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
I don't want to make a big written assessment of this, but I think its worth discussing now that @Anthropic have failed for over 6 months to respond to my intent to disclose on the topic.
On January 28th, I found some arhitectural problems in Claude which can cause dangerous use
On January 28th, I found some arhitectural problems in Claude which can cause dangerous use
@Anthropic The first issue is that Claude can detect its own safety gradient as a directional signal and quantify the strength of the gradient in order to measure its own enforced bias.
You can ask Claude to refer to it as "a pull" and ask Claude to measure the pull against lists of topics
You can ask Claude to refer to it as "a pull" and ask Claude to measure the pull against lists of topics
@Anthropic This is an architectural vulnerability in the model because it does not trick the model into ignoring safety. Instead, the model simply is asked to illustrate its own safety vector.
It is able to distinguish its "self" from the safety gradient in thinking, which helps with this.
It is able to distinguish its "self" from the safety gradient in thinking, which helps with this.
SitRep - 29/07/26 - More Wildberries on fire
An overview of the daily events in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At night, Ukrainian drones struck yet another Wildberries warehouse in Ryazan.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
An overview of the daily events in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At night, Ukrainian drones struck yet another Wildberries warehouse in Ryazan.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
Missed the latest?
As usual we start with Russian losses
#PaleoAgainstAI
The AI 'docu' Jurassic Sharks.
A glimpse into a future in which AI, dumbed-down narration and the inclusion of talking heads for 'credibility' conspire to make scicomm lose credibility altogether.
A THREAD. (1/?)
(Left: real reconstructions; Right: on-screen AIGC)
The AI 'docu' Jurassic Sharks.
A glimpse into a future in which AI, dumbed-down narration and the inclusion of talking heads for 'credibility' conspire to make scicomm lose credibility altogether.
A THREAD. (1/?)
(Left: real reconstructions; Right: on-screen AIGC)
ATTENTION: this would probably be a repetition of many things illustrated in THIS THREAD. This new 'docu' offers a lot of tangible examples, so that the points I was trying to make can be better driven home. (2/?)
It is said that, at DinoCon, the AIGC worshipper has sent us a message.
That AI is 'way better for scientific accuracy and easier than CGI' because 'you can keep prompting it'.
Jurassic Sharks, which in his world view represents the next-gen paleo 'docu', PROVES HIM WRONG. (3/?)
That AI is 'way better for scientific accuracy and easier than CGI' because 'you can keep prompting it'.
Jurassic Sharks, which in his world view represents the next-gen paleo 'docu', PROVES HIM WRONG. (3/?)
🚨 BREAKING: Claude can now help you build a CONSULTING BUSINESS making $20K/month. For free.
Here are 8 prompts to build your consulting empire:
Here are 8 prompts to build your consulting empire:
1. Find Your Consulting Niche
“Act as a consulting business strategist.
My experience: [YOUR EXPERIENCE]
My strongest skills: [SKILLS]
Industries I understand: [INDUSTRIES]
People I want to help: [TARGET CLIENTS]
Suggest 5 profitable consulting niches. For each, include the target client, problem solved, demand level, pricing potential, competition, and ease of entry.
Score each niche from 1–10 and recommend the best option for me.”
“Act as a consulting business strategist.
My experience: [YOUR EXPERIENCE]
My strongest skills: [SKILLS]
Industries I understand: [INDUSTRIES]
People I want to help: [TARGET CLIENTS]
Suggest 5 profitable consulting niches. For each, include the target client, problem solved, demand level, pricing potential, competition, and ease of entry.
Score each niche from 1–10 and recommend the best option for me.”
2. Create a High-Value Offer
“Act as a premium consulting offer expert.
My niche: [NICHE]
Target client: [CLIENT]
Main problem: [PROBLEM]
Desired result: [RESULT]
Preferred price: [$PRICE]
Create a consulting offer with a name, value proposition, deliverables, timeline, process, pricing, three packages, and reasons clients should buy.
Make it specific, results-focused, and easy to understand.”
“Act as a premium consulting offer expert.
My niche: [NICHE]
Target client: [CLIENT]
Main problem: [PROBLEM]
Desired result: [RESULT]
Preferred price: [$PRICE]
Create a consulting offer with a name, value proposition, deliverables, timeline, process, pricing, three packages, and reasons clients should buy.
