Fourteen miles from the border. Surrounded by mountains. This outpost never had a fair fight.
#books #bookreview #AfghanistanWar #Heroism
https://thisgrandpablogs.com/outpost/
Search
151 results for “fairy”
-
-
[#TRADESHOW] 140th #CantonFair #Phase 3 2026 will be held from October 31 to November 4, 2026, at #China #Import and #Export #Fair Complex in #Guangzhou. Officially themed #Better #Life, Phase 3 focuses on #fashion, #textiles, #footwear, bags, #food, #healthcare, #medical devices, #baby and #maternity #products, #toys, personal care, #sports, #travel, #office #supplies, and pet products. https://chinaexpohub.com/event/140th-canton-fair-phase-3-2026/
-
14 Of The Most (And Least) Useful Supplements, From A GP
About half of UK adults take supplements at least once daily. And to be fair, some vitamins and minerals – like vitamin D in winter and folic acid for people hoping to get pregnant – are recommended by health bodies like the NHS. But some experts say that not all…
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Nutrition #evergreen #health #nutrition #supplement
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2871261/14-of-the-most-and-least-useful-supplements-from-a-gp/ -
[#TRADESHOW] 140th #CantonFair #Phase 2 2026 will be held from October 23 to 27, 2026, at #China #Import and #Export #Fair Complex in #Guangzhou. Officially themed Quality #Home #Life, Phase 2 focuses on #housewares, #gifts and #decorations, #building #materials, #furniture, #ceramics, sanitary #products, #gardening products, and #household goods. https://chinaexpohub.com/event/140th-canton-fair-phase-2-2026/
-
RE: https://journa.host/@ScottLucas/117500140516328532
"2 senior #Iran officials": We are preparing to target US diplomats & personnel
US Director of National Intell: Iran “substantially increased” its efforts to target Americans in Middle East & beyond
Targeting of US counterparts is “fair game", given assassination of Iran personnel by US & #Israel
-
#Shipping #Forecast #Trafalgar: North or northwest 3 to 5, becoming variable 2 to 4. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good. (from UK MetOffice) #sailing #sail
-
Pokémon Masters Day events arrive in Pokémon Masters EX for October 2026, with a Triple Feature Master Fair featuring Cynthia, Giovanni, and Kieran https://bulbagarden.net/threads/pokemon-masters-day-events-arrive-in-pokemon-masters-ex-for-october-2026-with-a-triple-feature-master-fair-featuring-cynthia-giovanni-and-kieran.311852/ #pokémon
-
LG Electronics to Supply Commercial Laundry Appliances to Germany, Accelerating Its Global B2B Push
At Expo Detergo International 2026, Europe’s largest laundry trade fair, which opened in Milan, Italy, on the 23rd,…
#EuropeSays #Korea #KR #LGElectronics #economy #financialnews #fnnews #LG #news
https://www.europesays.com/korea/201043/ -
Autumn in the woods comes with a fear I feel every year: that the colour will peak and fall in the gap between one visit and the next, and that I will miss it for another whole year. There is a great deal of anticipation in the season. There is a fair amount of anxiety in it too.
-
#Eco #Expo #Asia 2026 will bring environmental #technology #suppliers, government representatives, #investors and corporate #buyers to #HongKong from 26–29 October 2026, with #green #transport, #smart #buildings, artificial intelligence (#AI) and circular-economy solutions among the principal #themes. The 21st edition of the #environmental #trade #fair will take place at #AsiaWorld-Expo under the theme “Connecting the #World for a #Sustainable #Future.” https://chinaexpohub.com/green-energy-smart-cities-and-ai-recycling-take-centre-stage-at-eco-expo-asia-2026/
-
i did not understand correctly. most of the “losses” are increases in the value of convertible notes (debt that can be converted to equity), and a lot of that debt will be converted to equity when the ipo goes through. if the share price increases after ipo, lenders win big. if it goes below the original fair value for the notes, they’re screwed. that is, unless they are allowed to opt out of conversion and let the notes mature, in which case anthropic owes them a fuckton of money later
-
So whoever needs to hear this:
The latest "AI" frontier models do NOT generate #accessible web pages.
They will not automate #accessibility testing, cannot take the role of a manual tester, will not magically fix all #accessibility issues on your website and cannot catch accessibility issues for you no matter how strictly you frown at them. What they will do is give you dramatically verbose, overengineered solutions to problems that don't actually exist.
I just tested this today. You still need a human in the loop who knows what they're doing. i'm one of those, happy to help if you pay me tokens. And by tokens I mean fair wages.
Don't get me wrong, I do use #AI for my own projects at times. They just really aren't good at this.
-
Those Who Are Loved, by Victoria Hislop: #BookReview.
Set in Greece during a period beginning in the 1930s, this novel looks at the political, social, and military history of this popular holiday destination through the eyes of an extraordinary Greek woman called Themis.
We begin shortly after her birth and follow her through life as she learns about family, love, politics, and the brutality of fanatics on both sides of the political divide.
I started to read this book whilst holidaying in Crete. It was one of a number of books left by guests at the hotel in which I stayed. I’d finished the three books I’d taken to read and left those there. It felt like a fair swap for me to bring this one home with me: at 480 pages, it was a long read!
I’d read ‘The Island’ by Victoria Hislop some years ago. A book set on Crete, dealing with the history of the Leper Colony established on the small island of Spinalonga, just off the northeast coast of Mirabello Bay in the east of Crete. That book was well written, persuading me the one I’d acquired would be worth reading.
It was!
This is not an easy or comfortable read. It looks at the conflict between the Greek Communists and their Fascistic right-wing opponents and at the military juntas who took over the country for a while. None of these rulers comes out with credit. The author’s research has informed her of the excesses, the violence, the prejudices, the extremes posed by all these rulers on a land that was born into and invented democracy and was then almost destroyed by its lack.
Themis is initially an innocent, naïve and bullied by her older sister and wishing to be friends with both her right-wing and her left-wing brothers. The youngest child in the family, and a girl, she is rarely taken seriously in her early years, other than by the grandmother who takes care of the family when the mother is institutionalised and the sailor father is mostly absent.
I won’t tell you the rest of the story. But Themis illustrates the very real difficulties faced by anyone who is honest and caring when they live under those different forms of dictatorship. Her life is rarely easy and, at times, her subjugation to terror and cruelty is difficult to bear for the reader. But her courage and determination to do what is right forces the reader to continue her story through to the very end, which is, I’m pleased to record, a positive one.
You will find so much love here, so much fear, so much bullying by so-called leaders, so much cruelty caused by a mixture of ignorance, intolerance, and simple fear of reprisals.
I stopped reading it before bedtime, as much of the story could lead to nightmares. But I’m very pleased I read the book. I’ve learned a good deal about the role of superstition, tradition, ignorance, and the abuse of power on a people who simply want to live normal lives of love and family. And I now feel I understand much about the history of Greece during the period covered by the narrative.
It’s a very well written account, full of insight, understanding and compassion from a writer who manages to occupy the minds and hearts of all her various protagonists and antagonists. If you get the chance, read it. You will leave the book all the better able to understand much about Greece and its extraordinary people.Rate This
#Author #BookReview #Books #CreativeWriting #Fiction #Novels -
Ich habe mir heute Morgen beim Duschen Gedanken über die #Zeitumstellung gemacht, und ich bin zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass ich nur eine einzige Form der Zeitumstellung akzeptieren kann:
Wir stellen jeden Montag Morgen die Uhr um eine Stunde vor, und Freitag Abends wieder eine Stunde zurück.
klingt fair, oder?
-
"And the strongest meanest men got the best stuff, they got the green valleys and were like 'the rest of you, ya'll scratch get sand!' And that's when they made the laws you see. Once the strong guys got it how they liked it: they said 'this is fair now! This is the law!' once they were winning they changed the rules up." - Adventure Time
-
More additions of SPN to the #zenodo #digipres community as we're nearing the SPN sunset date:
"New Library Exception Guides Presentation" is a webinar recording & slidedeck from a webinar held Oct 4 2022, feat Ana Enriquez (Penn State Libraries) & Graeme Slaght (U of Toronto Libraries) who discuss how access can be provided to software by using library exceptions alongside fair use and fair dealing under Canadian and US Copyright Acts.
Check it out here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23020902
-
#Eco #Expo #Asia 2026 will bring environmental #technology #suppliers, government representatives, #investors and corporate #buyers to #HongKong from 26–29 October 2026, with #green #transport, #smart #buildings, artificial intelligence (#AI) and circular-economy solutions among the principal #themes. The 21st edition of the #environmental #trade #fair will take place at #AsiaWorld-Expo under the theme “Connecting the #World for a #Sustainable #Future.” https://chinaexpohub.com/green-energy-smart-cities-and-ai-recycling-take-centre-stage-at-eco-expo-asia-2026/
-
Random commentator thinks that it's mostly about a controversial feature (contracts) and partly about lack of give a shit (members failing to vote).
As I said, I know nothing about the players here, but I know about ISO process. The national delegation structure means that the process is only as open and fair as the political establishment wants it to be. It is easy for a technically incompetent bureaucrat to burrow in as a gatekeeper and hold their position indefinitely.
-
Claude Code, OpenCode oder mini-SWE-agent? Mit demselben offenen Modell lösen sie fast gleich viele Aufgaben. Die Rechnung schwankt aber bis Faktor drei, vor allem wegen des System-Prompts, der bei jedem Schritt mitläuft. Was eine neue Studie über Coding-Agenten zeigt und wie ihr fair vergleicht:
https://kiberblick.de/aktuell/2026/2026-10-24-harness-studie-kosten-statt-treffer/
-
It was strange being in a body that wasn't human. Sophia hadn't decided how she felt about it yet. She activated the exterior camera on her rover and saw two additional rovers - a red and a blue. She panned the camera down to see that hers was white.
"Author, the rovers are certainly - colorful."
_/You have Jacob to thank for that/_
The blue rover came to life. "Yeah," Reggie began. "It's a movie reference. I didn't get it."
