RE: https://mastodon.social/@mikeolson/117424236470749452
Misread cannibalism and blockchain at first and thought: yeah, plausible.
Search
23 results for “plausible”
-
Anyway, if you need a believable flavor for someone to vape in your works, watermelon seems reasonably popular. Totally plausible.
*Camels, if it matters, and yes, I loved Tom Robbins' _Still Life With Woodpecker_ for a major phase of my life.
† Damn, I think I just dated myself, *hard*.
-
You ever been taping a pattern together and as you go along, your doubt of it making a plausible garment grows and grows. I know there are tester pictures, so it will turn out something but...
-
Unsure what's what about Oct 7?
Evidence now coming out about Oct 7 is essential to spread.
It's also essential to distinguish among circumstantial evidence, hard evidence, plausible hypotheses, etc.
There's hard evidence of mass Hannibal on Oct 7 - Israel's policy to kill Israelis rather than have them used for bargaining after capture.
There are several potential intentions behind Netanyahu's actions - all self-serving of course.
-
Reference documentation stays trustworthy when interface facts are extracted and locked before any model writes orientation prose around them. A block-role manifest records that split before drafting starts, so review does not depend on catching invented flags by eye. Deterministic extraction owns signatures, flags, environment variables, and error codes, while the model may fill only marked orientation slots. The checker later in this article fails the page when drafted prose names an interface token that the locked inventory does not contain.
Models that draft reference pages often smooth over a missing row by inventing a plausible flag, status, or default value. That failure is different from a weak explanation, because the sentence looks fluent while the contract itself is false. Full-page review does not scale once several endpoints share one pull request and each page mixes tables with narrative. A role tag on every block makes the allowed draft surface small enough for a script to check without rereading tables.
Heading-level ownership is not enough when one heading contains both a generated flag table and a paragraph of advice. The unit of control here is the block, not the file and not the heading, because those larger units hide mixed authority. A style promise about tone also does not stop a model from adding a flag that no release ever shipped. The manifest therefore names concrete tokens, and the checker compares drafted sentences against that closed token set.
What the model may draft
The model may draft orientation slots that explain sequencing, prerequisites in plain language, and common misreadings of a locked row. Those slots may compare two documented flags only when both flags already appear in the inventory for that page. The model may also propose a short note about when not to call the operation, if every concrete token is already listed. Generic words such as request, client, and retry stay allowed, while product-specific tokens must be listed before any draft.Orientation text should use a surface from the locked row rather than restating the default, the type, or the status code. Restating those fields creates a second source of truth that will drift on the next release even if the first draft was careful. If a sentence needs a default, the page should render that default from the inventory, not from the drafted paragraph. The drafting prompt should receive slot ids and allowed surfaces, not the unfinished page as a free-form writing canvas.
What a human must own
A human must own the inventory source, whether that source is an OpenAPI document, a captured help file, or an error catalog. A human must own status mappings, default values, deprecation markers, and the decision that a given token is public. A human must approve each orientation slot before it exists, because an extra slot is an extra place to invent scope. A human must also merge extracted tables into the page, so a model cannot rewrite a locked block while polishing nearby prose.Ownership is not the same thing as typing every sentence that a reader eventually sees on the published page. A human can delegate extraction to a script, then review the inventory diff before any prose job is allowed to run. What cannot be delegated is the judgment that a token is safe to document, stable enough to name, and correctly scoped. If that judgment is missing, a drafting pass will not create it, and the checker will only confirm that the invention was consistent.
Step-by-step workflow
Follow the six steps in order, and treat each artifact as an input to the next rather than as optional notes. Skipping the lock file and asking for a full page is how invented flags re-enter an otherwise careful repository. The commands and files below are a proposed workflow, not a record of a run against a production documentation set. Replace the sample command name with the binary or spec that the team already treats as the interface source.1. Capture the interface inventory
Store one inventory file per reference page, and treat that file as the only list of public tokens the page may name. Capture help text or spec excerpts with a deterministic command, then convert the capture into a token file a human reviews. Do not ask a model to transcribe a specification into the inventory, even when the specification is long or awkwardly formatted. A transcription pass can drop a required field and still look complete to a reviewer who did not open the source.mkdir -p docs/inventory docs/pages docs/slots docs/fixtures tools
# Proposed capture. Replace mycli with the binary the team actually ships.
mycli --help > docs/inventory/mycli-help.txt{
"page_id": "export-job",
"source_capture": "docs/inventory/mycli-help.txt",
"note": "Proposed inventory. Defaults are null because this file is not a captured product.",
"tokens": [
{"id": "flag.out", "kind": "flag", "public": true, "default": null},
{"id": "flag.since", "kind": "flag", "public": true, "default": null},
{"id": "err.partial", "kind": "error", "public": true, "default": null}
]
}If the source is OpenAPI, extract operation ids, parameters, and response codes with a parser the team already trusts. Keep the raw capture next to the token file so a reviewer can see what the parser dropped or renamed. Commit the raw capture and the token file in the same change, and reject token files that have no matching capture. This step is finished only when a human has marked each token public, internal, or omitted from the page.
2. Write the block-role manifest
The manifest is the contract between extraction and drafting, and it should be reviewed like a schema change rather than like prose. Each block has a role of extract or orient, plus the token ids that the role is allowed to mention. Extract blocks are rendered from the token file and are not sent to the model as writable text. Orient blocks are the only regions a drafting job may replace, and each one carries a word cap.# docs/inventory/export-job.manifest.yaml
# Proposed example. Not a captured production file.
page_id: export-job
inventory_sha256: "<fill-after-step-3>"
blocks:
- id: flags
role: extract
source: docs/inventory/export-job.tokens.json
- id: sequencing
role: orient
max_words: 120
allowed_token_ids: [flag.out, flag.since, err.partial]
- id: skip-when
role: orient
max_words: 80
allowed_token_ids: [flag.since, err.partial]
tokens:
- id: flag.out
surface: ["--out"]
- id: flag.since
surface: ["--since"]
- id: err.partial
surface: ["EXPORT_PARTIAL", "partial export"]The surface list is the set of spellings a sentence may use for a token, and the sample keeps those spellings distinctive. A multi-word surface, such as a named error phrase, belongs in that list so the checker can allow the phrase without allowing nearby inventions. Keep allowed_token_ids narrow, because a slot that may name every token on the page is almost as loose as a full-page prompt. If two slots need the same flag, list that flag in both, rather than creating one large slot that covers the whole page.
3. Lock the inventory hash
Compute a hash after a human accepts the token file, and store that hash in the manifest before any slot is drafted. The hash binds the prose job to a specific inventory, so a quiet edit cannot change the contract under an old draft. If the token file changes, the hash check fails until a human updates the manifest in the same commit on purpose. That failure is useful, because orientation jobs should stop when the interface moves instead of rewriting themselves around the change.python3 - <<'PY'
import hashlib
import pathlib
p = pathlib.Path("docs/inventory/export-job.tokens.json")
print(hashlib.sha256(p.read_bytes()).hexdigest())
PYPaste the printed digest into inventory_sha256, and do not let a drafting script update that field automatically. An automatic hash update would hide the very edit the lock is meant to surface during review. Reviewers should look at the token diff first, then accept or reject the new digest as a separate decision. Only after that decision should anyone schedule a new orientation draft for the slots whose allowed tokens changed.
4. Draft only the orientation slots
Send the model the slot id, the word cap, and the allowed surfaces, and ask for that slot alone. Do not send a request that says to write the reference page, the introduction, and the examples in one pass. A narrow prompt reduces the chance that the model adds a sibling flag that merely sounds consistent with the table. Save the result under a slot file named for the block id, and leave every extract block untouched by that job.Draft slot sequencing only.
Allowed surfaces: --out, --since, EXPORT_PARTIAL, partial export.
Do not name any other flag, environment variable, status, or error code.
Do not restate defaults, types, or status codes.
Maximum 120 words.When a drafting tool is useful for this step, keep it on slot text only, after the inventory hash is already committed. MonkeyCode's free model access can draft an approved orientation slot, and the free server option can run the hash step and the checker.
Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach.
This article does not claim particular model names, quotas, hardware sizes, time limits, or benchmark results for that setup. The page remains useful without those options, because the manifest, the hash, and the checker are ordinary repository files. A local Python install is enough to rehearse the gate before any hosted runner is involved. The hosted option is a placement choice for steps that are already specified, not a source of interface facts.
5. Render the page from roles
A renderer should concatenate extracted tables and orientation files in manifest order, without asking a model to assemble the page. It should refuse to read a slot file for an extract block, because that file is evidence that a draft overwrote a locked region. It should also refuse to render an orient block whose slot file is missing, rather than filling the gap with generated prose. Missing prose is a visible gap a human can fill, while silent generation hides the fact that no approved slot text existed.6. Run the token checker
The checker loads allowed surfaces, rejects unknown interface-like tokens in orientation files, and verifies the inventory hash before it reads prose. It is a proposed, unexecuted example, so treat the results as a specification for the gate rather than as measured outcomes. The script depends on PyYAML, uses only the standard library otherwise, and never contacts a model or a network service. Run it in the same job that builds the page, and block publication when the exit code is nonzero.#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Proposed, unexecuted checker for orientation slots.Compares slot files with a locked manifest. It does not call a model.
Requires PyYAML.
