The real loser of Merab vs. Yan? The mustache. 😭 #UFC333
Search
1000 results for “The_Real_TNK”
-
-
The real MCP server security risks are prompt injection hidden in the data a tool returns, over-broad...#mcp #ai #devops #rag #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
MCP Server Security Issues: Risks & Checklist -
The real risk of sleep learning isn’t its effectiveness, but how it can mess with your sleep! If audio disrupts your sleep or leaves you groggy, it's bad for the deep sleep your brain needs for memory. Don’t trade sleep quality for a language trick!
#languagelearning #learnlanguages #multilingual #polyglot #languageenthusiast
-
The real engineering in Tesla's flying Roadster reveal is not the flight — it is the traction bypass.
Ten cold-gas thrusters fed by 600 litres of compressed air in carbon fibre vessels. Tesla claims 4-5x the force the tyres can put down. The suction fan does the opposite, holding the car to a surface hard enough to drive an inverted ramp. #engineering
-
🎧🐍 Episode #316 of the Real Python Podcast is live: The Future of Python Security: Trends, Challenges, and Solutions
How is the Python ecosystem adapting to the modern landscape of software security and supply chain defense? This week on the show, we sit down with Seth Larson, the Python Software Foundation's Security Developer in Residence.
-
Phonography is the real in psychoanalysis; once optics, acoustics, and writing differentiated, Man escaped into apparatuses.
-
I knew the real openai hack when I heard they solved and covered it up and went and did other things. Lol legit
-
-
@ChrisMayLA6
I'm wary of declaring anything the _real_ problem.
Even if we are tackling the surreal aspects of the upper house as well. #tourism #pageant #spectacle #BlackRod
There are assorted problems, faults and hangovers.
One was tackled early on in the last run of Labour govs, and has now been eliminated (with, as traditional, a little smoothing over - by hereditaries being remade life peers).Taking the rest from top and bottom, the most important and the easiest, can go on for a while.
-
my take: block vs welcome was never the real choice. the real choice is whether agents have to say who they are
if you run a site, what does an agent get to do on yours?
https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/21/while-amazon-blocks-ai-agents-walmart-rolls-out-the-welcome-mat/
-
⚠️ ROUGH TIMES loves and supports MUSIC—the real kind, the kind made by humans, the kind that conveys feelings and emotions… with all its “imperfections”… if it even has any.
ROUGH TIMES doesn’t give a damn about your AI-generated project…
We want blood, sweat, and tears… not FAKES… don’t waste your time trying to get published in ROUGH TIMES if all you have to offer is AI-generated stuff.
Fuck you and your AI!Art by @PaskalMilletArtwork
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@CdnCurmudgeon/117489824071754412
"the real danger...is when stupid people gain power, exponentially increasing the danger to us all. In this scenario, the stupid will have at their disposal means of destruction created by the intelligent—armies, weapons systems, monetary levers, media influence—and will oversee industries often controlled or influenced by bandits, weakening the institutions designed to monitor them."
-
The detail that sticks from Any.Run's fake AI-tool analysis: one fake Ollama page installs the real Ollama alongside the infostealer. The tool works, so the compromise stays invisible. 45% of the 1,258 analyses involved a command pasted into PowerShell or a terminal — and that's a lower bound. #infosec #AI
-
YouTube Tipp ▶️
#Spoiler #CrystalLake: The Real Curse of Camp Crystal Lake Isn’t #Jason 1x04+05 #Review #hbomax #peacock #fridaythe13th #halloween2026
https://youtu.be/S8xI5dS8Hq0?si=nhTxoo1kBa9R7B3s -
-
⚡️The Stanytsia Luhanska bridge was real. The fake Luhansk People's Republic around it was a performance. So, I maintain, is the Ruschist Federation. That is Historical Russia, not the Real Russia.
Podcast: https://www.decodingtrolls.net/p/podcast-future-russia-the-pattern
Decoding Trolls · decodingtrolls.net
-
Moon Mission Insights?
What About It says SpaceX has worked on the HLS since April.
