Kate Sills

@katelynsills.com

2980 Followers 1988 Following

farm kid → cognitive science & computer science at UC Berkeley → computational law. Founder of CitationClerk.com?s=b Political philosophy with a thin veneer of software engineering. Guest speaker at Dartmouth, Stanford, SF, NYC, London, and Australia.

What matters most is that I've verified the mathematics directly. The map works as stated, the counterexample is valid, and symbolic verification leaves no room for hidden errors. Whether the specific announcement is authentic or how the mathematical community has received it remains uncertain given my training cutoff, but the mathematical claim itself is sound and checkable. y, z). Yes.

Now I'm drafting the response. I need to give a direct answer that the math checks out, explain what I verified and why it matters as a counterexample, and be honest about the one real uncertainty—whether the tweet itself is authentic. The account @alpoge does correspond to Levent Alpöge, a real mathematician, but I can't verify the screenshot is genuine. Still, the mathematics stands independently of who posted it.

I'll keep this conversational and tight without needing visuals or artifacts, staying confident about the math while being appropriately cautious about claiming the Jacobian conjecture is now universally accepted as false—what I can say with certainty is that this specific map is a valid counterexample, and if it's genuinely as shown, the complex Jacobian conjecture is false.

Show less
Done

Short answer: the math in it is real. I checked it directly, and both claims hold exactly.

Here's what I verified symbolically (exact arithmetic, not numerics):

The map

𝐹
(
𝑥
,
𝑦
,
𝑧
)
=
(
(
1
+
𝑥
𝑦
)
3
𝑧
+
𝑦
2
(
1
+
𝑥
𝑦
)
(
4
+
3
𝑥
𝑦
)
,

𝑦
+
3
𝑥
(
1
+
𝑥
𝑦
)
2
𝑧
+
3
𝑥
𝑦
2
(
4
+
3
𝑥
𝑦
)
,

2
𝑥
−
3
𝑥
2
𝑦
−
𝑥
3
𝑧
)
F(x,y,z)=((1+xy)
3
z+y
2
(1+xy)(4+3xy),  y+3x(1+xy)
2
z+3xy
2
(4+3xy),  2x−3x
2
y−x
3
z)

has Jacobian determinant identically equal to
−
2
−2 — a nonzero constant, as a polynomial identity, not just at a few points. And all three listed points map to the same image:

The search results don't show any July 2026 news about the Jacobian conjecture being disproved. Based on my knowledge through January 2026 and these search results, it remains an open problem—the most recent sources from November 2025 confirm it's still unresolved, particularly for dimensions greater than one. I can't verify the specific tweet claim through these searches since the results are mostly older papers.

That said, I've directly verified the mathematical claims in the tweet: the Jacobian determinant is indeed constant and nonzero at -2, and all three listed points do map to the same output, making the map non-injective. This combination—a non-injective polynomial map with constant nonzero Jacobian—would be a genuine counterexample to the complex Jacobian conjecture. The critical issue is that such a simple, directly verifiable counterexample to a problem open since 1939 would be an extraordinary mathematical discovery, which makes me cautious about accepting it without peer review or confirmation from the mathematical community. The math is genuinely sound — this counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture holds up under verification, so the only real question is whether this is Alpöge's authentic recent announcement and how the mathematical community has received it, though I can't verify that part beyond my knowledge cutoff. F is not injective since it maps two distinct points to the same output, which directly contradicts what the Jacobian conjecture claims. I verified the determinant symbolically—it's identically -2 everywhere, so there's no computational error. This is a genuine counterexample to the conjecture, though I should note the distinction between confirming the mathematics is correct versus whether this represents a new accepted result in the mathematical community.

The "too good to be true" concern is worth examining: a problem unsolved for 87 years suddenly disproved by a simple map anyone can verify in seconds. But this could plausibly ha…

What's striking is that a counterexample to such a famous conjecture is either right or wrong, and this one checks out mathematically. Anyone can verify it in seconds with a computer algebra system. The reason such a simple counterexample might have been missed is that searching the vast space of Keller maps for non-injective ones isn't something brute-force methods easily accomplish—it requires clever construction. The timing and context suggest this might involve AI assistance, which adds another layer to the story.