"""from __future__ import annotations
import hashlib
import json
import re
import sys
from pathlib import Pathimport yaml
FLAG_HINT = re.compile(r"--[a-z0-9][-a-z0-9]*")
CONST_HINT = re.compile(r"\b[A-Z][A-Z0-9_]{2,}\b")
HTTP_HINT = re.compile(r"\bHTTP\s+\d{3}\b")def load_manifest(path: Path) -> dict:
data = yaml.safe_load(path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
if not isinstance(data, dict):
raise SystemExit("manifest must be a mapping")
return datadef assert_hash(manifest: dict, token_path: Path) -> None:
expected = str(manifest.get("inventory_sha256", ""))
actual = hashlib.sha256(token_path.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
if expected != actual:
raise SystemExit(
f"inventory hash mismatch: manifest={expected} file={actual}"
)def assert_ids(manifest: dict, token_path: Path) -> None:
payload = json.loads(token_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
ids = {row["id"] for row in payload["tokens"]}
for row in manifest["tokens"]:
if row["id"] not in ids:
raise SystemExit(
f"manifest token missing from inventory: {row['id']}"
)def surfaces(manifest: dict, allowed_ids: list[str]) -> list[str]:
by_id = {row["id"]: row["surface"] for row in manifest["tokens"]}
found: list[str] =
[] for token_id in allowed_ids:
if token_id not in by_id:
raise SystemExit(f"unknown token id in slot: {token_id}")
found.extend(by_id[token_id])
return founddef strip_allowed(text: str, allowed: list[str]) -> str:
cleaned = text
for phrase in sorted(set(allowed), key=len, reverse=True):
if phrase.startswith("--"):
pattern = re.escape(phrase) + r"(?![A-Za-z0-9-])"
elif " " in phrase:
pattern = re.escape(phrase)
else:
pattern = r"\b" + re.escape(phrase) + r"\b"
cleaned = re.sub(pattern, " ", cleaned, flags=re.IGNORECASE)
return cleaneddef unknown_hints(text: str, allowed: list[str]) -> list[str]:
leftovers = strip_allowed(text, allowed)
found: list[str] =
[] found.extend(FLAG_HINT.findall(leftovers))
found.extend(CONST_HINT.findall(leftovers))
found.extend(HTTP_HINT.findall(leftovers))
return founddef main() -> None:
if len(sys.argv) != 4:
raise SystemExit(
"usage: check_orientation_slots.py MANIFEST TOKENS SLOT_DIR"
)
manifest = load_manifest(Path(sys.argv[1]))
token_path = Path(sys.argv[2])
slot_dir = Path(sys.argv[3])
assert_hash(manifest, token_path)
assert_ids(manifest, token_path)
failures: list[str] =
[] for block in manifest["blocks"]:
slot_file = slot_dir / f"{block['id']}.md"
if block["role"] != "orient":
if slot_file.exists():
failures.append(f"extract block has a draft file: {slot_file}")
continue
if not slot_file.exists():
failures.append(f"missing orientation slot: {slot_file}")
continue
text = slot_file.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
words = text.split()
if len(words) > int(block["max_words"]):
failures.append(
f"{block['id']} has {len(words)} words; cap is {block['max_words']}"
)
allowed = surfaces(manifest, block["allowed_token_ids"])
for hint in unknown_hints(text, allowed):
failures.append(
f"{block['id']} names unlisted interface-like token: {hint}"
)
if failures:
print("\n".join(failures))
raise SystemExit(1)
print("orientation slots match the locked inventory")if __name__ == "__main__":
main()A passing slot uses only allowed surfaces and stays under the word cap recorded for that block in the manifest. A failing slot names a flag or an error constant that never appears in the surface list for that slot. The sample failure below uses a gzip flag and an export timeout constant, neither of which is present in the sample inventory. Against that failing fixture, the checker is specified to exit nonzero and to print each unlisted flag or constant.
Write the archive with --out, then narrow the window with --since.
If the job reports EXPORT_PARTIAL, rerun only after the source is complete.
Do not treat a partial export as a finished archive.<!-- Proposed failing fixture. Keep it outside docs/slots until you want a red build. -->
Pass --gzip when the archive is large, and set EXPORT_TIMEOUT if the network is slow.python3 tools/check_orientation_slots.py \
docs/inventory/export-job.manifest.yaml \
docs/inventory/export-job.tokens.json \
docs/slotsHow to read a checker failure
SignalRole that owns the fixRequired actionUnlisted flag or error constant in a slotorientReject the slot and redraft with the same allowed surfacesDefault, type, or status restated in proseorientDelete the restatement and render the field from the inventorySequencing advice that uses only allowed surfacesorientHuman edit for clarity, then acceptMissing deprecation marker or wrong defaultextractHuman updates the token file, then rehashesNew public error codeextractHuman adds the token, rehashes, then refreshes affected slotsExtract block has a slot fileextractDelete the slot file and investigate how it was writtenHash mismatchinventoryStop drafts until a human accepts the new digest
Read a failure as a routing decision, not as a suggestion to regenerate the whole page and hope the next draft is cleaner. The table below maps common signals to the role that must change and to the person or tool that should act. Use it during review so a model is not asked to repair a row that a human still has to own. If the table and the checker disagree, trust the inventory and fix the checker, rather than widening the prompt to silence the gate.Limitations of the gate
Word-boundary and hint matching miss inventions that avoid tokens, such as a sentence that adds an optional path argument without naming it. A human still needs to read every orientation slot, because a real flag can be described incorrectly without introducing a new token. Phrase search can false-positive when a surface is a common word, so prefer a distinctive spelling whenever the interface gives you one. The checker does not review security claims, legal wording, support promises, or whether a public token should have been public.Hash locking detects inventory drift, but it does not tell you whether the accepted inventory matched the binary shipped last week. You still need a release process that ties the capture command to a version, a commit, or another source you can reopen. The hint pattern is intentionally narrow, and a team with different token shapes should extend the tests before extending the regular expression. Widening the pattern without fixtures will create noise, and reviewers will start ignoring the gate that this workflow depends on.
Who should not use this approach
Teams with no specification, help capture, or other inventory source should not adopt this workflow yet. The checker would then bless a hand-typed list that nobody tied to a shipping interface, which recreates the original risk under a new filename. Marketing pages, incident narratives, and conceptual essays without stable tokens are a poor fit for extract and orient roles. Anyone who wants a model to discover the interface should stop, because discovery is an ownership task rather than a drafting task.Large generated references that are already rendered entirely from a specification may not need orientation slots at all. Adding slots there only creates prose that can drift from the generator, so prefer improving the generator over adding a second writer. Solo maintainers who cannot review slot text should also skip the drafting step and keep the page fully extracted. A gate that nobody reads is worse than a short page, because it suggests a control that the repository does not actually practice.
Put the gate in the build
The practical split is small and strict: tools and humans own interface rows, and a model may write only inside preapproved orientation slots. Lock the inventory hash, render extract blocks without a model, and reject any slot that names an unlisted surface. If MonkeyCode's free server is already available to the team, run the hash step and the checker there before merging any free-model slot draft. That order keeps drafting convenience from becoming the source of the interface the page claims to document.#documentation #testing #devops #ai #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Orientation Slots Are the Only Writable Region on a Reference Page -
Analysis: Israel & Oct 7
There's hard evidence of mass Hannibal on Oct 7 - Israel's policy to kill Israelis rather than have them used for bargaining after capture.
There are several potential intentions behind Netanyahu's actions - all self-serving of course.
To establish the truth, it's essential to distinguish among circumstantial evidence, hard evidence, plausible hypotheses, etc
So please don't post hypothesis as if it's fact.
-
Analysis: Israel & Oct 7
There's hard evidence of mass Hannibal on Oct 7 - Israel's policy to kill Israelis rather than have them used for bargaining after capture.
There are several potential intentions behind Netanyahu's actions - all self-serving of course.
To establish the truth, it's essential to distinguish among circumstantial evidence, hard evidence, plausible hypotheses, etc
So please don't post hypothesis as if it's fact.
-
Day job is rolling out an “official” AI platform for internal use. Seems to involve them running training sessions every day for the next few weeks. Can’t help but laugh at the irony of having to train people to use a supposedly intelligent system. If it’s that fucking clever why do I need to know how to prompt it? Why can’t it work it out itself?
(The above is ironic and rhetorical. I already fully understand why it needs some arcane incantation to make it spit out plausible-sounding slop)
-
Several years ago, I was a mentor at a weekend hackathon for teenage nerds. At the end, the kids presented their results to a crowd of mostly their families and some local newspaper journalists.
One of the kids, performing on stage in stereotypical "dangerous hacker" hoodie outfit, presented a prototype of a "secure encrypted, censorship-free chat system". It actually was a a non-functional click dummy based on an existing webchat demo project.
The kid spoke about features of the chat system that did not exist, some of the promised features were impossible to implement.
It was all vaporware.
The audience was vowed by the genius dangerous hacker kid and applauded. It all sounded so plausible to them.
In the age of vibe-coding, this is an experience I often think back of.
-
Analysis: Israel & Oct 7
There's hard evidence of mass Hannibal on Oct 7 - Israel's policy to kill Israelis rather than have them used for bargaining after capture.
There are several potential intentions behind Netanyahu's actions - all self-serving of course.
