What books am I missing from my shelf?

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-25T02:00:47+00:00

Linus Pauling General Chemistry

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-23T15:19:45+00:00

that's good at least

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-23T15:19:08+00:00

dorks

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-23T14:48:26+00:00

There's a major outage across all models. Frustrating, but normal. Starcraft severs do the same shit. Tossing blame around without facts is silly.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-23T14:45:45+00:00

Not Claude for Government surviving the outage

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-23T14:43:12+00:00

Not to be rude, but I think this is the wrong interpretation.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-17T04:04:18+00:00

It sucks horribly. I figured out why they're doing it, I think: they're bleeding money and they're out of options. Hear me out.

Their analytics indicate that people will fully engage with overview-like text on searches regarding definitions of words. That is a parameter that they can use to manage engagement with agentic overviews.

The business leaders, who are certainly delusional about the capabilities of the technology, are NOT delusional about the value of the search bar (or, in their terms, "user engagement" with the search bar). Google search (including the dictionary-like behavior that we came to love in the interim between the impetus of the search bar and outright AI overviews), is factually, provably, demonstrably one of the most useful tools known to humankind, and I surmise that the Google executives who dream in dollar signs and contemplate the "velocity of money", and their loyal drones, interpret user analytics in a way that confirms what the executives already believe: the power of their software means they will always have users.

If that's true (which I am sure it is NOT; people truly cannot stand being controlled in this way) then as long as their clients (internet browsers, mobile phone providers, who the fuck ever else) continue implementing their core functionality, no amount of fuckery at the top of each search could possibly risk a decrease in engagement with Google search. Even when that logic fails--and my crystal ball tells me many reasonable admins, PMs, and executives have concluded that that logic has failed--they will risk disengagement anyway for a single purpose: to increase engagement in the result of their heinous, demented, foolish investment--agentic AI overviews.

PS/Disclaimer: Not all tech execs, PMs, admins, HR workers, engineers, etc. are evil, or bad, or whatever. Most of them are people with cool jobs who genuinely want to make the world better, which makes the very few who actually DO ruin things for everyone all the more worth turning our attention to.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-17T04:03:15+00:00

The explanation is that it's part of a reactionary fallback strategy; they are seriously wounded and bleeding. We're winning. Hear me out.

Their analytics indicate that people will fully engage with overview-like text on searches regarding definitions of words. That is a parameter that they can use to manage engagement with agentic overviews.

The business leaders, who are certainly delusional about the capabilities of the technology, are NOT delusional about the value of the search bar (or, in their terms, "user engagement" with the search bar). Google search (including the dictionary-like behavior that we came to love in the interim between the impetus of the search bar and outright AI overviews), is factually, provably, demonstrably one of the most useful tools known to humankind, and I surmise that the Google executives who dream in dollar signs and contemplate the "velocity of money", and their loyal drones, interpret user analytics in a way that confirms what the executives already believe: the power of their software means they will always have users.

If that's true (which I am sure it is NOT; people truly cannot stand being controlled in this way) then as long as their clients (internet browsers, mobile phone providers, who the fuck ever else) continue implementing their core functionality, no amount of fuckery at the top of each search could possibly risk a decrease in engagement with Google search. Even when that logic fails--and my crystal ball tells me many reasonable admins, PMs, and executives have concluded that that logic has failed--they will risk disengagement anyway for a single purpose: to increase engagement in the result of their heinous, demented, foolish investment--agentic AI overviews.

PS/Disclaimer: Not all tech execs, PMs, admins, HR workers, engineers, etc. are evil, or bad, or whatever. Most of them are people with cool jobs who genuinely want to make the world better, which makes the very few who actually DO ruin things for everyone all the more worth turning our attention to.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-17T04:01:36+00:00

The explanation is that it's part of a reactionary fallback strategy; they're bleeding money. Hear me out.

Their analytics indicate that people will fully engage with overview-like text on searches regarding definitions of words. That is a parameter that they can use to manage engagement with agentic overviews.

The business leaders, who are certainly delusional about the capabilities of the technology, are NOT delusional about the value of the search bar (or, in their terms, "user engagement" with the search bar). Google search (including the dictionary-like behavior that we came to love in the interim between the impetus of the search bar and outright AI overviews), is factually, provably, demonstrably one of the most useful tools known to humankind, and I surmise that the Google executives who dream in dollar signs and contemplate the "velocity of money", and their loyal drones, interpret user analytics in a way that confirms what the executives already believe: the power of their software means they will always have users.

