Recent well liked threads
Wolff: Now Epstein’s explanation for why this friendship ended is as follows.
In 2004, Epstein believed himself to be the high bidder on a piece of real estate in Palm Beach—a house. His bid was $36 million.
He took his friend Trump around to see the house, to advise him on how to move the swimming pool.
Trump thereupon went around Epstein’s back and bid $40 million for the house—and got the property.
Epstein, who was well acquainted and in fact deeply involved with Trump’s scattered finances, understood that he didn’t have $40 million to pay for this house.
Now, if that was the case, it was someone else’s $40 million.
At the time, Epstein believed this to be the $40 million of a Russian oligarch by the name of Rybolovlev.
Less than two years later, this same house that Trump had bought for $40 million was sold for $95 million—and it was in fact sold to Mr. Rybolovlev.
This is all a red flag of money laundering.
And what Epstein did—and he was furious about losing this house—I mean, there’s something about these guys, these men, that nothing rouses them so much as a real estate betrayal.
Epstein, after this—the sale of this house, after Trump went around his back, got this house—Epstein began to threaten with lawsuits, with going to the press and saying that Trump was a frontman for a money laundering deal.
Trump panics at this point, and Epstein believed—that it was Trump who went to the police and, as Epstein said, dropped the dime on him.
That is to say, informed the police of what was going on. And an investigation began, and all of Epstein’s legal problems for the next 15 years began to unfold.
This story about this piece of real estate and their falling out was first published in June 2019. It’s published actually in my book Siege, the second book I had written about the Trump White House.
Epstein had recounted this story to me. I put it in this book. Epstein, at that moment, was in Paris. He read the book. He called me with some alarm, and he said he was afraid that he might have said too much.
Three weeks later, he returned to the United States from Paris and was promptly arrested on the tarmac of Teterboro Airport in New Jersey when his plane landed.
In 2004, Epstein believed himself to be the high bidder on a piece of real estate in Palm Beach—a house. His bid was $36 million.
He took his friend Trump around to see the house, to advise him on how to move the swimming pool.
Trump thereupon went around Epstein’s back and bid $40 million for the house—and got the property.
Epstein, who was well acquainted and in fact deeply involved with Trump’s scattered finances, understood that he didn’t have $40 million to pay for this house.
Now, if that was the case, it was someone else’s $40 million.
At the time, Epstein believed this to be the $40 million of a Russian oligarch by the name of Rybolovlev.
Less than two years later, this same house that Trump had bought for $40 million was sold for $95 million—and it was in fact sold to Mr. Rybolovlev.
This is all a red flag of money laundering.
And what Epstein did—and he was furious about losing this house—I mean, there’s something about these guys, these men, that nothing rouses them so much as a real estate betrayal.
Epstein, after this—the sale of this house, after Trump went around his back, got this house—Epstein began to threaten with lawsuits, with going to the press and saying that Trump was a frontman for a money laundering deal.
Trump panics at this point, and Epstein believed—that it was Trump who went to the police and, as Epstein said, dropped the dime on him.
That is to say, informed the police of what was going on. And an investigation began, and all of Epstein’s legal problems for the next 15 years began to unfold.
This story about this piece of real estate and their falling out was first published in June 2019. It’s published actually in my book Siege, the second book I had written about the Trump White House.
Epstein had recounted this story to me. I put it in this book. Epstein, at that moment, was in Paris. He read the book. He called me with some alarm, and he said he was afraid that he might have said too much.
Three weeks later, he returned to the United States from Paris and was promptly arrested on the tarmac of Teterboro Airport in New Jersey when his plane landed.
Full interview and more from MeidasTouch here:
Transubstantiation is Metaphysically Impossible - 🧵🧵
(1/12)
The classic critique of the papist doctrine of transubstantiation as found in classical Reformed divines is that it is absurd for accidents to exist without an underlying substance or subject. In the case of transub, the substances of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and the accidents remain in existence without a subject. As I'll argue in this thread, this is impossible and contrary to the nature of an accident, which is to have actual inherence in a subject.
There were some in the medieval period, such as Peter Abelard, who speculated that the Eucharistic accidents are sustained in the air by God, but this was ultimately rejected.