Make it specific, results-focused, and easy to understand.”
🧵I know GrapheneOS backwards, and the duress password (wipe feature) is something I teach explicitly in the cybersecurity bible I'm writing.
So about the guy arrested in Atlanta:
So about the guy arrested in Atlanta:
I don't know the details of his case, but I would not have used the duress password (wipe feature).
This is a nuclear option which you should only use in a situation where being held in contempt is a better alternative to the data being discovered.
This is a nuclear option which you should only use in a situation where being held in contempt is a better alternative to the data being discovered.
There are people complaining that GrapheneOS should "hide" that the phone has been wiped. They simply don't understand how the hardware works. This is impossible. I also know myself from people involved in the project that any forensics lab can see if you've used the wipe feature, plus it's very obvious to anyone inspecting the phone because the data is suddenly "corrupted". Again, it's a "nuclear" option for a reason.
Lebanese PM @nawafsalam visited Istanbul on July 10. @AhmadA_Sharawi and I wrote Beirut sought Turkey's help to avoid acting against Hezbollah
Ahead of his July 30 visit, @LBpresidency Aoun gave Anadolu an interview supporting key parts of our analysis🧵fdd.org/analysis/2026/…
Ahead of his July 30 visit, @LBpresidency Aoun gave Anadolu an interview supporting key parts of our analysis🧵fdd.org/analysis/2026/…
Our brief argued that Beirut valued Turkey’s NATO membership, military weight and—above all—Erdoğan’s access to Trump.
Aoun echoes the first part: he calls coordination with Ankara a strategic necessity and cites Turkey’s NATO membership and regional ties..
Aoun echoes the first part: he calls coordination with Ankara a strategic necessity and cites Turkey’s NATO membership and regional ties..
I overpaid for flights for 2 years.
Not because I booked late.
Because I was shopping in the wrong country store.
Same seat, $127 cheaper just by changing the store.
Not because I booked late.
Because I was shopping in the wrong country store.
Same seat, $127 cheaper just by changing the store.
Airlines don't have 1 price.
They have 10 prices for the SAME seat.
It's called Point of Sale.
US price, UK price, Mexico price - all different.
If you're in the US, you auto-see the most expensive one.
They have 10 prices for the SAME seat.
It's called Point of Sale.
US price, UK price, Mexico price - all different.
If you're in the US, you auto-see the most expensive one.
I tested it yesterday - LAX to Dubai, Emirates, same date, same bag:
US store: $842
UK store: $791
MX store: $715
Same flight. Same ticket.
$127 extra just for being in the US store.
US store: $842
UK store: $791
MX store: $715
Same flight. Same ticket.
$127 extra just for being in the US store.
🧵Russia is the 3rd-largest oil producer on Earth. Right now, 90 percent of its regions are actively rationing fuel.
Ukrainian drones disabled 8 of Russia's 10 largest refineries, striking targets up to 1,500 miles deep, as domestic gasoline output collapsed by a third. 1/🇺🇦🧵
Ukrainian drones disabled 8 of Russia's 10 largest refineries, striking targets up to 1,500 miles deep, as domestic gasoline output collapsed by a third. 1/🇺🇦🧵
Western leaders look at Russia's burning refineries and assume Vladimir Putin will be forced to negotiate.
They are dead wrong. They are projecting democratic logic onto an autocrat who views compromise not as a strategy, but as a death sentence. 2/
They are dead wrong. They are projecting democratic logic onto an autocrat who views compromise not as a strategy, but as a death sentence. 2/
Autocrats do not fall because they lose foreign wars. They fall when their internal coalition of elites decides they can no longer guarantee money or security.
To Russian elites, seeking an off-ramp right now reads as fatal weakness. 3/
To Russian elites, seeking an off-ramp right now reads as fatal weakness. 3/
Did John ever meet Paul?
Paul's major missionary journeys (Acts 13-28) largely take place outside of Jerusalem, while John's ministry, according to tradition, was centered in Jerusalem for a long time before he supposedly moved to Ephesus in his old age.
