Recent well liked threads
Thread recording repeated false & defamatory claims directed at myself (& others) by accounts run by Mr Hunt, demonstrating intentional pattern of abuse, harassment, attempts to intimidate through smears.
You were warned Mr Hunt. Your fake "police wife" lie was a mistake.
You were warned Mr Hunt. Your fake "police wife" lie was a mistake.
"Paedophilic gay guy".
Targeting based on sexual orientation, a protected characteristic, under the UK Equality Act 2010.
Targeting based on sexual orientation, a protected characteristic, under the UK Equality Act 2010.
"Kiddie fiddler"?
"Paedophile/child molester"?
"Paedophile/child molester"?
'Bij werktuigbouwkunde hebben slechts 279 van de 1445 aanmelders de Nederlandse nationaliteit' Een wo student kost gem. 27k pj, waarvan 77% rijkssubsidie. Als ze 40 jaar lang in Nederland belasting gaan betalen is dit vast rendabel, maar in realiteit vertrekt driekwart binnen 5jr
'Bij werktuigbouwkunde hebben slechts 279 van de 1445 aanmelders de Nederlandse nationaliteit '
' Geen enkel klasgenootje van mijn zoon mag hier werktuigbouwkunde of bouwkunde komen doen.'
cursor.tue.nl/opinie/boudewi…
' Geen enkel klasgenootje van mijn zoon mag hier werktuigbouwkunde of bouwkunde komen doen.'
cursor.tue.nl/opinie/boudewi…
Dus niemand van de geslaagde op een vwo in Eindhoven mag naar de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, die numfix plekken gaan nml naar internationale studenten die wel op kosten van Nederlandse belastingbetalers in het Engels op de TU/e mogen studeren.
🚨 SHOCKING: An ex-Anthropic researcher just leaked the exact internal prompting framework the team uses.
Most people treat Claude like a basic chatbot and leave 60–70% of its reasoning power on the table.
These 10 prompts are how the pros actually use it — tested internally for maximum clarity, honesty, and depth.
Copy-paste ready. Zero fluff.
Save this thread. Your Claude game is about to change forever.
(Pro tip: use them in order for compound results)
Most people treat Claude like a basic chatbot and leave 60–70% of its reasoning power on the table.
These 10 prompts are how the pros actually use it — tested internally for maximum clarity, honesty, and depth.
Copy-paste ready. Zero fluff.
Save this thread. Your Claude game is about to change forever.
(Pro tip: use them in order for compound results)
Prompt 1: Context Brief (The Map Claude Actually Needs)
Never jump straight into a question.
Start with rich context:
“You are helping me with [specific goal].
My background: [your role + company/project + constraints].
I’ve already tried [X and Y].
I’m stuck on [Z].
First, confirm you understand the full context before suggesting anything.”
Internal tests showed this single change boosts output quality by 41%.
Claude isn’t psychic — give it the full map.
Never jump straight into a question.
Start with rich context:
“You are helping me with [specific goal].
My background: [your role + company/project + constraints].
I’ve already tried [X and Y].
I’m stuck on [Z].
First, confirm you understand the full context before suggesting anything.”
Internal tests showed this single change boosts output quality by 41%.
Claude isn’t psychic — give it the full map.
Prompt 2: Force Visible Reasoning (Chain-of-Thought on Steroids)
Don’t ask for answers. Demand the process:
“Before giving any final recommendation:
- show your full step-by-step reasoning
- explicitly list every assumption
- flag uncertainties and confidence levels (low/medium/high)
- only then deliver the polished answer.”
This pulls out Claude’s hidden reasoning layers. You don’t just get an answer — you get an auditable thought process you can actually trust.
Don’t ask for answers. Demand the process:
“Before giving any final recommendation:
- show your full step-by-step reasoning
- explicitly list every assumption
- flag uncertainties and confidence levels (low/medium/high)
- only then deliver the polished answer.”
This pulls out Claude’s hidden reasoning layers. You don’t just get an answer — you get an auditable thought process you can actually trust.
1/ Ukraine's success this year in stalling Russia's offensive, and driving Russian forces back in some places, has prompted increasingly bleak assessments from Russian warbloggers. In a lengthy series of posts, Yuri Kotenok warns that Russia's war effort is faltering badly. ⬇️
2/ In a six-part series of posts on his 'Voenkor Kotenok' Telegram channel, he writes:
3/ "I. If, at the very beginning of the conflict, as soon as the story broke about the Rzeszow airfield in Poland, where weapons for the Kyiv regime were being massively deployed, we had acted decisively, like Iran did against Israel and the United States in the spring of 2026,…
I wrote a statement this week about how voting for Reform UK would represent the biggest rollback of women’s rights in the UK since before the Abortion Act 1967. I provided evidence. I listed sources. I explained the pattern of how abortion rights are removed gradually through strategic silence and institutional positioning.
The responses I received were disturbing. Not because people disagreed with my analysis. Because they agreed with it and celebrated it.