Also rejected by Rome is the idea that the accidents inhere in the body and blood of Christ as such, since this would lead to absurd predications being true, like saying that "the body of Christ is three inches wide" (or whatever the dimensions of the host may be). Rather, the body of Christ sustains its own natural accidents. See Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Vol. 2, pg. 147
(1/12)
The classic critique of the papist doctrine of transubstantiation as found in classical Reformed divines is that it is absurd for accidents to exist without an underlying substance or subject. In the case of transub, the substances of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and the accidents remain in existence without a subject. As I'll argue in this thread, this is impossible and contrary to the nature of an accident, which is to have actual inherence in a subject.
There were some in the medieval period, such as Peter Abelard, who speculated that the Eucharistic accidents are sustained in the air by God, but this was ultimately rejected.
Also rejected by Rome is the idea that the accidents inhere in the body and blood of Christ as such, since this would lead to absurd predications being true, like saying that "the body of Christ is three inches wide" (or whatever the dimensions of the host may be). Rather, the body of Christ sustains its own natural accidents. See Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Vol. 2, pg. 147
(2/12)
First, we have to recognize that it was the unanimous understanding of logicians and philosophers prior to the Middle Ages that the very existence and definition of an accident is to inhere in a substance. The distinction between actual and aptitudinal inherence came later, as we will see.
“But there are different senses of 'coming to be'. In some cases we do not use the expression 'come to be', but 'come to be so-and-so'. Only substances are said to 'come to be' in the unqualified sense. Now in all cases other than substance it is plain that there must be some subject, namely, that which becomes. For we know that when a thing comes to be of such a quantity or quality or in such a relation, time, or place, a subject is always presupposed, since substance alone is not predicated of another subject, but everything else of substance.” (Aristotle, Physics, book I, ch. 7)
An accident does not have its own proper quiddity without reference to substance. If it did, many absurd consequences would follow, such as (1) making accidents in effect altogether the same as substances, (2) making being predicated to the same degree of both substance and accident, something rejected both by Thomists and Scotists.
The fact that an accident cannot exist without a subject in which to inhere was also recognized by the early fathers:
"R. But do you not concede that if the subject do not abide, that which is in the subject cannot inseparably abide? A. This also I see necessary: for, the subject remaining, that which is in the subject may possibly not remain, as any one with a little thought can perceive. Since the color of this body of mine may, by reason of health or age, suffer change, though the body has not yet perished. And this is not equally true of all things, but of those whose coexistence with the subject is not necessary to the existence of the subject. For it is not necessary that this wall, in order to be a wall, should be of this color, which we see in it; for even if, by some chance, it should become black or white, or should undergo some other change of color, it would nevertheless remain a wall and be so called. But if fire were without heat, it will not even be fire; nor can we talk of snow except as being white. But as to your question, who would grant, or to whom could it appear possible, that that which is in the subject should remain, while the subject perished? For it is monstrous and most utterly foreign to the truth that what would not be unless it were in the subject, could be even when the subject itself was no more." (Augustine, Soliloquies, book II, chs. 22-23)
My main suspicion that the distinction between aptitudinal and actual inherence was devised for the sake of transubstantiation, and not purely on metaphysical grounds, is confirmed in the fact that outside of talking about the Eucharist, the scholastics define accidents precisely in this more strict Aristotelian manner. For example, when Aquinas discusses the Trinitarian relations:
“we must consider that in each of the nine genera of accidents there are two points for remark. One is the nature belonging to each one of them considered as an accident; which commonly applies to each of them as inherent in a subject, for the essence of an accident is to inhere. The other point of remark is the proper nature of each one of these genera. In the genera, apart from that of "relation," as in quantity and quality, even the true idea of the genus itself is derived from a respect to the subject; for quantity is called the measure of substance, and quality is the disposition of substance. But the true idea of relation is not taken from its respect to that in which it is, but from its respect to something outside.” (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Q. 28, art. 2)
Or when defending Aristotle’s refutation of Parmenides:
“If, however, it is said that being is accident only and not substance, this is altogether impossible, since accident can in no way be without substance. For every accident is said of substance as of its subject, and the very definition of accident involves this.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, book I, ch. 3, n. 21)
This same observation was also noted in some of the scholarship done throughout the past few decades on Aquinas’ metaphysics of the Eucharist:
“It is not surprising that in his philosophical works Aquinas does not make any reference to God’s capacity to cause accidents directly…. After all, God’s causing non-inherent accidents is a miracle, i.e., an infringement of the natural course of events, and miracles concern the theologian but not the philosopher. What is surprising is that in Aquinas’s philosophical works we do not find any mention of the logical possibility for an accident to exist without inhering in a substance. Only when speaking as a theologian does Aquinas introduce his reformulation of the account of what an accident is.” (Giovanni Pino, “Substance, Accident, and Inherence: Scotus and the Paris debate on the metaphysics of the Eucharist”, in O. Boulnois et al. (eds.), Duns Scot à Paris 1302–2002: Actes du colloque de Paris 2–4 septembre 2002 [Brepols], pg. 282)
It seems here that we have a discontinuity between Aquinas as a philosopher and metaphysician who seeks to draw out the true meaning of Aristotle, and Aquinas as a theologian who defends the medieval dogmas of Rome.