To establish the truth, it's essential to distinguish among circumstantial evidence, hard evidence, plausible hypotheses, etc
So please don't post hypothesis as if it's fact.
-
Familial Mediterranean Fever: A Comprehensive Review of Pathogenesis, Genetics, and Epigenetic Regulation [2026]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12758588the bad news:
"Patients carrying identical MEFV variants, particularly those with low penetrance, may exhibit a wide spectrum of disease courses, ranging from subclinical carriers to severe, colchicine-resistant FMF."the good news:
"For decades, researchers have sought to explain the high carrier frequency of FMF-associated variants among Mediterranean populations, interpreting it as a possible outcome of selective advantage against a historical disease. Y. pestis, the plague-causing bacterium, has emerged as a plausible driver of positive selection in FMF carriers ..."#genetics #rheumatology #immunology #plague #InfectiousDiseases #FamilialMediterraneanFever #MEFV #FMF
-
So I encountered some interesting fraud today and wanted to get some feedback on how it might have happened and advice on what to do next.
The Rocket Money app is the MVP in this story, as it notified me of a large transaction as suspicious less than an hour after it occurred.
A $600 Ubiquiti order that I had supposedly just placed.
As much as I'd like to, I did not order $600 of Ubiquiti stuff today at 4:13pm.
I checked my email, and sure enough, there was an order for an 8-port switch, made from MY Ubiquiti account, with MY primary card that I buy stuff like this with.
Except it was bound for an address I didn't recognize in Madisonville, TN.
I quickly logged into my Ubiquiti account and cancelled the order. Since the charge was still pending, it immediately disappeared and returned the funds to my account.
Crisis averted, but HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
I reset passwords, logged off sessions, and did all the other things in the Ubiquiti app, but I have no saved payments in the Ubiquiti account - how did they hit my card then?
I keep looking and notice something else interesting - a Link verification code at 4:13pm - the same time as the Ubiquiti order. That answers the question of how my card was accessed.
This code went to my Google Voice number, so no SIM-swapping would have gave someone access to this code. They were somehow able to create the order without the code.
So now I'm going into Link (Stripe's consumer-facing app that makes it super easy to buy stuff) and deleting all my payment options. The only login option was passkey.
I also froze my card, since I'm still unable to figure out how someone was able to create this order in my Ubiquiti account via Link, with my card, but send it to a different address.
I started looking for breaches and this is writeup on compromised Stripe API keys from Hudson Rock my current best guess as to how this fraud happened: https://www.infostealers.com/article/analyzing-stripe-breach-confirmed-vendor-exposure-and-claims-of-20000-compromised-apis/
I currently have no other theories. What have I missed? Does this sound plausible? I'm not sure compromised Stripe APIs can explain the Link piece of the puzzle.
-
You open the incident channel on Monday and find three agent retries stacked against one failed checkout ticket. The original prompt is gone, replaced by a shorter note that a teammate typed just before lunch. Nobody can say which tool schema the first call used, or whether the second call changed the system text. Shared model access still shows the spend, yet the wiki names no owner for that sequence of calls.
That missing record is the defect you can close without arguing about which model sounds smarter this week. A retry that overwrites the failed prompt destroys the only input evidence the ticket still had left. You need a wiki handoff that freezes the prompt, names the roles, and blocks the next call until that page exists.
What the freeze records
A prompt freeze is a small file you write before anyone is allowed to send the same job again. It stores a hash of the prompt, a hash of the tool schema, the ticket id, and the name of the retry owner. It does not claim the model was correct, and it does not replace a review of the patch the agent proposed. You are keeping the input that produced a bad or unclear result, so the next person debugs that input instead of a rewritten memory.Teams skip the file because a second call feels faster than a short write-up in the wiki. On shared free model access, that habit spends a common pool and leaves the next on-call engineer with nothing to diff. You can keep the write-up to one wiki page plus a JSON file that a local script is able to check.
Roles and the handoff rule
You name four roles at the top of the page, even when one person holds two of them on a small team. The prompt owner keeps the frozen text and may change it only by creating a new freeze id. The retry owner is the only person who may send the job again after the freeze file exists. The schema owner confirms that the tool definitions match the hashed file, including argument names and required fields.The scribe pastes the numbered run into the ticket and links the freeze file so the handoff is visible. These roles fail when they stay implicit and everyone assumes someone else still has the original text. The retry owner must not edit the prompt in the same step used to resend the job. If the prompt owner wants a new instruction, they mint the next freeze id and the retry owner waits for the check to pass.
The numbered run you paste into the wiki
You keep the run short enough to paste under the ticket, then you link longer notes beneath that block. You number every step and you do not skip a line when a field is still unknown. An unknown field is a reason to stop the resend, not a reason to invent a plausible value.- Copy the exact prompt that failed into
prompt.txt, including system text and user text, without tidying a single sentence. - Copy the tool schema the job actually loaded into
tools.json, and ask the schema owner to confirm that filename in the ticket. - Run the freeze script so it writes
freeze.jsonwith both hashes, the ticket id, and a UTC timestamp from the machine clock. - Paste the freeze id, both hashes, and the four role names into the wiki page before anyone opens a model client again.
- Let the retry owner resend only when the check command prints MATCH against those same two files.
- If the prompt must change, stop, assign a new freeze id, and repeat from the first step instead of editing the old record.
You treat a missing file as a failed handoff rather than as a detail you can fill from memory. You do not reconstruct the prompt from chat recall and then call that reconstructed text a valid freeze. If the log viewer already dropped the text, you mark the page prompt_unavailable and you refuse the retry. You wait until someone recovers the text from client history or from version control before a new freeze exists.
Hash the prompt and the schema differently
The script below is an example you can copy into a scratch repository and run on your own machine. This example is unexecuted in this article, so you should run it on sample files before you adopt it. It does not call a model, and it is not a security boundary or an approval system for production changes.You hash the prompt as raw bytes, because a changed space can change the model input even when the words look the same. You hash the schema from canonical JSON with sorted keys, so a cosmetic reorder does not look like a tool change. You should read every branch before you trust it, and you should keep this helper beside the wiki page the scribe linked.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Example prompt freeze. Not a security boundary."""
import argparse
import hashlib
import json
import sys
from datetime import datetime, timezone
from pathlib import Pathdef prompt_digest(path: Path) -> str:
return hashlib.sha256(path.read_bytes()).hexdigest()def schema_digest(path: Path) -> str:
parsed = json.loads(path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
canonical = json.dumps(
parsed, sort_keys=True, separators=(",", ":"), ensure_ascii=False
)
return hashlib.sha256(canonical.encode("utf-8")).hexdigest()def write_freeze(prompt: Path, schema: Path, ticket: str, owner: str, out: Path) -> None:
record = {
"ticket": ticket,
"retry_owner": owner,
"prompt_sha256": prompt_digest(prompt),
"schema_sha256": schema_digest(schema),
"frozen_at": datetime.now(timezone.utc).strftime("%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ"),
"retry_allowed": False,
}
out.write_text(json.dumps(record, indent=2) + "\n", encoding="utf-8")
print(f"WROTE {out}")def check_freeze(prompt: Path, schema: Path, freeze: Path) -> int:
record = json.loads(freeze.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
ok_prompt = record.get("prompt_sha256") == prompt_digest(prompt)
ok_schema = record.get("schema_sha256") == schema_digest(schema)
allowed = record.get("retry_allowed") is True
if ok_prompt and ok_schema and allowed:
print("MATCH")
return 0
print("MISMATCH")
print(f"prompt_ok={ok_prompt} schema_ok={ok_schema} retry_allowed={allowed}")
return 1def main() -> int:
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Freeze or check an agent prompt.")
parser.add_argument("--prompt", required=True, type=Path)
parser.add_argument("--schema", required=True, type=Path)
parser.add_argument("--ticket", default="unset")
parser.add_argument("--retry-owner", default="unset")
parser.add_argument("--out", type=Path)
parser.add_argument("--check", type=Path)
parser.add_argument("--allow-retry", action="store_true")
args = parser.parse_args()
if args.check:
return check_freeze(args.prompt, args.schema, args.check)
if args.out is None:
print("need --out or --check", file=sys.stderr)
return 2
write_freeze(args.prompt, args.schema, args.ticket, args.retry_owner, args.out)
if args.allow_retry:
record = json.loads(args.out.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
record["retry_allowed"] = True
args.out.write_text(json.dumps(record, indent=2) + "\n", encoding="utf-8")
print("RETRY_FLAG_SET")
return 0if __name__ == "__main__":
raise SystemExit(main())You run the write step first, and you set the retry flag only after the wiki paste is actually in the ticket. The flag is a team convention inside the JSON file, not an access-control gate on the model client. You still depend on the retry owner to honor the flag, which is why the role is named on the page.
python freeze_prompt.py --prompt prompt.txt --schema tools.json \
--ticket CHKT-1842 --retry-owner "sam" --out freeze.json
python freeze_prompt.py --prompt prompt.txt --schema tools.json --check freeze.json
python freeze_prompt.py --prompt prompt.txt --schema tools.json \
--ticket CHKT-1842 --retry-owner "sam" --out freeze.json --allow-retry
python freeze_prompt.py --prompt prompt.txt --schema tools.json --check freeze.jsonThe check command should print MISMATCH until you create a fresh freeze that includes the allow-retry flag. That order is deliberate, because a copied command should not look successful before the handoff is done. If both hashes match and the flag is true, the script prints MATCH and the retry owner may send the single allowed call.