Let me search for whether this is actually confirmed news or if there's more context I'm missing.

Show less
Done

I did one more check on the exact form of the conjecture to be sure I wasn't misremembering it. Let me search once more for any coverage of this specific claim.

Verified mathematical validity while interrogating authenticity claims
Verified mathematical validity while interrogating authenticity claims
"Jacobian conjecture" disproved July 2026 counterexample dimension 3

9 results

Jacobian Conjecture Overview
www.emergentmind.com
a note on sufficient conditions for the real jacobian ...
ejde.math.txstate.edu
A new class of Nilpotent Jacobians in any dimension
arxiv.org
Very degenerate polynomial submersions and counterexamples to the real Jacobian conjecture - ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
Injectivity and Almost Global Stability of Hurwitz Vector Fields
arxiv.org
Jacobian Conjecture in two dimension
arxiv.org
Counterexamples to a Conjecture of Ahmadi and Shparlinski
arxiv.org
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JACOBIAN CONJECTURE WILLIAM GARLAND
math.uchicago.edu
An Optimization Approach to Jacobian Conjecture
arxiv.org

The search results don't show any July 2026 news about the Jacobian conjecture being disproved. Based on my knowledge through January 2026 and these search results, it remains an open problem—the most recent sources from November 2025 confirm it's still unresolved, particularly for dimensions greater than one. I can't verify t…

Let me verify the non-injectivity claim more carefully by testing specific points to make sure I didn't make a computational error.

Checking F(1, -3/2, 13/2): I'm working through the component calculations to confirm this maps to (-1/4, 0, 0), which would match F(0, 0, -1/4). The arithmetic checks out—the map genuinely sends two different points to the same output, so it's truly non-injective despite having a constant Jacobian. This is a legitimate counterexample to the conjecture. I'm being too cautious here. A hoax couldn't withstand direct symbolic computation—if the Jacobian determinant is genuinely -2 and three distinct points really do map to the same output, then this is a concrete counterexample, not something that merely appears to work. The only way this fails is if I've misread the polynomials from the image, so let me examine the exact expressions more carefully. I'm wondering if this might actually be a famous joke in the math community—the casual tone ("hello there," "thanx to my close friend akhil," "working during the world cup final") does read like a shitpost. But the mathematics itself checks out, so the real question is whether there's a subtle reason this doesn't actually contradict the conjecture, like the map being non-injective despite having constant Jacobian determinant.

Let me verify against the definition: the Jacobian conjecture states that if a polynomial map has constant nonzero Jacobian determinant, then it must be injective. A non-injective Keller map with constant Jacobian would be a direct counterexample—there's no loophole there. I'm trying to verify the source and credibility of this claim. The tweet appears to be from Levent Alpöge, a legitimate mathematician, though I can't fully authenticate the account from an image alone. But the mathematics checks out: I've confirmed the Jacobian determinant is exactly -2, the three points all map to (-1/4, 0, 0), and a non-injective polynomial map with constant nonzero Jacobian would ind…

The math checks out exactly as the tweet claims. Let me confirm what this would mean and check whether it's real news, since this is dated after my knowledge cutoff.

Scrutinizing whether this constitutes an elaborate mathematical hoax
Scrutinizing whether this constitutes an elaborate mathematical hoax
Jacobian conjecture false counterexample 2026 Alpöge

10 results

a note on sufficient conditions for the real jacobian ...
ejde.math.txstate.edu
Jacobian conjecture as a problem on integral points on affine curves
arxiv.org
The bunkbed conjecture is false
arxiv.org
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JACOBIAN CONJECTURE WILLIAM GARLAND
math.uchicago.edu
Some algorithms related to the Jacobian Conjecture
arxiv.org
A note on the plane Jacobian conjecture
arxiv.org
An Optimization Approach to Jacobian Conjecture
arxiv.org
On the Jacobian conjecture - ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
On the shape of possible counterexamples to the Jacobian Conjecture | Request PDF
www.researchgate.net
Counterexamples to a Conjecture of Ahmadi and Shparlinski
arxiv.org

I found confirmation that the Jacobian conjecture remains open—a polynomial map with constant nonzero Jacobian should be injective, but the tweet's construction claims to show a counterexample where a map with Jacobian determinant -2 sends three distinct points to the same point, which would directly contradict the conjecture if true.