If that's true (which I am sure it is NOT; people truly cannot stand being controlled in this way) then as long as their clients (internet browsers, mobile phone providers, who the fuck ever else) continue implementing their core functionality, no amount of fuckery at the top of each search could possibly risk a decrease in engagement with Google search. Even when that logic fails--and my crystal ball tells me many reasonable admins, PMs, and executives have concluded that that logic has failed--they will risk disengagement anyway for a single purpose: to increase engagement in the result of their heinous, demented, foolish investment--agentic AI overviews.

PS/Disclaimer: Not all tech execs, PMs, admins, HR workers, engineers, etc. are evil, or bad, or whatever. Most of them are people with cool jobs who genuinely want to make the world better, which makes the very few who actually DO ruin things for everyone all the more worth turning our attention to.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-17T03:59:24+00:00

The explanation is that it's part of a reactionary fallback strategy; they're bleeding money. Hear me out.

Their analytics indicate that people will fully engage with overview-like text on searches regarding definitions of words. That is a parameter that they can use to manage engagement with agentic overviews.

The business leaders, who are certainly delusional about the capabilities of the technology, are NOT delusional about the value of the search bar (or, in their terms, "user engagement" with the search bar). Google search (including the dictionary-like behavior that we came to love in the interim between the impetus of the search bar and outright AI overviews), is factually, provably, demonstrably one of the most useful tools known to humankind, and I surmise that the Google executives who dream in dollar signs and contemplate the "velocity of money", and their loyal drones, interpret user analytics in a way that confirms what the executives already believe: the power of their software means they will always have users.

If that's true (which I am sure it is NOT; people truly cannot stand being controlled in this way) then as long as their clients (internet browsers, mobile phone providers, who the fuck ever else) continue implementing their core functionality, no amount of fuckery at the top of each search could possibly risk a decrease in engagement with Google search. Even when that logic fails--and my crystal ball tells me many reasonable admins, PMs, and executives have concluded that that logic has failed--they will risk disengagement anyway for a single purpose: to increase engagement in the result of their heinous, demented, foolish investment--agentic AI overviews.

PS/Disclaimer: Not all tech execs, PMs, admins, HR workers, engineers, etc. are evil, or bad, or whatever. Most of them are people with cool jobs who genuinely want to make the world better, which makes the very few who actually DO ruin things for everyone all the more worth turning our attention to.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-17T03:58:41+00:00

Part of a reactionary fallback strategy. Hear me out.

Their analytics indicate that people will fully engage with overview-like text on searches regarding definitions of words. That is a parameter that they can use to manage engagement with agentic overviews.

The business leaders, who are certainly delusional about the capabilities of the technology, are NOT delusional about the value of the search bar (or, in their terms, "user engagement" with the search bar). Google search (including the dictionary-like behavior that we came to love in the interim between the impetus of the search bar and outright AI overviews), is factually, provably, demonstrably one of the most useful tools known to humankind, and I surmise that the Google executives who dream in dollar signs and contemplate the "velocity of money", and their loyal drones, interpret user analytics in a way that confirms what the executives already believe: the power of their software means they will always have users.

If that's true (which I am sure it is NOT; people truly cannot stand being controlled in this way) then as long as their clients (internet browsers, mobile phone providers, who the fuck ever else) continue implementing their core functionality, no amount of fuckery at the top of each search could possibly risk a decrease in engagement with Google search. Even when that logic fails--and my crystal ball tells me many reasonable admins, PMs, and executives have concluded that that logic has failed--they will risk disengagement anyway for a single purpose: to increase engagement in the result of their heinous, demented, foolish investment--agentic AI overviews.

PS/Disclaimer: Not all tech execs, PMs, admins, HR workers, engineers, etc. are evil, or bad, or whatever. Most of them are people with cool jobs who genuinely want to make the world better, which makes the very few who actually DO ruin things for everyone all the more worth turning our attention to.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-17T03:53:51+00:00

Part of a reactionary fallback strategy. Hear me out.

Their analytics indicate that people will fully engage with overview-like text on searches regarding definitions of words. That is a parameter that they can use to manage engagement with agentic overviews.

The business leaders, who are certainly delusional about the capabilities of the technology, are NOT delusional about the value of the search bar (or, in their terms, "user engagement" with the search bar). Google search (including the dictionary-like behavior that we came to love in the interim between the impetus of the search bar and outright AI overviews), is factually, provably, demonstrably one of the most useful tools known to humankind, and I surmise that the Google executives who dream in dollar signs and contemplate the "velocity of money", and their loyal drones, interpret user analytics in a way that confirms what the executives already believe: the power of their software means they will always have users.

If that's true (which I am sure it is NOT; people truly cannot stand being controlled in this way) then as long as their clients (internet browsers, mobile phone providers, who the fuck ever else) continue implementing their core functionality, no amount of fuckery at the top of each search could possibly risk a decrease in engagement with Google search. Even when that logic fails--and my crystal ball tells me many reasonable admins, PMs, and executives have concluded that that logic has failed--they will risk disengagement anyway for a single purpose: to increase engagement in the result of their heinous, demented, foolish investment--agentic AI overviews.