Sample files, not a captured job
The JSON shape below is a sample layout, not a capture from a live job, so you replace every field when you run the script. You can start from the tiny tool file, reorder its keys, and confirm the schema hash stays stable. You should not point this helper at YAML or at JSON with comments, because the parser will reject the file and the handoff will stop.System: You may call lookup_order only. Do not invent an order status.
User: The checkout ticket says order 1842 failed after payment. Report the tool result only.{
"name": "lookup_order",
"parameters": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["order_id"],
"properties": {
"order_id": {"type": "string"}
}
}
}{
"ticket": "CHKT-1842",
"retry_owner": "sam",
"prompt_sha256": "<raw sha256 of prompt.txt>",
"schema_sha256": "<canonical sha256 of tools.json>",
"frozen_at": "2026-10-13T15:04:00Z",
"retry_allowed": false
}Decision table for the retry owner
What you seeFreeze statusNext actionSame prompt, transport error, schema unchangedHashes match and retry flag is trueRetry owner sends once, then stops for a human readConfident but wrong tool callHashes matchPrompt owner writes a new freeze; do not resend the same textSchema file differs from what the job loadedSchema hash mismatchSchema owner repairs the file; nobody retriesPrompt text cannot be recoveredNo freezeScribe marks prompt_unavailable and stopsTicket holds secrets or unredacted customer textAnyStop; redaction is a separate review, not a retry
You do not resend the job just because a freeze file happens to sit in the working directory. You pick one row from the table and you record that row name in the ticket before the call. The table is a handoff aid, not a scoring model, and it never tells you to retry until a log turns green.
A later success does not prove that the first prompt was sound, especially when the text changed between calls. You use the freeze so a reviewer can diff the input that failed against the input that finally ran. If those hashes differ, you are looking at a new experiment, and you should label it as one.Use free access without inventing a budget
Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach.MonkeyCode, in the facts supplied for this draft, provides free model access and a free server option you may use for this handoff. The retry owner can send the single allowed resend through that free model access, if the option is still offered when you run. You can keep the freeze script on the free server option when that host exists, rather than buying hardware for a hash. You do not write a token quota, a hardware size, a duration, or a permanence claim into the wiki unless current docs state them.
A stale number in the runbook will train the team to trust a budget that the product page no longer shows. You confirm the live terms before you link them, and you leave the quota line blank when the docs do not publish one. The useful constraint is the shared pool, because an undocumented retry spends attention and access that other tickets still need. If the free server option is absent on the day you need it, you still run the script anywhere Python 3 is installed.
You still refuse the resend until the wiki page and the freeze file both exist, even when the host is only a laptop. The product name is optional to the method, and the method should still work if you remove every mention of it. If you want one next step, add this page to the team wiki and point the retry owner at the check command.
Review the handoff in ten minutes
- Open the freeze file and confirm the ticket id matches the page you pasted, including the prefix and the number.
- Re-run the check command and keep the MATCH line in the ticket so a later reader sees the files were stable.
- Ask the schema owner whether any tool argument changed after the hash, and stop if the answer is uncertain.
- Write one sentence on what the new output did differently, and link it under the freeze id rather than over the old note.
You stop after one allowed resend unless a new freeze id exists, even when the output looks almost right. A second silent retry is how the Monday channel filled up with three calls and zero recoverable prompts. The page is done when a teammate who was absent can see who may call next and which files they must not edit.
Who should not use this page
This approach fails when the prompt is built in memory and never written to a file you can hash. It also fails when two jobs share one prompt file and you overwrite that file between the freeze and the check. You should not use the hash as a compliance archive, a secret scanner, or proof that an agent patch is safe to merge. Teams that already store immutable prompt versions in their orchestrator can skip the extra ritual unless retries drop that text.You should skip any hosted model path when the ticket holds secrets, payment data, or text your policy forbids you to send. The freeze script can still run on redacted local fixtures, but the resend must wait for a route your policy allows. A matching hash is not permission to paste raw customer logs into a model, whether that model is free or paid. You also should not expect this page to catch a model that agrees too quickly with a flawed premise.
The freeze only keeps that premise stable long enough for a person to read the words before the next call. Judgment stays with the prompt owner and with the reviewer who inspects the tool call, not with the hash itself. If your team cannot spare a named retry owner, do not pretend the script will enforce the handoff for you.#python #ai #devops #tutorial #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Freeze the Failed Prompt: A Wiki Handoff Before an Agent Retry - Copy the exact prompt that failed into
-
AI can make code creation abundant. The harder challenge is building confidence in what gets shipped.
AI has changed the economics of software creation. A task that once required hours of implementation can now begin with an agent producing an initial solution in minutes. As agents take on broader assignments like changing code across a repository, refactoring services, writing tests, and preparing pull requests, the volume of output will continue to rise.
That is an extraordinary opportunity, and it’s also why the next challenge for engineering organizations is not generating more code but creating confidence in the code that reaches production. In the agentic software factory, agents write, test, and propose changes faster than people can review them line by line.
Code creation is becoming abundant; code confidence is not.
This distinction matters because a completed pull request is not the same as a dependable outcome. The code may compile and pass a narrow test suite while still violating an architectural convention, introducing a security weakness, duplicating existing functionality, or creating maintenance costs that surface much later. The faster an organization generates changes, the less feasible it becomes to rely on heroics and manual review alone to catch every issue.
The way forward is to treat code confidence as something that can be designed into the software delivery system. A useful formula is Intent × Guiderails × Verification × Evidence. And yes, the multiplication sign here is deliberate. Each of these four pieces are crucial. Strength in three cannot make up for weakness in the fourth.
Clear intent without verification does not prevent mistakes. Strong verification without evidence does not create accountability. Guiderails without clear intent merely automate ambiguity. Evidence without independent verification is only a record of what an agent claimed.
Here is what each part of the formula means in practice.
Intent: Make the standard explicit
Agents are remarkably capable at pursuing a stated objective. But “build a payments feature” or “modernize this service” is not a sufficient objective for a production codebase. An organization’s definition of good software includes much more, such as business logic, security expectations, design patterns, performance needs, dependencies, and conventions accumulated through years of engineering.Intent is the discipline of making those expectations explicit. It means defining the goal of a change and the standards it must meet before an agent begins work. The better the context, the fewer cycles agents spend producing plausible but unsuitable answers, and the less rework falls to developers later.
Guiderails: Shape the work before it creates risk
Guiderails translate intent into boundaries that guide how agents operate. They may define which repositories, dependencies, data, or actions are permitted; where human approval is required; and what policies apply to a given class of code.The purpose is not to constrain every useful action. It’s to give agents enough structure to operate productively and predictably. A well-designed guiderail lets teams safely grant more autonomy because everyone understands the conditions under which that autonomy applies.
The result is repeatable autonomy. Rather than treating every agent-driven change as a one-off experiment, teams can apply consistent boundaries and expand agentic development with confidence.
Verification: Check every change independently
Verification is where confidence is tested. As agents generate code at increasing scale, every change needs consistent evaluation for the qualities that matter: correctness, reliability, security, maintainability, and compliance with the organization’s own standards.Independence is essential. A model can assist in reviewing its own work, but an organization should not rely solely on the same probabilistic system that produced a change to determine whether that change is safe to ship. Repeatable, independent checks provide a common standard across models, agents, and toolchains. This is especially important when the AI tools themselves are evolving quickly.
Verification also needs to occur in the flow of work, not as a slow, final checkpoint. The goal is to identify and fix problems at the source, while the agent or developer still has the context needed to resolve them.
Evidence: Make confidence visible and auditable
A change may be well-intentioned, carefully governed, and thoroughly checked. But engineering leaders, auditors, and the teams responsible for production still need to know what happened and why. Evidence is the durable record: what standards applied, what was checked, what was found, and how the issue was resolved.This matters most in complex and regulated environments, but it’s valuable everywhere. Evidence makes quality measurable, allows teams to improve their practices over time, and gives organizations a defensible basis for moving quickly.
Building the factory around confidence
The most promising vision for agentic software development is not one in which people disappear from the process. It’s one in which people, agents, and verification systems each contribute their strengths. Agents accelerate execution, and engineers provide judgment and direction. The delivery system supplies the standards, controls, and evidence that allow autonomy to scale.The organizations that succeed will be the ones that build code confidence into every change, at any volume, and at agent speed.
That is the real work of the agentic software factory, producing software an organization has the confidence to stand behind.
Start with four questions the next time an agent opens a pull request:
- Did the agent know your standards before it started?
- What was it allowed to touch, and what needed a human decision?
- Did something other than the model that wrote the change check it?
- Can you show what was found and how it was resolved?
Wherever the answer is "no," that is where your confidence gap lives. Close it there first.#ai #agents #codequality #devops #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Code is abundant. Confidence is a formula. -
CW: No sensitive or distressing content. This article discusses youth engineering achievements, model aircraft and competitive aeromodelling.
