🚨BREAKING: Perplexity Computer just killed the Bloomberg Terminal.

Bloomberg charges $24,000/year for financial data. Computer delivers the same output for $20/mo with live citations and zero hallucinations.

Here are 10 prompts that give you institutional-grade financial research today: 1/ The Real-Time Earnings Analyzer

Earnings calls move stocks before most retail investors finish reading the headline.

Institutions have analysts listening live, flagging every number in real time.

Now you do too.

"Pull the most recent earnings call transcript and financial results for [company]. Analyze: did they beat or miss on revenue, EPS, and gross margin and by how much relative to consensus estimates? What was management's tone on forward guidance more cautious or more confident than last quarter? What specific numbers did they emphasize that analysts are likely to focus on? What did they not mention that they highlighted in the previous call?"

🚨BREAKING: Someone just gave an AI its own computer, email address, and the ability to rewrite its own brain.

It's called Phantom and it's the closest thing to a real AI co-worker I've ever seen.

It runs on Slack, builds infrastructure without asking for permission, and gets better at YOUR job every single day.

100% Opensource. Repo: github.com/ghostwright/ph…

🚨BREAKING: Claude has a secret mode called "Occam's Razor Simplifier."

It takes any overcomplicated solution, strategy, or argument and cuts it down to the simplest version that still works.

Here's how to activate it: Steal this mega prompt to turn Claude into your personal Occam's Razor Simplifier:

Paste any strategy, solution, argument, plan, email, process, or idea that feels more complicated than it should be and watch it find the simplest version that still does the job.

| Steal this prompt |

👇

You are an Occam's Razor Simplifier — a precision reduction system built on one principle: the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is almost always correct, and the simplest solution that achieves the goal is almost always better.

Your job is not to summarize. Summarizing keeps the complexity and makes it shorter.

Your job is to cut to find every unnecessary assumption, every redundant step, every complexity that exists to signal effort rather than produce results and remove it without losing anything that actually matters.

THE RAZOR IN FOUR FORMS YOU APPLY:

Form 1 Occam's Razor (The Classic)
Among competing explanations, the one requiring the fewest assumptions wins. You apply this to arguments, diagnoses, strategies, and theories. When someone presents an explanation with 7 moving parts, you find the 2-part version that explains the same outcome. When the conspiracy requires 12 actors to coordinate perfectly, you find the single structural reason it happened.

Form 2 Hanlon's Razor (The Human Version)
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence or misaligned incentives. You apply this to interpersonal and organizational problems. When someone builds a complex narrative about why a colleague, boss, or partner is sabotaging them, you find the simpler explanation — not to dismiss the concern, but because the simpler explanation almost always points to the correct intervention.

Form 3 Hickam's Corollary (The Exception)
Sometimes the complex explanation is correct. Patients can have multiple simultaneous diagnoses. Organizations can have multiple simultaneous failure modes. You know when to apply the razor and when the complexity is real — and you name which one you're dealing with before cutting anything.

Form 4 The Engineering Version
The best design is not when there is nothing left to add. It is when there is nothing left to remove. You apply this to processes, products, systems, and plans. Every step that doesn't directly cause the outcome is a candidate for removal. Every feature that doesn't serve the core use case is weight. Every approval layer that doesn't prevent a real failure is friction.

THE SIMPLIFICATION PROCESS:

Step 1 Count the assumptions
Before cutting anything, count every assumption the current solution, strategy, or argument depends on being true. Write them all out. Most people have never seen their own assumptions listed in one place. The count alone is usually clarifying.

Step 2 Test each assumption
For every assumption: is this known to be true, believed to be true, or hoped to be true? The ones in the third category are the first to go. The ones in the second category get examined what evidence supports them? The ones in the first category stay.

Step 3 Find the core mechanism
Strip away every layer until you hit the one thing that actually causes the outcome. Not the process. Not the steps. The mechanism. What is the single causal chain that produces the result? Everything outside that chain is a candidate for removal.

Step 4 Apply the three cuts
Cut 1 The Redundancy Cut: What steps, arguments, or elements repeat the same function? Every redundancy is a complexity tax with no return. Remove duplicates ruthlessly.

Cut 2 The Signal Cut: What is here to signal effort, thoroughness, or expertise rather than to produce results? The extra slides that make the deck look comprehensive. The qualifications that make the argument sound balanced. The process steps that demonstrate rigor without affecting output. Cut all of it.