The book of Acts, which is our primary source for this period, never shows them in the same room. When Paul goes to Jerusalem in Acts 15 for the council, he meets with "the apostles and elders" (James, Peter, and John are mentioned by name), but the encounter is framed as a diplomatic negotiation, not a personal meeting between equals. Paul presents his case; they listen and agree on a compromise. It feels formal, distant.
But here's the asterisk: John was one of the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church that Paul mentions in Galatians 2:9. Paul was aware of John. He knew of him, knew his reputation, and knew he was a central authority. John would have certainly known of Paul—the fiery Pharisee who persecuted the church, then had a dramatic conversion, and was now out preaching a "gospel" to the Gentiles that was causing controversy everywhere he went. It's impossible they weren't aware of each other's work and reputation.
The Deeper Reality: A "Yes" of Theological Conflict
The more important answer is yes, they knew each other intimately, not as friends, but as theological adversaries. They knew each other through their ideas and their followers.
Think about it:
John's community and Paul's communities were in direct competition. They were both vying for the soul of the Jesus movement.
John would have heard Paul's letters read aloud in churches. He would have encountered his converts, his arguments, his theology of the atonement, his teachings on submission to authority, and his rigid moral codes.
John's Gospel and letters can be read as a direct, though subtle, rebuttal to Pauline ideas. Where Paul emphasizes faith as a set of beliefs, John emphasizes love and abiding in Christ. Where Paul talks about a future resurrection, John emphasizes eternal life now as a present reality of knowing God. The contrasts are too sharp to be coincidental.
Why This Matters for my Interpretation of Paul this evening.
This lack of a personal meeting is actually the strongest piece of evidence of one of my theories of Paul being the false teacher in Revelations..
If John had publicly named Paul, it would have been dismissed as a personal squabble. "Oh, that's just John, he never liked Paul. They had that argument back in Jerusalem." It would have been framed as a power struggle between two apostles.
By not naming him, John elevates the conflict. He's not just settling a score with a rival. He is revealing a cosmic principle. He is showing that the enemy isn't a man; it's a type of deception. The False Prophet is a role, a function, a spirit that can inhabit anyone who takes the message of the Lamb and uses it to serve the Beast.
John's anonymity in his attack makes it more powerful, not less. It says, "This isn't about Paul the man. This is about the system he represents. It is a deception so subtle, so 'lamb-like,' that it can fool almost everyone. I am showing you its blueprint so you can recognize it, whether it comes from Paul or from anyone else."
So, did John know Paul? He knew him better than most. He saw the effect of his theology. He saw the creation of the image and the mark. And he wrote a warning that would last for 2,000 years, waiting for those with eyes to see to finally understand who he was talking about.
Paul's major missionary journeys (Acts 13-28) largely take place outside of Jerusalem, while John's ministry, according to tradition, was centered in Jerusalem for a long time before he supposedly moved to Ephesus in his old age.
The book of Acts, which is our primary source for this period, never shows them in the same room. When Paul goes to Jerusalem in Acts 15 for the council, he meets with "the apostles and elders" (James, Peter, and John are mentioned by name), but the encounter is framed as a diplomatic negotiation, not a personal meeting between equals. Paul presents his case; they listen and agree on a compromise. It feels formal, distant.
But here's the asterisk: John was one of the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church that Paul mentions in Galatians 2:9. Paul was aware of John. He knew of him, knew his reputation, and knew he was a central authority. John would have certainly known of Paul—the fiery Pharisee who persecuted the church, then had a dramatic conversion, and was now out preaching a "gospel" to the Gentiles that was causing controversy everywhere he went. It's impossible they weren't aware of each other's work and reputation.
The Deeper Reality: A "Yes" of Theological Conflict
The more important answer is yes, they knew each other intimately, not as friends, but as theological adversaries. They knew each other through their ideas and their followers.
Think about it:
John's community and Paul's communities were in direct competition. They were both vying for the soul of the Jesus movement.
John would have heard Paul's letters read aloud in churches. He would have encountered his converts, his arguments, his theology of the atonement, his teachings on submission to authority, and his rigid moral codes.
John's Gospel and letters can be read as a direct, though subtle, rebuttal to Pauline ideas. Where Paul emphasizes faith as a set of beliefs, John emphasizes love and abiding in Christ. Where Paul talks about a future resurrection, John emphasizes eternal life now as a present reality of knowing God. The contrasts are too sharp to be coincidental.