Meet the Young Aerospace Champion Behind the F-1D Model That Flew for 22 Minutes
The young aerospace engineering champion prepares to launch his independently designed F-1D prototype, showcasing the precision and ingenuity behind competitive aeromodelling.Dear Cherubs, the future of aerospace engineering apparently has no intention of waiting until adulthood to make an entrance. A young world champion has reportedly unveiled an independently designed F-1D model aircraft, with an impressive flight duration that demonstrates just how much engineering can be packed into something weighing barely more than a sheet of paper.
The achievement is a reminder that you don’t need a jet engine, a billionaire’s budget or a control room full of blinking screens to make aviation enthusiasts pay attention. Sometimes, all it takes is an exceptionally light aircraft, a clever design and a frankly unreasonable amount of patience.
The young engineer’s prototype is being presented as a product of independent design and construction, intended for demanding aeromodelling competitions. However, publicly available information does not yet independently establish every detail of the specific prototype or its reported 22-minute flight. So, let’s separate what is known about the technology from what remains to be confirmed.
Small Aircraft, Serious Engineering
First, a little clarification: F1D is an internationally recognised indoor free-flight model aircraft class governed by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). It is not a miniature fighter jet, despite the sort of name that might suggest otherwise.
According to the FAI, F1D models are extraordinarily lightweight aircraft powered by twisted rubber motors. Their delicate structures typically use balsa wood and thin plastic film, with strict limits on weight and dimensions. In this category, every fraction of a gram matters.
The aircraft climbs and circles through an indoor space after launch, using stored energy in its wound rubber motor to turn the propeller. As the motor gradually unwinds, the plane must make the most of its remaining energy to stay airborne.
There is no conventional remote-control system guiding every movement. Instead, competitors rely on careful construction, precise adjustments and an understanding of aerodynamics. In other words, the plane may be tiny, but the brainpower behind it certainly isn’t.
According to the FAI, F1D models are capable of flights lasting up to 40 minutes under suitable conditions. A reported 22-minute flight is therefore entirely plausible, although the duration alone does not establish a world record.
Why Every Gram Counts
Building a competitive F1D aircraft is a balancing act between strength, stability and weight. Make the structure too heavy and the model loses efficiency. Make it too fragile and transporting it becomes an exercise in holding your breath.
Wing shape, propeller design, rubber-motor performance and the aircraft’s balance all influence how long it can remain aloft. Even seemingly insignificant adjustments can affect the final result.
That is what makes junior aeromodelling competitions so interesting. Young competitors aren’t simply assembling toys or copying a design from a kit. In the FAI’s F1D world-championship class, the builder must construct their own model in accordance with the competition rules.
The 2024 FAI Junior World Championship results list Daniel Guo of the United States as the individual winner, with a combined score of 53 minutes and nine seconds from his two best flights. That is a different measurement from a single 22-minute flight, and the distinction matters when discussing records or competition results.
The Bigger Picture
Whether this particular prototype ultimately secures further recognition or not, the underlying achievement highlights the creativity and technical discipline involved in competitive aeromodelling.
Young engineers learn to test ideas, measure results, identify weaknesses and improve their designs. Those skills are relevant far beyond model aircraft, extending into robotics, materials science and the aerospace industry itself.
And perhaps that is the most exciting part. The next generation of engineers isn’t necessarily waiting for permission to start innovating. Some are already building, testing and refining their ideas while the rest of us are still trying to assemble flat-pack furniture without arguing with the instructions.
Sources list:
- Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), Indoor Models — https://www.fai.org/page/ciam-f1-indoor-models
- Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), F1 Free Flight Overview — https://www.fai.org/page/f1-free-flight-overview
- Free Flight News, 2024 Junior Indoor World Championship F1D results — https://www.freeflightnews.org.uk/champs/ch24/JWC24D.HTM
- Thisclaimer — https://thisclaimer.com
- Thisclaimer YouTube channel — https://www.youtube.com/@thisclaimer?sub_confirmation=1
-
The Endless Labyrinth: Inside the Secret Societies and Elite Networks Shaping Global Power
There is a persistent belief that if you follow the money, the connections, and the coincidences far enough, all roads lead to a single room where the world's true rulers sit. The reality, according to decades of research, leaked documents, and insider testimony, is far more unsettling: the roads do not converge. They loop back into one another in an endless labyrinth—a hydra designed so that cutting off one head produces two more. What follows is a synthesis of the most documented claims about the networks that allegedly bind global power.
The Founding Trident: Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission
The modern architecture of elite coordination is often traced to three interlocking organizations. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in the United States, functions as a foreign policy think tank that has supplied personnel to nearly every administration since World War II. The Bilderberg Group, launched in 1954, is an annual private gathering of politicians, businesspeople, and intellectuals that operates under the Chatham House Rule—no attributions, no minutes. The Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, extended this model to include Japan and Western Europe.
What makes these groups significant is not just their individual influence, but their cross-membership. According to official membership rosters, the first Trilateral Commission was composed of CFR and Bilderberg members at a rate of nearly 65 percent. The Trilateral Commission is explicitly described as being linked to, or even forming part of, both the Bilderberg Group and the CFR. Ronald Reagan's 59-person transition team alone included 28 CFR members and 10 Bilderbergers. This is not a conspiracy of strangers; it is a revolving door.
The Secret Societies: Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, and the Zodiac
Beneath the public-facing institutions lies a layer of oath-bound secret societies. Skull and Bones, founded at Yale in 1832, is the most famous. Its roster of "patriarchs" includes the names of America's oldest and wealthiest dynasties: Whitney, Adams, Lord, Rockefeller, Payne, Pillsbury, and Weyerhaeuser. Three U.S. presidents—William Howard Taft, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush—have been members. The society's alumni include multiple CIA directors and Supreme Court justices. Its symbol is the skull and crossbones, and it has long been accused of serving as a recruiting pipeline for the intelligence community.
Bohemian Grove, a 2,700-acre campground in Monte Rio, California, hosts an annual summer encampment for approximately 2,500 of the most powerful men in America. Its most infamous ritual is the "Cremation of Care," a mock sacrifice performed before a giant owl statue. Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State, has been described as a "high priest" at Bohemian Grove, a claim that circulates widely in alternative research circles. The Grove is not a secret society in the traditional sense—it is a private club—but its rituals and the concentration of power within its gates have made it a permanent fixture in conspiracy literature.
Then there is the Zodiac Club. According to emails from Jeffrey Epstein, the Zodiac is "one of those last secret type societies" with only twelve members at any one time. Membership is reportedly for life: you only leave when you die. Founded in 1868, the club has historically included figures such as J.P. Morgan and his son, along with politicians and military veterans. The twelve members are each assigned a zodiac symbol, and the club's dinners are said to have continued for over 150 years. Epstein's description of the Zodiac Club surfaced in the so-called Epstein files, which have become a flashpoint for claims about intelligence connections.
The Epstein Files and the Intelligence Nexus
Jeffrey Epstein's network is one of the most documented case studies of how elite social circles, financial power, and intelligence agencies can intersect. According to multiple reports, Epstein maintained connections to the "highest levels" of both American and Israeli intelligence. An undercover FBI informant became convinced that Epstein was an Israeli spy. U.S. Vice President JD Vance stated publicly that Epstein "seemed to be connected" to elements of the "Israeli deep state" as well as the "highest levels of American intelligence". The Epstein files document his funding of Israeli groups and his contact with former CIA Director William Burns. Whether Epstein was a CIA asset, a Mossad operative, or simply a wealthy predator who cultivated intelligence ties for protection remains officially unresolved—but the files have made the intelligence connection impossible to dismiss as mere speculation.
The Knights of Malta and the OSS-CIA Continuity
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), a Catholic lay religious order with diplomatic status, has long been accused of serving as a vehicle for intelligence coordination. William Donovan, the head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the "Father of the CIA," was a Papal Knight of St. Sylvester. William Casey, a Knight of Malta, later became CIA Director. The OSS network in Switzerland during World War II was enlarged to include future CIA figures who were also Knights of Malta. The order's membership lists, when leaked, have been described as reading like a "Who's Who of the global establishment," including heads of the CIA, politicians, and lobbyists.
This continuity matters because it suggests that the transition from the OSS to the CIA was not a clean break but a reconfiguration of existing networks. The same families, the same orders, and the same ideological commitments carried over. The Knights of Malta provided a transnational, nominally religious framework that could operate outside the scrutiny of national governments.
P-2, the 962 Names, and the Masonic Shadow State
In Italy, the Propaganda Due (P-2) Masonic lodge became the most dramatic example of a secret society penetrating a democratic state. When police raided the office of Licio Gelli, the lodge's master, on March 17, 1981, they found a list of 962 names. The list included cabinet ministers, undersecretaries, 30 members of Parliament, 50 generals and admirals, 36 senior police officers, magistrates, journalists, bankers, and business leaders. Italian magistrates described P-2 as a "state within a state". The scandal brought down Italy's 40th postwar government. The P-2 affair demonstrated that a secret society could, in practice, function as a parallel government, coordinating actions across the executive, legislative, military, and media sectors without public knowledge.
The World Economic Forum: "Penetrating Governments"
The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971, is the most public-facing node in this network. Its annual meeting in Davos brings together heads of state, central bankers, CEOs, and celebrities. But the WEF's own materials describe its function in terms that have alarmed observers. According to the WEF's website, its annual meeting "has become the world's foremost summit for shaping global, regional and industry agendas". The WEF invites its Partners and Members to "engage through its collaborative Platforms, digital interaction and knowledge networks". It describes itself as "the international organization for public-private cooperation".
