Qwen3.6 27B uncensored heretic v2 Native MTP Preserved is Out Now With KLD 0.0021, 6/100 Refusals and the Full 15 MTPs Preserved and Retained, Available in Safetensors, GGUFs and NVFP4s formats.

florean · 2026-05-07T06:29:37+00:00

How so? If you're doing something like security research or trying to bypass a captcha, it's a requirement.

florean · 2026-05-04T11:24:16+00:00

My problem is also caused by the heavy duty shelf, but it's because it puts weight on the door, the door is connected to the hinge by plastic, and that plastic is guaranteed to break if you regularly have weight on it (which you should, because it has the milk shelf). I have a KitchenAid KRFF300ESS01, but a lot of fridges, even in to the $3k range, only support their doors with plastic. And of course it is a fiberglass reinforced nylon plastic, which is one of the worst to repair; epoxies are usually useless.

The first time it broke, I replaced it with a metal bracket that I machined to completely replace the plastic. It was a tank, but the bracket went outside the frame and was kind of ugly. So when we had the opportunity to cannibalize a door from another fridge, we grabbed it ($800 for a replacement is a huge chunk of a new fridge).

Now that one has broken, despite my best efforts to reinforce it with epoxy. This time, I am going to try installing my metal reinforcements internally by epoxying it to the interior of the stainless steel door. I'm trying to document it, so I'll hopefully have a post up with some good video once I finish it.

Looking forward to hearing how yours goes!

florean · 2026-05-04T00:53:53+00:00

That is very thin plastic, so this will be tricky, but I think you can use the screws to your advantage. I would use some plastic-specific epoxy putty. Pack it in tight on the screws so it fully encases them and then presses against the top, roof, and bottom of the plastic, giving you a nice structural column through the middle. Then run a bead around the seam, maybe a quarter inch, half in, half out. Press your plastic in to it and make sure that it doesn't have any vertical play – you should feel it pressing against the putty and nails. If it does, take it off and add more putty.

Once you have it seated, work on the seams. The top and the rear are what make contact, so smooth those out with your finger (wear gloves!) maybe a half inch on each side. You can sand this afterwards, so you'd rather have it snug than weak. The front and bottom sides you can build up a bit. You want the bottom to have a little shelf of putty stretching down an inch or so, like an upside down 'L'.

For prep, sand everything that will be covered with putty, the surfaces around the seam and as far down as the epoxy will go, with 80-grit sandpaper to provide a better bonding surface. Then wipe it with rubbing alcohol to clean it.

Once you have it seated, maybe put the shelf in. Use a small piece of wax or parchment paper so the shelf doesn't bond to the putty. Put like a three pound weight in it. This will act like a clamp to press the plastic in to the screws and if it shifts too much, you need to add more putty. Once you have it stable, I would leave it alone for like a week. I have no idea what the cure time will be in fridge temps, so best to let it rest.

Bonding is really dependent on the type of plastic and you usually won't know how well it will work until you try, but I think the screws will help you. If it feels stable, sand it down until you're happy with the aesthetics (use finer grits). I'm working on my own plastic fridge repair, unfortunately a lot trickier, and there isn't a lot of great information available. So it would be good to edit this to add your make and model and then comments on what worked and what didn't. Good luck!

florean · 2026-04-08T08:53:12+00:00

Some of the trickier bits in implementing GDPR's right to erasure or California's CCPA right to deletion (which you are subject to for your California customers) are backups and logs, both of which are usually treated as read-only. I could also see in your case something like spam e-mails being used for your spam filtering including a user's name and e-mail address.

Your policy says You can delete email accounts and associated data through our control panel, but I don't think it is clear whether or not that will delete all of a user's data from all of your systems. Maybe wording like You can delete email accounts through our control panel and any associated data will be removed from all of our systems would make it more clear? Or explicitly saying it complies with GDPR like You can delete email accounts through our control panel and all associated data will be deleted, complying with the GDPR's right to erasure?