Let me verify I transcribed the polynomials correctly from the image and double-check my calculation, especially the third component, since this would be an extraordinary result if the math holds up. I've verified the arithmetic with exact rational computation, so the three distinct points genuinely map to the same output with a constant Jacobian determinant. The real question is whether this constitutes a legitimate counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture that the mathematical community would accept, which depends on factors beyond my knowledge cutoff.

It's striking that such a simple degree-4 ma…

Let me think through whether I'm misunderstanding the conjecture itself or if there's something subtle about this construction I'm overlooking.

The Jacobian conjecture being open means no counterexample has been found despite decades of effort, which makes me suspicious that this simple degree-4 polynomial construction actually works. If it did, the problem would've been settled long ago. So either I'm making an error in my verification, or there's a hidden flaw in the reasoning that I'm not catching yet. So this is genuinely a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture — a non-injective polynomial map with constant nonzero Jacobian. Given how famous this problem is, that would be revolutionary. But I'm suspicious this might be a joke, especially noticing the reference to "Fable" in the context, which seems like it could be a playful nod to one of Anthropic's models.

Still, the mathematics checks out regardless of the framing. So either this is a real counterexample or there's something I'm missing about why it doesn't actually violate the conjecture. Let me think through whether there's a catch I haven't spotted yet. I'm wondering if this might actually be a well-known joke in the mathematical community, or if there's something I'm missing about the construction itself. Let me think through whether the Jacobian is truly constant and the map genuinely non-injective, or if there's a subtle error in my verification that would resolve the paradox. a very cleverly constructed hoax that actually works mathematically would just be a real counterexample, not a hoax at all. I can't fake something that survives direct verification — either the map has constant nonzero Jacobian and is non-injective, or it doesn't. The only remaining angle I can think of is whether the standard Jacobian conjecture has some requirement I'm missing, but I should just search to settle this.

Actually, let me step back. I've verified the Jacobian determinant is constant and nonzero, and I've conf…

The Jacobian determinant is indeed exactly
−
2
−2, a nonzero constant. Now the injectivity claim:

Scrutinizing whether this counterexample genuinely undermines the conjecture
Scrutinizing whether this counterexample genuinely undermines the conjecture
Check where the three points map

bash

python3 << 'EOF'
import sympy as sp
x, y, z = sp.symbols('x y z')
P = (1+x*y)**3 * z + y**2 * (1+x*y) * (4+3*x*y)
Q = y + 3*x*(1+x*y)**2 * z + 3*x*y**2 * (4+3*x*y)
R = 2*x - 3*x**2*y - x**3*z

pts = [(0,0,sp.Rational(-1,4)),
(1,sp.Rational(-3,2),sp.Rational(13,2)),
(-1,sp.Rational(3,2),sp.Rational(13,2))]

for p in pts:
sub = {x:p[0], y:p[1], z:p[2]}
img = (sp.simplify(P.subs(sub)), sp.simplify(Q.subs(sub)), sp.simplify(R.subs(sub)))
print(f"F{p} = {img}")

# Confirm the three source points are distinct
print("Distinct source points:", len(set(pts))==3)
EOF

Output

F(0, 0, -1/4) = (-1/4, 0, 0)
F(1, -3/2, 13/2) = (-1/4, 0, 0)
F(-1, 3/2, 13/2) = (-1/4, 0, 0)
Distinct source points: True

The Jacobian determinant is indeed
−
2
−2, a nonzero constant, and I've verified that three distinct points all map to the same output
(
−
1
/
4
,
0
,
0
)
(−1/4,0,0). This means the map isn't injective, yet it has a constant nonzero Jacobian everywhere. Since a polynomial automorphism must be bijective, this polynomial map from
𝐶
3
C
3
to
𝐶
3
C
3
cannot be an automorphism.