Klaus Schwab has been described as the "man who could summon kings and captains of industry with a letter". One analysis of the WEF's role states that it "actively penetrated the senior leadership of national governments". The WEF's own language—"shaping agendas," "public-private cooperation," "penetrating"—is not the language of a neutral conference organizer. It is the language of an institution that sees itself as a governance mechanism.
The WEF's current priorities include artificial intelligence governance, digital identity systems, and what critics describe as an "ownership-free subscription society"—a model in which citizens own nothing and rent everything, from housing to transportation to digital services. The WEF has also been a leading advocate for the "Great Reset," a post-COVID economic restructuring framework that its critics view as a blueprint for accelerated centralization of wealth and power.
David Gergen, a presidential advisor to four U.S. presidents and a former CNN commentator, has been identified as a member of the elite network that includes the Trilateral Commission, CFR, and Bilderberg Group. Gergen reportedly resigned from the Bohemian Club and 17 other organizations, a detail that appears in transcripts discussing the interconnectedness of these groups. His career—spanning the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations—illustrates how individuals move seamlessly between media, government, and private elite networks.
The Hierarchical Pyramid: From Lucifer to the Committee of 300
Alternative researchers have long described a hierarchical structure that allegedly governs the network. At the apex sits the "all-seeing eye" of Lucifer, represented on the U.S. dollar bill's pyramid. Below that is the "inner Rothschild court," which, according to some accounts, serves as the tribunal that rules the Illuminati. The Rothschild family is described as the creator of the pyramid and the ultimate authority to whom even the Council of 13 answers.
Below the Rothschilds is the Council of 13, also called the Grand Druid Council. This body is said to consist of thirteen members who take orders only from the Rothschilds. The number 13 is significant in this mythology: the pyramid on the dollar bill has 13 levels, the Illuminati hierarchy is said to have 13 steps, and the Council of 13 is described as the highest and most sacred number in the religion of the Illuminati.
Beneath the Council of 13 is the Council of 33, and below that, the Committee of 300. The Committee of 300 is described in some sources as the "ultimate secret" body, a group of approximately 300 individuals drawn from the old-line ruling families, intelligence agencies, and financial institutions that coordinates global policy. The Committee of 300 is said to trace its lineage to the British East India Company's Council of 300 and to be composed of individuals who "all know one another".
This hierarchy is not a single organization with a membership card. It is better understood as a framework for interpreting the overlapping memberships, family connections, and shared institutional loyalties that characterize the elite network. The pyramid is a metaphor for a system that is deliberately opaque, with multiple layers of plausible deniability separating the visible from the hidden.
The Hydra Problem: Why the Trail Never Ends
David Rockefeller's 1991 statement at the Bilderberg meeting in Baden, Germany, is frequently cited as an admission of intent: "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
Whether this quote is authentic or apocryphal, it captures the logic that believers in this network attribute to its architects: a gradual, patient, multi-generational project to transcend national sovereignty in favor of elite governance. The means are not a single coup but an endless series of incremental steps—trade agreements, central banking coordination, public-private partnerships, digital identity systems, and crisis-driven expansions of authority.
This is why the trail never ends. The network is designed so that every node—Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral, WEF, P-2, Skull and Bones, the Knights of Malta—is connected to every other node without any single node being the center. Cutting off one head produces two more because the system is not a hierarchy in the traditional sense. It is a distributed network with a shared culture, shared personnel, and shared objectives, but no single command-and-control center that can be decapitated.
The result is a labyrinth that is self-repairing by design. Every investigation that uncovers a new connection leads to another investigation, another set of names, another organization. The hydra does not need a single head because it has learned to grow without one.
Conclusion
The evidence for discrete conspiracies—a single room where a cabal decides the fate of nations—is weak. The evidence for a networked elite culture—a series of overlapping institutions, secret societies, and intelligence connections that collectively shape policy in directions that benefit their members—is overwhelming. The Bilderberg Group, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the WEF, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the Zodiac Club, the Knights of Malta, P-2, and the Epstein network are not the same thing. But they are connected by people, by money, by ideology, and by a shared commitment to a form of global governance that operates above and beyond democratic accountability.
The labyrinth is real. It is not a single room. It is a maze of rooms, each one connected to the next, each one with its own secrets, and each one designed to lead the investigator in circles. The question is not whether the network exists. The question is whether it can ever be mapped, let alone dismantled, when its architecture is built to ensure that the answer is no.
#Bilderberg #CFR #Trilateral-Commission #WEF #Skull-and-Bones #Bohemian-Grove #Epstein-files #Knights-of-Malta #P-2 #OSS #CIA #Mossad #Illuminati #Zodiac-Club #secret-societies #elite-networks #global-governance #Klaus-Schwab #Henry-Kissinger #David-Rockefeller #hydra #conspiracy-theories #world-government #digital-ID #AI #Council-of-13 #Committee-of-300 #Rothschild #Council-on-Foreign-Relations #antisemitism -
DATE: October 12, 2026 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Brain entropy during a psychedelic trip tracks later gains in insight and well-being
A single high dose of psilocybin in people who had never taken a psychedelic was followed by improvements in well-being, psychological insight, and cognitive flexibility a month later, and participants whose brain activity became more irregular during the experience tended to show the largest well-being gains. Lasting changes in brain function, however, were largely absent, though the researchers detected possible changes in the brain’s white matter. The findings were published in Nature Communications.
Psilocybin is the active psychedelic compound found in “magic mushrooms.” It works primarily by stimulating a specific type of serotonin receptor in the brain. Some scientists have proposed that this chemical action scrambles normal brain activity into a more flexible, highly disordered state. For instance, a 2014 theoretical paper by Robin Carhart-Harris, the senior author of the new study, introduced the “entropic brain” hypothesis, suggesting that psychedelics expand conscious experience by making brain signals more unpredictable.
Researchers have suspected that this temporary disruption might lead to lasting benefits. Along these lines, a 2021 open-label study of 24 people with depression found that psilocybin improved cognitive flexibility for at least a month. Cognitive flexibility is a person’s ability to successfully adapt their thinking and switch between different rules or concepts.
Scientists then began tracking healthy volunteers for weeks after a single dose to see whether these acute disruptions leave enduring functional or physical marks on the brain. For example, a small 2020 study of 12 healthy volunteers found that some changes in mood and resting brain connectivity were still detectable a month after a single high dose, although others had faded. Similarly, research covered by PsyPost in 2024 found that psilocybin temporarily scrambled brain network connections, with most changes fading within weeks but some, such as reduced connectivity between the hippocampus and a network involved in self-reflection, persisting.
Building on this progression, the current research, led by Taylor Lyons of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, sought to capture a comprehensive picture of what happens in the brain of someone taking a psychedelic for the very first time. The researchers aimed to connect the immediate, disorganized brain state during a trip to the psychological benefits reported weeks later. They also wanted to test whether a single high dose of psilocybin physically alters the structure of the brain’s white matter.
The study involved 28 healthy adults, averaging 41 years old, who had never taken a psychedelic drug before. Each participant received two oral doses of psilocybin one month apart, always in the same order: first a 1-milligram dose, too low to produce noticeable psychedelic effects, which served as a placebo, and then a 25-milligram high dose known to induce a profound altered state of consciousness. The researchers used this fixed order because they expected the high dose to have lasting effects that could carry over into a later session. To limit expectations, participants were told only that they would receive a variable dose of up to 25 milligrams at each session.
Both dosing sessions took place in a supportive environment featuring low lighting, music, an eye mask, and non-directive guided supervision. During dosing days, the research team recorded electrical brain activity using an electroencephalogram, or EEG, while participants rested with their eyes closed at one, two, and four and a half hours after ingestion. Participants also completed magnetic resonance imaging brain scans before the study began and one month after each dose.
During the high-dose session, the EEG recordings showed large increases in brain entropy, meaning the electrical signals became highly irregular and unpredictable. This peak in disorganized activity occurred one to two hours after taking the 25-milligram pill, aligning with the peak intensity of the psychedelic experience. The recordings also showed a drop in alpha waves, a rhythm of electrical activity common when people are awake and relaxed, while the 1-milligram placebo dose produced no such changes. When asked months later, all but one of the participants who answered (94 percent) rated the high dose as the most unusual state of consciousness of their lives.
When analyzing the brain scans taken a month after the high dose, the researchers found possible changes in the brain’s white matter, the bundles of insulated nerve fibers that carry signals between brain regions. Using a technique called diffusion tensor imaging, which maps how water moves along these fiber pathways, they observed a decrease in water diffusion along tracts connecting the prefrontal cortex to deeper subcortical regions. The prefrontal cortex is involved in complex thinking and decision-making, and this alteration was not observed following the placebo dose.
Other brain imaging measures showed little lasting change. Functional MRI scans, which track blood flow as a proxy for brain activity and which the researchers had designated as their primary outcome, revealed changes one month after the high dose that were largely weak and not statistically significant. One measure, network modularity, reflects how sharply the brain divides into separate, tightly knit networks; it decreased compared with the start of the study but not compared with the month after the placebo dose, and participants with larger decreases tended to show larger gains in well-being.