First, we have to recognize that it was the unanimous understanding of logicians and philosophers prior to the Middle Ages that the very existence and definition of an accident is to inhere in a substance. The distinction between actual and aptitudinal inherence came later, as we will see.
“But there are different senses of 'coming to be'. In some cases we do not use the expression 'come to be', but 'come to be so-and-so'. Only substances are said to 'come to be' in the unqualified sense. Now in all cases other than substance it is plain that there must be some subject, namely, that which becomes. For we know that when a thing comes to be of such a quantity or quality or in such a relation, time, or place, a subject is always presupposed, since substance alone is not predicated of another subject, but everything else of substance.” (Aristotle, Physics, book I, ch. 7)
An accident does not have its own proper quiddity without reference to substance. If it did, many absurd consequences would follow, such as (1) making accidents in effect altogether the same as substances, (2) making being predicated to the same degree of both substance and accident, something rejected both by Thomists and Scotists.
The fact that an accident cannot exist without a subject in which to inhere was also recognized by the early fathers:
"R. But do you not concede that if the subject do not abide, that which is in the subject cannot inseparably abide? A. This also I see necessary: for, the subject remaining, that which is in the subject may possibly not remain, as any one with a little thought can perceive. Since the color of this body of mine may, by reason of health or age, suffer change, though the body has not yet perished. And this is not equally true of all things, but of those whose coexistence with the subject is not necessary to the existence of the subject. For it is not necessary that this wall, in order to be a wall, should be of this color, which we see in it; for even if, by some chance, it should become black or white, or should undergo some other change of color, it would nevertheless remain a wall and be so called. But if fire were without heat, it will not even be fire; nor can we talk of snow except as being white. But as to your question, who would grant, or to whom could it appear possible, that that which is in the subject should remain, while the subject perished? For it is monstrous and most utterly foreign to the truth that what would not be unless it were in the subject, could be even when the subject itself was no more." (Augustine, Soliloquies, book II, chs. 22-23)
My main suspicion that the distinction between aptitudinal and actual inherence was devised for the sake of transubstantiation, and not purely on metaphysical grounds, is confirmed in the fact that outside of talking about the Eucharist, the scholastics define accidents precisely in this more strict Aristotelian manner. For example, when Aquinas discusses the Trinitarian relations:
“we must consider that in each of the nine genera of accidents there are two points for remark. One is the nature belonging to each one of them considered as an accident; which commonly applies to each of them as inherent in a subject, for the essence of an accident is to inhere. The other point of remark is the proper nature of each one of these genera. In the genera, apart from that of "relation," as in quantity and quality, even the true idea of the genus itself is derived from a respect to the subject; for quantity is called the measure of substance, and quality is the disposition of substance. But the true idea of relation is not taken from its respect to that in which it is, but from its respect to something outside.” (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Q. 28, art. 2)
Or when defending Aristotle’s refutation of Parmenides:
“If, however, it is said that being is accident only and not substance, this is altogether impossible, since accident can in no way be without substance. For every accident is said of substance as of its subject, and the very definition of accident involves this.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, book I, ch. 3, n. 21)
This same observation was also noted in some of the scholarship done throughout the past few decades on Aquinas’ metaphysics of the Eucharist:
“It is not surprising that in his philosophical works Aquinas does not make any reference to God’s capacity to cause accidents directly…. After all, God’s causing non-inherent accidents is a miracle, i.e., an infringement of the natural course of events, and miracles concern the theologian but not the philosopher. What is surprising is that in Aquinas’s philosophical works we do not find any mention of the logical possibility for an accident to exist without inhering in a substance. Only when speaking as a theologian does Aquinas introduce his reformulation of the account of what an accident is.” (Giovanni Pino, “Substance, Accident, and Inherence: Scotus and the Paris debate on the metaphysics of the Eucharist”, in O. Boulnois et al. (eds.), Duns Scot à Paris 1302–2002: Actes du colloque de Paris 2–4 septembre 2002 [Brepols], pg. 282)
It seems here that we have a discontinuity between Aquinas as a philosopher and metaphysician who seeks to draw out the true meaning of Aristotle, and Aquinas as a theologian who defends the medieval dogmas of Rome.
