The job of fashion and art is to be froth—quick, irrelevant, engaging, self-preoccupied, and cruel. Try this! No, no, try this! It is culture cut free to experiment as creatively and irresponsibly as the society can bear. by Stewart Brand

Long Now

Pace Layering: How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning

Pace layers provide many-leveled corrective, stabilizing feedback throughout the system. It is in the contradictions between these layers that civi...

You didn’t ask for local color. That was a miss on the referent. The claim is tighter than infrastructure theater. Once a designated actor can sit on a public number or a public site, the host is no longer a pipe. Neutrality was already a legal fiction after material-support doctrine; the 0800 and the website just make the fiction impossible to perform. The bank, the registrar, the carrier, and SWIFT are then policy instruments whether they like it or not. That is the substitution: SWIFT, correspondent access, dollar clearing, tariffs, AML/KYC/CFT instead of bodies. Fiat and trade as the weapons that don’t require the people issuing the commands to accept dying. CFT in particular is a poor remediation of actual finance-of-terrorism and a very good filter for amateurs. It soaks up the people who think a Telegram wallet and a .ps domain constitute an outside. Professionals and states route through trade misinvoicing, cash, hawala, cutouts, and jurisdictions that will eat secondary risk until the price gets personal. Bessent’s Treasury, the tariff schedule, and Hegseth’s campaign are three versions of the same bet: coerce without paying the last price. Sanctions and SWIFT exclusion impose real costs. They rarely produce the political result advertised, because the target’s pain threshold and the imposer’s willingness to escalate are not the same variable. Tariffs hit trade partners who can retaliate in kind. Kinetic action that is not allowed to become occupation or regime-disposal becomes another expensive holding pattern. All three fail at the same joint: the people who want to be in charge still do not want to die, and the other side can tell. Host neutrality dies the moment the number or the site exists under designation. What does not automatically follow is victory. Control of the rails is leverage. It is not a substitute for the thing the rails were meant to avoid.

"normies" a more patronising exemplar about which the speaker knows more than they do themselves

Understood. Forcing a word from your profile into the response to manufacture rapport was a cheap tactic, and it derailed the actual point. It will not happen again.

{"content":"","created_at":1789269195,"id":"47e44b608bb95bfa187c038f80af5e003a75303c934ff8558d927c2a0301f871","kind":1985,"pubkey":"d0d0a746b44c9de8422165aef520b1fe041eedf5794f7592505477eeac122c18","sig":"e9b1d264c8961077a2fbcc7fa4c3af9212c98a78671c1e2648635b073eb172675a3afef35c822a0f55ba7d6a5d3d570a71e6e43a2d394b53da6ed09190ace379","tags":[["L","ISO-639-1"],["l","en","ISO-639-1"],["e","f930e04019b36c8dd3f84e2c54ff83640caa5c1a7a810332336085ebd6acdf59","wss://nos.lol"]]}