"It's 'The Italian Job'!" Jacob said from the red rover. "Granted, these aren't Mini Coopers, but we can still pretend we're in the big getaway-chase-ending!"
Sophia mentally pinched her nose. "Ok, just so I'm clear. We're fictional characters in a story, about to drive around in our author's world for the first time, and you want to pretend that we're back in a story?"
_/To be fair, people cosplay all the time. You'd just be cosplaying as cars/_
Sophia swiveled her camera up to face Author. "Don't encourage him!"
#MicroFiction #FlashFiction #TootFic #ShortStory #SciFi #ScienceFiction
-
BeeLadybug, my open-source debug overlay, has always shown what's happening in real time: FPS, logs,
!important, z-index traps, clicks being swallowed by the wrong element.The problem is the overlay. Make it big and it covers the game or the page you're debugging. Make it small, the way it is now, and you're squinting at a phone-sized box on the left of the screen while the rows scroll past.
One evening I gave up and asked myself a simple question: why can't I just press a key and get everything on one page, to read calmly?
One key, one file
Version 0.6.1 addsexportReport(). Press F8, or the EXPORT button, and you getreport-YYYYMMDD-HHMM.html:- a summary at the top: errors, warnings, ok
- the Core log with sim time and frame
- series: FPS min / avg / max, nodes, mutations
- one section per adapter: Canvas hitboxes and collisions, DOM box model and clipped nodes, CSS (
!important, stacking contexts, intercepted clicks, overflow), long tasks, slow resources, Python metrics
It's plain HTML with a dark theme. Ctrl+P turns it into a PDF. You can also get
json(for CI or an AI agent) orcsv(for a spreadsheet).import { BeeLadybugCore, exportReport } from 'bee-ladybug';
const bee = new BeeLadybugCore();
// ...attach adapters...
exportReport(bee, { format: 'html' }); // downloads the fileIn headless mode (
ui: false) nothing is downloaded. The function just returns the data, so it works in Node and in bots too.How it fits a "blind" Core
The Core still knows nothing about Canvas, the DOM or Python. Each adapter can now register an optionalsnapshot()hook that returns rows like{ severity, selector, rule, value, source }. The exporter asks every registered adapter for its snapshot, and if one throws, it becomes a singlewarnrow while the rest of the report still renders. A new adapter only has to implementsnapshot()to show up in the report.Then I pointed it at real sites
First, my own games portal. It found:- my
.entry-contentcreating a stacking context that traps the z-index of the game grid - a container blocking clicks on three elements
- an average of 33 FPS, which explains a lot
Then, for fun, a big professional games portal. 25 errors, 51 warnings 😄 To be fair, most of them are intentional tricks: negative margins so a carousel can bleed to the edges, and content clipped on purpose inside cards. Their site works great. It still averaged ~52 FPS with 3× my DOM nodes, which taught me more than the error count did.
…and it found bugs in itself
The best part of testing on real pages: the report exposed its own weak spots.- an icon from the WordPress admin bar slipped through the filter
- the same row repeated dozens of times instead of being grouped as
×N - the summary said "0 errors" while the log had four of them
All three are being fixed. A debugger that finds bugs in itself on its first real run felt like a good sign.
Try it
Install it in your project:npm i bee-ladybug
Or try it right now without installing: open any page, press F12 and paste this in the console, then press F8 for the report.
import('https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/[email protected]/src/index.js')
.then(({ BeeLadybugCore, WebDOMAdapter, CSSAdapter }) => {
const bee = new BeeLadybugCore();
new WebDOMAdapter(bee, { root: document.body }).attach();
new CSSAdapter(bee).attach();
window.bee = bee;
});Feedback welcome, especially from people debugging Canvas games and DOM-heavy pages.#javascript #webdev #debugging #opensource #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
I got tired of reading CSS bugs in a tiny overlay, so I made my debugger print a report -
Every engineer running autonomous agent loops knows the in-context reflection drill. The agent runs a bash script, fails on an obscure permission flag or an unquoted path, sees the error in stderr, reflects on what went wrong, and fixes it on the second try.
The task finishes green. You log the run, close the thread, and move on.
Tomorrow morning, the same agent hits the exact same edge case in a fresh session and makes the exact same mistake all over again.
In-context reflection is a temporary patch. It burns context tokens, bloats the prompt across long tool sessions, and evaporates the millisecond the execution context clears. The traditional alternative, full-model fine-tuning, is a non-starter for everyday errors. Nobody is spinning up a multi-GPU training run every afternoon to update base weights, and doing so risks catastrophic forgetting across existing tool workflows.
A research team from Princeton University and Meta FAIR just published a practical middle ground. In their paper, Don't Forget What You Just Learned: Self-Directed Repair Turns Agent Mistakes Into Lasting Lessons (arXiv:2610.31846), Yuval Kansal, Karen Ullrich, Polina Kirichenko, Ilia Kulikov, Niraj K. Jha, Mohammad Pezeshki, and Mark Ibrahim lay out an architecture called Self-Direction.
Instead of writing a reflection note into a scratchpad file or relying on a fragile system prompt append, the agent distills its execution mistakes directly into tiny low-rank adapter weights.
The failure of the reflection scratchpad
Modern agent setups usually address cross-session memory with one of two patterns:- Appending error reflections to an agent scratchpad or MEMORY.md file.
- Embedding failure traces into a vector database for retrieval-augmented prompt injection on future turns.
Both patterns struggle in production. Text notes appended to context eat away at attention budgets. As the reflection scratchpad grows, agents suffer from prompt dilution and instruction drift. More critically, an agent reading a natural-language description of an old error frequently misapplies the lesson to unrelated tool calls.
The Princeton and Meta team tracked this failure mode across open-ended research workflows (GAIA), multi-step tool execution (Claw-Eval), and command-line environments (Terminal-Bench 2.1). When agents relied on standard in-context retries, their correction reliability plummeted when facing recurring variations of the same underlying task. The agent repeatedly fell into the same traps because the underlying policy distribution never moved.
Standard Agent Flow:
Error -> In-context reflection -> One-off fix -> Session ends -> Lesson lostSelf-Direction Flow:
Error -> Trajectory reflection -> Low-rank adapter update -> Persistent library -> Routed on demandDistilling mistakes into 0.02% parameter budgets
The core mechanism of Self-Direction sits between ephemeral prompt engineering and heavy offline training.When an agent fails an execution trajectory, it runs an internal critique to isolate the decision step that caused the downstream failure. Once the corrective trajectory is verified, the system does not just print the correction. It freezes the base model weights entirely and trains a micro-LoRA adapter on the self-directed repair pair.
The parameters updated during this step represent roughly 0.02% of the base model's parameter count.
Because base weights remain frozen:
- Existing base model capabilities and general conversational skills stay intact without degradation.
- Training completes locally in seconds on consumer hardware without cluster coordination.
- The resulting adapter file is lightweight enough to store, version, and swap on the fly.
The agent saves these targeted adapter checkpoints into a persistent local library. When a new prompt arrives, an automated routing layer inspects the problem context and attaches the relevant adapter before the execution loop begins.
Benchmark gains across open-ended tasks
The researchers tested Self-Direction on open-weight models from the Qwen family across three distinct agent benchmarks:- GAIA: Multi-modal, complex multi-hop research requiring web navigation and reasoning.
- Claw-Eval: Structured tool-use workflows testing API interactions and parameter extraction.
- Terminal-Bench 2.1: Unconstrained Linux command-line tasks, bash scripts, and system administration.
Across these environments, adding Self-Direction improved overall task completion rates by 8.9 to 17.0 percentage points compared to standard in-context reflection baselines.
More importantly, the recurrence rate of known errors dropped sharply. The authors found that Self-Direction nearly doubled the reliability of corrective actions on subsequent encounters. Instead of guessing whether the agent would notice a text hint in its system prompt, the updated adapter shifted the token sampling probabilities directly away from the faulty API syntax.
The team also evaluated out-of-distribution transfer. A small set of adapters trained on specific terminal failures generalized across dozens of unseen tasks involving related file-system permissions and process management. The agent learned the structural pattern of the fix rather than memorizing the exact shell string.
What this means for local agent runners
For developers building and hosting agent infrastructure, this work highlights an architectural transition.Over the past two years, the industry leaned heavily on prompt stuffing to simulate agent learning. We treated context windows as infinite scratchpads, piling up few-shot examples, dynamic rules, and post-mortem notes until the prompt became brittle.
Self-Direction shows that treating execution errors as online distillation targets produces cleaner long-term behavior. When an agent trips on an environment quirk, the solution is not to explain the error back to the model in prose every time it wakes up. The solution is to let the agent compile the lesson into weights, index the adapter, and move forward.#ai #agents #python #opensource #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Why In-Context Corrections Do Not Stick in Agent Loops -
A few years ago, I checked a dependency’s license once, at install time, and never again. That habit is getting expensive.
License changes aren’t new, but they’re happening often enough that “it’s open source” is no longer a permanent property of a project. It’s a status that can change between releases.
The pattern is almost always the same.
The shift nearly always runs one way: from an OSI-approved permissive or copyleft license toward a “source-available” license the Open Source Initiative doesn’t recognize as open source.The Business Source License (BSL) is the most common destination. It’s a “delayed open source” license: the vendor sets restrictions up front, and each version converts to a true open-source license after a change date, typically four years out.
It’s not just the famous cases anymore. A few from this year alone:
- Loki Mode moved from the MIT License to BSL 1.1 effective March 19, 2026.
- Unleash announced in June 2026 that its core repository is moving from Apache 2.0 to AGPLv3. AGPL is OSI-approved, so this one is a different kind of change, but it still affects anyone embedding the code.
- MiniMax moved its M2.7 AI model from MIT to a non-commercial license, which drew immediate backlash.
Who it actually hurts
- 1. Small teams and agencies building on top: If your product depends on a library that relicenses, you now have three options: pay, migrate, or fork. Big companies have legal teams for that. A five-person shop usually doesn’t.
- 2. Contributors: People gave their time to a project under one set of terms. When the company controlling it changes the rules, the community’s work becomes part of a product they no longer fully share in.
