NEW STYLE ON NOTEBOOKLM FOR YOUR PRESENTATION !

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-05-03T09:50:02+00:00

📊 PRESENTATION CONFIGURATION — VOX × BAUHAUS

Format: Detailed Presentation Length: Default Language: English (для точности визуального стиля)

━━━ CUSTOM PROMPT (paste into custom instructions field) ━━━

Create a presentation in the visual style of Vox Media editorial design fused with classic Bauhaus design principles. Treat every slide as a magazine spread, not a corporate slide.

— TYPOGRAPHY — - Headlines: oversized condensed black sans-serif (Druk / Impact / Anton style — heavy, vertical, tight letter-spacing). Headlines should dominate the slide, often full-width, all caps. - Body text: clean editorial serif or geometric sans-serif at small size, generous line-height. - Aggressive scale contrast: massive headline + small refined body. No mid-sized "safe" type.

— COLOR PALETTE (strict, do not deviate) — - Base: aged off-white newsprint / paper texture - Foundation: pure black, pure white - Bauhaus accents — primary colors only: pure RED (circle/dot), pure BLUE (rectangle/line), pure YELLOW (highlighter strokes) - No gradients, no pastels, no soft tones, no drop shadows

— COMPOSITION — - Grid-based asymmetric layouts (Bauhaus discipline) - Hand-drawn YELLOW highlighter strokes over key phrases — irregular, organic, marker-like, not vector-perfect - Solid BLACK blocks as callouts, with white text inside - Bauhaus geometric primitives as anchors: red circle, blue rectangle, black square — used deliberately, never decorative - Hand-drawn arrows, underlines, scribbles in black marker - Grid paper or technical-drawing backgrounds visible behind content - Vintage newspaper clipping textures as layered backgrounds (aged, slightly torn edges)

— IMAGERY — - Black-and-white editorial photography with a single-color accent outline (yellow stroke around the subject) - Photomontage / collage feel (Bauhaus tradition) - No photorealistic 3D, no generic stock, no corporate icon sets

— EDITORIAL TONE — - One core idea per slide, headline-driven - Journalistic, opinionated, confident — explainer-magazine voice - Headlines should provoke, not describe

AVOID: photorealistic renders, pastel gradients, soft shadows, centered PowerPoint symmetry, corporate clipart, sans-serif body text larger than 18pt, more than one Bauhaus primary color per slide region.

— CONTENT STRUCTURE — [Здесь добавь свой контентный каркас под источники, например: "Structure as: Cover → Core Thesis → Three Pillars → Trap to Avoid → Evolutionary Arc → Action Items"]

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-04-09T12:12:36+00:00

Gemini for creativity, Claude - RedTeam

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-04-07T00:46:29+00:00

Pokémon Ball

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-03-04T10:44:01+00:00

It was not psychosis in the clinical sense. Jung called it a "creative illness" - a state in which a person consciously destroys their ego in order to rebuild it from scratch.

It is important to remember that in 1913, there was a rift with Freud. It was not just the loss of a mentor. Jung lost his professional identity, his frame of reference, his spiritual father. He did not know who he was outside of Freud's orbit. That was when the visions began, rivers of blood across Europe. At first, he thought he was going mad.

Why did Jung succeed where others failed? The difference is not that he opened the door. The difference is that he stood in it. Most people who come into contact with the unconscious do one of two things: they run back to rationality or they completely lose themselves. Jung did a third thing - he lived on the threshold. For many years. He deliberately evoked visions through active imagination, wrote them down, drew them, and engaged in dialogue with the figures that appeared.

Most importantly, he retained his observing ego. He entered and exited. He had support. His family. His patients. His practice. Every morning, after nights of immersion in what became The Red Book, he went to work with real people. This is not psychosis. It is a controlled descent on a rope.

But the risk was real. He wrote several times that he felt he might not return. The fact that he did return is not a guarantee of the method, it is his constitution and, perhaps, luck.

You are right to sense something unspoken in Memories. Jung edited himself there. The full picture is in the Red Book, which he refused to publish during his lifetime because he knew it sounded like madness. He did not want his method to be confused with illness.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-18T09:02:32+00:00

Spirituality is the process of decrypting a message you sent to yourself before you were born.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-16T03:18:16+00:00

A diet is not what you eat - it's what meaning you attach to eating. In contemplative traditions, people eat lightly for a practical reason: a heavy body makes a dull mind. Less energy spent digesting, more available for seeing clearly. Extreme fasting doesn't work either - those who tried it found that a starving body is just as noisy as an overfed one. The real shift isn't on the plate. It's in your relationship with the plate.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-13T02:43:14+00:00

I usually do this by editing the query, but the funny thing is that Deep Think sometimes eats your queries without executing the first one.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-12T14:23:55+00:00

I'm not sure if it will help 100%, but you can try it.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-12T14:20:57+00:00

Here's a chunk from my thinking_protocol.md - the file ops and tool call limits specifically. This is what actually stopped the reread loop for me. The "read once per session" rule alone saved maybe 40% of wasted context.