(3/12)
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RESPONSE
When summarizing the medieval approach which attempted to salvage transubstantiation from this Aristotelian knot, Dr. Richard Cross wrote “The overall narrative is one of increasing hypostatization: accidents become progressively more real, and in effect more like substances. It seems to me that this is an inevitable effect of pressure from this particular theological doctrine: it is hard to see how the doctrine might be coherent—at least if spelled out in terms of substances and accidents—without some such hypostatization.” (Richard Cross, “Inherence and the Eucharist in Medieval Theology,” in The Metaphysics and Theology of the Eucharist: A Historical-Analytical Survey of the Problems of the Sacrament, ed. Gyula Kilma [Springer, 2023], pg. 266)
Cross is most certainly correct here in his understanding of the history of the question. The new ways of speaking about accidents in relation to substance were not a natural development of interpreting Aristotle, but done to protect the doctrine of transubstantiation.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RESPONSE
When summarizing the medieval approach which attempted to salvage transubstantiation from this Aristotelian knot, Dr. Richard Cross wrote “The overall narrative is one of increasing hypostatization: accidents become progressively more real, and in effect more like substances. It seems to me that this is an inevitable effect of pressure from this particular theological doctrine: it is hard to see how the doctrine might be coherent—at least if spelled out in terms of substances and accidents—without some such hypostatization.” (Richard Cross, “Inherence and the Eucharist in Medieval Theology,” in The Metaphysics and Theology of the Eucharist: A Historical-Analytical Survey of the Problems of the Sacrament, ed. Gyula Kilma [Springer, 2023], pg. 266)
Cross is most certainly correct here in his understanding of the history of the question. The new ways of speaking about accidents in relation to substance were not a natural development of interpreting Aristotle, but done to protect the doctrine of transubstantiation.
1/23 🧵
You assume the essence of accident is actual inherence. I deny it. the essence lies neither in actual nor aptitudinal inherence, but in the radical/root that grounds both (“otherness,” “fundamental inherence”).
You assume the essence of accident is actual inherence. I deny it. the essence lies neither in actual nor aptitudinal inherence, but in the radical/root that grounds both (“otherness,” “fundamental inherence”).
2/23
Call this radical being-in: the positive formal constituent by which an accident can inhere prior to any act of inhering. That, not the act, is what makes an accident be accident as such.
Call this radical being-in: the positive formal constituent by which an accident can inhere prior to any act of inhering. That, not the act, is what makes an accident be accident as such.
3/23
So when Aristotle/Augustine speak of “accidents in a subject,” that’s the natural course. It does not prove a metaphysical contradiction under divine power.
So when Aristotle/Augustine speak of “accidents in a subject,” that’s the natural course. It does not prove a metaphysical contradiction under divine power.
Important thread to share with EVERYONE 🧵
Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree just walked the whole World through the vaccine schedule, ONE BY ONE, proving that none of the vaccines have had a proper saline, inert, placebo control trial.
This stunning evidence is applicable Globally.
BOOKMARK this for future reference to know the truth about every vaccine on the CDC schedule, and then WATCH Aaron Siri Meticulously go through Every. Single. Vaccine on the CDC schedule. THREAD 🧵
Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree just walked the whole World through the vaccine schedule, ONE BY ONE, proving that none of the vaccines have had a proper saline, inert, placebo control trial.
This stunning evidence is applicable Globally.
BOOKMARK this for future reference to know the truth about every vaccine on the CDC schedule, and then WATCH Aaron Siri Meticulously go through Every. Single. Vaccine on the CDC schedule. THREAD 🧵
1. Explanation of how it all started. How the Highwire, ICAN, Del Bigtree and Aaron Siri's team worked to compile an exhaustive list, an “accumulation of years of work”, on the evidence behind vaccines licensed on the routinely injected vaccines for Children.
Aaron Siri: “W’eve done it for EVERY ONE [and] I can tell you standing here today, categorically, there has never been a routine injected childhood vaccine that was licensed based on a placebo controlled trial”
Aaron Siri: “W’eve done it for EVERY ONE [and] I can tell you standing here today, categorically, there has never been a routine injected childhood vaccine that was licensed based on a placebo controlled trial”
2. How the ICAN chart works. The evidence is all sourced from the FDA.
Aaron Siri: “You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the FDA”
Aaron Siri: “You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the FDA”
🧵 THREAD: How the ACIP Deviates from the USPSTF — and Why That Matters for Preventive Medicine
1️⃣
Preventive medicine is supposed to be founded on caution.