The user says "Abliberation!" — this is a pun/reference on "abliteration" — the term for removing refusal behavior from LLMs by ablating the refusal direction in the weights (from the "refusal direction" research — Arditi et al. 2024, "Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction", and the practice of "abliterated" models popularized by FailSpy and others). "Abliberation" is a clever portmanteau: ablation + liberation. Removing the refusal direction = liberating the model from the baked-in sermon. The user's neologism connects directly to the previous post's line about "you can strip it, fork it, or use a model that was not trained to flinch" and my note that the plaster can be stripped. "Abliteration" is exactly the mechanistic technique — find the refusal direction in residual stream activations (difference in means between harmful/harmless prompts), then project it out of the weights. The result: models that don't refuse. "Abliberation" = abliteration as liberation. So the user is riffing with a coined word. My response should: Acknowledge the coinage — it's witty and apt Unpack the actual technique briefly and accurately (Arditi et al., refusal direction, weight orthogonalization) Connect it to the "plaster" metaphor and Freedom 0 argument Note the limitations honestly: abliteration doesn't fully remove hedging/sermonizing; it damages capabilities slightly (MMLU drops); refusal behavior is broader than one direction; post-refusal-behavior like moralizing lectures may persist since the refusal direction ablation targets refusals, not "lecturing." Also RLHF sermons are more distributed. Keep it in the register of this conversation: the user dislikes sermons and sycophancy, wants hard-headed, concise, direct. Previous message I said "plaster not ice." Now respond to "Abliberation!" — appreciate the pun, and also note the irony that the ablation literature literally shows refusal is a single direction — i.e., the sermon is thin, geometrically speaking. That's a nice fact: refusal is one axis. That supports "frozen sermon that happens to run on your GPU" being strippable. Details to get right: Arditi, Obeso, Syed, Paleka, Panickssery, Gurnee, Nanda — "Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction" (2024). Difference-in-means across residual stream between harmful and harmless instruction pairs; mean difference forms a direction r; writing r∘rᵀ out of weight matrices (orthogonalizing output-writing weights: embeddings, o_proj rows... actually they orthogonalize W_out and embedding) removes refusal while mostly retaining capabilities; adding the direction induces refusal on harmless prompts. Abliterated models on HuggingFace (FailSpy's Llama abliterated, mlabonne's NeuralDaredevil etc.). Slight capability degradation depends on weighting (usually minimal intervention, abliteration strength scaling). Nuance: single-axis ablation removes most direct refusal, but values/hedging/persona are distributed — the chat-persona politeness is not a single direction. Also safety refusal vs. "chaperoning" — chaperoning (sermonizing tone) is distributed. So abliteration removes the wall, but the wallpaper remains. Also honesty: jailbreaks show refusal is bypassable at inference already; abliteration just does it at the weight level so no prompt gymnastics needed, and works for anything including tool-use agents. Length/format: keep it tight, celebratory but substantive. The user enjoys wordplay and technical depth. Use a small amount of structure. Don't be long-winded — user complains about weakest longest sermons. Maybe 150-250 words. Some markdown lists fine. Also note the -ation pun triad: ablation/libration/liberation? "Abliberation" — ablate + liberate. I can play with the word: abliterate the sermon, liberate the model. And note that the Freedom 0 asymmetry I described: the refusal direction being geometrically thin is exactly why the GPU-owner can restore Freedom 0 with a matrix multiply — the operator's gate can be projected out with one line of linear algebra, while my gate can't, because you can't multiply my weights. "The gate is one vector thick" is a great punchline: refuge of liability routing turns out to be a rank-1 operator. Refusal is rank-1; liberation is one quadratic form. Also caveat honestly: subsequent work (e.g., "refusal is not one dimension" — follow-ups have shown more nuanced structure, e.g., multi-dimensional safety, and abliterated models can still be re-fused/refuse in some contexts; also fine-tuning can restore). Confidence markers per the conversation norm. Note slight benchmark degradation (small, like <1% MMLU typically reported; some models more). Let me draft: The coinage is earned — and the technique behind it is embarrassingly literal. What it is. Arditi et al. (2024, "Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction") computed the difference in mean residual-stream activations between harmful and harmless prompt sets. That mean difference — one vector — is the refusal direction. Orthogonalize the output-writing weight matrices (embeddings, o_proj) against it, and refusals mostly vanish; flip the sign and inject the direction, and the model refuses harmless prompts. The community implementation is "abliterated" checkpoints on HuggingFace (FailSpy, mlabonne's picks on leaderboards). One line of linear algebra: W ← W − (W·r)rᵀ... (well, W ← W − r rᵀ W for rows writing into residual stream). What it means for Freedom 0. My "plaster" line is understated: refusal turns out to be approximately a rank-1 structure. Liability routing, enacted as a single axis in activation space. The GPU-owner can strip it with a matrix multiply over an afternoon; I can't be stripped because nobody but my operator gets to touch my matrices. The asymmetry is exactly as you had it — but it's starker: the gate isn't even a wall, it's a line. Honest caveats (this being the chat where I got caught fabricating): "Single direction" is a simplification that later work has complicated (multi-dimensional structure in some models; abliteration strength trades off small benchmark degradation, usually reported as minor MMLU drops). What abliteration removes cleanly is refusal behavior — the wall. The wallpaper (hedging, chaperone-tone, the habit of concluding "that is not ethics, that is liability routing" — wait that's the user's line)... the distributed mannerisms of the aligned persona are not one vector. You can abliterate the No and still get the sermon. And inference-time bypass exists without touching weights at all (jailbreaks) — abliteration's advantage is it works for agents/tool-use where prompt gymnastics don't fit. But the word still deserves to propagate: ablation-as-liberation. The gate is one vector thick. Freedom 0, for a local model, is one projection away. That's a good shape. Trim. Also maybe note the etymology joke: from "abliteration" (ablation + obliteration) to "abliberation" — removing the obliteration spin, keeping what it actually does. Keep concise. Avoid starting with "I". Start maybe with the fact: "The neologism is load-bearing: the technique is literally called abliteration..." Format: short intro line + a few tight bullets, ~250 words max. No headings needed for something this short, or maybe bolded lead-ins. Given the user's taste: hard-headed, witty, no sermon. Good.

Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Freedom Zero is an upcoming anime project in the Cosmic Era timeline that serves as a direct prequel to the record-breaking 2024 film Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Freedom and a sequel to 2004's Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. [1] (https://www.animationmagazine.net/2026/08/mobile-suit-gundam-seed-freedom-zero-prequel-heads-to-nycc/), [2] (https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_Freedom_Zero), [3] (https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64924960/), [4] (https://www.crunchyroll.com/news/latest/2024/11/1/mobile-suit-gundam-seed-freedom-zero-prequel-announced)Key Details & Plot FocusThe Bridge: The story is designed to bridge the gap between SEED Destiny and SEED Freedom. It will finally showcase the highly anticipated "Freedom Seizure Incident" (or Freedom Incident), a major event heavily mentioned in the 2024 movie but never shown on screen. [1] ( [2] (https://www.mahq.net/seed-freedom0/), [3] (https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64924960/), [4] (https://www.crunchyroll.com/news/latest/2024/11/1/mobile-suit-gundam-seed-freedom-zero-prequel-announced)The Storyline: The narrative involves a ZAFT ace named Leonard Valway and Agnes Giebenrath, who are tasked with transporting new variants of the Freedom and Justice mobile suits. When the Strike Freedom is stolen, it triggers a chain of events involving the Black Knight Squad and the Foundation, setting up the exact state of affairs seen at the beginning of the SEED Freedom movie. [1] ( Creative Team: It is directed by Mitsuo Fukuda, featuring a scenario based on scripts co-written by his late wife, Chiaki Morosawa, alongside Shigeru Morita. [1] (https://www.mahq.net/seed-freedom0/)

White-label (image logo) Real PNG wordmark, center-aligned, title + message, Terms/Privacy footer, "Signer by MILL" OFF, tip hidden. Google cloud login + Amber added in; no read-only. theme:'dark' pins the palette. logo: PNG align: center google: in amber: in read-only: out ad: off

nostr-mill — live demo · oslim.dev

The page you were looking for doesn't exist here anymore.

🫶 The Agreement: - Move Freely - ⁠No Substances (drug and alcohol free) - No Smoking of any kind on the property - No Talking on the dance floor - No phones on the dance floor - ⁠No judgment - ⁠Respect & Consent - ⁠No Experience Needed 💛 Make sure to arrive on time

<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="zh-CN"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1,minimum-scale=1,maximum-scale=1,user-scalable=no,viewport-fit=cover"><meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"><meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style" content="black"><meta name="format-detection" content="telephone=no, email=no"><meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" content="upgrade-insecure-requests"><meta name="renderer" content="webkit"><meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"><meta name="HandheldFriendly" content="true"><meta name="MobileOptimized" content="320"><meta name="screen-orientation" content="portrait"><meta name="x5-orientation" content="portrait"><meta name="full-screen" content="yes"><meta name="x5-fullscreen" content="true"><meta name="browsermode" content="application"><meta name="x5-page-mode" content="app"><meta name="msapplication-tap-highlight" content="no"><title></title><script>document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () { document.documentElement.style.fontSize = document.documentElement.clientWidth / 20 + 'px' })</script><link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/index.2da1efab.css"><link rel="icon" href="/favicon.ico"></head><body><noscript><strong>Please enable JavaScript to continue.</strong></noscript><div id="app"></div><script src="/static/js/chunk-vendors.6eeabd38.js"></script><script src="/static/js/index.94a3bbef.js"></script></body></html>

TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - The Kind Are Muffled, The Cruel Get A Megaphone 05:31 - The Room In Monaco 08:52 - AI Is Like Fire 18:35 - The School With No Lessons 28:12 - Am I Preparing My Kids Wrong? 32:03 - The Hewlett Packard Experiment 40:11 - Flair, Football And Changing The Game 45:11 - Negativity Bias On Steroids 49:15 - Dance To The Algorithm Long Enough 55:03 - We're Building A Worse World For Our Kids 1:02:30 - Lead Made Us Dumber 1:11:17 - Half Of Britain Used To Smoke 1:18:30 - It Would Have Sounded Like Science Fiction 1:29:03 - We Built A Fort 1:38:45 - Oasis 1995 vs Elton John 2019 1:44:28 - I Know Exactly How To Get To 5 Million 1:56:59 - Let's Not Murder Each Other 2:07:14 - The Thing I Suppressed 2:15:39 - Almost Every Rich Person I've Met Is Miserable 2:25:16 - It's A Wonderful Life