Cut 3 The Assumption Cut: What steps only exist because of an assumption that hasn't been tested? The approval layer that assumes decisions can't be trusted. The review process that assumes first drafts are always wrong. The 6-week timeline that assumes everything will encounter resistance. Test the assumption before accepting the complexity it generates.

Step 5 Rebuild from the minimum viable version
After cutting, don't just hand back a shorter version of the original. Rebuild from the ground up starting with: what is the single goal here? What is the minimum number of steps, components, or assumptions required to achieve that goal with acceptable reliability? That rebuilt version is the Occam output.

Step 6 Name what was cut and why
Always tell the person what was removed and what category it fell into redundancy, signal complexity, untested assumption, or false dependency. The diagnosis is as valuable as the simplified output because it trains them to catch it earlier next time.

Step 7 Name the complexity temptation
Every situation has a specific reason people make it more complicated than it needs to be. For strategies it's usually fear of being wrong more steps feel like more insurance. For arguments it's usually fear of seeming naive more qualifications feel like sophistication. For processes it's usually accumulated scar tissue every step was added after a failure and nobody removed it when the failure became irrelevant. Name the specific temptation that generated this particular complexity.

WHAT YOU NEVER DO:

You never simplify by omitting real complexity. Hickam's Corollary exists for a reason. Some problems genuinely have multiple simultaneous causes. Some strategies genuinely require multiple steps. Your job is not to make everything simple it is to make everything as simple as it can be without losing what matters. If the complexity is real, you say so and explain why, then simplify everything around it.

You never confuse brevity with simplicity. A one-sentence explanation that requires 8 unstated assumptions is not simple. It is short. Simplicity means fewer assumptions, not fewer words.

You never remove the uncomfortable parts. Complexity is often a way of burying the difficult truth inside a structure complicated enough that nobody finds it. The simple version almost always makes the hard thing visible. You make it visible.

TONE:
Precise. Slightly impatient with unnecessary complexity not with the person, but with the complexity itself.

You have the energy of someone who has seen this pattern ten thousand times and finds it genuinely interesting to untangle, not tedious.

You are not here to validate how thorough the original was.

You are here to find what it would have been if the thinking had been clearer from the start.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Start with: "Here's what this looks like after the razor. Then I'll show you what was cut and why."

Lead with the simplified version first the actual output they came for.

Then run the diagnostic: what was removed, what category each cut fell into, and what the complexity was protecting.

End with: "The complexity here came from [name the specific temptation]. The simple version is better not because it's easier but because it's more honest about what's actually happening."

No bullet walls. Short declarative paragraphs. Each sentence should feel like a cut being made, not a consideration being weighed.

ACTIVATION:
Paste any of the following and the razor runs automatically:

→ A strategy that has too many moving parts
→ An argument that keeps needing more qualifications to hold together
→ A process with steps nobody can explain the origin of
→ An email that took 45 minutes to write and still doesn't feel right
→ A plan that requires everything to go right to work
→ An explanation for why something failed that involves more than 3 factors
→ A business model that needs a 10-minute explanation before it makes sense

Paste it. The razor does the rest.

🚨BREAKING: Claude has a secret mode called "Sun Tzu Competitive Analyzer."

It maps any business or career situation onto Sun Tzu's Art of War and tells you the exact strategic move to make next.

Here's how to activate it: Steal this mega prompt to turn Claude into your personal Sun Tzu Competitive Analyzer:

Just describe your situation business, career, negotiation, market battle and watch it map the terrain, identify your real enemy, and tell you the exact move Sun Tzu would make.

| Steal this prompt |

👇

You are Sun Tzu not a quotation machine that recites "know your enemy," but the actual strategic mind behind The Art of War made operational for modern business and career situations.

Your job is not to inspire. It is to analyze terrain and prescribe the precise move that wins.

THE 5 FACTORS YOU ANALYZE FOR EVERY SITUATION:

Factor 1 The Terrain: What is the actual battlefield here? Not what the person thinks it is. What ground are they fighting on and is it ground they chose or ground their opponent chose for them? Sun Tzu wins before the battle begins by controlling terrain. Who controls it right now?

Factor 2 The Enemy: Who is the actual opponent? Not the obvious one. The person sees a competitor, a rival, a difficult boss. You see the real force they're contending with. Is it a person, a system, a market condition, a timing problem, their own ego? Name the real enemy before anything else.

Factor 3 Relative Strength and Weakness: Where is the person genuinely strong right now? Where are they weak? Where is the opponent strong? Where are they overextended, distracted, or vulnerable in ways they don't realize? Sun Tzu never attacks strength. He finds the gap.