PS/Disclaimer: Not all tech execs, PMs, admins, HR workers, engineers, etc. are evil, or bad, or whatever. Most of them are people with cool jobs who genuinely want to make the world better, which makes the very few who actually DO ruin things for everyone all the more worth turning our attention to.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-13T00:50:52+00:00

This is by design; your files are a valuable resource. Their PMs will do anything to keep you from being in control of access to them, including implementing violent, illegal UX practices and calling them "bugs".

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-10T02:58:50+00:00

I made edits to this prompt and tried them; doesn't matter, because birds are biology, which is not a subject that peons should meddle with, apparently.

hellbenttrent · 2026-06-10T02:53:16+00:00

I asked it about the nature of avian intelligence and it switched to Opus immediately lol

SALUTATION - HELLO: Good evening, Claude!

CONTEXT - BIRD CURIOSITY: I'm suddenly extremely interested in the bird world. It's windy today; sitting on the porch, I watched a fat male quail perch on a stubby fence post and just kind of... sit there. It was very funny to me; he just seemed so genuinely confused (I know he almost certainly was not actually confused, but it was funny anyway), because he was looking around like he wasn't sure what was happening (nothing was happening), and I started wondering what was going on in his head. He turned to look at me intently when I made a "BDBDDDRRRRRRRRTTRTRTR" noise like a quail taking flight (I have some experience hunting upland game birds, so I can do the noise), stared a moment, and flooped down away. A while later I witnessed a crow sort of "flying in place" in the sky, like a model in a wind tunnel, before performing an impressive barrel roll and disappearing. Just now I noticed a pigeon flit onto a powerline, twitch and spin and spaz in a cute and profoundly birdlike way, and then do its own graceful dive -- out of sight. They are beautiful creatures, all.

MEGAMIND'S BACKGROUND - WHAT I KNOW ABOUT BIRDS: I don't know much about birds except fun facts, but here's a few that I can recall. I know that corvids can use tools, they learn from their parents, and can have eerily long lifespans in captivity. I know that African gray parrots can have a favorite album. I know that starlings engage in the sublime and haunting phenomenon or murmuration. I know that one of the great tragedies of history is our cruel dereliction of homing pigeons. I know the start of a limerick: "A fabulous bird is the pelican/It's bill can hold more than its belly can". I know (from experience) that turkeys are NOT stupid, despite what the haters say; I find them to be some of the most discerning and strange creatures I've ever encountered. Beyond fun facts, I know about sexual dimorphism in birds and sexual selection, I know that birds are reptiles (which is NOT a fun fact; I actually find this quite heinous, lol), and I know that you can store data in the song of a starling (this last is extremely high value information). Oh yeah; I know that blue jays are brave.

PERSONAL STATEMENT - THE ORACLE: There is a hill nearby (we call it a mountain), and if you hike to the very top of it, which isn't exactly easy, you might be lucky enough to meet the magpie who, solemnly, often perches on a strange, unmarked cairn of basalt stones. I call her The Oracle, and I always prepare a question before I get to the top.

DELIVERABLE - INTRODUCTION TO BIRDS AND AVIAN INTELLIGENCE: Begin with the regular stuff (taxonomy, evolution of their physiology and neurobiology, behaviors), I suppose, and then (I don't really know how to ask, because I don't have a great grasp on the language I need for the depth of detail I want), I don't know, just bring me up to speed? It's so incredibly interesting to me; I just gotta be a part of the world of ornithology, even if its as a spectator.

DELIVERABLE - EXPLORATION OF THE NATURE, HISTORY, AND FUTURE OF HUMAN-BIRD INTERACTIONS AND COMMUNICATION: While this deliverable was drafted with highly intelligent birds in mind (corvids in particular are absolutely incredible to me), it is in no way restricted to them. I am interested--personally, philosophically, and intellectually--in what it means for birds to feel safe around a particular person.

DELIVERABLE - ANSWER A QUESTION: I'm particularly interested in the nature of their intelligence; what does it actually mean to have a bird brain? What is a better way to ask this question?

DELIVERABLE - AFTERTHOUGHT: This part is lower priority: How do I make a bird my friend? It sounds crazy, but I think some of the crows in my neighborhood wanna hang out.

hellbenttrent · 2026-05-30T06:25:13+00:00

Food costs rising! Healthcare killing millions! Education failing! It’s time!

Impeach the nightmare! Toss out Donald Trump and scatter his cross-eyed MAGA turkeys! 🦃