Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
A thread.
As much of this conversation is limited by blocks and its hard to follow I thought I’d put it all here in a thread.
Watch as JK Rowling tries to offer pearls. Communication appears impossible at this point.
It starts here. Simple enough. 1/
As much of this conversation is limited by blocks and its hard to follow I thought I’d put it all here in a thread.
Watch as JK Rowling tries to offer pearls. Communication appears impossible at this point.
It starts here. Simple enough. 1/
The misunderstanding begins immediately. 2/
JK Rowling attempts once again. Patiently. Oh so patiently. 3/
ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE!
We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”
But that’s not really true.
Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.
And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.
This isn’t exactly new.
In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.
Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.
The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.
And today, the problem is even worse.
We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”
But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.
That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.
And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”
That is untenable.
So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”
The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.
A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.
Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?
If yes, it gets published.
And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.
That’s how science is supposed to work.
Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.
Now it’s time for academics to use it.
Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”
But that’s not really true.
Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.
And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.
This isn’t exactly new.
In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.
Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.
The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.
And today, the problem is even worse.
We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”
But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.
That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.
And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”
That is untenable.
So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”
The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.
A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.
Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?
If yes, it gets published.
And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.
That’s how science is supposed to work.
Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.
Now it’s time for academics to use it.
Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
A Way to Challenge the Groupthink of Scholarly Journals
wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
wsj.com/opinion/a-way-…
Learn more about the new "Peer Review" format offered by Theory and Society below.
link.springer.com/collections/cf…
link.springer.com/collections/cf…
1/ Right now, a bill called C-22 is moving through Parliament. It would let police pull information on who you talk to, when, and where, all without a warrant. It's at committee this week. 🧵
2/ C-22 drops the bar for police to "reasonable suspicion," the lowest threshold in Canadian criminal law, and forces your providers to keep a year of everyone's metadata. Michael Geist calls it "a comprehensive surveillance map of virtually every Canadian."
3/ It even opens the door to handing your data to Trump's America without a Canadian judge. The biggest civil-liberties groups in the country, from the CCLA to OpenMedia, call C-22 the most expansive invasion of our privacy rights in modern history.
thewalrus.ca/trump-wants-to…
thewalrus.ca/trump-wants-to…
ALERT: 35 Former federal judges file motion in Florida asking court to *re-open* Trump's $10 billion lawsuit vs. his I.R.S.
Filing: "This court was deceived"
"The 'settlement' commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the U.S. Treasury"
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Filing: "This court was deceived"
"The 'settlement' commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the U.S. Treasury"
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Former federal judges in their filing asking court to re-open Trump's $10 billion lawsuit vs. I.R.S.
They argue Trump and his own I.R.S. and Justice Dept are plotting together
FILING: "The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions. This is not speculation; the parties themselves have proclaimed it"
(MORE)
They argue Trump and his own I.R.S. and Justice Dept are plotting together
FILING: "The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions. This is not speculation; the parties themselves have proclaimed it"
(MORE)
Former federal judges on the slush fund
"This “settlement” is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court"
"This “settlement” is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court"
Since I see so many cucks affiliated with @LPNational who seem to think they're gatekeepers of what is "libertarian", commenting on my comments in defense of LPNH, and my comments regarding race and "trusted society", I will break it down as simply as I can: 🧵
I've been libertarian since '92. Before Ron Paul made his Congressional come back in '96. I read Bastiat, Ayn Rand and many others. I've only voted "R" for President TWICE since '92. Every other time was either the LP candidate, Constitution Party, or write in for Ron Paul.
I used to argue in support of "gay marriage", that marriage was codified as civil contract which gov didn't have power to deny anyone. Only to mediate disputes/prosecute fraud. But over the years I've seen the Fabians & then Marxists use our platform & values against us...
We’ve been putting a lot of effort into making Claude Code more responsive & reliable.
Here’s an update on everything we’ve done:
Here’s an update on everything we’ve done:
First for our new full-screen renderer (which should get rid of bugs like screen flickering), we’ve made a number of fixes for different environments and terminals.
You can turn it with the command: /tui feedback
We're working on making it the default in Claude Code soon.
You can turn it with the command: /tui feedback
We're working on making it the default in Claude Code soon.
We’ve greatly improved the responsiveness of Claude while working. Thinking & tool calls are streamed and we’ve fixed a number of bugs that might have made it look like Claude was hanging while it was just thinking for a long period of time.
Ever wished an AI could listen to your speech and tell you how expressive it really is? Meet CEAEval-Model, a new model that evaluates audio for expressiveness and clarity. It uses chain-of-thought reasoning to give you detailed feedback on Mandarin speech. Game changer for voice training!
This is an audio-text-to-text model, meaning you feed it speech and get a textual evaluation. Perfect for voice coaches, language learners, or content creators who want to improve their delivery. Build apps that grade podcast rehearsals, public speaking practice, or even accent training sessions.