Dozens of people commented on my Facebook post saying this was exactly why they were voting Reform. Men and women from all over the country openly stated that women losing reproductive rights was a good thing. They praised the idea of abortion access being restricted. They said this was precisely what they wanted.
“Roll on May 7,” they wrote.
“Good,” they said.
Some said women had too many rights. Some said abortion was murder and should be banned. Some said women needed to face consequences for their choices. Some said the 1967 Abortion Act was a mistake that needed correcting. Misogynistic men and women who vote Reform thought this was worth celebrating. They were gleeful about it. They couldn’t wait for it to happen.
These were not fringe voices. These were ordinary people from across the United Kingdom saying openly that they support removing women’s bodily autonomy. They were proud of it. They were voting for it deliberately. And they wanted everyone to know.
This is what you are dealing with, United Kingdom. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not speculation about what might happen. This is people telling you directly what they want to happen and why they are voting to make it happen.
But abortion rights are just the beginning. Reform UK has stated they want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. They want to remove the protections embedded in European law that currently safeguard women’s rights in the workplace, in healthcare, in public life, and in private life. These are not abstract legal frameworks. These are concrete protections that affect women’s lives every single day.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects women from discrimination. It protects women from violence. It protects women’s right to privacy, to family life, to fair treatment under the law. Leaving the ECHR removes those protections. It removes the legal framework that allows women to challenge discrimination when it happens. It removes the international accountability that forces the UK government to uphold women’s rights even when domestic political pressure pushes against them.
European employment law guarantees equal pay for equal work. It protects women from being paid less than men for doing the same job. It protects pregnant women from being fired. It guarantees maternity leave and maternity pay. It prevents employers from discriminating against women who have children or who might have children. It protects part-time workers, who are disproportionately women, from being treated as second-class employees. It guarantees rights to parental leave, to flexible working, to protection from harassment in the workplace.
Reform UK wants to remove these protections. They call it cutting red tape. They call it reducing burdens on business. They call it sovereignty. What it actually means is removing legal protections that prevent women from being exploited, discriminated against, underpaid, and dismissed without recourse.
The Working Time Directive limits working hours and guarantees rest breaks. Women, especially women in low-paid work, rely on these protections. Without them, employers can demand unlimited hours with no guaranteed breaks and no overtime protections. The Agency Workers Directive protects temporary workers, again disproportionately women, from being paid less than permanent staff doing the same work. The Pregnant Workers Directive protects women from being dismissed or discriminated against because they are pregnant or on maternity leave.
The responses I received were disturbing. Not because people disagreed with my analysis. Because they agreed with it and celebrated it.
Dozens of people commented on my Facebook post saying this was exactly why they were voting Reform. Men and women from all over the country openly stated that women losing reproductive rights was a good thing. They praised the idea of abortion access being restricted. They said this was precisely what they wanted.
“Roll on May 7,” they wrote.
“Good,” they said.
Some said women had too many rights. Some said abortion was murder and should be banned. Some said women needed to face consequences for their choices. Some said the 1967 Abortion Act was a mistake that needed correcting. Misogynistic men and women who vote Reform thought this was worth celebrating. They were gleeful about it. They couldn’t wait for it to happen.
These were not fringe voices. These were ordinary people from across the United Kingdom saying openly that they support removing women’s bodily autonomy. They were proud of it. They were voting for it deliberately. And they wanted everyone to know.
This is what you are dealing with, United Kingdom. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not speculation about what might happen. This is people telling you directly what they want to happen and why they are voting to make it happen.
But abortion rights are just the beginning. Reform UK has stated they want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. They want to remove the protections embedded in European law that currently safeguard women’s rights in the workplace, in healthcare, in public life, and in private life. These are not abstract legal frameworks. These are concrete protections that affect women’s lives every single day.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects women from discrimination. It protects women from violence. It protects women’s right to privacy, to family life, to fair treatment under the law. Leaving the ECHR removes those protections. It removes the legal framework that allows women to challenge discrimination when it happens. It removes the international accountability that forces the UK government to uphold women’s rights even when domestic political pressure pushes against them.
European employment law guarantees equal pay for equal work. It protects women from being paid less than men for doing the same job. It protects pregnant women from being fired. It guarantees maternity leave and maternity pay. It prevents employers from discriminating against women who have children or who might have children. It protects part-time workers, who are disproportionately women, from being treated as second-class employees. It guarantees rights to parental leave, to flexible working, to protection from harassment in the workplace.
Reform UK wants to remove these protections. They call it cutting red tape. They call it reducing burdens on business. They call it sovereignty. What it actually means is removing legal protections that prevent women from being exploited, discriminated against, underpaid, and dismissed without recourse.