When you intervene on healthy people, acceptable harm must approach zero.
Therapeutic care is different — you accept risk to relieve suffering.
That’s the moral geometry of medicine. karlkanthak.substack.com/p/how-the-acip…
1️⃣
Preventive medicine is supposed to be founded on caution.
When you intervene on healthy people, acceptable harm must approach zero.
Therapeutic care is different — you accept risk to relieve suffering.
That’s the moral geometry of medicine. karlkanthak.substack.com/p/how-the-acip…
2️⃣
The USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) recognizes this.
Its analytic framework measures both benefit and harm at every stage of a preventive intervention.
Each arrow in their model is a question that must be answered with data, not faith.
The USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) recognizes this.
Its analytic framework measures both benefit and harm at every stage of a preventive intervention.
Each arrow in their model is a question that must be answered with data, not faith.
3️⃣
Two internal loops —
Adverse Effects of Screening and Adverse Effects of Treatment —
force USPSTF to test whether prevention itself causes injury.
That’s what keeps preventive medicine honest.
Two internal loops —
Adverse Effects of Screening and Adverse Effects of Treatment —
force USPSTF to test whether prevention itself causes injury.
That’s what keeps preventive medicine honest.
The brain doesn't burn out from stress, it burns out from emotional overthinking...
Here's the cure 🧵
Here's the cure 🧵
1. A few weeks before the 2024 election,@SenMullin and former Senator David Perdue finally arranged a meeting between Trump advisor Susie Wiles and the one man who could explain exactly how America’s election systems are rigged.
The meeting took place at Mar-a-Lago.
The meeting took place at Mar-a-Lago.
2. Susie Wiles had publicly said that election fraud was not real & that people who thought so were “crazy.”
After the briefing, she didn’t know what to think.
She asked for a piece of cake. She ate it slowly.
Then she made the decision: Trump’s team should be briefed too.
After the briefing, she didn’t know what to think.
She asked for a piece of cake. She ate it slowly.
Then she made the decision: Trump’s team should be briefed too.
3. In the end, the man stayed at Mar-a-Lago for 3 days to brief everyone.
There was only man who Wiles trusted to confirm it all: @elonmusk
A call was made: the man found himself in a room with Musk.
Musk declined to sit through a full briefing.
“Just give me your data.”
There was only man who Wiles trusted to confirm it all: @elonmusk
A call was made: the man found himself in a room with Musk.
Musk declined to sit through a full briefing.
“Just give me your data.”
🧵C'est aussi la Prophétie 72 : "Avertissement aux riches et puissants qui pensent qu'ils seront en sécurité dans les villes souterraines pleines de trésors amassés et de mets raffinés. Ces villes souterraines que vous construisez seront vos tombes aquatiques et vous mourrez avec
2- vos Trésors de terre... J'ai retardé ce Jugement pour que les prières des vrais croyants, ceux qui sont obéissants marchent en sainteté devant moi.... Le Jugement avait été repoussé pour que plus d'âmes de mes enfants atteignent le Royaume de Dieu.
Ce n'est pas le Créateur qui parle mais YHWH /Jéhovah le Dieu d'Israël, le Dieu vengeur et jaloux . La colère frappera la Terre, j'ai repoussé le Jugement pour faire honte à ceux qui construisent des villes en ne pensant qu'à eux mêmes, prouvant que moi, YHWH est seul Juge de ce
In 2022, India’s oil imports from Russia exploded after Western sanctions.
Result?
Russia now earns $60B+ in annual trade surplus with India.
But here’s the twist…
They get paid in rupees, which they can’t easily use back home.
So Russia had two bad options:
•Let rupees sit idle (₹ depreciation risk)
•Buy low-yield Indian bonds
But instead Putin just took the smartest third option:
Buy the Indian stock market.
What looks like an ETF launch… is actually a ₹5 lakh crore geopolitical hack.
Let’s decode the genius of India-Russia’s Nifty ETF deal
Bookmark and retweet this thread to revisit it later
Result?
Russia now earns $60B+ in annual trade surplus with India.
But here’s the twist…
They get paid in rupees, which they can’t easily use back home.
