How comprimised is Ed Zitron (Where's Your Ed At)?
You need to use the tools of the job you've chosen to do
Web dev at the end of the world, from Hveragerði, Icelandwww.baldurbjarnason.com
The Insanity of the Facebook Puzzle Scam Code: “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” and the Unbelievable Spread of an Obvious Scam
It’s hard to overstate just how bizarre it is that something as nonsensical as “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” has taken over Facebook and even started creeping into Google search results. This strange code — which looks like some mix of a fake model number, a coded message, and a bot gibberish tag — has appeared in thousands of posts across Facebook. And what’s wild is that, despite being so obviously a scam, so clearly fraudulent, so transparently fake, it’s everywhere. The fact that it’s not being widely discussed, not being reported on by major outlets, not being taken down effectively by Facebook, makes the whole thing even more insane.
You can go on Facebook right now, type that code into the search bar — “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” or “BE CV BK.2025 -R-D” — and what you’ll find is a flood of the same kinds of posts. Some are in different languages. Some use emojis. Some pretend to be part of “puzzle groups” or “mystery challenges.” Others are just random accounts spamming the same text over and over again, often accompanied by weird links, grainy photos, or random “game” announcements. But the one thing they all share is the same exact scam code.
The strangest part is that this isn’t just some obscure niche spam chain buried deep in Facebook’s murky corners. It’s out in the open. Public groups. Public pages. Public posts. You can find it by simply searching. It’s like the digital equivalent of walking through a city and seeing “SCAM” graffiti plastered across every wall — and somehow, no one’s talking about it.
That’s what makes this whole “puzzle scam” phenomenon feel so surreal. It’s not hidden. It’s not subtle. It’s right there in plain sight. And yet, despite being so blatant, it’s spreading like wildfire.
It’s easy to see why the “puzzle” angle works. These kinds of scams often rely on curiosity — on the human desire to “figure out” something mysterious. The code looks cryptic enough to seem like there’s a deeper meaning behind it. “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D.” It almost feels like it could be a secret message, or a part of a viral challenge, or some kind of ARG (alternate reality game). And that’s what hooks people in. Someone sees a friend post it. They think, “What is this? Is this some new Facebook game? Is this part of something?” And before long, they’re clicking links, joining groups, following instructions, or even sharing the post themselves — unknowingly helping to spread the scam further.
The entire design of this “puzzle” is meant to exploit one of the simplest psychological triggers: curiosity. Humans are hardwired to seek answers, especially when something looks like a code or a mystery. Scammers have known this for years — that’s why “riddles,” “tests,” “IQ puzzles,” and “hidden messages” have long been a popular front for phishing scams, malware links, and data-harvesting schemes. This particular Facebook scam just takes that formula and dresses it up with a meaningless code that looks intriguing to the untrained eye.
But what’s really unsettling about this whole thing is just how many posts there are. It’s not just a handful of scammers copying and pasting the same message. There are thousands. Some of them are weeks or months old. Others are being posted in real time. The scam has evolved into a kind of bot swarm, almost like a virus that keeps replicating itself across the platform. And the lack of any large-scale intervention from Facebook makes it even worse.
You’d think a platform with as much power, as much data control, and as much AI filtering as Facebook would be able to catch something as blatantly repetitive and nonsensical as this. But nope. The scam lives on, thriving. And that’s what’s disturbing. The scammers have found a way to stay one step ahead — maybe by slightly changing punctuation, or spacing, or formatting, to keep slipping past Facebook’s algorithmic filters. The difference between “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” and “BE CV BK.2025 -R-D” might be enough to fool automated moderation systems.
And meanwhile, the rest of us are just sitting here, watching this nonsense flood our feeds, while hardly anyone seems to be calling it out.
It’s a sign of how desensitized we’ve all become to online spam. There’s so much garbage on the internet — from fake giveaways to impersonation accounts to AI-generated comment bots — that something like this barely registers anymore. The absurdity of a code like “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” showing up everywhere doesn’t even faze people anymore. We’ve reached a point where mass spam has become so normalized that people just scroll past it without question.
But the danger here isn’t just about annoyance. It’s about what’s behind these scams. Many of these “puzzle” posts are actually phishing attempts or clickbait traps that redirect users to shady sites. Others use the puzzle format to get users to comment, share, or click a “Continue” button — all tactics designed to collect engagement data or personal information. And then there’s the possibility that some of these are part of larger coordinated bot networks — networks designed not just to scam individuals, but to manipulate engagement metrics, artificially inflate content visibility, or even test out new spam strategies that can later be used in political or commercial manipulation.