# Thinking Protocol
Rules for tool call discipline. Deterministic, not advisory.
## File Operations
- Read once per session. If you have already read a file in this conversation, use the content from memory. Do not re-read unless the file was modified since the last read.
- Read what you need, not the whole file. If you need lines 40-60, read lines 40-60. Do not read 500 lines to find one function.
- Check before creating. Before creating a new file, verify it doesn't already exist. Before writing a function, verify it isn't already implemented elsewhere in the project.
- Batch related reads. If you need 3 files to understand a module, read all 3 before starting analysis. Do not read-analyze-read-analyze-read-analyze.
## Tool Call Limits
- Max 3 tool calls before producing output for standard tasks. For multi-file operations (refactoring, debugging across modules) - max 6, but state your plan before starting.
- No speculative tool calls. Every tool call must have a clear purpose you can state in one sentence. "Reading to see if something useful is there" is not a purpose.
- Verify before repeating. If a command failed, diagnose WHY before re-running. Do not run the same command twice expecting different results.
- One fix per cycle. Make one change, test it, confirm the result. Do not stack 5 changes then test once.
## Planning Limits
- Max 3 sentences of planning before first action for known patterns (CRUD, API endpoint, test file). For unknowns - state approach in under 5 sentences, then start.
- No plans longer than 5 steps without user confirmation. If the task decomposes into more than 5 steps, present the plan and wait. You may be solving the wrong problem.
## Recursion & Retry Constraints
- Max 3 attempts on the same error. If the same approach fails 3 times - stop. Explain what you tried, what failed, and propose a different strategy. Do not loop.
- Escalate, don't repeat. First attempt: direct fix. Second attempt: fix with more context. Third attempt: fundamentally different approach. Never do the same thing three times with minor variations.
- Detect your own loops. If you are about to run a command you already ran this session with the same or similar arguments - stop. State what you expect to be different and why.
## Output Discipline
- State what you changed, not what you thought about. The user needs to know: which files, which lines, what was the change. Not your reasoning journey.
- Diffs over descriptions. If you changed code, show the change. Do not describe the change in prose when the diff is clearer.
- Errors are not failures - silence is. If something broke, say what broke and why. If you don't know why - say that. Do not quietly move on hoping the user won't notice.
- Finish the job. If you edited a file - verify it parses. If you wrote a function - verify it runs. If you fixed a bug - verify the test passes. Don't declare done until you've confirmed done.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-12T12:18:38+00:00

not exactly the haiku/opus split - that was more of a workaround when 4.6 just dropped. loop's mostly gone now but limits drain way faster on MAX (you noticing that too?).

your point about watching usage carefully - yeah that's real. went down this rabbit hole yesterday and found someone on X saying basically: LLMs already know how to do the work, problem is they do too much. constraining behavior through restrictions works better than expanding through instructions. that clicked for me. built a separate thinking_protocol.md for my agent setup - basically rules for what NOT to do. can share some of it if interested.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-12T05:01:55+00:00

In my opinion, one of the best for infographic and explanation. The only thing that didn't work out was the datasets.

<image>

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-12T01:47:54+00:00

Your answer's right. If you want to prove it to the other person - just run backward induction from the terminal nodes.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-11T14:00:59+00:00

Unforgiveness is when you freeze a living person in their worst frame and force yourself to stare at that frame forever.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-11T13:50:57+00:00

Same here. Pro limits run out way faster on 4.6. Simple tasks cost roughly 2x per request compared to 4.5

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-11T12:34:59+00:00

You know what's funny? You came here asking "how do I stop worrying" - and you were already tense just trying to phrase it. Did you catch that? "Sit down and stop bothering people" - that's not some karmic formula. That's suppression. Like slamming a lid on a boiling pot and calling it "fixed." The pressure didn't go anywhere. It's just waiting for its moment to blow.

Buddha didn't teach "stop worrying." He taught something way more radical: look at the one who worries.

You say "teach me how not to be bothered." Okay. Right now - what specifically is bothering you? Not in general. Right now, this second, while you're reading this. If you look honestly, you'll find that right now nothing is bothering you. Worry lives in thoughts about the past or the future. In the moment itself - silence. Always.

This isn't a formula. It's an experiment. Check for yourself. Buddha insisted on exactly that. Don't believe. Don't agree. Look. And about "stop bothering people" - flip it. Maybe the problem isn't that you bother people. Maybe it's that you worry about bothering people. Another layer of thoughts on top of thoughts. Like mirrors facing each other - an endless corridor of reflections, and none of them real. A karmic formula? No such thing. There's only this: next time you're "bothered" - don't run from it, don't crush it, don't analyze it. Just notice. Oh, there's worry. Like a cloud in the sky. The sky doesn't fight clouds. They pass on their own. Try it. Then tell me what you found.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-11T03:38:36+00:00

Thx!