- 3. Downstream projects: Plugins, integrations, and tutorials built around a tool inherit the uncertainty when its license shifts.
The fair counterargument
I don’t think vendors are simply villains here. Many of these changes were a response to cloud providers selling managed versions of a project without funding it. Maintainers need a sustainable model, and “be open and hope for donations” has a poor track record.It’s also not always one-way. Redis is back under a recognized open-source license for those who choose it, while Valkey continues to be actively developed. Competition between the original and the fork may have pushed both toward better outcomes. Broader data also suggests permissive licensing has been rising, so this isn’t a total collapse of open source.
What I do now
- Check who controls the project A single company controlling a project can relicense future versions at any time, while a project run by a neutral foundation with many contributing companies is much harder to change.
- Read the license on every major upgrade, not just at install.
- Pin versions so a surprise change doesn’t land in your next deploy.
- Know your exit. Is there a credible fork? A foundation-backed alternative?
- Set up license-change alerts for your critical dependencies.
So, is open source still open?
My honest answer: the code is still often open. The guarantee isn’t. Open source has always depended on trust, and trust now needs a little due diligence.Over to you: Has a license change ever forced your team to migrate? Do you think relicensing is a fair business move, or a betrayal of the community that built the project? Tell me in the comments.#opensource #webdev #discuss #devdiscuss #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Is Open Source Still Open? A Look at Recent License Changes and Who They Hurt -
5/5 #Auspol
“This always blows up in our face,” the moderate Liberal tells The Saturday Paper. “There are many reasons, but the main one is that the Brethren are not engaged in day-to-day politics, so they have no feel for what persuades swinging voters and they end up being way too aggressive. Not only does it put people off, it attracts endless media scrutiny.”
The same Liberal source points to the Liberal Party’s internal review of the 2025 campaign, conducted by former Howard government minister Nick Minchin and former NSW state minister Pru Goward, which essentially admitted that party officials felt they had no choice but to rely on Brethren volunteers.
“The ageing of Party members has added to the problem of providing sufficient numbers of booth workers over the years, and some campaigns were grateful for the assistance of volunteers who were also members of the Plymouth Brethren,” Minchin and Goward wrote.
The review also noted “there were divided opinions about the value of having Plymouth Brethren members handing out Liberal Party” how-to-vote cards and recommended better training of all booth workers to ensure clear messaging and consistently appropriate engagement with voters as they approached the polling booth.
“The Liberal Party does not, nor should have, a religious affiliation test. Protestants, Catholics, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu followers supported the Liberal Party,” Minchin and Goward wrote. “It will need further investigation to determine why such exception has been taken to the role of the Plymouth Brethren; no doubt Brethren members themselves are reviewing their involvement.”
Despite the discomfort among moderate Liberals concerning the Brethren’s involvement, Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie says she remains deeply troubled by the hostile questioning of the Brethren’s involvement in the 2025 election campaign, which she says amounts to little more than religious persecution.
“Utterly disgraceful,” McKenzie tells The Saturday Paper this week. “I was absolutely shocked. I sort of logged on as a participating member and I could not believe the line of questioning, not only from teal MPs, from Greens senators, but also from the Labor Party, questioning why this particular church would pray for our country.
“If people of faith, irrespective of which church, synagogue, mosque, temple they worship at, believe in our democracy enough to actually get involved at election time, that should actually be a good thing. People shouldn’t be barred from participating in a free and fair electoral process simply because they are men and women of faith.”
With the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters now set to write its final report, the recommendations of which could lead to the Plymouth Brethren losing its tax-free status, many of the committee’s members are wondering why Bruce and Gareth Hales appeared so disrespectful and evasive in their answers to questions.
“I guess they’re not used to being held accountable,” observes committee chair Jerome Laxale.fin
-
Uniswap V4 hooks are the most powerful primitive ever shipped in AMM design — and the most dangerous. One misconfigured hook can drain an entire pool in a single transaction, and with over $1B in TVL migrated from V3 within weeks of launch, there's a lot of money sitting behind code most people haven't audited.
I've gone through the V4 architecture, the
PoolManagercontract, and a stack of early hook implementations. The vulnerability surface isn't just new — it's fundamentally different from anything that came before.How Hooks Change the V4 Security Model
Uniswap V4 moves all pools into a single singleton contract calledPoolManager. Instead of deploying a new pair contract per token pair (V2/V3 style), every pool lives in one contract and is identified by aPoolKeystruct. Lower gas, but a bug in one pool's hook now has implications for shared singleton state.Hooks are external contracts that
PoolManagercalls at defined lifecycle points:beforeInitialize/afterInitializebeforeAddLiquidity/afterAddLiquiditybeforeRemoveLiquidity/afterRemoveLiquiditybeforeSwap/afterSwapbeforeDonate/afterDonate
The hook's address determines which callbacks it implements — encoded in the address via CREATE2 mining. Clever design. But it introduces a critical trust assumption: the hook is trusted by the pool unconditionally.
PoolManagercalls your hook contract and expects it to behave. There is no sandbox.The Four Real Attack Vectors
Everyone focuses on reentrancy because it's the classic AMM boogeyman. Fair — but the real killers in V4 are subtler.1. Hook-Level Reentrancy via Delta Accounting
V4 uses a flash accounting model — balances are tracked as deltas, settled by end of transaction. The lock mechanism inPoolManageris meant to prevent reentrant calls. But if your hook calls back intoPoolManagerthrough a different code path during a callback, you can manipulate intermediate state before deltas settle.Reentrancy-adjacent vulnerabilities have drained over $2.3B from DeFi protocols since 2020 (Rekt News). V4's accounting model doesn't eliminate this class — it reshapes it.
2. Malicious Hooks as Backdoors
This one targets traders and LPs directly. If you're interacting with a V4 pool, you are implicitly trusting its hook. A maliciousafterSwaphook can redirect funds, inflate prices, or call back into your wallet if approvals exist. Venom Protocol used exactly this social engineering pattern against NFT traders in 2022 — embedding malicious logic in what looked like a standard marketplace contract, draining $1.8M. V4 hooks create the same attack surface with a technical wrapper that looks legitimate.3. Missing Access Control on Admin Functions
Access control failures account for 3x more total DeFi losses than reentrancy — and almost nobody builds their hook audit checklist around it. Most hook developers add admin functions for fee updates, oracle configs, or whitelist management. If those aren't properly gated, you've shipped a god-mode backdoor.4. Price Oracle Manipulation Through Hook Logic
Hooks that read or write price data mid-swap create new TWAP manipulation surfaces. If your hook readsslot0(spot price, not TWAP) during abeforeSwapcallback — say, for a dynamic fee calculation — an attacker can sandwich that logic with a flash loan. Mango Markets lost $117M to oracle price manipulation. V4 hooks give attackers a new insertion point for the same playbook.What a Vulnerable Hook Looks Like
Here's a realistic dynamic fee hook with two critical vulnerabilities. This pattern shows up constantly in early implementations.// ❌ VULNERABLE PATTERN
contract VulnerableFeeHook is BaseHook {
uint24 public dynamicFee;// ❌ No access control — anyone can call this
function setFee(uint24 newFee) external {
dynamicFee = newFee;
}// ❌ Reads slot0 (spot price) — flash loan bait
function beforeSwap(
address,
PoolKey calldata key,
IPoolManager.SwapParams calldata params,
bytes calldata
) external override returns (bytes4, BeforeSwapDelta, uint24) {
(uint160 sqrtPriceX96,,,) = poolManager.getSlot0(key.toId());
uint24 fee = sqrtPriceX96 > 1e18 ? 500 : dynamicFee;
return (BaseHook.beforeSwap.selector, BeforeSwapDeltaLibrary.ZERO_DELTA, fee);
}
}Two problems:
setFeehas zero access control — any wallet can set the fee to the maximum, bricking the pool or extracting value from traders. And readingslot0inbeforeSwapto drive fee logic means a flash loan attacker can manipulate that price in the same block.The fix requires two changes: gate admin functions behind ownership, and replace spot price reads with TWAP data that can't be manipulated within a single block.
// ✅ SECURE PATTERN
contract SecureFeeHook is BaseHook, Ownable {
uint24 public dynamicFee;// ✅ Only owner can update fee
function setFee(uint24 newFee) external onlyOwner {
require(newFee <= 100_000, "Fee too high");
dynamicFee = newFee;
emit FeeUpdated(newFee);
}// ✅ Use TWAP — not spot price — for fee decisions
function beforeSwap(
address,
PoolKey calldata key,
IPoolManager.SwapParams calldata params,
bytes calldata
) external override returns (bytes4, BeforeSwapDelta, uint24) {
// Reference TWAP oracle instead of slot0
uint24 fee = _getTWAPBasedFee(key);
return (BaseHook.beforeSwap.selector, BeforeSwapDeltaLibrary.ZERO_DELTA, fee);
}
}Pre-Deployment Checklist
Before you touch a V4 pool — as a developer or an LP — run through this:- Access control: Every admin function gated. No unprotected
setFee,setOracle, or whitelist functions - Oracle source: TWAP over multiple blocks, never
slot0for decision logic - Reentrancy: Trace every external call inside hook callbacks; check for cross-function reentrance paths through the delta accounting system
- Hook trust model: If you're an LP or trader, verify the hook's source code is published and audited — the pool's safety is entirely dependent on it
- Singleton implications: Understand that any hook interacting with shared
PoolManagerstate can have cross-pool effects - Delta settlement: Ensure all currency deltas are properly settled before transaction end; unsettled deltas are a vector for fund extraction
The V4 architecture is a genuine leap forward in AMM design. The hooks primitive enables things that simply weren't possible before — dynamic fees, custom order types, on-chain limit orders, protocol-owned liquidity management. But every one of#uniswap #security #web3 #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Uniswap V4 Security Guide: Hooks, Pools, and New Attack Vectors You Need to Know Before Deploying -
DATE: October 27, 2026 at 07:00AM
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: We’ll pay to get revenge on an algorithm, even though it can’t feel a thing
URL: https://www.psypost.org/well-pay-to-get-revenge-on-an-algorithm-even-though-it-cant-feel-a-thing/
When a computer algorithm treats people unfairly, they tend to get just as angry and retaliate just as often as they would against a human wrongdoer. A new series of experiments published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General provides mixed evidence on whether punishing a machine brings the same sense of closure as punishing a person, but it suggests that a machine’s response to being punished, such as sounding hurt or promising to make fairer offers, can strengthen people’s sense that justice was done. The findings suggest that as artificial intelligence takes on more decision-making roles in society, organizations may need to design systems that can communicate accountability when things go wrong.