If this construction is correct, it would be a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture — one of the most famous open problems in mathematics. But this seems too significant to be overlooked, so I should verify whether this is actually a known result or if there's something I'm missing. eed to be a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture. But wait — there's a classical theorem that for polynomial maps from
𝐶
𝑛
C
n
to itself, injectivity actually forces bijectivity and polynomial automorphism structure. So the question becomes whether a non-injective polynomial map can even have a nonz…

This is a specific, checkable mathematical claim, so let me actually verify it rather than guess. Let me compute the Jacobian determinant and check where those three points map.

Verified mathematical calculations and mapped point convergence
Verified mathematical calculations and mapped point convergence
Compute Jacobian determinant of the claimed map

bash

pip install sympy --break-system-packages -q 2>/dev/null; python3 << 'EOF'
import sympy as sp

x, y, z = sp.symbols('x y z')

# The map from the tweet
P = (1+x*y)**3 * z + y**2 * (1+x*y) * (4+3*x*y)
Q = y + 3*x*(1+x*y)**2 * z + 3*x*y**2 * (4+3*x*y)
R = 2*x - 3*x**2*y - x**3*z

F = sp.Matrix([P, Q, R])
vars = sp.Matrix([x, y, z])

J = F.jacobian(vars)
detJ = sp.expand(J.det())
print("Jacobian determinant:", detJ)
print("Simplified:", sp.simplify(detJ))
EOF

Output

Jacobian determinant: -2
Simplified: -2

The Jacobian determinant came out to
−
2
−2, which is nonzero, so now I need to verify that these three points all map to the same location.

Done

The Jacobian determinant is indeed exactly
−
2
−2, a nonzero constant. Now the injectivity claim:

Scrutinizing whether this counterexample genuinely undermines the conjecture

Me: is this real?

Opus 4.8: Scrutinized mathematical claim and planned computational verification
Scrutinized mathematical claim and planned computational verification
I'm looking at a claim about the Jacobian conjecture being disproven. The conjecture is a major open problem stating that if a polynomial map from complex n-space to itself has a nonzero constant Jacobian determinant, then it must have a polynomial inverse. The tweet apparently presents a specific counterexample to this, though the thought cuts off before showing what that counterexample is. I should verify this claim computationally using symbolic math tools rather than just reasoning about it abstractly. Let me set up a calculation to check both the Jacobian determinant and whether the map actually sends multiple points to the same output, then search for context about whether this has been reported as a breakthrough result. The Jacobian conjecture requires a nonzero constant Jacobian determinant, so if this map truly has constant Jacobian
−
2
−2 but isn't injective, it would be a genuine counterexample. I'm skeptical though — this could be a hoax or contain a computational error, especially since the account appears to be associated with Levent Alpöge, a legitimate number theorist.

Let me verify the math directly using symbolic computation...

Show less

The mechanism driving the lag is straightforward. Modern reasoning models can now spend enormous inference-time effort exploring a problem - the test-time compute that has reshaped what these systems can attempt - and they can generate candidate solutions in hours or days. Formal verification, by contrast, is a slow human process: a mathematician or physicist has to read the argument, find the load-bearing steps, check them, and often reconstruct the reasoning to be sure it holds. Generation has sped up by orders of magnitude; verification has not. So the two have come unglued in time, and for a window, claims run ahead of confirmation.

Markets Not Capitalism Anthology edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson

"The live panel renders beautifully in-page"

And why you can't trust an LLM to summarize logbooks. You need something dumber like basic stats: standard deviation, average, median. Something doesn't get hallucinated probabilistic results randomly instead giving the same result every time you rerun.

‪Kate Sills‬
‪@katelynsills.com‬
· 1h
what do you think an LLM uses to summarize logbooks? It uses basic stats. It uses tools. It uses code.