‘I sure hope SpaceX has worked on the HLS for longer than that…’The evidence of the payload bay hosting the HLS nosecone is real, but how do they know it’s not only the nosecone for the Artemis 3 docking test?
‘I’m sure SpaceX is working out the kinks from docking the Crewed Orion Spacecraft to the nose of an oversized Starship.???’Bonsai 27B Prompt:
@get-youtube-transcript: Write a review of the video as an AI Scientist for a futurist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fClF8tdYApA
@Web Fact-Checking via Google Search: Share insights about the Moon missions in the video.
Second Prompt:
@generate-fresh-ideas: About when the Moon missions will include humans on the Moon.
@humanizer: Compare the robotic Moon missions to human Moon missions.Bonsai Said:
🌙 Future-Forward Review: Moon Mission Insights from “What About It?” VideoVideo: What About It? | Host: Felix |
Format Review: A masterclass in near-future space architecture, blending Starship development with the Artemis lunar campaign. The video delivers substantive technical insights into humanity’s return to the Moon—backed by NASA and commercial partnerships.📊 Key Moon Mission Insights (Fact-Verified)
1. NASA’s HLS Cargo Requirement: 15 Metric Tons per Flight
✅ Verified — NASA officially contracted SpaceX and Blue Origin to develop cargo landers capable of delivering up to 15 metric tons (33,000 lbs) to the lunar surface. This matches the mass of a fully-fueled Apollo Luna module and represents a massive capacity leap over historical missions.
2. VIPER Rover: Final Testing at JSC
✅ Confirmed — The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover is currently undergoing final testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Designed to explore the lunar South Pole, VIPER will travel ~18 miles (30 km) mapping thermal environments, terrain, and searching for water ice—critical data for sustainable lunar operations.
3. Blue Origin Lander Timeline
✅ Verified — NASA intends to award Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark lander to deliver a pressurized rover no earlier than FY 2032 (approximately 2028–2029). The lander will support sustained exploration and habitat construction.
4. Three-Phase Lunar Base Roadmap
✅ Confirmed — NASA’s Artemis campaign outlines:
- Phase 1 (now–2029): Gain reliable access, experiment with >20 robotic landings near the South Pole to identify prime base sites.
- Phase 2 (2029–2032): Build infrastructure—power, cargo transport, logistics, and communications across multiple locations.
- Phase 3 (from 2032): Establish a permanent lunar outpost with inhabited habitats.
5. Starship HLS Integration
✅ Verified — SpaceX’s Starship Human Landing System will dock directly with NASA’s Orion in lunar orbit for crewed missions beginning Artemis III. Additional cargo delivery contracts were secured (including the Icepace lunar lander by JAXA).
🔭 Scientist’s Assessment: What Makes This Video Future-Forward?
- Commercial-NASA Synergy: The video accurately portrays how SpaceX and Blue Origin are no longer “contractors” but co-architects of deep-space infrastructure.
- South Pole Focus: The strategic choice of the lunar South Pole aligns with current science—permanent shadowed craters offer accessible water ice for life support.
- Realistic Timelines: No overpromising. The phased approach acknowledges engineering constraints and incremental progress.
📝 Final Verdict
Rating: ★★★★★ (Highly Recommended)
This video delivers technically accurate, near-future lunar exploration insights that align with official NASA Artemis documentation. Felix presents complex aerospace concepts accessibly—ideal for futurists interested in how commercial spaceflight and government programs are converging to establish a permanent lunar presence. The Starship HLS development, VIPER rover testing, and multi-phase base architecture all reflect the current state of lunar exploration: ambitious but grounded in engineering reality.Remix: When Humans Will Walk on the Moon Again
🔥 CONTRARIAN: Artemis III isn’t “the first human moonwalk” — it’s a full test flight disguised as history, and we should stop treating the landing like Apollo 17 because the real engineering work begins after the boots hit the dust.
📖 PERSONAL STORY: Think of your first job on the Moon like your first day at any new role — the dramatic walk is fun but the actual work starts in the weeks after, when you realize which tools actually work and which ones don’t. The crew’s first landing will be about testing systems, not making history.