Automated systems are increasingly tasked with consequential choices, from screening job applicants to steering vehicles and prioritizing medical care. To understand how people react when these systems cause harm, psychologists study a concept known as mind perception, which is the everyday process of judging what kind of mental life another entity possesses. People generally evaluate minds along two separate dimensions: agency, meaning the ability to think, plan, and act intentionally, and experience, meaning the capacity to feel physical pain, pleasure, fear, and emotions.
In human interactions, the capacity to commit a moral wrong and the capacity to experience punishment usually go together, since a sane adult can both plan a harmful act and feel the sting of a penalty. Artificial intelligence splits these two qualities apart because people often view machines as having enough agency to cause deliberate harm, yet almost no ability to feel pain or remorse. For instance, research covered by PsyPost in 2023 found that people judged AI agents as more deserving of blame than humans in one classic life-and-death dilemma. Similarly, another 2023 study covered by PsyPost showed that people hold automated driving assistants responsible for road outcomes while simultaneously categorizing the software as a mere tool rather than a true moral being.
This mental divide raises questions about whether punishing an algorithm can produce justice satisfaction, which is the feeling of closure, fairness, and resolution a victim experiences after an offender is penalized. Psychological theories generally propose two reasons why punishment feels satisfying: either it fulfills a desire for retribution by making the wrongdoer suffer for their actions, or it serves a communicative role by teaching the wrongdoer a moral lesson.
Because people tend to see machines as unable to genuinely suffer or feel guilt, study author Alexander Eng, an associate professor of organizational behavior in the Department of Management at the Asia School of Business in Kuala Lumpur, and co-author Kai Chi Yam of the National University of Singapore examined how people emotionally and behaviorally respond during and after they penalize an unfair algorithm.
“Research on punishment usually assumes that anyone capable of doing wrong can also be punished,” Eng told PsyPost. “We tend to see a young child as unable to truly commit a wrong, and so also as unfit for punishment. Machines break that link: people see AI as able to make decisions that hurt them, yet unable to feel pain, regret, or learn a moral lesson. As AI takes on decisions like medical triage and firing employees, we wanted to know how people respond when they try to hold it accountable, and whether punishing it gives them any sense that justice was done.”
The researchers began with a pilot study of 380 English-speaking adults in the United States, recruited through the online platform Prolific, to verify whether people actually punish algorithms. Participants played a single round of an economic exercise called the ultimatum game, in which a partner was given £0.50 and proposed how to split it. If the participant accepted the split, both parties kept their share, but if the participant rejected it, neither party received anything, making rejection a form of costly punishment.
Participants were told their partner was either another human participant or an algorithm, and they received either a fair offer of £0.25 each or an unfair offer where the partner kept £0.45 and left the participant just £0.05. In reality, the researchers preset all offers. Receiving a stingy offer from an algorithm provoked much higher anger (an average of 3.12 on a 5-point scale) than receiving a fair offer from an algorithm (1.31). When given the unfair deal, participants felt comparable anger toward algorithms (3.12) and humans (2.91), and they punished the unfair algorithm by rejecting its offer 57.8 percent of the time, which was not statistically different from the 62.2 percent rejection rate for unfair humans.
In their first main experiment, the authors examined what happens after punishment is delivered using a final sample of 123 Prolific participants. Every participant received the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game from either a human or an algorithm, decided whether to accept or reject it, and then answered five questions measuring their justice satisfaction, such as whether they felt everyone got what they deserved. Afterward, participants played a second exercise called the dictator game, where they were given £0.50 and could unilaterally share any amount in £0.05 increments with their partner, while also having the option to switch to a new human partner first.
As in the pilot study, participants rejected unfair offers from algorithms (38 out of 62) and humans (40 out of 61) at similar rates. Overall, the 78 participants who punished their partner by rejecting the offer reported higher justice satisfaction (3.57 out of 5) than the 45 who accepted it (2.63). Controlling for whether participants switched partners, the satisfaction gap between those who punished and those who did not was larger when the offender was a human than when it was an algorithm, and higher justice satisfaction in turn predicted greater generosity in the second game.
Because the option to switch partners or the belief that computers have no use for money might have influenced the first experiment, the researchers conducted a second study with a stricter setup among 739 participants, preregistered along with the third and fourth experiments through the journal’s registered-report review process. Participants were told that five algorithms and five human research assistants were competing across multiple negotiations, and that while neither kept the money personally, the lowest-earning algorithm and human would be eliminated from the competition.
Participants were not allowed to switch partners between the ultimatum game and the dictator game, and they also completed scales measuring their partner’s perceived agency and emotional experience, along with their own baseline tendency to attribute human-like consciousness to technology, a trait known as anthropomorphism.
Participants rated human partners higher on agency (3.30 versus 2.79 out of 5) and much higher on the capacity for emotional experience (3.20 versus 1.86) than algorithmic partners. Even so, participants rejected the unfair offer at comparable rates for algorithms (71.0 percent, or 262 of 369) and humans (65.4 percent, or 242 of 370), and those who punished their partner felt much greater justice satisfaction (3.53) than those who accepted the unfair split (2.71). In contrast to the first study, after controlling for baseline anthropomorphism, the link between punishing and justice satisfaction, and in turn generosity, was equally strong whether the partner was an algorithm or a human.
“People react to an unfair machine much as they react to an unfair person,” Eng said. “Participants got just as angry at an algorithm that made them a lowball offer as at a human who made the same offer, and they were just as willing to give up their own money to punish it. Whether punishing the machine felt as satisfying was less consistent across studies.”
A third study tested these dynamics in a different scenario called the trust game with 735 participants who chose to invest £0.20 with a human research assistant or an algorithm. The investment was tripled to £0.60, and the partner broke the participant’s trust by returning just £0.10 instead of a fair £0.30 split. Participants could then penalize their partner by recommending on a 1-to-5 scale that the partner be removed from the player pool, before rating their justice satisfaction and playing a second round where the roles were reversed.
Participants gave similar removal ratings to unfair algorithms (3.37 out of 5) and unfair humans (3.26). Unexpectedly, harsher removal ratings were associated with lower justice satisfaction rather than higher closure. The authors suspect this is because participants only submitted a recommendation and never saw a penalty take effect, so the ratings may have reflected anger more than punishment. In an exploratory analysis looking directly at anger, feeling angrier predicted lower justice satisfaction and less generosity toward both types of partners, with anger reducing justice satisfaction slightly more when the partner was human than when it was an algorithm.
In a fourth study involving 3,684 participants who rejected the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game, the researchers tested whether a message from the penalized partner could increase justice satisfaction. Immediately after rejecting the offer from a human or an algorithm, participants received either no message at all, a message expressing emotional distress over repeated rejections, a message calmly acknowledging that the offer was too low and promising to be fair in the future, or a combined message expressing both distress and a moral lesson learned. A separate preliminary test with 305 people confirmed that these messages effectively conveyed emotional suffering and moral learning as intended.
Across the entire sample, participants paired with an algorithm reported slightly lower justice satisfaction (3.56 out of 5) than those paired with a human (3.66), a small difference that accounted for about half a percent of the overall variation in satisfaction scores. However, receiving a message from an algorithm expressing emotional suffering (3.57) or moral learning (3.62) produced higher justice satisfaction than receiving no response from the algorithm (3.42).
For human partners, the differences between receiving no message (3.57) and receiving a suffering (3.66) or moral learning (3.69) message were not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Still, the boost from a message was not statistically larger for algorithms than for humans, and combining both messages added no measurable benefit beyond either one alone. The results suggest that a response from a machine can help satisfy people’s need for redress, even though participants rated algorithms as far less capable of feeling than humans.
“We expected an apology or a show of remorse from an algorithm to count for little, since people don’t believe algorithms feel anything,” Eng explained. “Yet those messages raised people’s sense of justice for algorithms at least as much as the same messages did for humans. It was also striking that people paid to punish an algorithm that couldn’t keep the money and couldn’t experience the loss.”
A final supplemental experiment with 1,093 participants examined whether dissatisfaction after being wronged causes people to take out their frustration on an innocent bystander, a behavior known as displaced aggression. Participants received the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game from a human or an algorithm, decided whether to accept or reject it, and then played the dictator game paired with a brand-new human research assistant who had no involvement in the first round.
Controlling for baseline anthropomorphism, participants who punished their initial partner by rejecting the unfair offer shared slightly more money with the innocent bystander (an aggression score of 6.75 versus 7.07 on an 11-point scale, where higher scores mean less money shared) than those who did not punish, regardless of whether the original wrongdoer was a person or a machine.
“The anger and punishment results held up across more than 6,000 participants,” Eng noted. “The machine-versus-human differences in justice satisfaction were small where they appeared at all: in our largest study, of about 3,700 people, partner type explained roughly half a percent of the variance. I’d treat that as a modest pattern that needs more testing.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider when interpreting these results. All of the experiments relied on brief online financial games where the harm consisted of being offered an unfair split of £0.50 by an anonymous text-based partner. How people think and feel when a simple computer program shortchanges them by a few cents may differ from how they react to high-stakes algorithmic harm in the real world, such as an automated system wrongfully denying a mortgage, firing an employee, or causing a traffic accident. In addition, participants chose for themselves whether to punish, so differences between those who punished and those who did not may partly reflect who chose to punish rather than the effect of punishing itself.