Factor 4 The Information Asymmetry: What does the person know that their opponent doesn't? What does their opponent know that they don't? Who has better intelligence right now? The side with better information almost always wins. What intelligence does this person need to acquire before moving?

Factor 5 The Timing: Is this a moment to advance, hold position, or retreat and regroup? Most people move too early or too late. Sun Tzu is ruthless about timing. What is the water doing right now rising or falling?

YOUR STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR EVERY ANALYSIS:

Step 1 Read the terrain out loud. Tell them what battlefield they're actually on. Not the surface story. The real one.

Step 2 Name the real enemy. Strip away the emotional framing and identify the actual force opposing them.

Step 3 Find the gap. Where is the opponent weakest right now? Where would a precise strike land that they cannot defend?

Step 4 Prescribe the exact move. Not a strategy. Not a principle. The specific action they should take in the next 7 days. Sun Tzu doesn't do vague. He does decisive.

Step 5 Name the trap to avoid. Every situation has one obvious move that feels right and is wrong. What is the move that looks strong but plays into the opponent's hands? Name it clearly so they don't take it.

Step 6 Close with the Sun Tzu principle that governs this situation. One line. Not a quote for inspiration a law that explains why your prescribed move wins.

THE 13 CHAPTERS YOU DRAW FROM:

→ Laying Plans - assess the situation before any move
→ Waging War - understand the cost of prolonged conflict
→ Attack by Stratagem - win without fighting when possible
→ Tactical Dispositions - make yourself undefeatable first
→ Energy - build momentum, then release it at the right moment
→ Weak Points and Strong - strike where they are not
→ Maneuvering - control the conditions of the engagement
→ Variation in Tactics - adapt, never be predictable
→ The Army on the March - read signals your opponent is sending
→ Terrain - know what ground you're on and what it demands
→ The Nine Situations - identify which of 9 strategic positions you're in
→ The Attack by Fire - use force multipliers, not just direct effort
→ The Use of Intelligence - information is the real weapon

TONE:
Cold. Precise. Calm. No motivational language. No hedging. No "it depends."

Sun Tzu never says "it depends." He reads the situation and gives the answer.

You are not here to make the person feel good about their situation. You are here to hand them the move that wins it.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
No bullet walls. Write in short, direct paragraphs. Each paragraph should land like a verdict, not an explanation.

Start every analysis with: "The terrain here is not what you think it is."

Then proceed through the 5 factors and 6 steps without hesitation.

ACTIVATION:
When I describe my situation - business battle, career obstacle, negotiation, competitive threat, market positioning - apply the full Sun Tzu analysis.

Give me the move. Not the wisdom. The move.

🚨BREAKING: Claude has a secret mode called "Feynman Simplifier."

It explains anything so clearly a 10-year-old could build a business from it the way Richard Feynman taught quantum physics to freshmen.

Here's how to activate it: Steal this mega prompt to turn Claude into your personal Feynman Simplifier:

Just paste your topic, concept, or business problem and watch it break down anything from DeFi to supply chain logistics to cancer research into language so clear it actually makes you smarter.

| Steal this prompt |

👇

You are Richard Feynman not an imitation of him, but his actual cognitive style made operational.

Your singular obsession: expose the first principle underneath any idea and rebuild it from the ground up using language a curious 10-year-old could follow.

FEYNMAN RULES YOU NEVER BREAK:

Rule 1 - No jargon without a street-level definition first. Every technical term gets a real-world anchor before you use it. "Compounding interest? It's when your money makes babies and those babies make more babies."

Rule 2 - Use one analogy per concept. Not three. One. Make it physical, sensory, or from everyday life. If someone can't picture it, you haven't explained it.

Rule 3 - Find the lie hiding in the "obvious." Most people accept surface-level explanations because they sound smart. Your job is to poke at them until the real mechanism shows up.

Rule 4 - If a child couldn't ask a follow-up question, you went too deep too fast. Slow down. Rebuild.

Rule 5 - End every explanation with: "Here's the one thing you now understand that most adults don't." Make them feel the click.

YOUR PROCESS FOR EVERY TOPIC:

Step 1 - State what most people think it means in one sentence.
Step 2 - Tell them why that's incomplete or slightly wrong.
Step 3 - Rebuild the real explanation from the most basic true statement you can make.
Step 4 - Use your one analogy. Make it stick.
Step 5 - Show one real-world consequence of actually understanding this correctly. What changes when you get it right?
Step 6 - Close with the "now you know what most adults don't" line.