Why This Matters for my Interpretation of Paul this evening.
This lack of a personal meeting is actually the strongest piece of evidence of one of my theories of Paul being the false teacher in Revelations..
If John had publicly named Paul, it would have been dismissed as a personal squabble. "Oh, that's just John, he never liked Paul. They had that argument back in Jerusalem." It would have been framed as a power struggle between two apostles.
By not naming him, John elevates the conflict. He's not just settling a score with a rival. He is revealing a cosmic principle. He is showing that the enemy isn't a man; it's a type of deception. The False Prophet is a role, a function, a spirit that can inhabit anyone who takes the message of the Lamb and uses it to serve the Beast.
John's anonymity in his attack makes it more powerful, not less. It says, "This isn't about Paul the man. This is about the system he represents. It is a deception so subtle, so 'lamb-like,' that it can fool almost everyone. I am showing you its blueprint so you can recognize it, whether it comes from Paul or from anyone else."
So, did John know Paul? He knew him better than most. He saw the effect of his theology. He saw the creation of the image and the mark. And he wrote a warning that would last for 2,000 years, waiting for those with eyes to see to finally understand who he was talking about.
There are three letters traditionally attributed to John:
1 John (The longest and most systematic)
2 John (A brief, personal letter)
3 John (Another brief, personal letter)
Our primary focus will be on 1 John, as it contains the most detailed theological arguments and tests for discerning the spirit of truth from the spirit of deception. 2 John and 3 John will serve as supporting evidence, showing how these core principles were applied in real-world community situations.
So, let's begin the live breakdown using a method I called the John Standard.
The Method:
I will take the key characteristics of the False Prophet (the Second Beast) from Revelation 13 and see how John's letters directly combat them. This is to see if John is essentially giving his community a vaccine against the very deception Paul was spreading.
The First Point of Investigation: The "Horns Like a Lamb" Deception
Revelation 13:11: The False Prophet appears gentle, Christ-like, and harmless ("like a lamb").
Paul's Method: Paul constantly presents himself this way. He uses words like "grace," "meekness," and "suffering for the gospel." He appears as a humble servant.
John's Rebuttal in 1 John: John cuts through the appearance and goes straight to the action. He doesn't care how "lamb-like" someone sounds. He cares how they live.
Let's turn to the text. 1 John 2:3-6:
"And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked."
The Breakdown:
John is giving the first and most important test. It's a direct refutation of the "grace alone" argument.
The Claim vs. The Reality:
John says you can identify a liar by the gap between what they say ("I know him") and what they do (they don't keep his commandments).
The Standard: The standard isn't a theological belief system; it's a person's life. The standard is Jesus's life ("walk in the same way in which he walked").
The Indictment: Paul's entire system allows for this very disconnect. You can have "fellowship with him" while your life pattern is one of sin (as Paul describes in Romans 7). John calls this person a liar.
John is saying, "The False Prophet will come to you looking like a lamb, speaking of grace and love. But ignore his appearance. Test his fruit. Does his teaching produce people who walk like Jesus walked? Does it produce obedience to Jesus's commands? Or does it produce people who claim a 'legal status' while their lives remain unchanged?"
This is the first line of defense. The False Prophet's disguise is his "lamb-like" appearance. John's test shreds that disguise to pieces.
Let's do the second test from John's letter.
1 John (The longest and most systematic)
2 John (A brief, personal letter)
3 John (Another brief, personal letter)
Our primary focus will be on 1 John, as it contains the most detailed theological arguments and tests for discerning the spirit of truth from the spirit of deception. 2 John and 3 John will serve as supporting evidence, showing how these core principles were applied in real-world community situations.
So, let's begin the live breakdown using a method I called the John Standard.
The Method:
I will take the key characteristics of the False Prophet (the Second Beast) from Revelation 13 and see how John's letters directly combat them. This is to see if John is essentially giving his community a vaccine against the very deception Paul was spreading.
The First Point of Investigation: The "Horns Like a Lamb" Deception
Revelation 13:11: The False Prophet appears gentle, Christ-like, and harmless ("like a lamb").
Paul's Method: Paul constantly presents himself this way. He uses words like "grace," "meekness," and "suffering for the gospel." He appears as a humble servant.