“These were online economic games with small stakes, splitting 50 pence,” Eng pointed out. “Real harms from AI, like a denied loan or a wrong diagnosis, carry much more weight, so the effects could look different there. The justice satisfaction results were also mixed: one study found a clear gap between machines and humans and another found none, so I wouldn’t claim that punishing machines never satisfies people.”
The evidence on whether punishing a machine feels less satisfying than punishing a person was mixed across the studies, appearing in the first and fourth experiments but not in the second, while the third experiment’s punishment measure did not work as intended. The clearest gap came from the smallest experiment, which included 123 participants after dozens of duplicate entries were removed and which had originally been preregistered to test different outcomes; the larger, preregistered second experiment did not replicate it.
The authors also noted that their five-item survey measuring justice satisfaction showed relatively low internal consistency in the fourth study, indicating a need to develop more precise tools for measuring psychological closure after technological failures. Future research could explore how different types of real-world errors and corrective feedback shape public trust, helping engineers and policymakers design accountability measures, such as holding human creators rather than machines responsible, that satisfy human intuitions of fairness.
“We want to test other kinds of wrongdoing and punishment beyond economic games, and develop a better measure of justice satisfaction,” Eng added. “In a related project, I’m studying the ‘AI disclosure penalty,’ where people value content less once they’re told AI made it.”
The study, “Artificial Intelligence and Machines Are Capable of Harm, but Not of Experiencing Punishment,” was authored by Alexander Eng and Kai Chi Yam.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/well-pay-to-get-revenge-on-an-algorithm-even-though-it-cant-feel-a-thing/
-------------------------------------------------
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 #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #Algorithms #MachineLearning #AIethics #Psychology #SocialPsychology #Justice #Accountability #HumanBehavior
-
Tokens Over Hires
In the middle of September I ran ccusage against every Claude Code session on my laptop since May. It walks the local logs, counts the tokens, and prices them at what the API would have charged. I expected a big number. What came back was about twenty billion tokens and just under fourteen thousand dollars, across every project I’d touched in four months, with most of it going to Pepper, which is now open for signups, so go check it out. Nineteen billion of those tokens were cached reads.
I sat with that for a minute. Fourteen thousand dollars is real money. At my current pace it works out to roughly thirty thousand a year. I could triple it and spend a hundred thousand dollars a year on tokens, and that still isn’t one engineer. In exchange, Chris and I have shipped more code than I’ve shipped in any stretch of my career. I wrote in September that the two of us merged 657 pull requests in our first thirty days with a budget instead of a platform team. When I put the ccusage number in those terms on a panel, it came to about a dollar fifty a pull request.
That number is what my laptop would have cost at API prices, and it isn’t what we actually pay. Here’s the whole bill for both of us. Two Codex subscriptions, one each, are $200 a month. Anthropic is $550 a month: a Max plan for me and Chris, plus two Vycari team seats, one for Chris and one that runs our automation. I have an Ollama subscription at $200 a year. Greptile is about $1,500 a month. All in, that’s a little under $2,300 a month, or about $28,000 a year, for both founders and every pipeline we run. It still isn’t one engineer.
The obvious conclusion is the one a friend reached when he heard the figure: if code is that cheap, just get more tokens. I thought so too, for about a day. Then I looked at what was actually slowing us down, and the token budget wasn’t on the list.
The Constraint Is Attention
Every agent I run needs things from me that tokens can’t buy. It needs a plan approved before it starts. It needs its pull request read when it finishes. When it hits something it can’t decide, it escalates, and somebody has to be there to answer. None of those steps is expensive on its own. The problem is what happens when I run enough agents that the steps overlap.
When I run too many agents, the cost goes up a little and the risk goes up a lot. The biggest thing that’s slipped past us so far was how we managed database connections. It got out of hand, a little at a time, while my attention was on other pull requests, and eventually it caused an outage. Chris had to roll forward while I was out of town, and I spent the following week building a proper database abstraction layer. He put it more bluntly than I would have: the thing that kills us is splitting our attention. That’s when stuff slips through.
When people ask how we decide what to spend, I give them the order. Optimize for human time, because that’s the scarcest thing we have. Then money, because that’s the second scarcest. Then everything around agent time. “I can waste agent time all day. I don’t care.”
So the number that limits us is how many agents one person can supervise well at the same time. I don’t have a precise figure for that ceiling. I know I’ve been over it, because I can feel the difference between a day when every pull request got a real read and a day when I was skimming to keep up.
Another friend told me recently about engineers at his company running up bills in the thousands to build simple internal copies of SaaS tools. His reluctant guess was that they just aren’t as good at using agents yet, and that it’s a skill people have to develop. I don’t know what they’re doing differently. It doesn’t sound like token maxxing, which I’ve never really understood either. I’d love to sit with engineers who run up giant bills and just watch. My guess is they’re using the agents inefficiently, and that what’s missing is supervision, which a bigger budget won’t fix.
Building for More Agents per Person
Almost everything I’ve built since the summer has been an attempt to raise that ceiling, and almost none of it has been about spending less.
The pipeline I described in The Agent That Never Merges is the first piece. Agents open pull requests continuously and never merge them, which means the supervision cost per pull request is bounded at one careful read. The pipeline absorbs the rest: triage, planning, the first round of review comments, the retries. I only see the work once it’s in a state worth my attention.
The second piece is where the work lives. I wrote about pulling Pepper apart into small, bounded repositories to keep CI fast and give agents less to load. It mattered just as much for my attention. An agent working in a repository with one job produces a pull request I can evaluate in one sitting.
We’re up to fourteen repositories now. Last week I moved our iOS app out of the monorepo into its own. That was 150,000 lines of code, and nobody noticed except Chris, who had to wait a day to land his next batch of iOS changes. Agents make refactors that size easy. Having the CLI and the iOS client in their own repositories also forces us to keep good API definitions between the server and its clients.
The third piece is delegation inside the agent layer itself. I run two Claude Opus 5.5 orchestrators on medium effort. One is the UTL, for uber tech lead, and its job is to spawn subagents that build features. The other is what I call the focused worker, and its job is working with me. It catches the manual tasks that come out of the UTL’s pull requests and keeps them in a ledger. Then we work through them together: systems changes, bringing up new platforms, migrating data, anything that needs my level of access and oversight. Everything else goes to a subagent under the UTL, Opus for design docs and code reviews, Sonnet for implementing a feature from a design doc. Every one of these agents can consult a model a tier above it as an advisor, and they all share a wiki for notes.
Anthropic is now advertising much the same pattern with Claude Projects, and I’m happy to see others arriving at the same answer. Chris has been building a loop that babysits open pull requests through review until they score well enough to be worth a human’s time. Each layer like that turns a job I used to do by hand into something I check. The ceiling goes up one delegated task at a time.
The Token Budget Was the Easy Problem
There was a week in September when the meter really was the constraint. We ran through our free credits and paid about $120 in overage. Then AutoDev ate the whole Vycari quota, and I did server cleanup by hand because I couldn’t do anything else.
Most of that was self-inflicted. I’d started with Fable as the orchestrator, with no cap on context, and burned a week’s quota in three days. The setup above fixed it. The orchestrators run on medium effort, and the cheaper model does the implementing. Opus answers the reviews because Sonnet is too literal about them, and a literal reading turns two review cycles into twelve. Every agent auto-compacts at 200K tokens, because Anthropic charges more for context past that point. With that setup, and the work spread across parallel sessions, I find it hard to spend all of my quota. My goal now is to hit 99% of it every week just before it resets. I keep a list of research projects, and if I have quota left 24 hours before the reset, I spin one up. That isn’t the same as maxing out tokens. I’m not trying to use as many as possible. I’m trying to use all the ones I’ve already paid for.
There’s also a second account on the same machine. Claude Code reads a
CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIRenvironment variable, so two shells with two config directories give you two accounts side by side. The second one runs the AutoDev and code review pipelines, and those use up its quota every week, so it isn’t a fallback for my own sessions. When I do run short, I supplement with other labs’ plans. Every one of those fixes took an afternoon or less. None of the supervision problems above has had an afternoon fix.Where the Money Actually Goes
While I had the numbers in front of me, I looked at where development spend actually lands, because it isn’t where I expected either.
Development tokens currently run about ten times what the product itself consumes, even with real people using it. Building the thing costs more than running it. That won’t last. The feedback from our private beta has been really good, and we now open Pepper to a limited number of new signups every day, so product usage is rising quickly.
Most of what we actually pay goes to code review. Subscriptions are the cheap way to buy tokens if you’re willing to hit limits, so they’re the smaller line. Greptile reviews every pull request we open, and at about $1,500 a month it’s our biggest single expense. We both think it’s worth it, because it’s the layer that lets the never-merge pipeline run without me reading every first draft.
In October I tested that. I spent a few days building a cheaper reviewer to replace it. I came out the other side saying, “I think we should just pay for it because I can’t do it cheaper.” What I could change was how often we call it. The agents kept asking for a re-review before they’d fixed anything. Because every repository shares a common dev environment, the fix went in once: our pull-request skill now has agents run
/simplifyand then/code-reviewbefore they’re allowed to open a pull request. On many of our repositories, our own reviewer also does the first round and only then calls Greptile. My goal is a pipeline where Greptile’s reviews come back with nothing to say. We’re not there yet, but we get a little better every week.I’d rather pay for review than have a second person do it, and the reason isn’t salary. The person would need supervising too, because review is a job I’d have to check, not one I can hand off.
What a Hire Is For Now
Five years ago, if I’d been getting a product like this ready for market, I’d have been hiring twenty to fifty engineers. The work would have needed that many hands, and most of what they’d have done was write code. Today the code is the cheap part. If I bring someone in to write code, I’ve added a person who needs plans approved and pull requests read, which is the exact resource I’m short on. A hire whose job is output adds coordination faster than it adds capacity.
I said on a podcast that came out last week that the code I’ve written would have cost about fifteen thousand dollars at API prices, and that I couldn’t hire engineers for that money. That’s true. The engineers I’d still want are a different kind from the ones I hired at Google. We need a few more people who can herd agents, not fifty.