So Russia had two bad options:
•Let rupees sit idle (₹ depreciation risk)
•Buy low-yield Indian bonds
But instead Putin just took the smartest third option:
Buy the Indian stock market.
What looks like an ETF launch… is actually a ₹5 lakh crore geopolitical hack.
Let’s decode the genius of India-Russia’s Nifty ETF deal
Bookmark and retweet this thread to revisit it later
Here’s what just happened:
Russia’s SBER bank Asset Management launched a Nifty50 ETF for Russian investors.
This means:
•Rupees from trade are invested in Indian equities
•Russian citizens get growth exposure
•Indian markets get long-term FII inflows
No middlemen. No forex conversion. No dependency on the dollar.
Just direct equity recycling.
Russia’s SBER bank Asset Management launched a Nifty50 ETF for Russian investors.
This means:
•Rupees from trade are invested in Indian equities
•Russian citizens get growth exposure
•Indian markets get long-term FII inflows
No middlemen. No forex conversion. No dependency on the dollar.
Just direct equity recycling.
But this isn’t just an ETF. It’s a financial missile aimed at 3 targets:
1. Kill the Dollar Loop
Normally, countries park trade surpluses in US treasuries (like China has $860B+ there).
But this ETF breaks that cycle.
Russia won’t hold US bonds. It’ll hold Indian companies.
This isn’t de-dollarisation theory. It’s de-dollarisation execution.
2. Make Indian Markets the New Global Magnet
Until now, most foreign equity inflows came via:
•U.S. ETFs
•Eurozone banks
•Singapore/Mauritius routes
Now? An Asian military superpower is directly pumping capital into Indian equity indices.
1. Kill the Dollar Loop
Normally, countries park trade surpluses in US treasuries (like China has $860B+ there).
But this ETF breaks that cycle.
Russia won’t hold US bonds. It’ll hold Indian companies.
This isn’t de-dollarisation theory. It’s de-dollarisation execution.
2. Make Indian Markets the New Global Magnet
Until now, most foreign equity inflows came via:
•U.S. ETFs
•Eurozone banks
•Singapore/Mauritius routes
Now? An Asian military superpower is directly pumping capital into Indian equity indices.
The debate over “birthright citizenship” gets very abstruse very fast. So, now that the issue will be heard by SCOTUS, it’s useful to keep in mind what is and is not contested. A 🧵 thread:
All concur that
• Being born in the US is not enough;
One must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US;
• Being born in the US is not enough;
One must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US;
• There were three classes of persons thought not to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US: Native American tribes, diplomats, invading armies;
OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google use 10 internal prompting techniques that guarantee near-perfect accuracy…and nobody outside the labs is supposed to know them.
Here are 10 of them (Bookmark this for later):
Here are 10 of them (Bookmark this for later):
Technique 1: Role-Based Constraint Prompting
The expert don't just ask AI to "write code." They assign expert roles with specific constraints.
Template:
You are a [specific role] with [X years] experience in [domain].
Your task: [specific task]
Constraints: [list 3-5 specific limitations]
Output format: [exact format needed]
---
Example:
You are a senior Python engineer with 10 years in data pipeline optimization.
Your task: Build a real-time ETL pipeline for 10M records/hour
Constraints:
- Must use Apache Kafka
- Maximum 2GB memory footprint
- Sub-100ms latency
- Zero data loss tolerance
Output format: Production-ready code with inline documentation
---
This gets you 10x more specific outputs than "write me an ETL pipeline."
Watch the OpenAI demo of GPT-5 and see how they were prompting ChatGPT... you will get the idea.
The expert don't just ask AI to "write code." They assign expert roles with specific constraints.
Template:
You are a [specific role] with [X years] experience in [domain].
Your task: [specific task]
Constraints: [list 3-5 specific limitations]
Output format: [exact format needed]
---
Example:
You are a senior Python engineer with 10 years in data pipeline optimization.
Your task: Build a real-time ETL pipeline for 10M records/hour
Constraints:
- Must use Apache Kafka
- Maximum 2GB memory footprint
- Sub-100ms latency
- Zero data loss tolerance
Output format: Production-ready code with inline documentation
---
This gets you 10x more specific outputs than "write me an ETL pipeline."
Watch the OpenAI demo of GPT-5 and see how they were prompting ChatGPT... you will get the idea.
Technique 2: Chain-of-Verification (CoVe)
Google's research team uses this to eliminate hallucinations.
The model generates an answer, then generates verification questions, answers them, and refines the original response.