📊 DATA ANGLE: The 15-metric-ton cargo delivery window aligns with NASA’s base infrastructure needs, but the gap between “landing a lander” and “building a working habitat” is where every other lunar program has failed — can we actually bridge that 2030–2033 construction gap or just keep landing?
✅ PLAYBOOK: Three things you can do today to position yourself for the Moon crew pipeline: (1) Study HLS documentation and understand how Starship docks with Orion, (2) Review VIPER’s survey mission parameters since it maps exactly where future base sites will be built, (3) Track Blue Origin’s habitat development timeline because that determines when Phase 2 construction actually begins.
🎯 WHAT THEY MISSED: The video focuses heavily on SpaceX and NASA but ignores China’s Chang’e program — which could completely change who controls the South Pole and what technology wins the race for permanent presence.
Comparison: Robotic vs Human Moon Missions
The Core Difference
Robotic missions are like sending a surveyor to measure a field before building a house. They gather data, identify resources, and test equipment in conditions no human could survive. Human missions are about sustained occupation — setting up living quarters, establishing communication networks, and creating infrastructure that lasts beyond the mission window.
Operational Scale
Robotic rovers operate independently with limited power and mobility constraints. The VIPER rover will traverse roughly 18 miles, collecting thermal and ice data to identify prime base locations. Human missions require docking systems (like Starship HLS), habitat construction equipment, and continuous Earth communication — infrastructure orders of magnitude larger in complexity.
Risk Tolerance
Robotic missions can fail and be replaced at relatively low cost. A failed rover mission costs hundreds of millions; a failed crewed flight risks lives and requires complete redesign from the ground up. This risk asymmetry shapes everything about mission planning: robotic missions prioritize exploration breadth, while human missions prioritize reliability and redundancy.
Timeline Reality
Robotic missions can deploy quickly — VIPER launches in 2026 and begins operations shortly after. Human landings require years of infrastructure development: landing systems, surface habitats, power generation, and communication networks that must all be tested before a single person steps off the vehicle. The gap between first robotic presence and sustained human occupation is measured in decades, not months.
What Makes Each Essential
Robotic missions prove the terrain can support life — they find where water ice exists, test rover mobility in low gravity, and verify that equipment survives lunar conditions. Human missions prove we can live there long-term enough to justify the investment. Neither is sufficient alone; both are necessary for a sustainable lunar presence.
#Exploration #HLS #Lunar #Moonmission #NASA #Spacex #Whataboutit #moon #NASA #news #science #space #technology -
The economy's in the toilet. The midterms are looming. But Trump's focused on the REAL national treasure.
Ohio Senator John Husted's VERY FINE A**!
My new Broadway musical asks: Is Trump running the country, or just chasing tail?
WATCH: https://youtu.be/XRotdMq4jQ8
-
RE: https://ext.sportsbots.xyz/users/1421562689571143685/statuses/2113276294410465411
Agree. I think the #real edge need is the backup spots. Striggow and Bryan Thomas Jr. have 2 combined pressures on 70+ rushes
-
⚡️Some Russians, the real good Russians, can contemplate Ukraine retaking Crimea. They exist. Some are in prison, some in exile. Many are helping Ukraine win the war against Russia.
Full podcast: https://www.decodingtrolls.net/p/podcast-future-russia-the-pattern
-
*checks recent YouTube algorithm recommendation*
The title might be rage bait, but I will say that’s since we are dealing with FICTION, not a Physics equation, there is NOTHING innate about that Genre keeping Fantasy from imagining Democracy or even Anarchy.
The real problem, at least in the English speaking world, is the Subculture norms imposed on Genre, and a few too many publishing houses and studios wanting to keep it all business as usual.
-
I'm sorry, but the REAL Alaska politician named Dan Sullivan is Dan A. Sullivan:
#alaska #election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Sullivan_(Anchorage_mayor) -
On 13 October 2026, Amex unveiled its Intent Intelligence Framework. It aims to stop AI agents making purchases the shopper didn't approve.