The Working Time Directive limits working hours and guarantees rest breaks. Women, especially women in low-paid work, rely on these protections. Without them, employers can demand unlimited hours with no guaranteed breaks and no overtime protections. The Agency Workers Directive protects temporary workers, again disproportionately women, from being paid less than permanent staff doing the same work. The Pregnant Workers Directive protects women from being dismissed or discriminated against because they are pregnant or on maternity leave.
All of these protections come from European law. All of them can be removed if the UK leaves the European Convention on Human Rights and repeals the retained EU law that currently protects workers. Reform UK has stated this is exactly what they intend to do.
When equal pay protections are removed, the gender pay gap will widen. Employers will no longer face legal consequences for paying women less than men. When pregnancy protections are removed, women will be fired for being pregnant or for taking maternity leave. When part-time worker protections are removed, women working reduced hours to care for children or elderly relatives will lose legal rights to fair treatment. When working time protections are removed, women in precarious low-paid work will be forced to accept exploitative hours with no recourse.
This is not theoretical. This is what happens when legal protections are stripped away. The protections exist because without them, discrimination happens. The protections are enforced because without enforcement, employers ignore them. The protections are rooted in European law because domestic political pressure in the UK has repeatedly tried to weaken them.
Leaving the ECHR also removes protections against domestic violence and sexual violence. The Convention requires states to protect women from violence and to prosecute perpetrators. It requires legal frameworks that allow women to seek protection from abusive partners. It requires that rape and sexual assault are treated as serious crimes with serious consequences. Leaving the Convention removes the international legal obligation to maintain those protections. It allows the UK government to weaken domestic violence laws, to reduce funding for support services, to deprioritize prosecution of sexual offenses, without facing legal challenge at the European level.
The ECHR protects women’s right to privacy in healthcare decisions. It protects women’s right to access contraception. It protects women’s autonomy over their own bodies. Leaving the Convention removes those protections. It opens the door to restrictions on contraception access, to mandatory reporting of pregnancy, to state interference in private medical decisions.
Reform UK is not hiding this. They have stated openly that they want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. They have stated they want to repeal retained EU law. They frame this as taking back control. What they are actually proposing is removing legal protections that currently prevent discrimination, exploitation, and state control over women’s lives.
And the people commenting on my post celebrated this too. When I mentioned that Reform’s policies would remove women’s workplace protections, some people said good. Women should not expect special treatment. Women should accept lower pay if the market determines it. Women should not demand maternity leave or flexible working. Women should compete on the same terms as men, which in practice means women should accept being disadvantaged and have no legal recourse.
“Roll on May 7.”
“Good.”
Misogynistic men celebrating the idea of women losing equal pay protections and workplace rights. Women celebrating the removal of their own legal safeguards because they have been convinced other women deserve to lose them.
The gender-critical movement should be fighting against this. Women’s rights charities should be fighting against this. JK Rowling should be fighting against this. Every woman in this country whose husband or partner is voting Reform should be fighting against this. Because what is coming for reproductive rights will not stop there. What is coming for European human rights protections will not stop there. Rights are not removed selectively. Once the infrastructure to remove one right is built, it can be used to remove others.
The same people celebrating the potential loss of abortion rights are often the same people who claim to be defending women’s spaces, women’s safety,
When equal pay protections are removed, the gender pay gap will widen. Employers will no longer face legal consequences for paying women less than men. When pregnancy protections are removed, women will be fired for being pregnant or for taking maternity leave. When part-time worker protections are removed, women working reduced hours to care for children or elderly relatives will lose legal rights to fair treatment. When working time protections are removed, women in precarious low-paid work will be forced to accept exploitative hours with no recourse.
This is not theoretical. This is what happens when legal protections are stripped away. The protections exist because without them, discrimination happens. The protections are enforced because without enforcement, employers ignore them. The protections are rooted in European law because domestic political pressure in the UK has repeatedly tried to weaken them.
Leaving the ECHR also removes protections against domestic violence and sexual violence. The Convention requires states to protect women from violence and to prosecute perpetrators. It requires legal frameworks that allow women to seek protection from abusive partners. It requires that rape and sexual assault are treated as serious crimes with serious consequences. Leaving the Convention removes the international legal obligation to maintain those protections. It allows the UK government to weaken domestic violence laws, to reduce funding for support services, to deprioritize prosecution of sexual offenses, without facing legal challenge at the European level.
The ECHR protects women’s right to privacy in healthcare decisions. It protects women’s right to access contraception. It protects women’s autonomy over their own bodies. Leaving the Convention removes those protections. It opens the door to restrictions on contraception access, to mandatory reporting of pregnancy, to state interference in private medical decisions.
Reform UK is not hiding this. They have stated openly that they want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. They have stated they want to repeal retained EU law. They frame this as taking back control. What they are actually proposing is removing legal protections that currently prevent discrimination, exploitation, and state control over women’s lives.
And the people commenting on my post celebrated this too. When I mentioned that Reform’s policies would remove women’s workplace protections, some people said good. Women should not expect special treatment. Women should accept lower pay if the market determines it. Women should not demand maternity leave or flexible working. Women should compete on the same terms as men, which in practice means women should accept being disadvantaged and have no legal recourse.