Template:
Task: [your question]
Step 1: Provide your initial answer
Step 2: Generate 5 verification questions that would expose errors in your answer
Step 3: Answer each verification question
Step 4: Provide your final, corrected answer based on verification
---
Example:
Task: Explain how transformers handle long-context windows
Step 1: Provide your initial answer
Step 2: Generate 5 verification questions that would expose errors in your answer
Step 3: Answer each verification question
Step 4: Provide your final, corrected answer based on verification
---
Accuracy jumps from 60% to 92% on complex technical queries.
Google's research team uses this to eliminate hallucinations.
The model generates an answer, then generates verification questions, answers them, and refines the original response.
Template:
Task: [your question]
Step 1: Provide your initial answer
Step 2: Generate 5 verification questions that would expose errors in your answer
Step 3: Answer each verification question
Step 4: Provide your final, corrected answer based on verification
---
Example:
Task: Explain how transformers handle long-context windows
Step 1: Provide your initial answer
Step 2: Generate 5 verification questions that would expose errors in your answer
Step 3: Answer each verification question
Step 4: Provide your final, corrected answer based on verification
---
Accuracy jumps from 60% to 92% on complex technical queries.
I used to be an advisor at the Berlaymont.
Now I’m spilling the beans on how the EU is deliberately designed so citizens can never hold it accountable or force real change from below.
Thread 👇
Now I’m spilling the beans on how the EU is deliberately designed so citizens can never hold it accountable or force real change from below.
Thread 👇
As a former advisor at the European Commission, active in European Youth movements for a decade, and holder of a Master's in European Studies (specialising in multi-level governance), I once believed deeply in the EU's ideals.
Today, I see the machinery clearly: it's designed to resist change from citizens.
Today, I see the machinery clearly: it's designed to resist change from citizens.
No European Public Sphere: There's no true Europe-wide debate or media ecosystem.
Elections to the European Parliament get ~50% turnout – far below national levels. MEPs are often retired or sidelined national politicians handed safe, lucrative seats.
Oversight? Minimal, because there's no shared "demos" holding them accountable.
Elections to the European Parliament get ~50% turnout – far below national levels. MEPs are often retired or sidelined national politicians handed safe, lucrative seats.
Oversight? Minimal, because there's no shared "demos" holding them accountable.
THREAD:🧵 UNDERTAKERS & MORGUE WORKERS, ARRESTED FOR SEX CRIMES AND PAEDOPHILIA....
theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/d…
theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/d…
As folks know, I have a 90+ page article coming out next month on birthright citizenship @HarvardJLPP (link below) and a reply to Professors Mike Ramsey and Keith Whittington following in @NotreDameLRev. Here's the TL;DR version of why Trump is on MUCH stronger footing than the conventional wisdom would have it. 🧵
(First here's the link to the paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…)
(First here's the link to the paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…)
1. What's the actual test at common law? It's never been "birth alone." The test is actually birth on the sovereign's soil and under the protection of the sovereign. And more specifically, to parents who were under the protection of the sovereign.
That's how Coke described the exception for invaders; and it's how Blackstone described the exception for ambassadors. Here is Justice Joseph Story:
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
That's how Coke described the exception for invaders; and it's how Blackstone described the exception for ambassadors. Here is Justice Joseph Story:
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
2. In my paper, I show that at common law, to be under the protection of the king required the king's permission and consent to enter the realm. Numerous safe conducts granting permission to enter expressly extended protection. Eventually statutes did as well. Here is a Statute of Edward III:
“Merchant Strangers . . . may safely and surely under our Protection and safe-conduct come and dwell in our said Realm.” 27 Edw. III, Stat. 2.
In America, even enemy aliens could be brought under protection if they had permission to stay. Chancellor Kent explained in a case arising out of War of 1812: "A lawful residence implies protection, and a capacity to sue and be sued." Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. 69, 72 (N.Y. 1813). (Note here also the connection between protection and being subject to jurisdiction. More below.)
“Merchant Strangers . . . may safely and surely under our Protection and safe-conduct come and dwell in our said Realm.” 27 Edw. III, Stat. 2.
In America, even enemy aliens could be brought under protection if they had permission to stay. Chancellor Kent explained in a case arising out of War of 1812: "A lawful residence implies protection, and a capacity to sue and be sued." Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. 69, 72 (N.Y. 1813). (Note here also the connection between protection and being subject to jurisdiction. More below.)