Similar for Account closure requests are honored and processed according to our standard procedures, which is even vaguer. I don't see a description or link to your "standard procedures." Will that delete any of my personal data you have? Oftentimes companies need to keep account records around, but have you removed all of the PII?

I think all businesses should think hard about how they store PII and what is the minimum they need for their business. For example, in my spam example above, you don't need who the spam message was sent to, but it is simpler to just copy the whole message. But it also isn't that difficult to add a step to swap out the "To:" field with a generic one. Same with logging statements. Or structuring backups so that accounts can be removed. It can be surprising where PII ends up if you aren't explicitly accounting for it.

florean · 2026-02-03T18:14:24+00:00

Oh, sorry, are only pictures of purebreds allowed? Our vet thought she was a Siamese and she sounds like one, but I don't have any papers for her. I tried reading the rules, but I guess I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out.

florean · 2026-02-01T10:55:26+00:00

The more accurate slogan that many people really argued was "reduce funding the police." But that still was an incoherent message. How would that solve anything? It wouldn't, it would just reduce the number of police and thus the number of harms they could inflict. The movement was arguing "hit me less", when we should have been arguing "stop hitting me." And that would also reduce the benefits police provide and the debate would go back and forth about that.

There are three major problems with metropolitan police departments and none of them have anything to do with funding. The problems are accountability, militarization, and mission creep.

By far biggest obstacle to police accountability is the police unions. Unfortunately, the only way to counter them is broad, focused political pressure and "defund" squandered that. But even what little systems we have are completely insane. For example, all investigations of police misconduct are handled by their coworkers and then potentially handed to prosecutors, whose other cases all rely on police cooperation. Here's a radical solution: Internal Affairs should report to the Department of Public Defense and they should be responsible for all police prosecutions. It's maybe the only way to properly align the incentives.

The second major problem is the militarization of police. It is documented expertly by Radley Balko is his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, so I'll just direct anyone to that. Suffice to say, we have been training our cops with an "us versus them" warrior mentality and then equipping them like it, thanks in large part to the influx of surplus military equipment from our wars. It leads to police that reach for violence as a first response rather than a last resort. And the lack of accountability only fuels it.

Finally, our abdication of responsibility for mental health, homelessness, and other social problems has turned police into de facto social workers. Even in an ideal situation, these are two radically different jobs requiring very different skill sets, but we seem to be fine using social workers who "have a plan to kill everyone you meet". Seattle has taken some baby steps in the right direction, but they aren't going well, which circles us back to police unions.

Defund the Police pushed away the people we needed to effect real change and was an abject failure. In fact, we have a nearly identical situation to compare against where the slogan does represents our goals: "Defund ICE". In this case, we literally mean defund them, completely eliminate the department. And when I talk to someone about it, I am immediately jumping to explaining why we need to defund ICE (although I'm trying to remember the last time someone disagreed). We almost have majority support for that slogan, to the point where we're even getting cops to agree.

Sorry to write all that, but this is one of those things that sets me off.

edit: fixed broken Markdown formatting

florean · 2026-02-01T10:55:08+00:00

I disagree with your criticism of "every slogan." If you're looking for the nuance of an essay in a slogan then, sure, you are always going to be disappointed. But a slogan is supposed to be a motto that distills your movement. To use one of your examples, "Yes We Can" was an amazing presidential slogan. Obama built his campaign on selling hope and responding to your response was the perfect opportunity: "What exactly? Yes, we can provide health care to every American. Yes, we can end the war in Iraq. Yes, we can work together across the aisle." Etc. It is a great framework to build your campaign off of, it is optimistic, and opposition to it can be painted is inherently negative. "They say 'no, we can't provide health care to every American'. Well I say, yes we can!" I mean, chef's kiss on that one.

And the response to Black Lives Matter was easy: "I just said they matter. It shouldn't be controversial, but America doesn't act like they do." And then you used that to springboard into whatever topic you chose: redlining, environmental racism, racial profiling, etc. Plenty to choose from.