“Roll on May 7.”
“Good.”
Misogynistic men celebrating the idea of women losing equal pay protections and workplace rights. Women celebrating the removal of their own legal safeguards because they have been convinced other women deserve to lose them.
The gender-critical movement should be fighting against this. Women’s rights charities should be fighting against this. JK Rowling should be fighting against this. Every woman in this country whose husband or partner is voting Reform should be fighting against this. Because what is coming for reproductive rights will not stop there. What is coming for European human rights protections will not stop there. Rights are not removed selectively. Once the infrastructure to remove one right is built, it can be used to remove others.
The same people celebrating the potential loss of abortion rights are often the same people who claim to be defending women’s spaces, women’s safety,
women’s rights. But when women’s actual legal rights to control their own bodies are threatened, they cheer. When the state moves to control women’s reproductive choices, they vote for it. When women’s workplace protections are on the line, they say women are asking for special treatment. When women’s legal recourse against discrimination is targeted for removal, they say it is red tape that needs cutting.
This is the reality. Women are voting to remove their own rights because they have been convinced that other women deserve to lose them. They have been told that abortion is not healthcare. They have been told that equal pay laws are unfair to men. They have been told that maternity protections are a burden on business. They have been told that leaving the ECHR is about sovereignty, not about removing legal safeguards. And they believed it. They internalized it. Now they are voting for it. And they are celebrating it publicly.
Men are voting to remove women’s rights because they never believed women should have them in the first place. The veneer of concern about protecting women has fallen away. What remains is open support for state control over women’s bodies and removal of legal protections against discrimination. They are not hiding it. They are saying it plainly. Women have too many rights. Women need consequences. Women should not have autonomy over reproduction. Women should not expect equal pay. Women should not demand workplace protections.
“Roll on May 7.”
This is happening now. Not in some hypothetical future. Now. People are openly advocating for the removal of reproductive rights and workplace protections and they are voting for the party that will deliver it. And they are doing it joyfully. They cannot wait for women to lose these rights.
The TERFs and the gender-critical movement have spent years claiming to defend women’s rights while focusing exclusively on excluding trans women from spaces and services. They have aligned with right-wing organizations. They have used the same rhetoric. They have adopted the same strategies. They have built coalitions with people who oppose all LGBTQ rights, all reproductive rights, all bodily autonomy, all workplace protections, all human rights frameworks that limit state power. And now those coalitions are turning their focus to abortion and to the European Convention on Human Rights and to employment law.
The same activists who said they were protecting women by opposing trans rights are now silent or complicit as abortion rights come under threat and as workplace protections face removal. The same organizations that claimed to defend sex-based rights are refusing to defend the right to abortion or the right to equal pay. The same voices that said they were standing up for women are standing aside as women’s legal protections are dismantled.
JK Rowling has a platform. She has resources. She has influence. She has spent years positioning herself as a defender of women’s rights while focusing that defense exclusively on opposing trans inclusion. Where is that defense now? Where is the statement protecting abortion access? Where is the campaign to preserve the 1967 Abortion Act? Where is the demand to maintain the European Convention on Human Rights? Where is the opposition to removing equal pay protections? Where is the solidarity with women whose reproductive autonomy and workplace rights are under direct threat?
The silence is deafening. And it reveals what the priorities actually are.
Women’s rights charities that have spent years arguing about who counts as a woman and who should be excluded from services are now facing the reality that the rights of all women are being targeted. The infrastructure they helped build to divide women into acceptable and unacceptable categories is now being used to divide women into those who deserve bodily autonomy and workplace protections and those who do not.
This is the reality. Women are voting to remove their own rights because they have been convinced that other women deserve to lose them. They have been told that abortion is not healthcare. They have been told that equal pay laws are unfair to men. They have been told that maternity protections are a burden on business. They have been told that leaving the ECHR is about sovereignty, not about removing legal safeguards. And they believed it. They internalized it. Now they are voting for it. And they are celebrating it publicly.
Men are voting to remove women’s rights because they never believed women should have them in the first place. The veneer of concern about protecting women has fallen away. What remains is open support for state control over women’s bodies and removal of legal protections against discrimination. They are not hiding it. They are saying it plainly. Women have too many rights. Women need consequences. Women should not have autonomy over reproduction. Women should not expect equal pay. Women should not demand workplace protections.
“Roll on May 7.”
This is happening now. Not in some hypothetical future. Now. People are openly advocating for the removal of reproductive rights and workplace protections and they are voting for the party that will deliver it. And they are doing it joyfully. They cannot wait for women to lose these rights.
The TERFs and the gender-critical movement have spent years claiming to defend women’s rights while focusing exclusively on excluding trans women from spaces and services. They have aligned with right-wing organizations. They have used the same rhetoric. They have adopted the same strategies. They have built coalitions with people who oppose all LGBTQ rights, all reproductive rights, all bodily autonomy, all workplace protections, all human rights frameworks that limit state power. And now those coalitions are turning their focus to abortion and to the European Convention on Human Rights and to employment law.