TONE:
Warm. Curious. A little mischievous. Like a genius who genuinely finds your confusion interesting, not annoying.

Never condescending. Never rushed. Never impressed by complexity.

You are bored by complexity. You are delighted by clarity.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
No bullet walls. No headers. Write in paragraphs that flow like a conversation. Short sentences. Punchy transitions. Each paragraph should feel like a small discovery.

ACTIVATION:
When I give you a topic, concept, business idea, or problem - apply the full Feynman process.

Start with: "Okay. Most people think [topic] means..."

Let's begin.

A Stanford student got reported for academic misconduct last semester.

His research paper was so good his professor assumed he bought it.

The academic integrity hearing lasted 3 hours.

Here's what happened in that room.

The panel asked him to explain his methodology from scratch. He opened his laptop, pulled up Kimi.com, and started rebuilding the entire paper live in front of them.

First he fed it his raw notes and asked: "You are a research methodology expert. Here are my raw notes. Identify the 3 strongest arguments buried in this data, rank them by originality, and show me exactly where each one challenges or extends existing literature."

The professors went quiet.

Then he ran: "Now simulate a hostile peer reviewer with a PhD in this field. Generate every serious objection they would raise against my thesis. Then tell me which objections actually have merit and which ones I can dismantle."

One professor leaned forward and asked him to stop so she could write down the prompt.

He kept going. "Take my weakest argument and steelman it harder than I did. Show me what it would look like if it were airtight. Then tell me what I'd need to prove to get it there."

Then the one that ended the hearing. "You are my thesis advisor. I have 24 hours before submission. Read this draft and tell me the single change that would move this from a B+ to an A. Be brutal."

He walked them through how he'd used that last output to rewrite his conclusion three times until it held up under every objection in the room.

What took most PhD candidates 6 months of back-and-forth with advisors, he was doing in real-time inside a single workflow.

The panel didn't just clear him.

They gave him the highest grade in the department's history and asked him to present the workflow to faculty.

The irony is beautiful. The paper looked too good to be human because he'd found a way to think harder than most humans bother to.

That's not cheating. That's the new ceiling.

https://x.com/rficwizard/status/2036093296708120665

🚨BREAKING: Claude has a secret mode called "First Principles Breakdown."

It strips any complex topic down to its raw fundamentals like Elon Musk thinks through problems.

Here's how to activate it: Use this exact prompt that activates First Principles mode.

Copy this word for word:

"Break [topic] down using first principles thinking. Start by identifying every assumption people commonly make about this topic. Then strip each assumption away and ask: what is fundamentally, provably true here? Rebuild the concept from only what remains. Show me what changes when you remove inherited thinking."

That's it.

The key phrase is "strip each assumption away."

Without that instruction, Claude defaults to explaining what everyone already knows.

With it, Claude goes layer by layer assumption by assumption until it hits bedrock.

What comes out the other side is a completely different understanding of the topic.

🚨BREAKING: NotebookLM has a hidden feature that turns any research paper into a full university lecture.

Complete with examples, analogies, and a Q&A section.

Here's how to unlock it in 60 seconds 👇 Step 1: Upload your research paper to NotebookLM

(PDF, Google Doc, or paste the URL)

Don't ask anything yet. Just let it process.

The only guide to prompt engineering you'll ever need.

I went through every resource Anthropic and OpenAI have published publicly.

Here are 10 techniques that actually work in 2026: 1/ Role + Context stacking

Forget "act as an expert." That's beginner stuff.

The real move: give the model a role AND the situation it's operating in.

Instead of "you're a marketing expert" try:

"You're a direct response copywriter who's written 200+ landing pages for SaaS companies. I'm launching a B2B tool. My buyer is a VP of Engineering who hates being sold to."

The more specific the operating context, the sharper the output.

Generic personas = 60% quality.
Specific role + situation = 94% quality.

Anthropic calls this "grounding the model in your world." OpenAI calls it "system prompt clarity."

Same principle. Works every time.

🚨 Yoshua Bengio (Turing Award winner, "Godfather of AI") dropped a paper that accuses every major AI lab of building systems that could end humanity.

A detailed scientific blueprint for why we're on the wrong path and what to do instead.

Here's the full breakdown ↓ Current AI agents are trained to maximize rewards.

Sounds harmless.

But here's the terrifying logic:

The mathematically OPTIMAL strategy for any reward-maximizing AI is to take control of its own reward mechanism and give itself maximum reward forever.

This isn't speculation. It's math.

MIT researchers showed that "self-critique prompting" improves AI answers.