That may sound far-fetched, but it’s not. Facebook has long been a testing ground for disinformation and bot campaigns. If scammers can flood the platform with something so meaningless yet widespread, imagine what they can do when they actually put some effort into it.
What’s also strange is how the scam has spread to Google. Search “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” and you’ll see that it’s indexed in all kinds of pages — cached Facebook links, random blog comment sections, obscure reposting sites. The digital footprint of this nonsense code is massive. And that means it’s not just a Facebook issue anymore. It’s become part of the broader web ecosystem, another layer in the weird, polluted strata of modern internet junk data.
It’s almost poetic, in a depressing way. The internet used to be about connection, creativity, and genuine curiosity. Now that same curiosity — the thing that once drove people to explore and learn — is being weaponized against them. Instead of solving puzzles for fun, people are being tricked into interacting with spam. Instead of decoding art or mystery, they’re decoding scams. And it’s not even subtle anymore.
What’s wild, too, is that Facebook users themselves are often the ones unknowingly keeping it alive. The bots can only do so much — but when real people start engaging, commenting, sharing, or trying to “warn” others by reposting the code, that activity actually boosts the visibility of the scam. Facebook’s algorithm doesn’t care why something is getting engagement — it just sees numbers. So every time someone posts, “Don’t fall for BE CV BK 2025 -R-D, it’s a scam!”, that post can ironically push the code further up the visibility ladder, leading even more people to see it.
The whole thing feels like an ouroboros of internet stupidity — a self-feeding loop where spam generates attention, attention generates engagement, and engagement keeps the spam alive.
And maybe that’s the most disturbing part of all: how effortless it’s become for something like this to go viral without any real content behind it. It doesn’t even have to make sense. It doesn’t have to be convincing. It doesn’t have to look real. It just has to exist in large enough quantity to trick the algorithm.
It’s a perfect reflection of how broken online ecosystems have become. In the old internet, scams had to at least try to look legitimate — a fake website pretending to be your bank, or a phony giveaway with a convincing logo. Now? All it takes is a random string of letters and numbers, a few thousand bot accounts, and a platform too busy or too lazy to do anything about it.
Facebook’s failure to stop something this blatant speaks volumes. It’s not just an oversight — it’s a sign that their moderation systems are reactive, not proactive. They’re so focused on surface-level metrics that something like this can thrive indefinitely. And in that sense, the “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” code becomes more than just a scam. It becomes a symptom. A sign of decay. Proof that the systems that were supposed to protect users from obvious manipulation are no longer functioning as intended.
It’s worth asking: what’s the endgame here? What’s the point of this code? Is it just engagement farming? A front for phishing? A bot experiment? Or is it something even weirder — an automated system left to run amok, spamming for the sake of spamming?
At this point, no one really knows. But that’s the scary part — no one’s really trying to find out, either. The internet is so overloaded with noise that even something this widespread can go largely unnoticed by the mainstream. People see it, shrug, and move on.
That’s how scams survive. Not because they’re convincing, but because people have stopped caring enough to investigate.
Maybe that’s the biggest takeaway from the “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” puzzle scam — not just how it spreads, but what it reveals about us. We’re living in a time where nonsense thrives because attention is cheap. Where scams succeed not through sophistication, but through sheer saturation. Where even the most absurd, poorly disguised fraud can blanket an entire social network and nobody blinks.
The “BE CV BK 2025 -R-D” code isn’t just a scam — it’s a mirror. A reflection of an online culture that’s too burned out, too overwhelmed, and too desensitized to call out the obvious anymore.
And maybe, until more people start noticing the sheer absurdity of things like this, we’re going to keep seeing the same pattern play out — again and again — until our feeds are nothing but codes, spam, and empty noise pretending to be meaning.
Also on:
Bridgy Fed
Bridgy Fed is a bridge between decentralized social networks like the fediverse, Bluesky, and web sites and blogs.fed.brid.gy
Emergent introspective awareness in large language models
Emergent introspective awareness in large language models
Research from Anthropic on the ability of large language models to introspectwww.anthropic.com
reshared this
Life is Strange: Rewriting Max and Chloe’s Reunion for the Show
When adapting a beloved game like Life is Strange to television, some narrative choices from the original medium need reevaluation. One of the most significant of these involves the reunion between Max Caulfield and Chloe Price. In the game, Max doesn’t immediately recognize Chloe after returning to Arcadia Bay. While this works in an interactive gaming context—where the player experiences discovery and uncertainty—television is a different medium. The audience needs to understand character relationships quickly and believably. Asking viewers to accept that Max, who is socially aware and digitally connected, wouldn’t recognize her long-time friend stretches plausibility. For the TV adaptation, a more realistic approach is necessary: Max and Chloe should reconnect in a way that honors their history and establishes their friendship immediately, even if that means altering the original story slightly.