The same activists who said they were protecting women by opposing trans rights are now silent or complicit as abortion rights come under threat and as workplace protections face removal. The same organizations that claimed to defend sex-based rights are refusing to defend the right to abortion or the right to equal pay. The same voices that said they were standing up for women are standing aside as women’s legal protections are dismantled.
JK Rowling has a platform. She has resources. She has influence. She has spent years positioning herself as a defender of women’s rights while focusing that defense exclusively on opposing trans inclusion. Where is that defense now? Where is the statement protecting abortion access? Where is the campaign to preserve the 1967 Abortion Act? Where is the demand to maintain the European Convention on Human Rights? Where is the opposition to removing equal pay protections? Where is the solidarity with women whose reproductive autonomy and workplace rights are under direct threat?
The silence is deafening. And it reveals what the priorities actually are.
Women’s rights charities that have spent years arguing about who counts as a woman and who should be excluded from services are now facing the reality that the rights of all women are being targeted. The infrastructure they helped build to divide women into acceptable and unacceptable categories is now being used to divide women into those who deserve bodily autonomy and workplace protections and those who do not.
Präzision gegen Terror: Das maritime Ende eines Imperiums
Man gewinnt keinen Krieg, indem man Kinder tötet, während die eigenen Kriegsschiffe wie Dominosteine umkippen.
Während Moskau aus Rache Wohnblocks, Kirchen und Krankenhäuser beschießt, zerlegt die ukrainische Spezialeinheit „Geister“ in Sewastopol systematisch die Reste russischer Macht. 🧵
Man gewinnt keinen Krieg, indem man Kinder tötet, während die eigenen Kriegsschiffe wie Dominosteine umkippen.
Während Moskau aus Rache Wohnblocks, Kirchen und Krankenhäuser beschießt, zerlegt die ukrainische Spezialeinheit „Geister“ in Sewastopol systematisch die Reste russischer Macht. 🧵
Der Schlag gegen die Jamal und die Nikolai Filchenkow vom 18. April 2026 ist kein bloßer Nadelstich – es ist die chirurgische Demontage einer logistischen Lebensader. Wer glaubte, die Krim sei eine uneinnehmbare Festung, sieht jetzt nur noch brennendes Eisen und die nackte Ohnmacht des Kremls. Das Schwarze Meer gehört nicht mehr dem Imperium.
Die Arroganz der Macht trifft auf die kalte Präzision der Drohnen.
Während Moskau von Stabilität faselt, zerlegt die ukrainische Spezialeinheit „Geister“ in der Bucht von Sewastopol systematisch das, was von Russlands maritimer Dominanz auf der Krim übrig ist. Der nächtliche Angriff vom 18. auf den 19. April 2026 ist kein bloßer Nadelstich – es ist eine chirurgische Demontage der logistischen Lebensader. Wer glaubte, die Krim sei eine uneinnehmbare Festung, sieht jetzt nur noch brennendes Eisen und zerfetzte Radarschirme. Das Wichtigste: Die Schwarzmeerflotte verliert endgültig die Fähigkeit, Truppen massiv zu bewegen.
Bilder: @UKikaski
Die Arroganz der Macht trifft auf die kalte Präzision der Drohnen.
Während Moskau von Stabilität faselt, zerlegt die ukrainische Spezialeinheit „Geister“ in der Bucht von Sewastopol systematisch das, was von Russlands maritimer Dominanz auf der Krim übrig ist. Der nächtliche Angriff vom 18. auf den 19. April 2026 ist kein bloßer Nadelstich – es ist eine chirurgische Demontage der logistischen Lebensader. Wer glaubte, die Krim sei eine uneinnehmbare Festung, sieht jetzt nur noch brennendes Eisen und zerfetzte Radarschirme. Das Wichtigste: Die Schwarzmeerflotte verliert endgültig die Fähigkeit, Truppen massiv zu bewegen.
Bilder: @UKikaski
1 / 25
Die nackten Zahlen lügen nicht, auch wenn der Kreml schweigt. Mit den Treffern auf die Jamal und die Nikolai Filchenkow hat der ukrainische GUR zwei strategische Schwergewichte gleichzeitig ausgeschaltet. Besonders die Zerstörung des hochmodernen Radarsystems Podlet-K1 wiegt schwer – ohne Augen ist die Verteidigung in Sewastopol blind. Die Jamal, erst 2024 mühsam in der Werft geflickt, verlor ihren Gefechtsstand und sämtliche Navigationssysteme. Ein Schiff ohne Radar ist auf dem modernen Schlachtfeld nichts weiter als eine schwimmende Zielscheibe für die nächste Welle ukrainischer Seedrohnen.