You set limits (shop, product, max budget) and sign off. Amex creates an Intent ID and a Proof of Intent Token. The agent gets a payment credential tied to that token and never sees the real card number.
-
The of it
I think I’ve come up with the post title least likely to be clicked. Looks like a typo, doesn’t it? It’s not, I promise. We really are going to be discussing the of it.
What is the of it?
Or alternatively, what the heck are you talking about, Frank? Frightening though it may be, I tell you, the of it is real. Poets throughout the Anglosphere have been seduced by the of it, beginning, I believe, in the 1980s with the then Poet Laureate Ted Hughes. From there it grew and now hardly can one pick up a pamphlet of poetry without being brought face to face with the ubiquity Of It.
When Hughes stumbled upon the Of It, he perhaps appropriately used it to highlight that something was new. Or, really, and here we come to the problem of it, actually just to say that something was new, but in a slightly different way: ‘the new of it’. Now, saying something old in a new way is a completely valid poetry thing to do, as is its converse1. The problem of it is that ‘of it’ is no longer new. It has become that most dread of all poetry things: it is now only a poetry thing. No one describes things using ‘of it’ in the way poets do. All ‘of it’ does in a poem, in the form ‘the [adjective] of it’ is provide one more way of attaching an adjective to a noun. But it adds nothing to the description. ‘I stroked a smooth-furred cat’ is a normal, prosaic sentence. ‘I stroke a cat. The smooth of it.’ Is demented but it is also, by virtue of the ‘of it’ and the continuous present tense (the now of it?), poetry.
If I were forced, presumably by some People’s Commissar for Verse, to forbid one thing in poetry, that thing would be the use of poetry things. Like alabaster, which now means ‘a white thing’ — when was the last time you heard someone use alabaster to talk about actual alabaster? Or gossamer, what even is gossamer? ‘Omphalos’, likewise, was introduced to us by Seamus Heaney, an actual genius, and tediously repeated by dozens of poets in dozens of poems since, without adding a single thing to Heaney’s usage. No one says omphalos, alabaster or gossamer, except in poems, and always in the same way: the old in an old way.
These terms are not merely cliches; cliche has its uses and is anyway nearly impossible to avoid2. They’re signals that say ‘this is a poem’ and thereby absolve the writer of having to actually write something poetic.
Cultural stuff
Books
James Byrne, The Banality of Power
This is quite good but suffers when Byrne overthinks things. For example, in ‘A Flute for Boudicca’, he writes: ‘Here you / found me, hissing inside my own shade / like a tree that burns but will not burnish’. None of this convoluted simile makes any sense. I’ll allow that a burning tree may hiss, but does it do so in its own shade? Any which way, it is certain that we don’t expect trees to ‘burnish’, so highlighting that this one won’t tells us nothing. It’s clearly only there because of the similarity of the (etymologically unrelated) words, and the homophone with Byrne’s name. These layers don’t go anywhere.
Elsewhere, he riffs off of the Ocean Vuong snowlcone, ‘What is X but Y Z-ing?’ This has already been mocked enough (deservedly, in my view), but it’s representative of an approach to poetry where we’re sort of expected to make grand statements. I’m not really into it. In this case, Byrne asks ‘What is grief, if not stasis that keeps on / moving?’ Come on, mate. It’s not just that, is it? I was watching Star Trek yesterday and they had a more useful statement about grief than this. In the same poem, he talks of ‘a priest / swinging his chalice’. I could be wrong here, but doesn’t he mean a censer, the thing with incense in? That is definitely swung, unlike a chalice, which is the cup for communion wine. I don’t see that you’d swing this because, if you did, you’d make a mess. I’ve never been to Mass, so perhaps I’m wrong and priests do swing chalices.
Byrne definitely has some talent and much of the collection is good. Aside from the burn/ish thing, ‘A Flute for Boudicca’ is really good: ‘Welcome to Rome. / Here’s a ticket to the circus’ does everything Byrne intended. And more, for all I know.