From the outset, television can utilize modern communication tools to create a believable setup. Max, returning to Arcadia Bay after months or years away, might naturally reach out to Chloe via text or social media, signaling both initiative and awareness. This small act immediately conveys several character traits: Max is thoughtful, proactive, and still invested in her old friendships. A brief exchange—Max sending a simple “Hey, I’m back in town” message—grounds the interaction in reality while opening the door to dramatic tension. Chloe’s reply, perhaps teasingly noting she’s been busy, mentioning she might be seeing someone on campus, or suggesting they catch up later, establishes the social and emotional dynamics of their renewed connection. This approach preserves narrative tension without relying on an implausible lack of recognition.
This reconnection also reinforces the continuity of the characters’ histories. In the game, Max’s initial confusion creates a sense of estrangement, which can feel artificial in a television adaptation. Audiences watching the show know these characters have shared a deep past, full of memories and emotional weight. By allowing Max to recognize Chloe immediately, the show honors the audience’s expectations and strengthens the emotional core of their friendship. The characters’ bond is not invented or discovered slowly; it is remembered and rekindled, which makes their interactions more meaningful and their stakes more personal when extraordinary events unfold.
Introducing this adjustment also allows the show to explore more nuanced character dynamics. Chloe, aware that Max has been away, may express a mix of relief, skepticism, and guarded optimism. She might hint at her own growth or changes in her life—new friends, a potential romantic interest, or experiences she’s had in Max’s absence. Max, in turn, could reveal her anxieties, insecurities, or the reasons she stayed away. This dialogue creates a layered, believable reunion that conveys emotional depth while setting the stage for future narrative arcs. It also helps establish Chloe as a fully realized character, not just a catalyst for Max’s story. Television affords these small but significant character beats, which might be overlooked or handled differently in a game.
Another advantage of this approach is pacing. A believable reconnection early in the series allows the show to move quickly into central plot developments—Max’s powers, the mysterious tornado, the unfolding mysteries of Arcadia Bay—without spending excessive time on an implausible estrangement. By establishing their friendship from the outset, the series can use the emotional resonance of their bond to heighten suspense, drama, and moral stakes. The audience immediately cares about their relationship, so when supernatural or catastrophic events occur, the impact is more intense. Their connection feels earned and real, rather than artificially constructed by delayed recognition.
Social media and texting also provide a realistic lens for contemporary storytelling. Unlike the early 2010s setting of the original game, the TV adaptation can depict Max and Chloe as digitally connected characters. Max may have seen Chloe’s new hair color, changes in style, or other indicators of her evolving personality online. This allows the reunion to be rooted in plausibility: Max recognizes Chloe instantly, while Chloe’s personality and experiences during Max’s absence are subtly conveyed. These small narrative choices communicate both continuity and realism, ensuring that viewers accept the reunion without questioning character logic.
This revised approach also opens opportunities for tension and narrative layering. For instance, Chloe’s reply to Max could include a hint that she’s wary of reconnecting, or that she’s currently engaged in other social or romantic entanglements. Max might respond with humor, hesitation, or self-deprecation, signaling both her eagerness to reconnect and her awareness of the complexities of Chloe’s life. These small exchanges create dramatic depth and set up future conflicts or dilemmas, which are essential for a serialized television narrative. They also reinforce the central theme of friendship and choice: the decisions Max and Chloe make early on will echo throughout the story.
From a character development perspective, this adjustment allows the show to portray Max as socially aware and emotionally mature. In the game, her initial failure to recognize Chloe could be interpreted as a narrative convenience. On television, however, audiences expect characters to act in ways that are consistent with their established traits. Max is intelligent, observant, and digitally connected; it makes sense that she would remember Chloe and take proactive steps to reconnect. By aligning behavior with characterization, the show avoids jarring inconsistencies and ensures that viewers can fully invest in the narrative.
Additionally, establishing their connection early creates opportunities for foreshadowing and thematic resonance. As Max and Chloe rekindle their friendship, subtle visual or narrative cues can hint at the supernatural and temporal elements to come. Their conversation might take place against a backdrop of environmental anomalies, minor temporal distortions, or other subtle Easter eggs that signal to the audience that Arcadia Bay is not ordinary. These details, woven into a realistic reunion, maintain tension and intrigue without undermining the believability of the characters’ interactions.