An earlier analysis of the same participants’ brain scans, covered by PsyPost in 2026, focused on circuits linking the prefrontal cortex with the striatum and thalamus, the same pathways where the white matter changes appeared. Using a different analytic approach, it found that activity in these circuits became more variable a month after the high dose than after the placebo dose, although the difference from the start of the study and the link with improved well-being fell short of statistical significance.
On a psychological level, participants showed improvements after the 25-milligram dose that were not seen after the placebo dose. Their psychological insight scores were about 51 points higher (on a 0-to-100 scale) the day after the high dose than after the placebo dose and remained elevated a month later. Well-being scores rose about 4.7 points more after the high dose than after the placebo dose, on a scale running from 14 to 70 on which the general population averages about 51. Participants also made fewer errors on a computer task measuring cognitive flexibility a month after the high dose, specifically when they had to adapt to hidden rule changes.
When the researchers looked at how these measures related to one another, a pattern emerged. Participants whose brain entropy rose more two hours into the high-dose session tended to report more psychological insight the next day, and greater entropy across the session predicted larger gains in well-being a month later. A statistical analysis suggested that next-day insight partly accounted for the link between entropy and later well-being. Brain entropy did not predict the white matter changes.
“The most surprising – and therefore potentially also important – takeaway is that even in a highly exploratory and multimodal study as described here, psilocybin does not seem to have a pronounced lasting effect on the brain in healthy volunteers,” said Katrin Preller, a junior group leader at the University of Zurich and visiting assistant professor at Yale University who was not involved in the research. “One month after psilocybin administration only very marginal changes were detected. Given the nature of the study, the robustness of these changes needs to be determined in future studies.”
Preller noted that these modest long-term results match an emerging trend in neuroimaging research. “There is accumulating evidence that the neurobiological changes induced by psychedelics may be short lived and alterations are back to baseline levels after a few weeks,” she told PsyPost. “The study therefore confirms these initial reports and extends those by showing that this holds true even for psilocybin-naive participants.”
Martin Korsbak Madsen, a medical doctor and postdoctoral researcher at the Neurobiology Research Unit at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet who was not involved in the study, focused on what the findings might reveal about how psychedelics work.
“It is well established that psychedelics can have long-term effects but underlying mechanisms are unknown, and the present study seeks to address this gap by using both EEG and MRI,” Madsen said. “The study confirms previous electrophysiological findings, showing acutely reduced alpha waves and increased complexity. The latter was positively associated with better psychological insight and well-being, so this might be a relevant mechanism for subsequent change.”
Madsen added that the imaging metrics pointed toward potential physiological routes for these mental shifts. “MRI findings suggested that brain function, on average, was less constrained, and that white matter bundles connecting deep and more superficial layers of the brain were also affected,” he told PsyPost. “Taken together the study is a good and thorough first step, and it provides plausible mechanisms, which subsequent studies can test.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. Because all participants received the 1-milligram dose first and the 25-milligram dose second, order effects, such as simply getting used to the testing procedures, could have influenced the results. The authors argue that the changes after the high dose far exceeded any such effects, noting that no changes appeared after the placebo dose. They also acknowledge that their main hypotheses were not registered in advance and that their statistical corrections were applied within, but not across, the many outcomes they examined.
Preller also stressed the study’s exploratory nature. “This is a highly exploratory study which is reflected in a rather limited protection against Type I errors, i.e., the study is optimized for detecting effects but is not rigorously protected against false positive findings,” Preller told PsyPost. “The fixed administration sequence is justifiable in this study but increases the risk that the observed effects are due to habituation or other time-related factors and may not be causally linked to drug administration. All effects observed therefore need replication in better controlled and larger studies before any conclusions can be drawn.”
Madsen also noted that this structure limits how firmly conclusions can be drawn. “A not trivial drawback of the design is the use of a fixed order, meaning everybody got low dose (placebo condition) before the high dose,” Madsen said. “Although this has some benefits, one cannot exclude order effects, and a classic two-arm randomized, double-blind design of sufficient sample size would have been an improvement.”
Interpreting changes in white matter using diffusion imaging can also be complicated. The type of change seen here has been linked to processes such as learning and meditation, but also to nerve fiber injury and aging, so it is unclear what it reflects biologically. The authors speculate it could involve the pruning of weak connections or the growth of new, not-yet-insulated nerve fibers, but they caution against interpreting the finding until it is replicated with more advanced imaging. A second analysis method also failed to detect the white matter changes.
Looking ahead, Preller said studies in patients are needed. “We need more mechanistic long-term studies in patient populations in order to understand whether there is a detectable neurobiological basis for the observed treatment effects,” she told PsyPost. She added that readers should keep in mind that “even the significant findings in this study are highly exploratory and require replication.”
Madsen suggested that future investigations should evaluate psychedelics alongside other established practices that promote personal growth. “Intake of psychedelics is not the only way of improving well-being or gaining psychological insight, and comparing psychedelics to non-drug interventions such as psychotherapy, mindfulness or art therapy, might help elucidate which effects are specific to psychedelics as opposed to general psychological development,” he explained.
The study, “Human brain changes after first psilocybin use,” was authored by T. Lyons, M. Spriggs, L. Kerkelä, F. E. Rosas, L. Roseman, P. A. M. Mediano, C. Timmermann, L. Oestreich, B. A. Pagni, R. J. Zeifman, A. Hampshire, W. Trender, H. M. Douglass, M. Girn, K. Godfrey, H. Kettner, F. Sharif, L. Espasiano, A. Gazzaley, M. B. Wall, D. Erritzoe, D. J. Nutt, and R. L. Carhart-Harris.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #psilocybin #psychedelics #brainentropy #wellbeing #psychologicalinsight #cognitiveflexibility #white matter #neuroimaging #NatureCommunications #entropicbrain
-
After funnels, we've redesigned our Filters.
The new design makes exploring and segmenting your analytics more intuitive:
→ Cleaner layout
→ Easier navigation
→ Smoother everyday workflowLive on all dashboards. We hope you like it! 💜
-
"È plausibile che l’uso combinato di prodotti [sia #SigaretteTradizionali sia #SigaretteElettroniche] [..] aggravi i processi infiammatori e possa contribuire allo sviluppo di #tumori"
Da leggere l'inchiesta di #LauraMargottini
e colleghi su #BigTobacco: -
One interesting feature of Hydra’s infrastructure is how they deal with rainwater. Everything slopes aggressively towards the port of Hydra. This drainage feature collects plausibly significant water coming down the hill, but then becomes the street. You can follow it to the port from here.
-
DATE: October 11, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Where you direct your attention may shape your body’s inflammatory response
URL: https://www.psypost.org/where-you-direct-your-attention-may-shape-your-bodys-inflammatory-response/
Focusing your mind on physical sensations in your skin might help your body tamp down sudden inflammation, according to a new investigation. Researchers found that when individuals deliberately paid attention to a localized skin reaction rather than distracting themselves, the resulting swelling and redness were substantially smaller, and the swelling subsided faster. The findings, published in Nature Human Behaviour, suggest that voluntary thought processes can influence physiological defenses that were previously viewed as purely automatic.
Acute inflammation is the rapid, protective response the body mounts against injury or irritation, characterized by localized heat, swelling, and redness. In laboratory settings, scientists often test this process using histamine, a chemical the body releases during allergic reactions that causes blood vessels to widen and leak fluid. Applying a droplet to the skin and piercing the surface triggers a raised, fluid-filled bump called a wheal and a surrounding patch of redness called a flare. In this type of challenge, a smaller, faster-settling reaction is viewed as a sign of better-regulated immune activity, reflecting a body that resolves swelling without overreacting.
The research was led by Nofar Mizrachi and Liron Rozenkrantz of the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where Rozenkrantz is an assistant professor and principal investigator of the Psycho-Biology of Beliefs Lab. The team wanted to explore whether conscious awareness plays an active role in how the body manages sudden immune challenges.
“We’ve known for a long time that attention changes how the body feels. When we distract ourselves from pain or an itch, it feels less intense,” Rozenkrantz told PsyPost. “What has not been tested before was whether attention also changes what the body does in response, specifically whether it affects immune regulation.”
“Inflammation is usually treated as an automatic process, one that is not dependent on or affected by cognition,” she continued. “My lab studies how cognitive processes, such as beliefs and perceptions, influence biological function, so the question was natural for us: is our experience of the body a passive process, or is it part of regulation itself?”
To ground this question in existing biology, the researchers drew upon predictive models of brain-body communication, an idea known as allostasis. In a 2015 theoretical paper, neuroscientists proposed that the brain constantly anticipates bodily needs and adjusts internal biological processes before problems escalate. Another biological pathway of interest is the inflammatory reflex; a 2009 review outlined how the vagus nerve, a major neural highway running between the brain and internal organs, helps suppress excessive inflammation. The authors reasoned that intentionally attending to bodily signals might sharpen the brain’s internal monitoring systems and engage these calming nerve pathways.
To test this idea, the researchers designed three pre-registered experiments, meaning they publicly recorded their hypotheses and analysis plans in advance. In the first experiment, 37 healthy adults received a histamine prick on their forearm during two different sessions. In one session, participants were told to keep their gaze on a screen while focusing all their attention on the physical feelings of itching or burning occurring at the skin site. In the comparison session, participants watched engaging video clips on the screen to distract their attention away from the arm, while skin responses were tracked for 20 minutes.