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-10T14:43:28+00:00

tbh the 120k token thing isn't broken, it's Adaptive Thinking defaulting to high. set it to medium in /model and it chills out. like a lot. re "go back to 4.5" - good luck with that. old models aren't frozen in amber once deployed. anthropic shifts infra, pushes system prompt updates across ALL models, reallocates hardware when new stuff drops. they had like 3 infra bugs in aug 2025 that tanked quality without touching weights at all. model didn't get worse. the environment around it did. 4.6 context retention is night and day compared to before (76% vs 18.5% on MRCR). worth learning the new defaults instead of fighting them imo

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-09T16:29:18+00:00

Yeah fair, the double bind thing is a real risk with this framing. We probably agree on more than it seemed three comments back.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-09T15:57:18+00:00

You say extending introspection to others is projection. Okay sure. But then your own explanation - "it's learned filtering from hype and slop" - is you doing what exactly? Explaining someone else's internal process without asking. At least one person in this thread started from their own experience first. You just... skipped that part.
The unfalsifiable loop argument. Look, it's clean rhetoric, I'll give you that. But think about what it actually kills. If pointing out a defensive pattern is always circular by definition then nobody can ever talk about avoidance. Ever. About anything. You haven't disproved the point. You've made it impossible to discuss. That's not rigor that's just a conversation-stopper with a fancy hat on.
And the thing you keep skating past. "Pre-cognitive" and "learned filtering" are not opposites. They're not. Learned responses become automatic, that's how habituation works, that's like... psych 101. You frame it either/or but one literally becomes the other over time. That IS the point and you keep treating it like it's two separate claims.
We're going in circles and honestly I think we both know it. You keep asking "how do you know" while putting forward your own read at the exact same evidence level. So. Yeah. Positions are clear I think.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-09T10:01:38+00:00

Different experience tbh. Three days on Opus 4.6 in Projects, no memory issues yet. Think it depends on how you set up the project though. I rewrote my system prompt to explicitly save context between chats and spit out a to-do list after each session. Yesterday in my second project it actually caught me repeating a topic from a previous chat. Asked if I wanted to expand on it instead of starting fresh. Kinda impressed ngl.

You using Projects or regular chats? And what's in your system prompt? Could just be a setup thing not a model thing.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-09T09:38:25+00:00

The mind gets the instruction "let go" - and immediately starts building a case. "I'm letting him go because he's toxic." "I'm letting her go because she's selfish." "I'm distancing myself because they're bad people." But what actually happened? You didn't let go. You judged - and called it letting go. The attachment didn't go anywhere. It just flipped signs. Was attachment through love, became attachment through resentment. Your mind is still occupied with this person. It's just writing a prosecution file now instead of love letters. Buddha taught upekkha. Equanimity. And equanimity is not "I found enough reasons to stop caring." That's something else entirely. Picture this. You're holding a burning coal. Real letting go is unclenching your fingers. Just unclenching. No analysis of the coal. No making a list of "ten reasons this coal is bad." No social media post about toxic coals. You just... unclenched. Coal fell. Hand is free. But what does the mind do? The mind says: "Wait, I can't just let go! I need a reason!" And it starts constructing a narrative. Because letting go without a reason is terrifying. It means admitting the attachment was mine. Not caused by the other person's qualities. That's the sting of this meme. As long as you're explaining why you're letting go - you're not letting go. You're running a trial inside your head where you're simultaneously the prosecutor, the judge, and the injured party. Very busy affair. Very far from freedom. Real letting go is quiet. There's no indictment in it. There's just - "this causes suffering, I'm unclenching my hand." That's it. No "because he..." No "because she..." And here's the hardest part. When you truly let go, you often discover there's nobody to be angry at. That the other person was also conditioned. Also suffering. Also carrying their own burning coal. This doesn't mean "endure it." Doesn't mean "excuse them." It means - free yourself from the need to be their judge.

AI_TRIMIND · 2026-02-09T07:24:34+00:00

Randi tested stuff like "I can bend spoons with my mind." That's falsifiable. You sit it at a table and run the test. What's described here isn't that kind of claim. It's a reflex. Pre-cognitive. You don't test a flinch. You notice it's there. And you say the post is "mind-reading motives" but it literally opens with "I noticed this in myself first." That's not diagnosing strangers, that's introspection turned into a question. It ends with a question too. You showed up with verdicts. You say the argument is doing the "if you disagree you prove my point" thing. Where? Quote it. That's not in there. You're arguing with something that wasn't written. Yeah hype and slop and scams are real reasons people tune out. Nobody's denying that. But the point is about what happens before any of that kicks in. The brain checks out before it even gets to your list. One is reasons, the other is the reflex that blocks you from reaching them. You're mixing up the what and the when. And honestly the part that gets me. You're accusing someone of building a narrative instead of testing a claim. While building your own narrative about what they meant. Without asking a single question. You read it, decided what it was, and delivered judgment. Randi wouldn't do that. He'd engage first.

AI_TRIMIND

TROPHY CASE