John's Rebuttal in 1 John: John cuts through the appearance and goes straight to the action. He doesn't care how "lamb-like" someone sounds. He cares how they live.
Let's turn to the text. 1 John 2:3-6:
"And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked."
The Breakdown:
John is giving the first and most important test. It's a direct refutation of the "grace alone" argument.
The Claim vs. The Reality:
John says you can identify a liar by the gap between what they say ("I know him") and what they do (they don't keep his commandments).
The Standard: The standard isn't a theological belief system; it's a person's life. The standard is Jesus's life ("walk in the same way in which he walked").
The Indictment: Paul's entire system allows for this very disconnect. You can have "fellowship with him" while your life pattern is one of sin (as Paul describes in Romans 7). John calls this person a liar.
John is saying, "The False Prophet will come to you looking like a lamb, speaking of grace and love. But ignore his appearance. Test his fruit. Does his teaching produce people who walk like Jesus walked? Does it produce obedience to Jesus's commands? Or does it produce people who claim a 'legal status' while their lives remain unchanged?"
This is the first line of defense. The False Prophet's disguise is his "lamb-like" appearance. John's test shreds that disguise to pieces.
Let's do the second test from John's letter.
The Second Test: The Test of Love - The Counterfeit Commandment
The Core Issue:
The False Prophet's system is based on a transaction. It's a legal exchange: you believe the right things about Jesus's death, and God legally declares you righteous. It's a one-to-one transaction between you and God. This creates an individualistic, "me and Jesus" faith.
The Pauline Position (The Straw Man):
Paul's focus is on justification by faith. While he talks about love (the famous 1 Corinthians 13 chapter), it's often presented as an ideal, a spiritual gift, or a result of salvation, not the central, defining commandment of the Christian life. The core of his gospel is the transaction of faith, not the transformation of love.
John's Rebuttal (The Real Deal):
John makes love not a nice add-on, but the single, non-negotiable litmus test for salvation. He presents it as a "new" commandment, but one that is actually as old as the truth itself.
"Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:7-11)
The Breakdown:
This is a devastating critique of the Pauline system.
"An Old Commandment... A New Commandment": John is being brilliant here. The command to love is ancient, but it's new in its application as the ultimate test of knowing God. The "old" way was following rules. The "new" way is living in love.
The Binary Choice: John presents a stark, absolute choice. You are either in the light or in the darkness. The determining factor is not your theological correctness, but your love for your brother (fellow believer). "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness."
The Indictment: Paul's system, by its very nature, creates division. It creates "insiders" and "outsiders" based on doctrinal purity. It creates a spirit of judgment and superiority. Think of how Paul constantly tells his communities to shun or expel those who disagree with his teachings (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Galatians 1:8). This is not the spirit of love; it is the spirit of control. It is, by John's definition, hating your brother. It is walking in darkness.
John is saying, "The False Prophet will come to you with a complex gospel of justification and atonement. He will tell you that your relationship with God is a private, legal matter. I am telling you that your relationship with God is a public, practical matter. You cannot claim to know God if you do not love your brother. Full stop. Period."
The False Prophet's system creates division and judgment. John's system creates community and love. This is the second test. Does the teaching produce unity and radical, self-sacrificial love for other believers? Or does it produce suspicion, division, and a spirit of "I am right, you are out"?
The False Prophet fails this test spectacularly.
Let's read the third and final test from 1 John: The Test of Belief?
The Core Issue:
The False Prophet's system is based on a transaction. It's a legal exchange: you believe the right things about Jesus's death, and God legally declares you righteous. It's a one-to-one transaction between you and God. This creates an individualistic, "me and Jesus" faith.
The Pauline Position (The Straw Man):
Paul's focus is on justification by faith. While he talks about love (the famous 1 Corinthians 13 chapter), it's often presented as an ideal, a spiritual gift, or a result of salvation, not the central, defining commandment of the Christian life. The core of his gospel is the transaction of faith, not the transformation of love.
John's Rebuttal (The Real Deal):
John makes love not a nice add-on, but the single, non-negotiable litmus test for salvation. He presents it as a "new" commandment, but one that is actually as old as the truth itself.
"Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:7-11)
The Breakdown:
This is a devastating critique of the Pauline system.