The person measuring the skin did not know which condition each participant was in during any given test. Session order was balanced across participants, and participants were not told the study’s purpose; when asked to guess at the end of the experiments, only 14 percent correctly identified it.
The team found that focusing attention internally resulted in markedly smaller inflammatory reactions. At the 20-minute peak, the swelling bump averaged 3.5 millimeters under internal attention compared to 5.0 millimeters during distraction, representing roughly a 1.5-fold increase under distraction. The surrounding redness averaged 10.6 millimeters under internal attention compared to 14.0 millimeters during distraction, though unlike the swelling, it did not fade on a different timeline.
About 90 percent of the participants showed a larger swelling reaction when their attention was directed away from the arm. In an additional analysis that was not part of the pre-registered plan, nearly 90 percent of participants showed swelling that had stopped growing or begun to shrink by the 20-minute mark during internal focus, compared to 46 percent during distraction.
Because the video clips in the first experiment introduced different visual stimulation and mental demands, the scientists conducted a second experiment with 20 new participants. In this trial, every participant viewed the identical visual slideshow of 37 abstract geometrical shapes. In the internal attention condition, each new shape served as a mental reminder to bring focus back to the itching sensation in the arm. In the distraction condition, participants spent the time mentally evaluating whether each shape could plausibly exist in real life.
Even with identical visual input and matched mental effort, the immune divergence persisted. Swelling bumps and redness were roughly 1.6-fold smaller when participants paid attention to their arm sensations rather than assessing the abstract shapes. Once again, 90 percent of participants developed larger reactions under distraction. Interestingly, participants reported that the itching and burning felt stronger when they paid attention to it, showing that heightened awareness of discomfort coincided with a smaller physical immune response.
“What I find most surprising is that a process as basic and fundamental as acute peripheral inflammation is affected by cognition at all,” Rozenkrantz observed. “Inflammation is generally thought of as an autonomous physiological process, largely independent of cognition, so finding that something as voluntary as where we direct our attention can participate in its regulation really challenges that separation between cognition and basic bodily regulation. In a sense, this is exactly why we asked the question in the first place: to understand how deeply cognitive processes are embedded in physiological regulation.”
The finding that attention made the itch feel stronger led the researchers to test whether sensory feedback from the skin is required for the brain to regulate the swelling. In a third experiment, 17 participants from the earlier experiments returned for an additional session where a topical numbing cream, lidocaine, was applied to dull nerve signals at the test site. With sensory feedback dampened, the peak swelling bump averaged 4.0 millimeters, which was larger than the 3.1 millimeters seen during internal attention with intact sensation in their earlier visit. The numbing cream also hindered the later recovery phase, meaning the swelling did not drop toward baseline as quickly.
Despite this sensory blunting, the response under numbing cream remained smaller than the 4.9-millimeter average observed under ordinary distraction. This suggests that sensory signals from nerves help the body resolve inflammation in its later stages, while attention may still regulate the response through other routes when local sensation is reduced. Perceived itching ratings between the numbing condition and the distraction condition did not differ in a statistically significant way, suggesting that sensory experience alone did not dictate the outcome.
To explore how the brain might be communicating with the skin, the researchers recorded measures of the autonomic nervous system, which controls involuntary functions such as heart rate and sweating. Measures tied to its “fight or flight” branch, including skin conductance (a sign of sweating), heart rate, and skin temperature, showed no differences between conditions, and participants’ self-reported anxiety scores did not differ in a statistically significant manner.
However, heart rate variability, the natural beat-to-beat fluctuation in heart rhythm and an indirect indicator of activity in the calming “rest and digest” branch carried by the vagus nerve, was modestly higher during internal attention. This difference persisted even when the skin was numbed, which the authors interpret as consistent with inward focus engaging the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory pathway independently of incoming sensory signals.
“It appears that focusing attention towards the part of the body where a chemical has challenged the immune system leads to a great visible reduction in its effects on the skin, compared to focusing away from the site,” Warren Mansell, director of the LEx Mental Health Research Group and a professor of mental health at Curtin University in Australia, who was not involved in the research, told PsyPost.
“This raises the possibility that through willingly attending to unpleasant feelings in our bodies, we may support our body’s immune reaction to it. It also raises the possibility that chronically distracting ourselves from distress in our body may undermine our immune system. None of these generalizations can be concluded from this study, but the study sets the stage for research that could.”
Mansell noted that the results might seem to clash with common advice to distract oneself from discomfort, as well as with the view that dwelling on bodily sensations worsens worry, panic, and pain. But he argued that reading the findings as contradicting that advice would be a mistake.
“Distraction can still be an effective short-term strategy to manage unpleasant feelings, even if it is not helpful for long-term physiological restoration,” Mansell explained. “Also, the focus on the body that happens in worry, panic and chronic pain is typically involuntary unlike the voluntary attending in this study, and is often elaborative and ruminative regarding thoughts about the bodily feeling, not the feeling itself.”
“The work is consistent with earlier work on the beneficial impact of techniques that include focused attention on the body such as Gendlin’s focusing and interoceptive exposure,” he added. Gendlin’s focusing is a therapy method built around tuning in to subtle bodily feelings, while interoceptive exposure, used to treat panic disorder, has people deliberately bring on feared sensations such as a racing heart.
The authors raise a related point in their paper. They suggest that habitually turning attention away from unpleasant bodily sensations might carry a physiological cost in some situations, and they note that attention-based treatments such as mindfulness, which involve sustained focus on the body, have been linked to improvements in inflammatory markers, though whether avoidance itself prolongs pain or inflammation remains untested.
“I think the main takeaway is that these findings may change how we think about the relationship between cognition and physiological regulation – and more specifically, that our subjective experience of the body may be more biologically consequential than we usually assume,” Rozenkrantz said. “We tend to think of sensations like itch or burning as simply reflecting what is happening in the body. Our findings suggest a fascinating attention-perception-regulation loop: signals from the body shape what we feel, attention changes how we perceive those signals, and that perception may in turn help regulate what is happening in the body.”
“I think the conceptual significance is more important at this stage than the practical significance,” Rozenkrantz added. “This is an initial demonstration in a very specific experimental model, not yet something we can translate into a clinical recommendation.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. The study examined an allergy-like skin reaction triggered by histamine in healthy young adults. Because of this specific setup, it remains unknown whether voluntary attention would exert similar effects on infectious diseases, long-term autoimmune conditions, or full-body illnesses.
Mansell expressed confidence in the experimental rigor while stressing the need for caution in interpreting the reach of the findings. “I have great confidence in the results owing to the controlled experimental design, the pre-registration and replication,” Mansell noted. “However, the results are modest and specific as opposed to the various interpretations of the results, which are not directly supported by this study.”
Rozenkrantz similarly cautioned against overstating the practical reach of the data. “I think this is crucial: these findings should not be immediately generalized,” Rozenkrantz emphasized. “We studied a small, localized, acute inflammatory response in healthy people. We cannot assume that the same effect occurs in chronic inflammation, disease, wound healing, or other physiological processes, and this is not evidence that people can simply ‘think away’ inflammation or illness.”
There are also practical realities regarding the immune system to keep in mind, as smaller inflammatory responses are not always ideal when fighting off an active pathogen. In addition, the scientists did not measure the immune cells or signaling molecules involved, which leaves the fine-grained biochemical steps unmapped. The numbing cream may not have blocked every type of sensory nerve fiber, and heart rate variability is only an indirect gauge of vagus nerve activity.
The experiments were also small, with 37 and 20 participants in the first two experiments and 17 returning participants in the third, most of them young women, and the numbing-cream session’s order was not balanced against the other conditions.
When considering future directions, Mansell highlighted the need for broader testing. He stated that he would most want to see tested “the impact of more extensive training on more global and enduring indices of immune functioning.”
“What excites us most is how many new questions this opens up,” Rozenkrantz said. “If attention can participate in regulating inflammation, what other physiological processes might it influence? When does this happen, for whom, and under what conditions? And eventually, how might we harness it clinically?”
Even with remaining questions, the findings provide evidence that voluntary attention does more than simply filter our conscious experience of physical discomfort. In this specific laboratory model, paying attention to bodily sensations was linked to smaller, faster-settling skin reactions and to signs of greater vagus nerve activity, offering a fresh perspective on how mental states and physical responses interact.
The study, “Voluntary attention regulates acute immune responses in humans,” was authored by Nofar Mizrachi, Menachem Rottem, and Liron Rozenkrantz.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/where-you-direct-your-attention-may-shape-your-bodys-inflammatory-response/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #VoluntaryAttention #ImmuneResponse #Inflammation #Interoception #MindBodyConnection #VagusNerve #Mindfulness #AttentionResearch #SkinInflammation #NatureHumanBehaviour
-
Haftung des Anlagevermittlers bei unterlassener Plausibilitätsprüfung #anwaltonline #anwalt #rechtsanwalt
https://www.anwaltonline.com/geld-und-recht/urteile/43124/haftung-des-anlagevermittlers-bei-unterlassener-plausibilitaetspruefung -
Anlageberatungsvertrag und Prüfungspflicht der Bank: Plausibilitätsprüfung genügt nicht #anwaltonline #anwalt #rechtsanwalt
https://www.anwaltonline.com/geld-und-recht/urteile/43112/anlageberatungsvertrag-und-pruefungspflicht-der-bank-plausibilitaetspruefung-genuegt-nicht