Kim Deyn, Folkish
As various editors have told me with a mixture of admiration and exasperation, it’s pretty difficult to write funny poetry. Kim Deyn’s poetry is good, funny stuff. It’s de rigeur at this point in a review to add a phrase like ‘but moving’, as though being funny and being emotive are opposites. Not an error Deyn herself would make, I suspect. Key title: ‘The Wyrm Raises an Interesting Point’.
Billy Ramsell, Render
Ramsell writes an entire ‘selected poems’ for an imaginary Spanish poet Alberto Cenas. Inevitably, you’re reminded of the real Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa and his ‘heteronyms’: many different assumed names, voices and characters. There’s a similar mood, here, too, of quiet despair in an indifferent world. However, where Pessoa despaired at an uncaring (acaring, might be better) universe, Cenas’ despair is with society rather than the world at large.
Ramsell positions himself as Cenas’ translator, rather than as creator. You can therefore have all the fun you wish thinking about the differences between the two processes. Borges would have a field day. To maintain the illusion, Ramsell gives us a timeline of Cenas’ life and work, and divides the book into sections based on the collections in which Cenas’ work ‘originally’ appeared. Ambitious, ingenious and completely committed to the fiction he conjures. An impossible role model for us lazy ironists (I, too, am completely committed to being lazy and ironic).
Robert Sapolsky, Determined: A Life Without Free Will
A fascinating book which will shake even the most determined philosophical libertarian. Sapolsky repeatedly asks, in ironic tones, where the ‘free will neuron’ is in the brain; his argument would be stronger if he’d focused more explicitly on what he obviously believes: that such a thing not only doesn’t exist but cannot exist.
Because he sticks to his own field (neuroscience) and preoccupations (criminal justice), he occasionally leaves interesting threads like this dangling. He points out at one point that while free will is often seen as incompatible with determinism, it’s even less so with indeterminism. He doesn’t run with this idea, but it’s interesting! If you raise your hand now because you willed it, you have to believe that the will determined the outcome, but if you believe in indeterminism, you have to view it as a coicidence that your hand rose instead of falling, waving or indeed detaching from your wrist and striking out on its own. This suggests that the idea of free will involves a contradiction whether or not the universe is deterministic. Either: the universe is deterministic, in which case every decision you make is determined by prior physical events in a chain of cause and effect going back to the Big Bang, and there’s no way you can will your way out of it; or, the universe is indeterministic in which case, how can your will affect even your own body, never mind anything else around it? Either way, free will, against all experience, seems to be impossible.
But there’s the rub. I personally can’t quite get past the idea that free will exists because that experience is just so strong. More fundamental than that, though, is that I can’t understand why this should be the case. My body performs many actions, some completely involuntary (my digestive systems works without my direct input), some apparently partially under my control (I blink reflexively but also can do so at will), and some entirely optional (I don’t have to write this blog). Then there are marginal cases where I deliberately perform some action, say, playing the chord of E Minor on a guitar, in which I intend the outcome but don’t have to consicously will my middle and ring fingers on to the correct frets and strings. Why is it the case that I experience these degrees of consciously willed action, if not because some of them are consciously willed? Without getting too far into dualism, it seems to me quite easy to imagine a body-mind relationship where conscious thought played a slightly greater or slightly less role than it seems to. But in every healthy person it plays precisely the role it does in me. Why?
As I’ve previously made clear, I already believe that your free will is attenuated in important ways. The observational evidence is that other people believe this, too. Parents try very hard to give their children good life opportunities because they understand perfectly well that a kid who goes to a bad school in a dangerous neighbourhood is much less likely to successfully will themselves into a good life. In other words, most people’s preferences reveal that they’re some sort of compatibilist (i.e., believing something along the lines of ‘determinism is real but that doesn’t rule out free will’).