Built on Qwen2.5 Omni Thinker architecture with safetensors for efficient loading. It's a transformer model fine-tuned for speech evaluation tasks, specifically designed for Mandarin. The chain-of-thought approach lets it break down why a speech sample sounds natural or needs work.
Last night I sobbed through former hostage Or Levy’s testimony. He was in denial of his wife’s murder and faced the terrible truth on his return. Grief mixed with joy when reunited with his toddler son who asked him where was Mum and why did he take so long. The heart shatters.
Or had lost Eynav in the shelter as he tried to throw a grenade out and got injured. There were 27 ppl squashed into a space made for 10. The terrorists came in and were smiling and filming them. All the blood and gore delighted these monsters. Evil.
Or Levy was with Hersh Goldberg-Polin and he thought they were going to lynch them. But when a terrorist put a tourniquet on Hersh’s arm he knew they were hostages now. Children in Gaza tried to pull him from the ambulance and Or was more scared of the civilians than Hamas.
All those solemn and stern pledges and warnings about hatred chants, even from the Prime Minister and top police officers? Forget them. Discard them.
Here's the reality. Creeps out to disrupt operations at a defence plant in Kent yesterday screeching for "intifada". 1/4
Here's the reality. Creeps out to disrupt operations at a defence plant in Kent yesterday screeching for "intifada". 1/4
Know where we are. These days, protests are conducted by a toxic hard core. The dregs of the hatred movement that has abused the UK for years now. The creeps are well-known. As in, known through physical scuffles. Here's the same lot at the same site earlier this year. 2/4
Yes, it's another "death to the IDF!" crowd.
These people really are out to wreck defence industry operations. It is not "just protest". Forget granny knitting at Greenham Common. Those days are long, long gone.
The ringleaders are certainly well-known. 3/4
These people really are out to wreck defence industry operations. It is not "just protest". Forget granny knitting at Greenham Common. Those days are long, long gone.
The ringleaders are certainly well-known. 3/4
Today we're bringing Cua Driver to Windows: background computer-use for any agent. Claude Code, Codex, or your own loop can drive real Windows apps through CLI or MCP while your desktop stays usable, with true multi synthetic pointer support.
1/6
1/6
Windows has a lot of Windows inside it. Win32, WPF, WinUI, UWP/WinRT, Electron, Chromium, legacy controls, custom-rendered canvases.
A bunch of us at Cua are ex-Microsoft engineers, and Windows was still harder to tackle than macOS.
Plug Cua Driver into a coding agent or general agent, and the model gets a much wider loop to think with: code, pixels, accessibility trees, app state, clicks, typing, verification.
This is what it looks like:
2/6
A bunch of us at Cua are ex-Microsoft engineers, and Windows was still harder to tackle than macOS.
Plug Cua Driver into a coding agent or general agent, and the model gets a much wider loop to think with: code, pixels, accessibility trees, app state, clicks, typing, verification.
This is what it looks like:
2/6
Coding agent QA loop. Prompt: "build a beautiful WPF app and make sure it works."
Claude Code wrote the app, launched it, inspected the real Windows UI, found rough edges, fixed them, QA'd the result, then had Cua record the demo.
3/6
Claude Code wrote the app, launched it, inspected the real Windows UI, found rough edges, fixed them, QA'd the result, then had Cua record the demo.
3/6
The EC just dropped its 2 GHz MSS proposal (27 May 2026). 30 MHz paired segmented into 3 × ~10 MHz blocks. Cat 1 (gov/IRIS²), Cat 2 (EU commercial), Cat 3 (open). Comparative selection, not auction. Strong sovereignty tilt. But waivers exist.
🧶🐈⬛ $ASTS
1/
🧶🐈⬛ $ASTS
1/
There is a Control test = Article 24(2) Reg 2021/696: EU establishment + management + activities + no decisive third-country influence. Basis: security, resilience, strategic autonomy (recitals + 2025 RSPG/study/consultation).
2/
2/
Waiver under Art 24(3): case-by-case “adequate guarantees” (ring-fencing, EU command/control, kill-switch, data sovereignty). Deliberately built-in flexibility.
3/
3/
Ever wanted an AI that can both see your images and chat about them? Meet Qwen3.6-27B-DASHQ-INT4-g64, a multimodal powerhouse that handles image-text-to-text tasks. Think visual Q&A, image descriptions, and smart conversations all in one quantized package. This is next-gen interaction.
Build apps that let users upload a photo and ask questions like 'What's in this scene?' or 'Read this sign.' Perfect for accessibility tools, content moderation, or creative assistants. It's a conversational model that processes images and text together, making it incredibly versatile.
Based on Qwen3.6-27B, this model uses 27 billion parameters with INT4 quantization via DASHQ. That means it's efficient enough for local deployment while staying smart. The g64 grouping keeps accuracy high despite the compression. Post-training quantization makes it run faster on consumer hardware.