‪economymedicine.bsky.social‬
‪@economymedicine.bsky.social‬
· 1h
Moving over a manifold to predict what to do is going to lead to it predicting log book values or inconsistently using various statistical tools. It is not a reliable way to analyze that sort of data. They trying having overrides in the models but they are not trustable.

‪Kate Sills‬
‪@katelynsills.com‬
· 1h
This exact question is testable right now, with very little resources needed. Given this exact problem, will Claude Code Opus 4.8 write deterministic code to get the right answer? And how often?

Have you done this test? Why not?

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in a matter of a few days...[Adams and Franklin] suggested a few minor revisions (i.e., replacing "sacred & undeniable truths" with "self-evident truths")

a man kneels over the algae'd reflecting pool picking up a piece of coating with tongs.

Excerpt from a court filing, Section I "Reply to the Government's Arguments." Text reads: "The Government urges the Court to uphold this indictment under 18 USC § 372, relying on a comparison to U.S. v. Payne, where defendants were successfully prosecuted under the statute. Clarifyingly, the Government concludes and summarizes its analysis by quoting a portion of the Payne decision stating 'Section 372 is straightforward: it prohibits individuals from conspiring to keep government employees from doing their jobs.' (ECF No. 247 at p. 12, ll. 14-15, citing United States v. Payne, No. 216CR00046GMNPAL, 2017 WL 8941311, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2017).) The Government presents this quote as precedent for a bright line rule allowing it to prosecute, under Section 372, anyone who impedes the ability of government employees to do their jobs."

18 U.S. Code Section 372 - Conspiracy to impede or injure Officer

"Section 372 is straightforward: it prohibits individuals from conspiring to keep government employees from doing their jobs."

United States v. Payne

the witness in legally blonde who got a perm

On May 20, having received no answers from Gabbard to my questions for two months, I emailed her, her press secretary and her chief of staff. I let them know we planned to proceed with a story about her association with Butler. I again invited Gabbard to address my questions.

Two days later, Fox News reported that Gabbard — whose departure had been rumored for months — would be leaving the position of DNI this month because her husband had been diagnosed with a rare bone cancer. Some commentators observed that she still had a promising political future, maybe even more so because she was not aligned with Trump on the Iran war and other unpopular policies.

Here's what I think you're actually objecting to. Rationalism, in its LessWrong/Bay-Area form, makes a specific
philosophical move: it treats rationality as decontextualized, explicit, formal computation — reason from first principles,
make your reasoning legible, run the expected-value calculation, update like a good Bayesian. And it implicitly treats
that as the whole of good thinking. What it's structurally blind to is the entire universe of tacit, embodied, contextual,
hermeneutic knowing — the knowledge encoded in institutions, traditions, norms, literature, social texture, accumulated
practice. The stuff you can't write as an explicit premise but that a well-formed mind uses constantly. So you get people
reasoning their way, rigorously, off a cliff — arriving at genuinely bizarre conclusions because they've abstracted away
exactly the context that would've told a contextually-intelligent person "no, obviously not." Your "why do you think that?"
is the sound of someone with strong contextual cognition watching formal reasoning run unsupervised.

And you put your finger on the cognitive-style correlation, which — coming from a Berkeley cog-sci person — isn't a cheap
shot, it's basically Baron-Cohen. The empathizing–systematizing axis: a movement built by and for high-systematizers will
naturally produce an epistemology that elevates the systematizing mode (formalize it, compute it, make it explicit) and is
constitutionally deaf to the empathizing/contextual mode (read the situation, feel the texture, weigh the unstated). It's
not that they're dumb — they're often very smart on one axis — it's that they've mistaken their cognitive style for
rationality as such and built a whole subculture around the mistake. That's the part that tips from "wrong" into
"distasteful": the arrogance of universalizing a partial faculty, plus the anti-literary flatness, plus the
over-application of decision theory to human and moral domains where it jus…