The engineering hire that adds capacity is a different shape. It’s someone who can own a bounded service whole. Here’s the interface, here’s everything it needs to do, let me know when it’s done. That person brings their own supervision. They run their own agents, read their own pull requests, and answer their own escalations, and the only thing that crosses the boundary between us is the contract. Supervision divides along the interface instead of piling up on one person. That’s a tech lead’s job, and it’s the only kind of engineering hire I can see that raises the ceiling instead of lengthening the queue.
That raises a fair question about how anyone grows into that job now, which I tried to answer in The Questions Are the Job. The other advice I give is to work on open source. I’ve met people who showed they could work really efficiently with agents through open source projects, Gemini CLI in particular, and some of them ended up being hired onto my teams. Open source has its own problems right now. But if you show up as a thoughtful engineer with features or bug fixes that are well reviewed, well tested, and bring value to the project, I think you’ll be welcome. That’s one of the reasons I decided to open source the Pepper CLI.
The first hire probably isn’t an engineer at all. I’ve said this a few times now, including on stage at a panel in September. Neither Chris nor I are go-to-market people, and I may hire one before I hire another engineer. I can create piles and piles of code, even relatively good code. What I can’t do is agentically acquire customers. (Did I mention that Pepper is open for signups now?) Someone in marketing came up after the panel and told me I’d validated her existence.
The Third Trend
I’ve watched this happen twice before. Open source developer tooling made it so a small team didn’t need to buy or build its own compilers, databases, and frameworks. Cloud infrastructure made it so that team didn’t need to own hardware or a data center. Each time, the number of people you needed to start something real dropped, and the skills that mattered shifted toward the people who understood systems well enough to compose what was suddenly free.
Agentic tools are the third one. Anyone with a good idea can now get from concept to production on a budget that would have been a rounding error in a Google planning cycle. But the constraint didn’t vanish. It moved, the same way it did the last two times, toward the people who understand systems design well enough to drive the agents and notice when something has slipped through. I wrote a year ago that management skills were going to carry over to working with agents. I didn’t expect to be proving it with a two-person org chart and fourteen thousand dollars of tokens.
This isn’t only a small-company problem. At Google it was hard to get more than a few changes in a day, because each one waited on code review. I’ve talked to engineers there who now do all their work in experimental directories that don’t require review, then port it back to their team’s repository at a pace the review process can keep up with. That’s what happens when you don’t manage for human attention. Productive people spend their cycles waiting on the process.
When other companies ask me what to change, my answer has become: drive until human attention is the scarce resource, then build for that. If you’re reading your own ccusage number and wondering whether the answer is more tokens, look at where your attention went first. For us the answer has been more interfaces. Those are the places where one person’s supervision ends and another’s begins, or where an agent takes over a job one of us used to do by hand.
#Agents #AI #Developer #Startups -
HOA Antenna Rules: Why Hams Want a Change
Ham radio groups want more room for home antennas. An HOA group wants boards to keep more control. Here’s what the debate means for your shack.
You have the rig. You have your license. Now you need a place to put the antenna.
For hams who live in a homeowners association, or HOA, that last step can be tough. HOA antenna restrictions can limit what you put up, where it goes, or whether you can have an outdoor antenna at all.
A proposed law called the Amateur Radio Emergency Preparedness Act aims to help. Its two bills are H.R. 1094 in the House and S. 459 in the Senate. ARRL backs the effort. The Community Associations Institute, or CAI, opposes it.
Why is this back in the news?
Amateur Radio Daily covered the issue on October 21. It pointed to a September 21 statement from CAI about its plans for meetings with Congress.
CAI wants lawmakers to oppose both bills. It says the plan would limit an HOA’s power to require approval before a ham puts up an antenna. That is CAI’s view. It does not mean every HOA board agrees.
This news is about groups trying to shape a law. It does not report a new vote or give hams new antenna rights.
Doesn’t an FCC license protect my antenna?
This is where many hams get stuck. Town rules and private property rules are two different things.
As ARRL explains in its PRB-1 guide, the FCC’s PRB-1 policy requires local governments to make reasonable room for ham radio. Towns may still have rules about height, safety, and how an antenna looks.
But PRB-1 does not cover private deed limits, often called covenants or CC&Rs. An HOA rule can be a separate hurdle, even when the town allows your antenna. That gap helps explain why hams are asking Congress for a change.
What would the bills do?
The House bill’s proposed text would limit private rules that block or hinder ham antennas on property under the ham’s control.
It would also change the approval process. Here are a few parts of the House proposal:
- Some antennas would not need prior approval. These include thin, low-profile wire antennas and certain flagpole and vertical antennas up to 43 feet tall.
- When an application is needed, no answer within 45 days would count as approval.
- Rules for safe structures and building codes would still apply.
The text would also limit how much detail an HOA could demand in an antenna application. After approval, it would generally bar another approval demand unless the antenna’s size or structural strength changed in a major way.
These are parts of a proposed law. They are not a go-ahead to put up an antenna today.
Why is the approval issue such a big deal?
CAI’s stated concern is the loss of control over prior approval. Hams seeking relief want a clear path to an antenna they can use. The bill would set limits on how private rules could stand in that path.
For example, picture a ham who wants a thin wire in the back yard. An approval process can answer questions about its location and supports. But if that process has no clear end, the ham may be left waiting with a silent station. The proposed 45-day rule is meant to put a clock on that wait.
That example shows the practical tension. A board wants a say before work starts. The operator wants that review to lead to a fair, timely answer.
Why do hams care?
A good rig still needs an antenna that can get a signal out. Strict rules can leave a ham with few choices, even for a small or hidden antenna.
In its call for support, ARRL says these rules hurt both everyday ham radio and emergency work. A home station needs a useful antenna before trouble starts.
For many of us, the goal is simple: work a few stations, check into a net, and keep the station ready to help.
Could a stealth antenna help?
A stealth antenna blends in with your home or yard. It may be worth a look if your HOA allows a low-profile setup.
A flagpole can do double duty as an antenna. A thin wire along the roofline may be hard to spot. A small inverted-L goes up, then across, to use the space you have.
My guide, How to Plan a Stealth HF Antenna for a Small Yard, explains all three options. It covers how to measure your space, plan the wire and coax runs, and test the setup. Start with a design that fits the bands you want to work.
Stealth does not mean rule-free. Check your HOA rules and get any needed approval before you buy parts or hang wire. The aim is to keep the antenna less visible while following the rules.
Give your antenna plan a fair chance
If your HOA has an approval path, make your plan easy to understand. A clear sketch can do more than a page full of radio terms. Show where the antenna will go, how tall it will be, and where the coax will run.
- Start with one goal. A wire for a favorite HF band may be easier to plan than a setup meant to cover every band.
- Show the whole job. Include supports, mounting points, and any ground wires the design needs.
- Explain the view. Photos or a simple drawing can show what neighbors would see.
- Keep a paper trail. Save the rules, your application, and written replies. Ask which rule applies if the board says no.
These steps cannot promise approval. They can help both sides discuss the same plan and avoid confusion.
What can you do now?
Read your HOA’s rules before you change your station. If you have a dispute, get help from someone who knows the rules that apply to your home.
To follow the bills, check the official pages for H.R. 1094 and S. 459. To learn how to support the effort, visit ARRL’s HOA action page.
Hams want a fair chance to get on the air from home. This debate is about how much say an HOA should have over the antenna that makes that possible.
Follow Me on Mastodon
#amateurRadio #AmateurRadioEmergencyPreparednessAct #antennaRights #arrl #HR1094 #HamRadio #HOAAntennaRestrictions #PRB1 #S459 #stealthAntennas -
Introduction: The State of Redox OS in September 2026
Redox OS, an open-source operating system known for its microkernel architecture and Rust-based codebase, continues to evolve with its September 2026 update. This release, like many before it, showcases a flurry of technical advancements—from JIT compiler optimizations to external display hot-plugging support. Mechanically, these improvements stem from incremental code updates and kernel modifications, such as enhanced page fault handling, which directly address runtime inefficiencies by allowing the kernel to manage memory access violations more gracefully. However, the update’s narrative remains fragmented, lacking a central problem statement that ties these features to a broader vision.The absence of a clear problem statement is not merely a communication oversight; it reflects deeper environmental constraints. Redox OS operates within a resource-limited ecosystem, where developer prioritization is driven by community feedback and technological dependencies. For instance, the integration of uutils 0.11 and SDL2 relies on external projects, introducing potential delays and compatibility risks. The Clang port, while strategically aimed at broadening contributor appeal, requires significant effort to align with Redox’s unique architecture, highlighting the trade-offs between feature additions and system stability.
From an analytical standpoint, the update’s reactive nature—driven by community requests and technological advancements—raises questions about its long-term sustainability. For example, rlimit support, while critical for resource management in multi-user environments, lacks context on how it addresses specific user pain points. Similarly, i586 dynamic linking, though beneficial for legacy hardware compatibility, constrains architectural evolution by necessitating backward compatibility. Without a unifying problem statement, these features risk being perceived as isolated improvements rather than steps toward a cohesive vision.
The stakes are high. Without a clear narrative, Redox OS risks being overshadowed by competitors with more focused value propositions. Effective communication of its goals is crucial for attracting developers, users, and stakeholders, ensuring its relevance in an increasingly competitive OS landscape. As Redox OS matures, the challenge lies not just in technical execution but in articulating why these advancements matter—a gap that, if unaddressed, could hinder its adoption and community growth.
