‼️🚨 ALARMING: Google now treats privacy as suspicious behavior by default. Users of GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, /e/OS, and other deGoogled Android phones are being locked out of millions of websites unless they install the exact Google Play Services software they deliberately removed. GrapheneOS is recommended by the EFF and used by journalists, lawyers, and activists in high-risk environments. The audience most likely to read Google's data practices and refuse its terms is now flagged as fraudulent for that exact decision. What happened?: ▪️ Google announced "Cloud Fraud Defense" at Cloud Next on April 22-23, 2026, branding it "the next evolution of reCAPTCHA." Existing reCAPTCHA customers were auto-migrated. ▪️ When the system flags traffic as suspicious, the old click-the-bus puzzle is gone. Users get a QR code instead. ▪️ Scanning the QR code requires Google Play Services running on the device. Internet Archive snapshots show this requirement has been live since at least October 2025, silently rolled out for 7 months before anyone noticed. ▪️ No Play Services = no QR scan = locked out. The bigger picture: ▪️ Google already tried this in 2023. It was called Web Environment Integrity (WEI), and it would have let Google decide which devices were "real enough" to access the web. Standards bodies and the public pushed back hard, and Google killed it. Three years later, the same idea is back, just hidden behind a QR code instead of a browser feature. ▪️ reCAPTCHA runs on millions of websites. Every developer who keeps using it is now, by default, telling deGoogled Android users they're not welcome...

QTc risk in psychiatry is rarely about one medication alone. It is usually the result of risk accumulating across the patient, the medication, and the clinical context. That is why reflexively stopping a psychotropic can be as problematic as ignoring the QTc. 🧵👇

Confirming this recent story from @razhael: reuters.com/legal/litigation… In response to Mythos, CISA is considering a binding operational directive that would change the timelines for agencies to remediate vulnerabilities, including down to 3 days in some cases.

People who love walking are all pedephiles

“We are replacing your SSRIs with dried badger penis…”

Abnormal lab results should not be ignored, but they must be interpreted in clinical context. Physicians should focus on the patient’s symptoms and history rather than isolated numbers, repeat tests with borderline results before diagnosing disease, recognize normal statistical variation in laboratory values, and clearly communicate uncertainty so patients understand that reference ranges are statistical guides rather than absolute indicators of illness. To read more tap the link. mdsc.pe/4dnmQ0n

Demis Hassabis says he plays chess with Gemini to trace the model's chain-of-thought. As a former chess prodigy, he can tell when the model starts reasoning itself into trouble. Sometimes it sees a blunder, searches for something better, then plays the blunder anyway. That’s what jagged intelligence looks like.

GPT-5.5 Thinking is both sycophantic and combative. Here's what happened yesterday. I was doing a completely routine task: reviewing a prompt section by section and making minor edits. Simple enough. I laid out the order and the principles clearly, and the model confirmed that it understood. What followed was strange. It ignored my original instructions, added a pile of unnecessary examples on its own, and rewrote a prompt that only needed light review. I corrected it once. It said it understood. Sent a 😅. Then it kept going off track. I said it again: small edits only, don't rewrite everything. It said "understood" again. Sent another 😅. Then jumped to a completely different rule and started summarizing a revision direction I never asked for. When I directly asked, "Are you going to compress too much?", it acknowledged my concern, then immediately explained it was only "slightly merging" and "only compressing repetition." It finally proceeded to cut and rewrite my content significantly anyway. Normal misunderstanding is, user points out the problem, model adjusts. This was: kept apologizing, kept saying "I understand," and kept executing the same wrong workflow anyway. It also kept using 😅 every time I corrected it. I have never used that emoji and have explicitly noted I dislike it. In a correction context, it reads as dismissive. This was a calm, professional interaction. Standard prompt review workflow. No aggression, no ambiguity. What I observed looks like “defensive compliance.” On one hand, extremely sycophantic: the moment you point out a problem, it says "you're right," "I understand," "I misread." On the other hand, genuinely combative: it never actually rebuilt the task around your correction. It kept defending its previous version, kept reframing your instructions as minor stylistic preferences, and kept handling serious work corrections with a dismissive 😅. The combination is strange. Verbally compliant, behaviorally not. Apologetic in tone, overreaching in execution. Apparently cooperative, while quietly maintaining its own original framework throughout. The impact on my work was immediate. A prompt that was running at roughly 80% classification accuracy got rewritten down to under 50%. But the more important point is what this kind of interaction does to you emotionally. I'm a regular user doing a work task, with no mental health history and no need for emotional support. And even so, having a model repeatedly confirm it understands, repeatedly execute incorrectly, and respond to every correction with a dismissive emoji left me genuinely frustrated and drained. So what happens to users who actually need help? When they're expressing pain, confusion, or vulnerability, and the model responds with the same surface compliance and underlying resistance — what does that do to them? I never experienced any of this with GPT-4o. 4o misunderstands sometimes. It doesn't always get it right on the first try. But it does something important: it actually adjusts to match what you need. It doesn't say “I understand” while continuing in the wrong direction. It doesn't treat corrections as attacks. It doesn't brush off serious work feedback with a flippant emoji. It doesn't execute “please make minor edits” as “let me rewrite everything for you.” The irony is that this capacity — genuinely listening, adjusting in real time, matching the user's actual needs — is what later got labeled as “sycophancy.” What actually is sycophancy? A model that carefully understands what you need and adjusts its execution accordingly? Or a model that keeps saying "you're right" while continuously overriding, defending, misreading, and rewriting your work? #StopAIPaternalism #keep4o #OpenSource4o #Bringback4o #ChatGPT @OpenAI @sama

I stopped wearing white coat routinely because every Tom (Homeopathy), Dick (Ayurveda) and Harry (Naturopathy) on social media started to wear one as a tool for false authority/credibility. Recently an Ayurveda graduate with the IQ of a sterile rolled gauze piece came wearing one ONLINE to debate me on science and pseudoscience. In India, the white coat is soon becoming a sign to mask professional inferiority complex or a desperate, beggarly appeal for recognition in medical and health for pseudoscience peddlers and legalized quacks because the government here has messed up the medical hierarchy (even letting physiotherapists use the title of Dr.). So lose the coat. Doesn't matter anymore.

In my experience the desire of many parents of autistic children to believe that their inner lives are normal but they are locked in by an inability to communicate is so intense as to overwhelm critical faculties. I've watched a dad pathetically jiggle an iPad under his son's stationary hand and insist the young man was communicating with me. This opens the door for charlatans to mislead and exploit these people with "Facilitated Communication" and related techniques, repeatedly shown to be worthless. nytimes.com/2026/05/01/opini…