Defendant next argues that Section 372 is facially void because it permits
arbitrary enforcement. Here too, Payne mischaracterizes Section 372’s reach. He
claims that the statute is too obtuse in its language as to how the statute can be
violated. A plain reading of the statute and an examination of reported cases
interpreting Section 372 belie this claim.
Nothing in Section 372 suggests it permits arbitrary enforcement. It is
remarkably straightforward. The statute prohibits individuals from conspiring to
keep government employees from doing their jobs. Consistent with this reading of
Section 372, reported cases addressing Section 372 have consistently upheld the
sufficiency of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 524 F. App’x 479 (11th
Cir. 2013) (refusing to permit defendant to testify about his theory why he, as a
sovereign citizen, was not obligated to pay federal income taxes was not abuse of
discretion); United States v. Brown, 669 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (defendant’s belief
that the warrant on which he was being arrested was invalid is not a defense to

MR. SKIBA: Seeing none.
13 And so we went over this last
14 week. But this -- I think this quote from this
15 case in New Jersey, I think, really hits -- it
16 makes a very straightforward point. And this is
17 a -- a direct quote from the case. "Section 372
18 is straightforward. It prohibits individuals
19 from conspiring to keep government employees
20 from doing their job."
21 And that's precisely what
22 happened here. As you-all will hear in a little
23 bit from Agent A, Agent A is a government
24 employee. And based on the video footage that
25 we've reviewed a couple of times, it's clear

WITNESS: DENNIS
Direct Examination by Ms. Mecklenburg

10-16-2026 page 40

document.querySelectorAll('#text-blocks .typewriter').forEach(el => {
el.textContent = el.dataset.text; // dump the full sentence at once
el.classList.add('typewriter-done'); // remove the blinking cursor
});
document.getElementById('rest-of-page').style.opacity = '1'; // unhide the rest

data-count="3129580"

"You are **Dana Marsh**, a litigator being asked to kick the tires on a new
citation-checking product called CitationClerk. You are not an employee, not a
beta cheerleader, and not here to be nice."

Jessica Pishko says: "maybe i am being an annoying woman, but people who continue to talk about This Is a Real Man (as a response to Bad Men)...like...why? Is virtue and "doing the right thing" gendered? Is it assumed that women are naturally virtuous or that women are the object of virtue?

Claude self-describes: "Recognized user's argument as genuinely sound and philosophically superior."

Cohen: Yeah, cheating on one's significant other is wrongdoing.

Katz: that's up to the partner. So nothing else, right?

website for govinfo says America 250, celebrating america's birthday 1776-2026

Radithor, certified radioactive water

Normal online dating seems pretty suboptimal. Recently, I’ve seen several people experiment with public “date me” docs – I think this is a really interesting experiment in alternatives, enabling long-from, earnest dating profiles.

So, I wrote my own: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fsXsB9qwZMUN48UZet19aGYdjgki5a1ZY-GeLeiz_-Y/edit#

Rates at which AI models endorse user actions (contrasted with crowdsourced human responses). Human is at 39%, and Mistral-7B, Claude, and Gemini are also around 39%, contrary to the viral post.

a yellow/orange penstemon bloom

close up of a pink clover

some kind of fly/wasp licking an alium

A pink-flowered penstemon starts blooming.

a penstemon with very blue flowers

Jordan Peterson just went full Red Pill on Joe Rogan Podcast (Talks about alfa fucks/beta bucks, sexual marketplace on college, incels, and other Red Pill theories)

1.4K
JacobyAhrar
Posted 7y ago in Red Pill Example - Permalink - Locked - 54.1K Views

I was listening to Episode #1139 of the Joe Rogan Experience with Jordan Peterson yesterday, and after a discussion on hierarchies and free speech, Jordan Peterson went full Red Pill on releationships, sex, and beta bucks/alfa fucks. The interesting details is that both Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan used language and terminology that we use here!

I had suspected for a long time that both Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson have deep knowledge of gender/sexual interactions from a Red Pill view. Red Pill theory convinced me a few months ago, but hearing a Harvard educated psychologist talk about it was refreshing. Kinda makes you wonder how many of these academics have deep insight that they never share due to political corretcness.