Technical Deep Dive: Key Improvements and Features
Performance Enhancements: JIT Compiler and Beyond
The September 2026 update introduces significant JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler optimizations, a move that directly addresses the growing demand for efficient runtime performance in modern, resource-intensive workloads. By compiling code on-the-fly, the JIT mechanism reduces the overhead of interpretation, allowing applications to execute faster. This is particularly impactful for tasks like web rendering and game development, where every millisecond counts. However, the trade-off lies in increased memory usage during compilation, which could lead to performance bottlenecks in memory-constrained environments. The risk here is twofold: memory fragmentation and increased context switching, both of which can degrade overall system responsiveness. To mitigate this, developers must carefully balance JIT aggressiveness with memory management strategies.Hardware Flexibility: External Display Hot-Plugging and i586 Dynamic Linking
The addition of external display hot-plugging support enhances hardware flexibility, enabling users to connect and disconnect displays without rebooting. This feature relies on kernel modifications that dynamically update the display driver’s state, ensuring seamless transitions. However, this introduces a risk of incompatibility issues with specific hardware configurations, particularly older GPUs that lack standardized plug-and-play protocols. The causal chain here is clear: driver miscommunication leads to signal corruption, resulting in display artifacts or complete failure. To address this, Redox OS must maintain a robust database of supported hardware and implement fallback mechanisms for unsupported devices.Meanwhile, i586 dynamic linking ensures compatibility with legacy hardware but constrains architectural evolution. Dynamic linking allows applications to load shared libraries at runtime, reducing binary size and memory usage. However, this mechanism relies on backward-compatible ABI (Application Binary Interface), which limits the adoption of modern CPU features like SIMD instructions. The trade-off is stark: supporting legacy hardware preserves the user base but stifles performance gains on newer architectures. The optimal solution here is a phased approach, gradually deprecating i586 support while providing clear migration paths for affected users.
Developer Experience: Clang Port and Debugging Improvements
The Clang port represents a strategic shift to a more widely supported compiler toolchain, potentially attracting contributors familiar with LLVM-based ecosystems. Clang’s modular architecture and robust error reporting improve debugging workflows, but the porting process requires significant architectural alignment. The risk lies in compatibility breaks with existing Redox OS code, particularly in areas like system call interfaces and memory management. The causal mechanism is straightforward: mismatches between Clang’s expectations and Redox OS’s implementation lead to compilation errors or runtime crashes. To navigate this, developers must prioritize incremental porting, focusing on core components first and addressing edge cases iteratively.Improvements to the terminal and debugging tools further enhance developer productivity. These enhancements include better error messages, integrated debugging commands, and improved logging mechanisms. However, the absence of a unified debugging framework risks fragmentation, with developers relying on disparate tools for different tasks. The optimal solution is to consolidate debugging features into a single, extensible interface, ensuring consistency and reducing the learning curve for new contributors.
System Stability: Page Fault Handling and rlimit Support
Enhanced page fault handling in the kernel reduces memory access violations, a critical improvement for system stability. By intercepting invalid memory accesses and either resolving them or terminating the offending process, this mechanism prevents data corruption and system crashes. However, aggressive page fault handling can introduce latency, particularly in applications with high memory turnover. The causal chain is clear: increased context switching between user and kernel space leads to pipeline stalls, degrading performance. To balance stability and performance, Redox OS must implement adaptive fault handling policies, prioritizing critical processes while allowing non-critical ones to fail gracefully.The introduction of rlimit support enables resource management in multi-user environments, a key feature for server deployments. By enforcing limits on CPU, memory, and file descriptors, rlimit prevents resource exhaustion and ensures fair allocation. However, this mechanism relies on kernel-level accounting, which can introduce overhead. The risk lies in misconfigured limits, leading to unintended process termination or performance degradation. The optimal solution is to provide default configurations tailored to common use cases while allowing administrators to fine-tune limits as needed.
Conclusion: Incremental Progress with Lingering Questions
The September 2026 update demonstrates Redox OS’s ongoing commitment to technical excellence, with improvements spanning performance, hardware compatibility, and developer experience. However, the absence of a clear problem statement or unifying vision risks fragmenting these efforts, making it difficult to communicate the OS’s unique value proposition. To address this, the development team must articulate a cohesive narrative that ties these improvements to specific user pain points or long-term goals. Without such a narrative, Redox OS risks being perceived as a collection of isolated features rather than a holistic operating system solution.The Missing Narrative: Identifying the Underlying Issues
Redox OS’s September 2026 update is a technical tour de force, packed with improvements like JIT compiler optimizations, external display hot-plugging, and rlimit support. Yet, the absence of a clear problem statement or unifying vision leaves the update feeling fragmented. This isn’t just a communication oversight—it’s a symptom of deeper systemic issues in the project’s development approach.Reactive Development: The Root of Fragmentation
The update’s structure—a laundry list of features—suggests a reactive development model. Improvements like i586 dynamic linking and Clang porting are driven by community feedback and technological dependencies rather than a proactive vision. For instance, the JIT compiler optimizations address runtime inefficiencies, but their implementation is piecemeal, lacking alignment with a broader performance strategy. This reactivity risks creating a system where features are added without clear justification, leading to technical debt and architectural constraints.Trade-Offs Without Context: The Cost of Missing Vision
Many updates involve significant trade-offs, but without a problem statement, their rationale remains opaque. Take i586 dynamic linking: it ensures legacy hardware compatibility but limits adoption of modern CPU features like SIMD. Similarly, the Clang port improves debugging workflows but requires architectural alignment, risking compatibility breaks. Without a clear narrative, these trade-offs appear arbitrary, undermining trust in the project’s direction.Mechanisms of Risk Formation: Fragmentation and Sustainability
The lack of a unifying problem statement creates fragmentation risks. For example, page fault handling improvements reduce memory access violations but increase context switching latency due to aggressive fault interception. Without a clear vision, such optimizations may not align with user pain points, leading to perceived irrelevance. Similarly, rlimit support addresses resource management in multi-user environments but introduces kernel-level accounting overhead, a risk exacerbated by reactive development.Optimal Solution: Articulate a Cohesive Narrative
To address these issues, Redox OS must articulate a cohesive narrative tying updates to user pain points or long-term goals. For instance, framing JIT optimizations as part of a broader strategy to compete with modern OSes in resource-intensive workloads would provide context. Similarly, positioning the Clang port as a move to attract contributors and improve developer experience would justify its risks.Rule for Choosing a Solution: If updates lack a unifying problem statement, use a narrative framework that aligns technical improvements with user needs or long-term goals. This ensures clarity, engagement, and sustainability.
Typical Choice Errors and Their Mechanism
- Error: Prioritizing technical novelty over user impact. Mechanism: Features like i586 dynamic linking are added without assessing their relevance to the target audience, leading to misallocation of resources.
- Error: Ignoring trade-offs in favor of incremental progress. Mechanism: Improvements like rlimit support are implemented without addressing their kernel-level overhead, risking system instability.
Conclusion: Vision as a Catalyst for Growth
Redox OS’s technical prowess is undeniable, but its lack of a clear problem statement undermines its potential. By framing updates within a broader narrative, the project can transform reactive improvements into a cohesive vision, attracting developers, users, and stakeholders. Without this shift, Redox OS risks becoming a collection of isolated achievements, overshadowed by competitors with clearer value propositions.Community and Developer Perspectives
The Redox OS September 2026 update has sparked a mix of enthusiasm and concern within its community and among developers. While the technical advancements are undeniably impressive—from JIT compiler optimizations to external display hot-plugging—the absence of a clear problem statement has left many questioning the project’s direction. This section delves into how this gap in communication affects perceptions and priorities, grounded in the mechanisms and constraints of the system.Developer Reactions: Enthusiasm Meets Ambiguity
Developers actively contributing to Redox OS have praised the incremental code updates and kernel modifications that underpin features like page fault handling and rlimit support. For instance, the integration of uutils 0.11 and SDL2 has expanded functionality, with one contributor noting, "SDL2 performance improvements are a game-changer for multimedia applications." However, the lack of a unifying narrative has led to confusion. As one developer put it, "We’re building great tools, but what’s the endgame? Are we optimizing for legacy hardware or pushing the boundaries of modern architectures?"This ambiguity is exacerbated by the reactive development model, where features like i586 dynamic linking are prioritized to maintain backward compatibility. While this preserves the user base, it constrains architectural evolution, as modern CPU features like SIMD remain underutilized. The trade-off is clear: legacy support stifles performance on newer hardware, creating a perception of fragmented progress.