Die nackten Zahlen lügen nicht, auch wenn der Kreml schweigt. Mit den Treffern auf die Jamal und die Nikolai Filchenkow hat der ukrainische GUR zwei strategische Schwergewichte gleichzeitig ausgeschaltet. Besonders die Zerstörung des hochmodernen Radarsystems Podlet-K1 wiegt schwer – ohne Augen ist die Verteidigung in Sewastopol blind. Die Jamal, erst 2024 mühsam in der Werft geflickt, verlor ihren Gefechtsstand und sämtliche Navigationssysteme. Ein Schiff ohne Radar ist auf dem modernen Schlachtfeld nichts weiter als eine schwimmende Zielscheibe für die nächste Welle ukrainischer Seedrohnen.
🧵 (1/4)
🗣️ Why should you scream like Pee Wee when you hear the Watch Word of the Day 🚨"ABUNDANCE"?
⚠️It's because that word has been hijacked to mean something completely different than what you think, specifically when it comes to how resources like water, raw minerals, land, etc. should be quantified and distributed.
This Abundance Agenda-adopted by both RINOs on the right and Democrats on the left —will result in a REALLOCATION of resources to advance growth in energy, technology, housing, and more while local citizens are told to conserve resources that THEY personally use.
⁉️Want an example?
👨🏻🦲Governor Cox (who recently keynoted the Abundance Agenda conference) in one breath tells Utah Citizens they need to have Smart Meters installed on their residences to tell them when they're using *too much* water, while in the same breath he says water is "abundant" when it's being used to cool all the servers in the Al Data Centers being installed in the state to surveil everything and everybody.
It's the CITIZENS who are restricted, NOT the industries that want to grow.
🤔If you're confused why the leftists, who have traditionally been adamant for decades about the SCARCITY of resources and the need to use less of them, are on board with this Abundance Agenda, then read on...
🗣️ Why should you scream like Pee Wee when you hear the Watch Word of the Day 🚨"ABUNDANCE"?
⚠️It's because that word has been hijacked to mean something completely different than what you think, specifically when it comes to how resources like water, raw minerals, land, etc. should be quantified and distributed.
This Abundance Agenda-adopted by both RINOs on the right and Democrats on the left —will result in a REALLOCATION of resources to advance growth in energy, technology, housing, and more while local citizens are told to conserve resources that THEY personally use.
⁉️Want an example?
👨🏻🦲Governor Cox (who recently keynoted the Abundance Agenda conference) in one breath tells Utah Citizens they need to have Smart Meters installed on their residences to tell them when they're using *too much* water, while in the same breath he says water is "abundant" when it's being used to cool all the servers in the Al Data Centers being installed in the state to surveil everything and everybody.
It's the CITIZENS who are restricted, NOT the industries that want to grow.
🤔If you're confused why the leftists, who have traditionally been adamant for decades about the SCARCITY of resources and the need to use less of them, are on board with this Abundance Agenda, then read on...
🧵 (2/4)
📈Since 1972, when the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth report came out, the left have pushed that population reduction and curbing resource consumption was the only way to save the Earth and everything in it from total collapse.
🙃They've “done a 180” because this stance — much of it driven by unsubstantiated environmental claims that never came true— has been wildly unpopular politically (why many former Dems flipped to vote for Donald Trump) and has hurt their cities.
💸New projects that could have spurred economic growth and mobility in Democrat-controlled localities have been hampered by all sorts of regulations, while their citizens and companies continue to suffer the consequences of those choices.
⛽️ The fossil fuel energy industries on the right's pocket book suffer from these regulations too.
🤔So what if both sides agreed to an Agenda for growth that lifts those regulations so that the tech oligarchs on the left (who need resources for things like their Al data centers) and the oil and gas magnates on the right get what they want?
That's exactly what happened.
@iamlisalogan
📈Since 1972, when the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth report came out, the left have pushed that population reduction and curbing resource consumption was the only way to save the Earth and everything in it from total collapse.
🙃They've “done a 180” because this stance — much of it driven by unsubstantiated environmental claims that never came true— has been wildly unpopular politically (why many former Dems flipped to vote for Donald Trump) and has hurt their cities.
💸New projects that could have spurred economic growth and mobility in Democrat-controlled localities have been hampered by all sorts of regulations, while their citizens and companies continue to suffer the consequences of those choices.
⛽️ The fossil fuel energy industries on the right's pocket book suffer from these regulations too.
🤔So what if both sides agreed to an Agenda for growth that lifts those regulations so that the tech oligarchs on the left (who need resources for things like their Al data centers) and the oil and gas magnates on the right get what they want?
That's exactly what happened.
@iamlisalogan
🧵 (3/4)
🤝 The Left-Right Secret Handshake
As detailed in this thread by @datarepublican, there was a 2017 meeting where these very oligarchs (Soros) and magnates (Koch) got together and shook hands to agree on the color revolution in America that would have 3 goals:
♦️Stop Trump and the populist
movement.