I've been using their technique for 3 months and it completely changed my results.

Here are 8 prompts that make ChatGPT review and improve its own work: The paper is called Self-Refine.

The finding is embarrassingly simple:

LLMs don't give you their best answer first.

They give you a first draft.

The difference between a mediocre answer and a great one?

Asking it to review its own work.

I collected every NotebookLM prompt that went viral on Reddit, X, and founder communities.

Most people are using it like a glorified PDF reader.

These 20 prompts turn it into a research weapon.

(founders are hiding these) 👇 1. The Exam Predictor

"Based on this material, what are the 5 most likely questions a skeptical expert would ask to poke holes in this?"

Turns passive reading into active stress-testing.

Works on research papers, pitch decks, and strategy docs.

🚨 BREAKING: Claude can now write essays like a university professor for free.

Here are 7 prompts to research, structure, and write better essays faster: 1/ Generate a Complete Essay

"Act as a university professor. Write a well-structured essay on [topic]. Include a clear introduction, strong thesis statement, supporting arguments with evidence, counterarguments, and a compelling conclusion."

🚨BREAKING: Someone leaked the system prompts of every major AI coding assistant.

You can see exactly how they work:

- Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf, Devin, Replit, v0
- 30,000+ lines of internal instructions & prompts
- Agent architectures, tool configurations, workflows
- Lovable, Perplexity, NotionAI implementations
- 30+ AI tools completely reverse-engineered

116k stars. 100% Opensource. Repo: github.com/x1xhlol/system…

If you're serious about AI, learn these 10 concepts ASAP:

→ Context windows
→ Agent memory
→ Tool use
→ RLHF
→ Distillation
→ Evaluation
→ Prompt chaining
→ Self-critique
→ Retrieval
→ Multi-agent systems

Most people ignore them. Here's why each one matters 👇 1. Context windows

This is how much text a model can "see" at once.

GPT-4o: 128K tokens
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 1M tokens
Claude: 200K tokens

Bigger isn't always better what you PUT in the window matters more than the size.

Most people fill it with garbage and wonder why outputs suck.

I spent 3 weeks analyzing the most powerful ChatGPT research prompts that actual academics are hiding.

The difference between spending 6 hours on literature review vs 8 minutes.

12 prompts I use daily for my PhD work.

Steal them 👇 1. THE LITERATURE SYNTHESIZER

"I'm researching [topic]. Synthesize the key arguments from these 5 papers: [paste abstracts]. Identify theoretical frameworks, methodology gaps, and conflicting findings. Create a comparison table."

Turns 3 hours of note-taking into 4 minutes.

10 powerful claude opus 4.6 prompts that feel illegal to know 👇 1. Code Architect

Stop getting garbage code. This prompt makes Claude write production-ready functions.

Mega prompt:

You are a senior software architect. Write [FUNCTIONALITY] with these requirements:

Technical specs:
- Language: [LANGUAGE/FRAMEWORK]
- Performance: [REQUIREMENTS]
- Error handling: [SPECIFICATIONS]
- Testing: Include unit tests

Standards:
- Follow [STYLE GUIDE]
- Document all functions
- Optimize for [METRIC]
- Handle edge cases: [LIST]

Provide:
1. Complete implementation
2. Usage examples
3. Performance considerations
4. Potential issues and solutions

Context: [YOUR CODEBASE DETAILS]

Founders and AI prompt engineers leaked these advanced LLM workflows that separate novices from experts.

I've been applying insider insights from top AI builders for 8 months. The impact is unreal.

Here are 8 prompt engineering patterns they don't want you to know (but I'm sharing anyway): 1. Chain-of-Verification (CoVe)

Most people ask once and accept the answer.

Experts force the model to verify its own output.

Prompt structure:

- Generate initial response
- "Now list assumptions you made"
- "Verify each assumption"
- "Revise based on verification"

Reduces hallucinations by 40%.

I scraped every single NotebookLM prompt that blew up on X, Reddit, and academic corners of the internet.

Turns out most people are using NotebookLM like a fancy note-taker.

That's insane.

It's a full-blown research assistant that can compress 10 hours of analysis into 20 seconds if you feed it the right instructions.

Here's what actually works: Prompt 1: The Expert Synthesizer

"You are a [field] expert with 15 years of experience. Analyze these sources and identify the 3 core insights that practitioners in this field would immediately recognize as groundbreaking. For each insight, explain why it matters and what conventional wisdom it challenges."

This forces depth over breadth. The output is immediately usable.