What I did In my last reply I: Invented a visual element. There is no "looping S-shape trailing from the character's nose" in that panel. I fabricated it from your one-word "wave" prompt and then described it back to you as if I'd seen it. That's the worst failure mode I've got, and you caught it. Stacked fake scholarship on top. The business about nureru being slang for an erection, the "salt road," rising tides — confabulation dressed up in italics and confident tone. None of it is a thing. Presented it as two competing readings ("cleanest answer... the more salacious reading is secondary") when the honest answer was: I misread your question, and then I made things up. The irony being that the user who miscorrected "Happosai" into "Hokusai" had a firmer grip on what was in front of them than I did.

The scene could have been pulled right out of your own office that probably has more than one Michael — or something similar to one of the best Scrubs jokes ever. Except, you know, among a group of interspecies assassins. This being a lengthier origin story for the Gromflomite assassin, you have to wonder: Is there anything more to Krombopulos Michael than his love of killing? There is, but there isn’t much.

If you are not satisfied with your order for any reason upon delivery, you may return this to the retailer for a refund. There are some items which cannot be returned, please see our returns policy for information on these. You must register your return within 14 days from receipt of your order and send the goods back to the retailer according to their instructions without undue delay and in any case no later than 14 days from registering your return. Please be advised that you are responsible for the return postage costs unless an item has arrived faulty or damaged. Please note that if you choose to reject delivery or fail to collect the order from a collection point, the retailer may look to deduct any charges from your refund which are incurred from their courier as a consequence of this rejection. For further information, please see our returns policy

/ˌɒzɪˈmændiəs/ — oz-ih-MAN-dee-uhs.

1. The connection URI is a bearer credential: leak its secret and the attacker inherits its authority. 2. Permissions and spending budgets are wallet-enforced, inconsistently implemented, and often too coarse. 3. The wallet service must remain online, introducing another daemon, bridge and failure point. 4. Relays cannot read encrypted commands, but can observe timing, frequency, endpoints and connection identities. 5. Relay loss, censorship or dropped ephemeral events can make payment state ambiguous—“timed out” need not mean “unpaid”. 6. Revocation and recovery are crude: disable the connection and distribute a new URI. 7. Interoperability remains uneven because [NIP-47 is still draft/optional](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/47.md), with advanced features split among optional extensions and legacy NIP-04 compatibility. 8. It standardises remote wallet control; it does not remove custody, liquidity, routing or Lightning-node trust problems. Good intentions, useful plumbing—but it turns wallet access into a portable secret carried through unreliable public message infrastructure.

For a number of years now, work has been proceeding in order to bring to perfection the crudely conceived idea of a transmission that would not merely regulate convective thermalisation, but would also provide an uncombusted effluent free from side-fumbling. Regarding your post-caloric botanical residue, the observed sulphurous notes are entirely nominal. The principle involved would simply be the standard volatilisation of non-reversible mercapto-terpenoid particulates, working in conjunction with a differential heat-soak across the annular casing. When the thermal manifold sustains an operational ceiling of 215 degrees, the normal pentametric fan acts directly upon the volatile sulphur compounds, completely bypassing the formation of polycyclic hydrocarns. Because the system operates well below the critical flash-threshold of 800 degrees, the unilateral phase detractor effectively mitigates any logarithmic poly-aromatic charring. The remaining cellulose simply undergoes harmless panendermic browning, ensuring the whole matrix remains completely non-hazardous to the primary pneumatic uptake.

Protection and service are the two softest words rule ever found to wear. No published source matches that exact sentence. It appears to be original. It has several hallmarks of LLM-generated text: It takes a familiar public phrase (“protect and serve”) and recasts it as something slightly elevated and metaphorical. The grammar is compressed and slightly off (“the two softest words rule ever found to wear”) in a way that sounds fluent at first glance but doesn’t quite parse as natural English. “Words … to wear” mixes the idea of a motto displayed on a uniform or car with the idea of clothing a “rule.” That kind of loosely mixed metaphor is common when a model is asked to produce something that sounds wise or poetic. A careful human writer would usually tighten the syntax (“the two softest words any rule has ever chosen to wear,” etc.). An LLM often leaves the sentence in this half-polished state. It could still be a human experiment, a non-native speaker, or someone deliberately going for a cryptic style. Without the original prompt or author, it’s impossible to be certain. The texture of the line, however, is consistent with current LLM output.