. You must win over the locals. You have to meet with them, create every opportunity to connect. Make them like you and do it in a genuine, and human way. Once you do that 90% of your operations are basically done. This is how the US gets to stay in extremely dangerous places around the world, and the unit responsible for it is CAPOC. It's manned by extremely charismatic and intelligent officers. Every event and encounter is accounted for, studied and eventually every loss is turned into a win. In Vietnam era terminology it's called winning hearts and minds. The majority of humans, by their core nature, are unwilling to attack a friendly face. Furthermore, when they connect with someone, genuinely, they are unlikely to betray them most of the time. Stack these events and the likelihood of immersion with the locals becomes high. Then you facilitate your strategic objectives, without any interference from the locals, because they're already on your side. What you don't do is a road-side execution, fit for a terror organisation. This doesn't just lose you the locals but creates an environment where people around the world want to actively see you harmed, or lose. Every local you kill has hundreds of friends and potentially thousands of associations. Do this enough times and the entire city will want to hunt you down. So, while the e-right laugh at the competent national guard, they're busy winning, one hot coffee, one donut, one hand shake and one conversation at a time.

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

52,204 次观看 • 7 个月前

The Sabotaging Practice of Over Supply and Sameness in the NFT Space. The current zeitgeist of the NFT space is that the same artists are doing the same kind of work five times a year, with project after project leaving a trail of disappointment and discontent among collectors and all of us watching in disbelief as huge resources are extracted from the space over work that feels like it could be left as an "artist study." I understand that you can do what you want with your money as collectors, but we are killing the whole space with this incestuous practice. No artist is that prolific to be able to do 5 collections of 100+ pieces each every year and actually deliver innovation and some kind of creative evolution. Of course, they can pretend play that the work has something new, but there is no precedent nor proof that that has ever happened in the speed that it happens in the NFT space. Again, people are free to through away their resources on whatever they want but with this way of doing things, we more and more are going to start seeing the consequences. Oh! There are consequences? Yes. Maybe unintended, but there are. Let's see. Let's start with the loss of belief in the NFT space as somewhere where emerging artists can come and find support for their experiments. Why even bother to bring experiments, innovation, and new ways to think of art on the blockchain if the same people have all the collectors hypnotized with their magical flutes? Why even try to come to a space where taking risks and challenging the status quo (the mission of art!!!) is overlooked? This makes the NFT space a social club and not a space for art. I guess it is fine, but IMO it is a recipe for disaster. New collectors stay away because the art will slowly but surely become stale and un-challenging. Why even bother to come and see what is happening here if you can't, as a collector, see new weird and up-and-coming artists? The amount of noise emitted by the same artists doing the same art over and over, drowns out any new voices. Again. A recipe for disaster. The NFT space is becoming a space of disappointment and doubt. We think that collections going to zero one after the other, over and over, is not damaging? I feel we are kidding ourselves. Disappointment piles up, and again, the people who will hurt are the emerging artists, the new blood, the ones who are willing to risk the most and, in return, put fire in this cold space of sameness. I love this space—don't get me wrong—it has changed my life, and I believe it has a ton of potential, but things need to change for it to become a beacon of light in art. But we need to support new voices. We need to support new ideas. The challenge is huge. I hope to contribute all I can to this change. I hope more and more see how exciting it is to go out and try to discover what else is out there and move this space forward. But again, I understand the leaps of faith needed, but if there is a space that is based on that, it's the NFT space...so there is hope. We will see. 📺by Boldtron

The Sabotaging Practice of Over Supply and Sameness in the NFT Space. The current zeitgeist of the NFT space is that the same artists are doing the same kind of work five times a year, with project after project leaving a trail of disappointment and discontent among collectors and all of us watching in disbelief as huge resources are extracted from the space over work that feels like it could be left as an "artist study." I understand that you can do what you want with your money as collectors, but we are killing the whole space with this incestuous practice. No artist is that prolific to be able to do 5 collections of 100+ pieces each every year and actually deliver innovation and some kind of creative evolution. Of course, they can pretend play that the work has something new, but there is no precedent nor proof that that has ever happened in the speed that it happens in the NFT space. Again, people are free to through away their resources on whatever they want but with this way of doing things, we more and more are going to start seeing the consequences. Oh! There are consequences? Yes. Maybe unintended, but there are. Let's see. Let's start with the loss of belief in the NFT space as somewhere where emerging artists can come and find support for their experiments. Why even bother to bring experiments, innovation, and new ways to think of art on the blockchain if the same people have all the collectors hypnotized with their magical flutes? Why even try to come to a space where taking risks and challenging the status quo (the mission of art!!!) is overlooked? This makes the NFT space a social club and not a space for art. I guess it is fine, but IMO it is a recipe for disaster. New collectors stay away because the art will slowly but surely become stale and un-challenging. Why even bother to come and see what is happening here if you can't, as a collector, see new weird and up-and-coming artists? The amount of noise emitted by the same artists doing the same art over and over, drowns out any new voices. Again. A recipe for disaster. The NFT space is becoming a space of disappointment and doubt. We think that collections going to zero one after the other, over and over, is not damaging? I feel we are kidding ourselves. Disappointment piles up, and again, the people who will hurt are the emerging artists, the new blood, the ones who are willing to risk the most and, in return, put fire in this cold space of sameness. I love this space—don't get me wrong—it has changed my life, and I believe it has a ton of potential, but things need to change for it to become a beacon of light in art. But we need to support new voices. We need to support new ideas. The challenge is huge. I hope to contribute all I can to this change. I hope more and more see how exciting it is to go out and try to discover what else is out there and move this space forward. But again, I understand the leaps of faith needed, but if there is a space that is based on that, it's the NFT space...so there is hope. We will see. 📺by Boldtron

alejandro cartagena

98,261 次观看 • 2 年前