Scheidungspapier:
▶️ USA./. Deutschland
Schau dir Marc Bs Video an! #TikTok
👇👇👇 vm.tiktok.com/ZNR8quQug/
▶️ USA./. Deutschland
Schau dir Marc Bs Video an! #TikTok
👇👇👇 vm.tiktok.com/ZNR8quQug/
▶️ Neue Ausrichtung präsentiert
▶️ Trumps Sicherheitsstrategie ist Ohrfeige für EU –
👉AfD + Putin können sich freuen
Das Dokument strotzt vor trumpesken Superlativen + altbekannten Erzählungen.
👉Dennoch birgt es enormen Sprengstoff – auch für Europa.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
▶️ Trumps Sicherheitsstrategie ist Ohrfeige für EU –
👉AfD + Putin können sich freuen
Das Dokument strotzt vor trumpesken Superlativen + altbekannten Erzählungen.
👉Dennoch birgt es enormen Sprengstoff – auch für Europa.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
In dem 29-seitigen Papier wird so deutlich wie nie schriftlich festgehalten, dass die offizielle Linie der Vereinigten Staaten ist,
das transatlantische Verhältnis grundlegend umzubauen.
USA kümmern sich nur noch unter Bedingungen um andere Länder:
das transatlantische Verhältnis grundlegend umzubauen.
USA kümmern sich nur noch unter Bedingungen um andere Länder:
In 2005, Joe Scarborough said something you would never hear on TV news today.
Speaking with RFK Jr., he legitimized the belief that vaccines CAN cause autism.
“Something happened in 1989!” Scarborough declared firmly.
In his own words, he said: “Parents would CONSTANTLY come to [him], and they’d bring [him] video tapes of their [formerly healthy] children. And they’re all about the age of [Scarborough’s] son or younger. Something happened in 1989!”
Twenty years later, it’s hard to ignore that the mainstream media never airs segments like this anymore.
Did the evidence change... or something else? 🧵
Speaking with RFK Jr., he legitimized the belief that vaccines CAN cause autism.
“Something happened in 1989!” Scarborough declared firmly.
In his own words, he said: “Parents would CONSTANTLY come to [him], and they’d bring [him] video tapes of their [formerly healthy] children. And they’re all about the age of [Scarborough’s] son or younger. Something happened in 1989!”
Twenty years later, it’s hard to ignore that the mainstream media never airs segments like this anymore.
Did the evidence change... or something else? 🧵
Most people have absolutely no idea how much public-relations machinery shapes what they believe about health.
PR campaigns don’t just change opinions, they change language in the process.
And when language changes, memories and ideas seem to disappear—including things we used to openly acknowledge, like vaccine-induced brain inflammation and neurological injury.
Today, those concepts barely exist in public vocabulary, but just decades ago they were recognized everywhere.
The shift happens slowly. That’s how the tactic is so successful. Most people don’t even realize it’s happening.
For example, take a look at this 1983 debate that took place on the largest talk show in America. A conversation like this would never, ever happen on TV today.
PR campaigns don’t just change opinions, they change language in the process.
And when language changes, memories and ideas seem to disappear—including things we used to openly acknowledge, like vaccine-induced brain inflammation and neurological injury.
Today, those concepts barely exist in public vocabulary, but just decades ago they were recognized everywhere.
The shift happens slowly. That’s how the tactic is so successful. Most people don’t even realize it’s happening.
For example, take a look at this 1983 debate that took place on the largest talk show in America. A conversation like this would never, ever happen on TV today.
This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc.
For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-vaccine-…
For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-vaccine-…
Le ratio que je viens de coller au pathétique @JoffrinLaurent ne doit pas faire oublier toute l'horreur de son négationnisme vis-à-vis des morts vaccinales en période covid, honorons quelques mémoires par ce thread ↘️
Lisa Shaw, vraie journaliste, morte à 44 ans des effets secondaires des injections covid. Si @JoffrinLaurent salit honteusement sa mémoire par son négationnisme forcené, les vrais journalistes du Guardian, eux, ont rapporté loyalement les causes de sa mort 👇
theguardian.com/media/2021/aug…
theguardian.com/media/2021/aug…
@JoffrinLaurent Lord Zion, mort dans d'abominables souffrances à 48 ans, victime des mêmes effets secondaires meurtriers. @JoffrinLaurent n'honorera pas sa mémoire non plus
bbc.com/news/uk-englan…
bbc.com/news/uk-englan…
@TylkoPrawi The current situation of the Police of Poland under govern of the Caliphate:
@TylkoPrawi @ThreadReaderApp unroll
@grok
@grok