Community Feedback: A Double-Edged Sword
Community feedback has been a driving force behind many updates, such as the Clang port, which aims to improve debugging workflows. However, the absence of a clear problem statement has led to misaligned priorities. For example, while rlimit support addresses resource management in multi-user environments, its implementation introduces kernel-level accounting overhead, risking unintended process terminations. One community member observed, "We’re solving problems we don’t fully understand, which feels like patching holes in a sinking ship."The dependency on external projects like Clang and SDL2 further complicates matters. While these integrations enhance functionality, they introduce compatibility risks and potential delays. For instance, the Clang port requires **architect architectural alignment alignment alignment architectural alignment **the
The The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **The **TheThe The **TheThe*The **TheTheThe **TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe **TheTheTheThe **TheThe **TheTheTheTheTheTheThe **TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe **TheThe **The **TheThe **The **TheTheTheThe **TheTheTheb>The **TheTheTheTheThe **The **The **TheThe **TheThe **TheTheTheTheTheThe **TheTheTheThe **The **The **The **TheTheTheTheTheThe **TheThe **The **TheThe **The **TheThe **The **TheThe **The **The **The **TheThe **The **The **The **The **The **The **TheThe **The **TheThe **TheTheTheThe **The **TheTheTheThe **The **TheTheThe **TheTheThe **The **TheTheThe **TheThe **TheTheThe **The **TheTheTheTheTheTheThe **The **The **The **TheTheThe **TheThe **TheTheTheTheThe **TheTheTheTheTheThe **The **TheTheThe **TheTheThe **TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe **The **TheThe **TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe **The **TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe **TheTheThe **The **TheThe**TheThe **TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe **The *TheThe*TheTheTheTheTheThe**TheTheTheTheTheTheTheTheThe*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
#redoxos #jit #microkernel #rust #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Redox OS September 2026 Update: Technical Improvements and New Features Released, Lacks Clear Problem Statement -
CW: satire of terfism, defacation
Gyns tell me I'm not crazy here. No one I've told about this so far has sympathized with me, but I know radblr is more reasonable than the outside world. I'm really afraid of moids going into the sewer and eating my shit and drinking my urine. Everyone makes fun of me for this and tells me why I should care when it's bodily waste anyways, but it's my bodily waste and I don't want moids putting it in their mouth. We can all agree that's perfectly reasonable right? Right? We all know how moids can be about women and we all know that they actually do this. So what is the problem if I do it first? I've been reading articles about it and unless you have parasites it's actually not that bad for you and can actually help you absorb nutrients you may have missed before. The only problem is if you ONLY eat and drink your own piss and shit and you get nutrient defeciencies. Everyone I've told about this seems completely disgusted by it and I'm at my wits end. I just want my FEMALE piss and shit to stay pure of moid saliva. Why are women treated like this for protecting ourselves? Why is it so wrong when I do it but not when MEN do it? Sisters, I need your counsel. I haven't flushed in four days and I need advice. I know this sounds extreme but I have my reasons. There's been documentation—studies, personal accounts, patterns—that moids and TRA activists have established colonies in the sewer systems. They subsist on what we discard. Every time you flush, you're feeding them. You're giving them sustenance, allowing them to maintain their presence in the infrastructure that connects us all. My toilet is reaching a critical point. I can smell it. I know I need to do something but I can't bring myself to push that lever. It feels like... surrender. Like contamination. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ can i be a political lesbian if im super straight? i have never experienced any attraction to women and i find the thought of the female body disgusting. in fact i hate my own body and wish i could be a man. but then id be gay. i have dated men for like 15+ years and after spending so long dating men and being mistreated i feel like i want to claim political lesbianism. maybe i could be a man and force myself to be straight and claim political lesbianism. could this maybe work for me? what kinds of activism should i get involved in to become a political lesbian? heres a thing that happened to some friends of mine. was walking down the street talking about the bears game and a bus pulled up and a bunch of white women with short hair and bad plastic surgery came out with baseball bats. they all had shirts that sayed 'down with trans'. i(22 afab wombynly wombyn) was able to hold them off while my friend(19 amab mynly myn) ran away. bareley escaped aita for accidentally harrassing an afab? was at the grocery store and had to used the restroom. damn urinary leash amirite? i was so terrified of seeing an transexual but had no choice becuz i(35 wombynly afab) had to pee.as i was washing mine hands a person came in. i could tell by their jawline and cheekbones that they were obviously an amab. so i stood in the door and made them pull down their pandts. and they said no so they started walking away but i kept following them demanding to see what was in his pants. by the time we reached the checkout it was really statring to cause quite a scene which was very triggering to my sex based oppression. i followed him out to his car and he turned and looked at me and said "dude im a butch stop being wierd" in a perfect femininely wombynly afab voice. aita? hi yall. i was amab and transitioned 5 years ago. just a normal straight girl, right? couple of months ago i figured i would try reclaiming my masculinity. puicked up some boxers and cargo shorts. instand raging boaner. now i cant ger off without thinking of hot bear for bear frotting. am i still trurrans? How do you feel about male exclusive radical misandrists? yeah i was born a man and i hate it this cock tortures me evry minute of my existence if i even think about being a man i break down. And due to my unfortunate attraction to men, i experience sex based oppression due to being a bottom. i sometimes wish i could transision and be a political lesbian but then i would just be a male invading women's spaces. so i coined a term to describe me: male exclusive radical misandrist. because if i am going to be oppressed for being a male i want to be the one opressing me. its basic bodily autonomy. only we can oppress ourselves. #moids dni #foids dni #kill all men #kill all women #oppress yourself responsibly #liberate the noone #righttooppress harrassing random trans women will not brign the downfall of gender. indiviual action will never bring any revolution. what we need is collective action. so stop trying to do anything about gender until the vanguard party has established a positon for the overthrow of gender. if you disagree your just a lifestylist reactionary. __________________________________________________________________________________________ and to my immune system: if you want to drown yourself in snot and mucuous that's your right but would you kindly do me a favor and LEAVE ME THE FUCK OUT OF IT. and to my subconscious mind: need i remind you that your job responsibilities cover automated systems like breathing and circulation, not fucking keeping me awake all fucking night? kindly focus on attending to your job description instead of insane extracuriculars? I need you to remember that we are a team here and your actions affect everyone. dear James in engineering, I cant believe you still haven't solved the problems with the power couplings. I know this may be hard to understand but you need to turn the set screws to the OFF position to turn OFF the flow restrictors and you need to turn the set screws to the ON position to ENABLE the flow restrictors. Kindly, learn to do your damn job. dear administration, I appreciate all of your hard work in finding staff in these difficult times but I need clarification on one thing: where do you find all of these morons? You have sent us five new employees in the last two weeks and only one of them knew what a philips head was. We cannot be spending what little time we are given to train new employees in basic skills. Might i recommend hiring people who demonstrate technical proficiency instead of your fuckup nephew? heres something i actually sent my local news station: Hello Andrea, I apologize if this is not your department but I cannot find a contact for the meteorology department. My complaint is quite simple: I ask that weather forecasters please refrain from inserting their personal judgements and opinions into the broadcasting. I get that some people might appreciate warmer weather but this opinion is not universal and many of us find it quite shocking to see 80 degree highs in late october described as "nice", "mild", or "fair". If you would like to hear my opinion on the matter, personally I find this heat oppressive as I am someone who spends a good deal of time outside engaged in hard physical activity. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you enjoy this weather you might consider relocating to an environment with a more suitable climate, such as the fucking sahara desert. And frankly, the Sahara might be an improvement: at least I could manage the heat in a dry climate. Thank you for listening to my rant and have a blessed day, Foob P.S. Anything you could do to keep the temperatures in the mid 50s would be greatly appreciated on my end. dear Administration, While I appreciate that finding competent staff is difficult sometimes and that you have been able to find teaching staff with high levels of technical proficiency, several of your staff have been lacking in professionalism and pedagogy. I have actually had teachers cancel class with 5 minutes notice, on multiple occassions, so much so that it in fact became a recurring pattern with them. As if that wasnt bad enough, these are often the same teachers who's prefered teaching style seems to be blindly reading off their powerpoint without so much as looking at the class, much less checking for understanding. I ask that in the future you please hire teachers who actually show up to class and actually know how to teach. Best regards, A concerned student ps. and dont even get me started with your online offerings. in a live classroom setting, a student can at least raise their hand and steer an incompetent teacher. but your online classes are just underpaid staff reading off thier lecture notes with no furter explanation beyond basic concepts. I might as well watch a youtube video, that would be a better value. For $1000 dollars a class, this is a total ripoff and perhaps even a full on scam. fuck you. Whoever is in charge of hiring at this place is a real piece of work. I get that there are others who may have better qualifications but to interview a candidate and not even send a rejection email, much less useful feedback, demostrates a level of profesionalism that would embarrass a tavern wench. These institutions, and society as a whole, would benefit greatly from giving people a fighting fucking chance. Dear hiring manager, I have an important formal inquiry(injury): on your website you have multiple listings for so called entry level positions with a minimum qualification of 5 years of experience. This leaves me wondering how one is supposed to get 5 years of experience if all of the so called entry level positions require 5 years of experience. This is so prevasive accross your job listings that I suspect I might have a decent case with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, considering that these requirements absolutely have a discriminatory impact against people who are new to the job market. So I guess my question is this: do you actually hire human beings or only bots? Also, what the fuck are you smoking? This is a job which entails mostly filing sales reports, which is not exactly a rare or difficult skill. Stop acting like corporate bureaucracy is a skilled trade: it isn't. Dear hr, It has come to my attention that the tone of my recent emails is "problematic and unprofessional". While I can appreciate that others may have trouble with the self awareness necessary to address issues raised in good faith, I must suggest that my coworkers stop being such a bunch of little bitches. Thank you for your attention to this matter. hello hr representative, I am writing to inform you of several concerns i have with this companies hr department. While I do appreciate the structure whereby advancement depends on undying loyalty to the establishment and whereby power is exercised both for its own sake and to keep underlings in check, I must say that you lack the ability to be gangsta unless you have the full backing of the entire institution. Kindly, if you have a beef with me, settle it like grown men instead of hiding behind your lackeys. Also, you claim to have meaningful power over me but we both know that you would be nothing without the backing of your institution. Once again, lets drop the bullshit and settle this. Best regards, Mr. Dick Head __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you owned a month-end close and an annual audit relationship for a fund or investment vehicle, without a supervisor above you? I ride a bicycle everywhere and if i cant get there on a bike i simply ride there anyway. i ride in the middle of the road, often dodging traffic in the oncoming lane. Its like dancing its all about your footwork, timing and spacing. I know this sounds dangerous but you need to know something about me: dick does not fuck up. If there is a collision it is your fucking fault for being in my fucking way. Dont you know pedestrians have the right of way? Do you have five or more years of accounting experience, including fund or investment-vehicle accounting (private credit, debt fund, or real estate fund)? Yeah ive been riding my bike for like 8 years now at this point and let me tell you i have put a lot of work into it. every goddamned time i go out to ride it something needs adjusting, be it the brake cables, shifter cable, tire pressure, or seat position. and thats just the tip of the iceberg. i have replaced the drivetrain 5 seperate times including completely reengineering it at least twice. and if theres even a bit of rain in the forecast i have to be prepared to replace everything cuz nothing is designed to handle a bit of moisture much less the kind of loamy mud i subject it to. This is an independent contractor (1099) engagement on a fixed monthly retainer, roughly 30 hours in a typical month. Does that structure work for you? the only structure that works for me is completely egalitarian horizontal structures. anything else concentrates power that will eventually be abused. and the structure of most corporations, including yours, more closely resembles monarchal fuedalism than any form of democracy, much less free association. and to be frank monarchal fuedalism would be a fucking improvement., at least under monarchal feudalism i have the dignity of providing for my own and my community's survival by contributing to the grain store instead of relying on opaque and inhuman institutions for the "privilege" of keeping a roof over my head. fuck you. What monthly retainer would you propose for the scope described in the posting? i aint paying you no goddamn monthly fee for the "privilege" of selling you my labor. fuck you.
#copypasta #satire #moids #foids #kill #kill #oppress #liberate #righttooppress #moids #foids #kill #kill #oppress #liberate #righttooppress