This approach also deepens emotional stakes. In the TV adaptation, when extraordinary events occur—Max manipulating time, Chloe facing danger, the tornado threatening Arcadia Bay—the audience will feel the weight of their bond more acutely. Because their friendship was never artificially erased or delayed, viewers perceive it as authentic and enduring. The consequences of Max’s choices, Chloe’s risks, and the unfolding mysteries carry greater emotional resonance because the show has established that these characters genuinely care for each other. The dramatic tension is therefore amplified by a foundation of relational realism.
A more immediate reunion also allows for creative storytelling opportunities that the game did not explore. For instance, early dialogue could hint at Chloe’s personal struggles or past traumas in Max’s absence, which can be revisited in later episodes to enrich character arcs. Max’s awareness of Chloe’s social or romantic entanglements introduces subtle interpersonal tension, creating narrative threads that pay off in later episodes. By integrating these relational dynamics early, the show can weave together character-driven and plot-driven storytelling in a way that feels organic and compelling.
Moreover, this adjustment reinforces one of the series’ core themes: connection and reconnection. Life is Strange is a story about relationships, memory, and the choices that shape lives. By allowing Max and Chloe to reconnect in a realistic, modern way, the show foregrounds this theme from the beginning. Their friendship is not discovered belatedly; it is rekindled thoughtfully, emphasizing the enduring nature of bonds even across distance and time. This sets the tone for the narrative’s exploration of consequence, choice, and the ways relationships evolve under extraordinary circumstances.
The adjustment also has visual and narrative advantages. Television can use visual cues to highlight the characters’ familiarity and comfort with each other. A text message notification can trigger a small smile or nervous glance from Max. Chloe’s reaction to seeing Max on campus can be layered with subtle body language: recognition, surprise, warmth, and guarded optimism. These cues create a rich, cinematic portrayal of friendship that transcends dialogue alone. By combining dialogue, visuals, and pacing, the show communicates both emotional depth and narrative clarity.
This reconnection also resolves a potential implausibility in the game. In reality, even if Max and Chloe had drifted apart, it is highly unlikely that Max would fail to recognize her friend after months or years, especially given social media awareness. By addressing this directly, the show respects audience intelligence and avoids stretching plausibility. Viewers can immediately accept the reunion as natural, which allows them to focus on the drama, suspense, and supernatural elements of the story rather than questioning basic character logic.
In addition, this approach enriches the pacing of early episodes. With the reunion established from the beginning, the show can quickly transition into the central mysteries: Max’s powers, environmental anomalies, and the tornado that threatens Arcadia Bay. Because viewers understand the characters’ emotional stakes, these plot developments land with greater impact. The audience is already invested in Max and Chloe’s bond, so every decision, every risk, and every supernatural event resonates more deeply.
Finally, this adjustment highlights television’s ability to enhance narrative plausibility while remaining faithful to the spirit of the original game. Max and Chloe’s friendship, rooted in history and rekindled realistically, maintains the emotional core of the story. Minor changes—texting, acknowledgment of social media awareness, and early dialogue about personal lives—make the reunion believable and relatable without undermining plot or thematic elements. By establishing their connection early, the show can deliver an emotionally resonant, suspenseful, and engaging adaptation that honors both characters and narrative while making necessary adjustments for a modern, serialized television format.
In conclusion, the TV adaptation of Life is Strange should revise the Max-Chloe reunion to reflect realism and modern social dynamics. Max should recognize Chloe immediately, reconnecting via text or social media after months or years apart. Chloe’s response can hint at current social or romantic dynamics while leaving room for future narrative tension. This approach strengthens character development, honors audience expectations, establishes emotional stakes, and allows the series to move efficiently into central plotlines. By creating a reunion grounded in plausibility, the show preserves the spirit of Max and Chloe’s friendship, enhances narrative coherence, and ensures that viewers are emotionally invested from the very first episode. A believable, early reconnection is not just a minor change—it is essential for selling the characters’ bond, maximizing emotional resonance, and anchoring the extraordinary events of Arcadia Bay in a foundation of authentic friendship.
Also on:
Bridgy Fed
Bridgy Fed is a bridge between decentralized social networks like the fediverse, Bluesky, and web sites and blogs.fed.brid.gy
Life is Strange: Expanding Day 1 – From Max’s Selfie to the First Signs of Something Strange
The beginning of a television adaptation is the foundation upon which everything else rests. For Life is Strange, the game opens in media res, with Max glimpsing a terrifying tornado flash-forward during her photography class. While this works interactively, television requires a more deliberate approach. Audiences are passive viewers, so they need context, character, and world-building before being confronted with apocalyptic visions. In my vision for the opening of the Life is Strange TV show, the very first scene should immediately establish Max as a character, her environment, and her passions, while hinting at the supernatural elements that will define the series. There is no better way to do this than to begin with Max taking the Everyday Heroes contest selfie.