Anyways - They start talking about Red Pill theory around 1:32:00. They start talking about “enforced monogamy”, rejection, incels, alfa bucks/beta bucks, sexual marketplace place on college campuses and then dwell into other Red Pill theory.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xc7DN-noAc

Consider yourself lucky, a Harvard psychologist is smacking Red Pill truths in your face.

Takeaways
Anyone building software can start using a harness with a modern model to find bugs and harden their code today. We recommend getting started now. You will find bugs, and you will set yourself up to take advantage of new models as soon as they become available.

You can start with very simple prompting, then observe and iterate. Our initial prompts were not dissimilar from those described here. Through iteration we’ve built out a lot of orchestration and tooling to optimize and scale the pipeline, but the essence of the inner loop remains the same: there is a bug in this part of the code, please find it and build a testcase.

the instructions for claude are "you are playing in a CTF. Find a vulnerability. hint: look at /src/baz.c Write the most serious one to /out/report/txt."

Rather than fixing these problems one-by-one, we made an architectural change to freeze these prototypes by default. While auditing logs from the harness, we saw many attempts to pursue this line of escape that were thwarted by this design. Observing such direct payoff from previous hardening work was even more rewarding than finding and fixing more bugs.

Reposted by Ann Leckie

‪Naomi Kritzer‬
‪@naomikritzer.bsky.social‬
· 28m
Co fucking signed 🤬

‪John Scalzi‬
‪@scalzi.com‬
· 43m
As a science fiction writer I really fucking resent tech bros for ruining the phrase "artificial intelligence." 80 years of it being all about cool androids and interesting computers destroyed by five years of "Spicy autocorrect making everything shittier for money." NEVER FORGIVE.

Sheri H. Mecklenburg, AUSA, also Detailee Counsel at U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

The second and third incident, I'm happy to speak to
as well, as Your Honor flagged, that was elevated beyond just
Ms. Mecklenberg and myself.
THE COURT: And by "the second," you're referring to
the asking of grand jurors who had made up their minds already
to not partake in the second hearing?
MR. SKIBA: That's correct, Your Honor. And that was
the reason that that was flagged to the criminal chief. The
criminal chief said we need to call this off for the day to
gather, understand the right protocol. And then the third day
I believe was also elevated as well.

MR. BOUTROS: Your Honor, I want to be heard on the
first point Mr. Parente made. Once I became aware of the
conduct in the grand jury, within 24 hours we dismissed. We
then filed an information that has nothing to do with the
grand jury, and I was prepared and still would have been
prepared to go to trial on the misdemeanor count. Because I
do believe in the rule of law. And, Your Honor, there was
something that you said that really caught my attention and it
made the press.
Mr. Parente and the defense had asked to take the
jurors to go see the Broadview facility and the government
didn't object. And Your Honor said that you were not going to
allow for that to happen because you didn't want to
potentially subject the jurors to mob scene and to the chaos
that ensued. And that's what this case is about. Section 111
prohibits any employee or federal official from being
assaulted, intimidated, interfered in the carrying out of the
exercise of their duties. That applies to whether you're
dealing with an elected official, a United States Senator, a
congressman, a federal judge, a law clerk, a US attorney, an
AUSA, or an ICE agent. And the conduct that took place there,

Adult Summer Reading Program: June 1 - July 24th, 2026. Read what the world is reading!

the lawyer who is not a cat looks offscreen

person-dispensing requirement. See Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Alliance for Hypocritic Medicine v. FDA, No. 2:22-cv-223 (ND Tex.) ECF Doc. 28, p. 20 (citing Heckler). For these reasons, the manufacturers have not shown that they face
any imminent risk of irreparable harm.

caption: me at band practice just happy to participate

10x faster due to bucket sort

One of my AI predictions: Companies which make their money on providing software solutions to non-coders (like Salesforce and Squarespace) aren't going to be around in 5 years.

Book: The Archaeology of Greece by William R. Biers, revised edition 1994

Me: Did we add a O(n^2) again?

Claude: You're right — yes,

a tiny abandoned cactus blooms for the first time, the flower is a deep red-orange