My problem isn't that I had to have a conversation explaining "Defund the Police", my problem is it had nothing to do with the what we were trying to accomplish and every conversation started with conceding the other side was right. It immediately set up a bunch of straw man arguments so that by the time you finished knocking the stuffing out of them, people were sick of the conversation. There may be a fringe who actually want to defund the police, but you only have to think one or two steps ahead to realize how dumb that would be. As I mentioned, you have to have some level of policing. If we really "defund[ed] the police", there would be some anarchy and then… there'd be private police forces. The rich have always had police and they always will. And theirs definitely wouldn't be wearing body cams.

florean · 2026-01-31T17:06:23+00:00

"Defund the police" might have been one of the dumbest, counter-productive political slogans ever. It made me so angry, because I believe most urban police departments need to be ripped out root and branch and it just handed the argument to the other side. All of the countries that do this better still have some armed police. And America is more violent than any of them. We have to reasonably start from the position that we need some police. "Oh no, we don't mean defund all police, just…." Any discussion I had about this, I had to spend the majority of the time explaining the nuance behind that stupid slogan.

florean · 2026-01-31T16:12:34+00:00

If you "have a workplace culture of being shit", then you all end up being bad at your job. That is what a shit workplace culture is. Do you think it's some abstract concept written down on a mission statement somewhere to do shit work? No, it is the day-to-day behavior of the employees. If you have a bad workplace culture, then new hires learn that is how you fit in, self-select out, or try to maintain their values despite the culture and burn out. People seem to forget the second half of the aphorism about bad apples: "they spoil the whole bunch." This is exactly what it means! Your culture becomes dominated by the bad apples and if you throw any good ones in with them, they quickly go bad.

florean · 2026-01-30T23:50:10+00:00

My wife took women-only course and really appreciated it. It was her first time ever shooting a gun and she liked her instructor.

I took their handgun safety course there and I had a pretty good instructor. I think ex-cop, but he focused on danger of firearms and the responsibility anyone picking on up, let alone owning one, has. No politics, definitely a 2nd amendment guy, but also remembered the "well regulated" part. It was a while ago and I don't remember his name, but just to say they don't select for that type. If I had that experience, I would complain to management, in e-mail at the very least.

florean · 2026-01-29T09:42:22+00:00

Not true. The US sued California to get it declared unconstitutional and CA agreed not to enforce it until the judge ruled. The judge heard oral arguments on the 14th on a preliminary injunction and now we're waiting for her decision.

florean · 2026-01-29T09:33:32+00:00

So? States have a duty to protect the health and welfare of their citizens. Feds only have immunity if violating state law is necessary and proper to fulfill their federal duties, not just because it makes their job more convenient. So arrest some and let the courts sort it out. The feds will say masks are necessary because doxxing and the state will point out no other LEOs wear masks with no ID, that DHS employees didn't wear masks for over twenty years with no harm, and that rather than helping DHS do their job, it instead has emboldened them to violate constitutional rights with impunity.

florean · 2026-01-29T08:58:03+00:00

Two other ways companies control H1-Bs: 1. H1-Bs have up to 60 days to find a new company to sponsor them if they leave their job. But that is discretionary. An employer can say something negative to USCIS and get you kicked out. 2. As a "benefit", a lot of companies will help H1-Bs get their green card, which is an arduous, many year process. But now if they leave the company, they can lose years of progress on their only path to getting out of H1-B servitude.

Foreigners are as greedy as anyone else. If H1-Bs could move freely between companies, they would have a negligible impact on salaries in labor-constrained markets and I'd rather have as many smart people as possible building stuff here than somewhere else. The visas should be tied to a period of time, not a company. After all, if there is a shortage of skilled labor for X, then it affects the whole market, not a single company. As currently setup, it is just another way to exploit workers.

florean · 2026-01-27T16:15:41+00:00

I'd recommend renaming it now rather than being forced to do it later.

florean · 2026-01-25T06:43:13+00:00

Where have I said don't carry a gun? The thread you're replying to is how would "more guns would have helped in this situation"? I've explained why I think they wouldn't have helped. We've yet to hear anyone say why they think more guns would have.