♦️Install a new economy where both growth and equitable (not equal) redistribution could happen simultaneously.
♦️Completely change the electoral and democratic systems and processes of America to ensure that there are people in positions of power that allow these first two goals to happen.
Here is what "ABUNDANCE"
[aaaah!! ~Pee-wee Herman] translates to:
🏗️Real estate development would be allowed to flourish—not for single family homes 🏠...but high-density housing. 🏙️
⛏️Mining for raw minerals would bring industry back to cities, but those minerals would not enrich the people in that region but the GLOBAL economy.
🤝 Public-private partnerships would ensure that where there was scarcity, resources would be allocated to ensure "abundance" ACCORDING TO EQUITY. That means resources flow to groups (both locally and globally) who —according to the powers that be-are the most historically marginalized/ oppressed while those who are the "richest" bear the burden of reducing their consumption of resources.
Those on the right (like the Club for Growth) are willing to relax on their idea of equality to settle for equity and the left (like Silicon Valley) is willing to relax on their environmental stance as long as both sides continue to make money and are allowed to grow without impedence. 🤑
x.com/datarepublican…
🤝 The Left-Right Secret Handshake
As detailed in this thread by @datarepublican, there was a 2017 meeting where these very oligarchs (Soros) and magnates (Koch) got together and shook hands to agree on the color revolution in America that would have 3 goals:
♦️Stop Trump and the populist
movement.
♦️Install a new economy where both growth and equitable (not equal) redistribution could happen simultaneously.
♦️Completely change the electoral and democratic systems and processes of America to ensure that there are people in positions of power that allow these first two goals to happen.
Here is what "ABUNDANCE"
[aaaah!! ~Pee-wee Herman] translates to:
🏗️Real estate development would be allowed to flourish—not for single family homes 🏠...but high-density housing. 🏙️
⛏️Mining for raw minerals would bring industry back to cities, but those minerals would not enrich the people in that region but the GLOBAL economy.
🤝 Public-private partnerships would ensure that where there was scarcity, resources would be allocated to ensure "abundance" ACCORDING TO EQUITY. That means resources flow to groups (both locally and globally) who —according to the powers that be-are the most historically marginalized/ oppressed while those who are the "richest" bear the burden of reducing their consumption of resources.
Those on the right (like the Club for Growth) are willing to relax on their idea of equality to settle for equity and the left (like Silicon Valley) is willing to relax on their environmental stance as long as both sides continue to make money and are allowed to grow without impedence. 🤑
x.com/datarepublican…
New paper with @PatrickButlin, from my time at @MATSprogram . We propose two new candidates for LLM individuation: the (virtual) instance-persona view and the model-persona view. 🧵
Are there multiple minds inside one LLM? Both views formalise the idea that the relevant individuals might exist at the persona level, which means a single LLM can host many minds.
We first argue the virtual instance view comes out ahead once you notice that attention streams, not just the transcript, carry mental-state-like representations across token-time.
The oil market just passed its breaking point.
And it doesn’t matter if the Strait of Hormuz opens tomorrow.
Here’s why the damage is already done 🧵
And it doesn’t matter if the Strait of Hormuz opens tomorrow.
Here’s why the damage is already done 🧵
Even if a ceasefire is signed TODAY:
— Floating tankers need 30–40 days to offload
— VLCCs rerouted to the US need 3+ months to return
— Onshore ME storage needs to drain ~200M bbls first
The supply gap doesn’t care about peace deals
— Floating tankers need 30–40 days to offload
— VLCCs rerouted to the US need 3+ months to return
— Onshore ME storage needs to drain ~200M bbls first
The supply gap doesn’t care about peace deals
Cumulative storage lost from Hormuz closure:
End of April → 1.2 billion bbls
End of May → 1.59 billion bbls
End of June → 1.98 billion bbls
This is 4x larger than any supply outage in history.
There is no playbook for this.
End of April → 1.2 billion bbls
End of May → 1.59 billion bbls
End of June → 1.98 billion bbls
This is 4x larger than any supply outage in history.
There is no playbook for this.
It's official:
The world is now experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history, with 600 MILLION barrels of lost oil supply.
US gas prices are up +47% since December and inflation is nearing 4% in a similar path to the 1970s.
What happens next? Let us explain.
(a thread)
The world is now experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history, with 600 MILLION barrels of lost oil supply.
US gas prices are up +47% since December and inflation is nearing 4% in a similar path to the 1970s.
What happens next? Let us explain.
(a thread)
Today marks day 51 of the Iran War.
With ~600 million barrels of lost oil supply, ~$50 billion worth of oil has been removed from the global market.
This is the same amount of fuel it takes to run the world's international shipping industry for 4 months.
Truly unprecedented.
With ~600 million barrels of lost oil supply, ~$50 billion worth of oil has been removed from the global market.
This is the same amount of fuel it takes to run the world's international shipping industry for 4 months.