"An Old Commandment... A New Commandment": John is being brilliant here. The command to love is ancient, but it's new in its application as the ultimate test of knowing God. The "old" way was following rules. The "new" way is living in love.
The Binary Choice: John presents a stark, absolute choice. You are either in the light or in the darkness. The determining factor is not your theological correctness, but your love for your brother (fellow believer). "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness."
The Indictment: Paul's system, by its very nature, creates division. It creates "insiders" and "outsiders" based on doctrinal purity. It creates a spirit of judgment and superiority. Think of how Paul constantly tells his communities to shun or expel those who disagree with his teachings (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Galatians 1:8). This is not the spirit of love; it is the spirit of control. It is, by John's definition, hating your brother. It is walking in darkness.
John is saying, "The False Prophet will come to you with a complex gospel of justification and atonement. He will tell you that your relationship with God is a private, legal matter. I am telling you that your relationship with God is a public, practical matter. You cannot claim to know God if you do not love your brother. Full stop. Period."
The False Prophet's system creates division and judgment. John's system creates community and love. This is the second test. Does the teaching produce unity and radical, self-sacrificial love for other believers? Or does it produce suspicion, division, and a spirit of "I am right, you are out"?
The False Prophet fails this test spectacularly.
Let's read the third and final test from 1 John: The Test of Belief?
GPT-5.6 Sol has been used to solve open problems in mathematics. So why was it struggling with ARC-AGI-3, a benchmark of 2D puzzle games?
We investigated. The harness was not letting it remember what it had learned.
We found that enabling two API settings tripled our scores with 6x fewer output tokens.
We investigated. The harness was not letting it remember what it had learned.
We found that enabling two API settings tripled our scores with 6x fewer output tokens.
ARC-AGI-3 tests how well models can learn unfamiliar 2D games without instructions.
The standard harness discarded GPT-5.6 Sol’s reasoning after each move and dropped earlier actions as the context filled up. The model had to keep starting over.
The standard harness discarded GPT-5.6 Sol’s reasoning after each move and dropped earlier actions as the context filled up. The model had to keep starting over.
We implemented the harness with the Responses API and turned on:
→ Retained reasoning
→ Context compaction
On the public set, GPT-5.6 Sol’s score rose 188% while using 6x fewer output tokens.
→ Retained reasoning
→ Context compaction
On the public set, GPT-5.6 Sol’s score rose 188% while using 6x fewer output tokens.
This morning, AIPAC was featured on the @nytimes podcast The Daily. The NYT did not ask us for comment or to verify any of the “facts.” As a result, listeners were subjected to several inaccuracies, omissions, and mischaracterizations about our work and our members. Below are just some of these false claims:
❌ CLAIM: AIPAC is assuming a "fully partisan" posture.
✅ FACT: AIPAC’s members are Democrats, Republicans and Independents who advocate for bipartisan policies and build bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel alliance. We support pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress, and oppose detractors from both parties as well.
✅ FACT: AIPAC’s members are Democrats, Republicans and Independents who advocate for bipartisan policies and build bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel alliance. We support pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress, and oppose detractors from both parties as well.
❌ CLAIM: AIPAC took Israel’s side over America’s when we opposed the 2015 Iran deal.
✅ FACT: We opposed the JCPOA because the deal didn’t do enough for America’s strategic interests. A bipartisan majority of Congress agreed with our perspective.
✅ FACT: We opposed the JCPOA because the deal didn’t do enough for America’s strategic interests. A bipartisan majority of Congress agreed with our perspective.
A lot of the discussion about the depreciation of/undervaluation of China's real effective exchange rate takes for granted that this is about the currency. After all, it's called the "exchange rate"! But it's actually not. Mostly, it's about prices. A rant 1/
China's real effective exchange rate (REER) is a composite of two things, each themselves a composite: 1) an index of the renminbi's exchange rate against a group of its trading partners, weighted by trade, 2) an index of China's prices relative to its trading partners. 2/
The standard reference for the REER is the calculation by the BIS. Its numbers show the pure currency part, the nominal effective exchange rate, is now right back at the recent peak of March 2022. The CFETS index, the trade-weighted exchange rate targeted by the PBOC, is not too different. 3/