Sapolsky has certainly hardened my views about how much freely willed control we have over our lives (I’ve moved from ‘very little’ to ‘nearly none’). Once you taken into account all the things you didn’t choose (your parents and therefore your genes, the country, culture and time into which you were born, all the random events, over which you had no control, which did or didn’t happen to you3) and all the things you perhaps did choose but which nevertheless curtailed your future choices in important ways (which career path you chose from the options available; who you formed relationships with; what hobbies you have), there’s just not a lot of room left for free will, even if it can exist. And, again, people overwhelmingly understand this even if they say they don’t, which is why no one has ever said, ‘I might as well raise my kids in this flat between a brothel and a crack den, as that will save me money on rent and my kids will simply will themselves into success regardless’.
One underexplored area is what hard incompatibilism would mean for politics and society. From at least around the time of the Enlightenment, our politics has been defined by a belief in personal freedom. If freedom is (meta)physically impossible, that renders the basis of our society nonsensical. Granted, there is a perceptible difference between being metaphysically unfree and actually being restrained, but the inconsistency nevertheless bothers me. ‘Freedom, which is impossible, is the birthright of every human being’ is not a sound basis for politics.
Both Sapolsky and Hayek (who I read last week) hit on quite similar reasons for continuing to organise society on a roughly ‘free’ basis: the spontaneous organisation of large groups of organisms, including humans, produces extraordinary results, frequently ones that are not predictable at the outset. Allowing people this kind of spontaneous (even if unfree) organisation leads to superior outcomes than could ever be planned and a lack of free will doesn’t change that, any more than the lack of free will in slime moulds or bees (to use two of Sapolsky’s examples) makes their self-organisation less impressive.
Acknowledging that free will is less powerful than we believed should change our views on the nature of reward and punishment, but not on anyone’s capacity for creativity, compassion or any other virtue. Perhaps the ideal society is a Commonwealth of Knowledge, where ‘knowledge’ includes skill and talent.
Music
I found a load of CDs in the street so if I’ve picked even weirder stuff to listen to this week than is usually the case, thank the street CDs.
Anohni and the Johnsons, The Crying Light
N.E.R.D., Fly or Die
N.E.R.D., No_one Ever Really Dies
Lightning Bolt, Wonderful Rainbow
- Those are actually the only two poetry things you can do: old in a new way, new in an old way. Anything else is prose. ↩︎
- I’ve used at least two, depending on your level of generosity, so far in this blog: ‘stumbled upon’ and ‘brought face to face with’. ↩︎
- E.g., I didn’t choose to meet my future-wife at a party at university, in that I had no control in advance over whether ‘future wife’ would arrive at that particular event; it’s pure luck that no close member of my family died when I was a child, etc.. ↩︎
-
From @[email protected] show: #Steelers reporter @[email protected] shares why Germie Bernard might just be the real deal
-
@Gargron Eugene🍿 Accusing the toll instead of humans lacks nuance. #AI detect cancers,predicts earthquakes, helps disabled people. It's a technology: like nuclear power,we can make bombs,drones-wars #UkraineWar or MRI scans. #Mastodon uses algorithms for filter spam and hate.refusing any ethics to #AI ignores that tech is never neutral, but not absolute Evil. The real issue is human intentions and economic system driving them 🌿 Evil #cryptocurrency more #freedom Cc: @lynze
-
Likely by stealing it from actual researchers that did the real work. What a stupid question
-
#Arts #Fashion #NVO987 #Culture #NEXARIUM
‘The New Stanford Prison Experiment’: What Was the Real Study That Inspired the Controversial Reality Show?
Here’s why the notorious 1971 study still sparks outrage.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a74204850/new-stanford-prison-experiment-original-study/ -
The socio-technical systems perspective has always been clear about its intent to turn the Taylorist idea of people as an extension of the machine on its head. Making us aware of the machine's role as a servant of us. People generally agree with that, but it seems AI try to convince us otherwise.
I mean, many seem to be more than happy to submit to the power of the LLMs and just accept what it produces. Are we not then back to being a servant of the machine – just doing what it tells us? Is Taylor back, hidden in the AI models?
Think the real socio-technical perspectives need to get back in the ring again.