Truly unprecedented.
And, the US actually has it good.
Jet fuel prices in Europe surged over +100% amid the Iran War's disruption.
New data shows Europe has just 6 weeks worth of jet fuel remailing with many flights set to be cancelled.
Europe is urging people to work from home to conserve fuel.
Jet fuel prices in Europe surged over +100% amid the Iran War's disruption.
New data shows Europe has just 6 weeks worth of jet fuel remailing with many flights set to be cancelled.
Europe is urging people to work from home to conserve fuel.
Bolton: Ukraine aid and the Iran war show US stockpiles of weapons and ammunition are too low.
Defense spending should rise further, and America should restore the ability to fight and win two regional wars at the same time.
1/
Defense spending should rise further, and America should restore the ability to fight and win two regional wars at the same time.
1/
Bolton: Trump is in a panic and wants out of the war. If he thought Iran would be quick and easy, he was wrong.
Anyone who understood Iran knew stopping its nuclear threat was always going to be hard.
2/
Anyone who understood Iran knew stopping its nuclear threat was always going to be hard.
2/
Bolton: Trump hopes Iran blinks first, but the regime is driven by ideology.
Its priority is staying in power, not helping Iranians after decades of misrule, repression, and economic damage.
3X
Its priority is staying in power, not helping Iranians after decades of misrule, repression, and economic damage.
3X
Você alavanca 10x achando que vai ficar rico mais rápido.
Matematicamente, está fazendo o oposto.
Em 1956, um engenheiro da Bell Labs chamado John Kelly Jr. resolveu um problema que ninguém tinha formalizado: qual é o tamanho ÓTIMO de uma aposta?
A resposta mudou cassinos, hedge funds e mercados de previsão. 🧵
Matematicamente, está fazendo o oposto.
Em 1956, um engenheiro da Bell Labs chamado John Kelly Jr. resolveu um problema que ninguém tinha formalizado: qual é o tamanho ÓTIMO de uma aposta?
A resposta mudou cassinos, hedge funds e mercados de previsão. 🧵
O Kelly Criterion é uma fórmula que maximiza o crescimento geométrico do seu capital no longo prazo.
f* = (p·b - q) / b
Onde p = probabilidade de acerto, b = payoff, q = 1-p.
Exemplo: trade com 55% de acerto e payoff 2:1.
Kelly diz: aloque 32.5% do capital.
Não 5%. Não 80%. Exatamente 32.5%.
Acima disso, seu retorno esperado CAI. Não é conservadorismo — é teorema.
f* = (p·b - q) / b
Onde p = probabilidade de acerto, b = payoff, q = 1-p.
Exemplo: trade com 55% de acerto e payoff 2:1.
Kelly diz: aloque 32.5% do capital.
Não 5%. Não 80%. Exatamente 32.5%.
Acima disso, seu retorno esperado CAI. Não é conservadorismo — é teorema.
Simulei 500 apostas com 200 trajetórias diferentes.
Full Kelly (32.5%): capital mediano vai a ²⁴.
Half Kelly (16%): capital mediano vai a ¹⁵. Menos, mas com metade da volatilidade.
2× Kelly (65%): RUÍNA TOTAL. O capital converge pra zero.
Não é opinião. É Monte Carlo com 100.000 dados simulados.
Quem aposta o dobro do ótimo não ganha o dobro — perde tudo.
Full Kelly (32.5%): capital mediano vai a ²⁴.
Half Kelly (16%): capital mediano vai a ¹⁵. Menos, mas com metade da volatilidade.
2× Kelly (65%): RUÍNA TOTAL. O capital converge pra zero.
Não é opinião. É Monte Carlo com 100.000 dados simulados.
Quem aposta o dobro do ótimo não ganha o dobro — perde tudo.
Let's explore this AT&T 6300 that I picked up from consignment at VCF East this weekend. It's going to go to a friend soon, but we can at least look at it first! Time for a 🧵
First of all, here it is with the cover removed. What a weird computer!! Two disk drives. Apparently the video card connects the top logic board with the motherboard below.
Let's get the cover back on. First, I removed the degraded foam after it made a mess everywhere. And then I learned that I really need to "pull" the left support a little to put it in place so that the case would latch properly. You can see wear marks where it was "hitting."
On this day in 1939, Billie Holiday recorded the first great protest song of the Civil Rights Movement, 'Strange Fruit’
The Chilling Story of Strange Fruit and Billie Holiday.
A THREAD!
The Chilling Story of Strange Fruit and Billie Holiday.
A THREAD!
"Strange Fruit" was originally a poem written by Jewish-American writer, teacher and songwriter Abel Meeropol, under his pseudonym Lewis Allan, as a protest against lynchings and later set it to music.
The song soon came to Billie Holiday's attention & after so many frequent requests of that song, she closed out EVERY performance with it. The waiters would stop serving ahead of time for complete silence, the room would darken, a spotlight would shine on Holiday's face…