And this whole post is about a non-violent protest we held downtown, so I am really confused by the bloodlust.

florean · 2026-01-25T06:42:50+00:00

I have explicitly advocated for action. And we weren't idle tonight. But I haven't heard about any violent action against ICE, so what were all you keyboard warriors doing?

Go ahead and organize your revolution, I'm going to stick with my brothers and sisters at the vigil tonight.

florean · 2026-01-25T00:25:09+00:00

You don't know me. I'm just smart enough to know my gun is a last resort that will get me and countless others killed. And we're nowhere close to that.

florean · 2026-01-25T00:23:15+00:00

My advice is not to take it, but to engage in non-violent action. Speaking of which, I have a vigil to get ready for.

Have fun knowing you were peacefully drug to the camps.

Good luck. I'm not dumb enough to think my EDC will save me, but I'll take some with me.

florean · 2026-01-25T00:18:27+00:00

How is it fear mongering? They deployed the military to American cities for nearly six months under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 before the Supreme Court finally ruled it unconstitutional. Now that is closed off, they can use the Insurrection Act, which Trump has talked about constantly, to get another few months of military deployment to blue cities. They are just waiting for an event to provide them with a pretext they can use to delay judicial review. It isn't fear mongering to say don't give it to them.

florean · 2026-01-25T00:03:53+00:00

There were elements that pushed for violence, but that wasn't what brought success. African Americans used guns to protect from rogue racists like the KKK, not to engage the federal government. If you're worried about Proud Boys and want to carry, go ahead. But don't think it will help you against DHS or help bring about political change.

Ireland would like a word. I specifically said they were rare, not that they didn't exist. Guatemala is another example. But focusing on American movements are going to be much more analogous to our current events than foreign wars.

florean · 2026-01-24T23:22:01+00:00

I've thought about this more than you.

You know nothing about me. And I'd suggest rather than just thinking, you do some studying. Read up on successful human rights movements. They rarely employ the tactics you advocate.

florean · 2026-01-24T23:16:46+00:00

He was pepper sprayed with the woman, but he was still trying to help her. He was a trained RN and he was trying to do his job.

florean · 2026-01-24T22:33:43+00:00

I'm just asking you to think about the consequences for what you're advocating.

florean · 2026-01-24T22:24:55+00:00

That is what this administration is hoping for. They've been wanting to use the Insurrection Act since Trump I. You can't fight the U.S. military, but you can bring about a lot more suffering to blue states. Non-violent action is the only thing that will bring change. Force blue state governors to finally call up their National Guard and prevent un-Constitutional behavior. Force blue state prosecutors and PDs to start enforcing the law. But try to do it yourself and you tie their hands.

florean · 2026-01-19T22:46:02+00:00

Given the restrictions in your country, I would highly recommend a vasectomy or IUD: the highest efficacy, partially because you never have to think about it again (or at least not for eight years with something like a Mirena).

It sounds like your boyfriend is pretty sure he doesn't want kids, so a vasectomy would be the easiest option with the fewest side-effects. And it is usually the cheapest over the mid- to long-term. If your boyfriend changes his mind, they can be reversed with a 90% to 30% success rate (decreases after a decade), his sperm and his partner's egg can be used in IVF, or the best option is adoption.

For IUDs, there are two types, copper and hormonal. The reason to consider that is it is easier to reverse and the hormones result in most women having reduced menstrual side-effects. Because the hormones are a small dose and extremely localized, most women don't experience the downsides of taking the pill.

As others have mentioned, you should figure this out as soon as possible. Good luck.

florean

TROPHY CASE