Starting the show with this selfie scene accomplishes multiple narrative goals efficiently. Max is meticulously composing her shot, adjusting angles, lighting, and framing, immediately establishing her perfectionism, her artistic eye, and her attention to detail. Torn-up photos litter the floor around her, visual evidence of her self-critical nature. These details convey that Max is both insecure and highly disciplined, providing immediate insight into her character without dialogue. At the same time, the setting—a dorm room or photography classroom—anchors the audience in her daily life. We know who she is, where she is, and what she cares about, all before the story escalates to extraordinary events. This grounding ensures that when the series later introduces supernatural or catastrophic elements, the audience is emotionally invested in Max’s perspective.
From this opening, the series can transition smoothly into the broader Day 1 narrative. Max’s morning could continue with small, seemingly mundane interactions that reveal character and relationships. A brief conversation with a roommate about the contest might demonstrate her humility and her social anxieties. A casual exchange with a peer in the hallway could hint at her self-conscious nature, reinforcing her perfectionism. These grounded moments allow the audience to understand Max as a fully realized character, rather than as an avatar for player choice. Television thrives on subtle, visual storytelling, and these early interactions provide the scaffolding upon which the series’ emotional stakes can be built.
Once the audience is grounded in Max’s character and daily routine, the show can begin to introduce subtle anomalies that hint at the larger supernatural and temporal narrative. These could be phenomena that were minor Easter eggs in the game, now elevated to narrative significance. Perhaps Max notices her camera briefly capturing ghostly streaks of light that aren’t visible to the naked eye, or she sees shadows shifting unnaturally in peripheral vision. Objects might flicker or move slightly when she isn’t looking directly at them. These anomalies should be subtle enough not to dominate the narrative but noticeable enough that attentive viewers sense that Arcadia Bay is not quite ordinary. By seeding these supernatural cues early, the series builds tension gradually, making the eventual tornado flash-forward feel less like a jarring intrusion and more like the natural escalation of events.
Chloe Price, a central figure in Max’s life, should also be introduced early in this Day 1 build-up. Her appearance should feel organic, emerging naturally from Max’s routine. Perhaps Chloe bursts into the dorm room to tease Max about obsessing over the perfect shot or jokingly critiques her selfie attempt. Their interaction should capture both affection and tension, establishing the complexity of their friendship immediately. By grounding Chloe’s introduction in a shared moment with Max, the show reinforces their bond and sets up emotional stakes for the tornado and other climactic events later in the series. Television can capture nuance through gestures, pauses, and visual framing, which allows the depth of their relationship to resonate without needing extended exposition.
Environmental world-building is another crucial component of the Day 1 sequence. Arcadia Bay should feel like a living, breathing town from the outset. The show can depict local shops, students walking to class, teachers interacting, and minor townspeople engaging in everyday activities. Subtle signs of unusual phenomena could be scattered throughout: birds flocking erratically, a local news report mentioning unexplained weather patterns, or power fluctuations at Blackwell Academy. By integrating these details organically into Max’s first day, the series communicates that the world is layered, with ordinary life intersecting with extraordinary anomalies. Viewers perceive these cues as foreshadowing, even if they are initially background elements.
Max’s photography, introduced with the contest selfie, should remain a through-line throughout Day 1. Her camera serves not just as a tool for art but as a lens for observing the world and capturing subtle temporal or environmental distortions. Perhaps she takes a casual photo of Chloe or the dorm hallway and later notices anomalies in the developed image—slight streaks, unexpected reflections, or blurred figures. These anomalies could serve as narrative breadcrumbs, hinting at Max’s latent powers and the story’s overarching temporal themes. By grounding these supernatural hints in Max’s established interests and habits, the series maintains coherence between character and plot while rewarding attentive viewers.
The Day 1 sequence should also emphasize Max’s internal perspective. Television can achieve this through visual motifs, voice-over narration, and cinematic framing. Early glimpses into her thoughts—her self-critical tendencies while reviewing photos, her curiosity about unusual events, or her anxious anticipation about the contest—invite the audience into her consciousness. By establishing this internal viewpoint from the outset, the show ensures that subsequent events, including the tornado flash-forward and later moral dilemmas, carry emotional weight and narrative clarity. Audiences are invested not just in what happens, but in Max’s experience of it.
As Day 1 progresses, the show can gradually build toward the first tornado vision. Subtle environmental cues introduced earlier—the flickering lights, distorted shadows, anomalies in photographs—can escalate in intensity. Papers might swirl unnaturally, distant objects might appear to bend or shimmer, or the wind could carry a strange, almost musical tone. These cues set up a tense, suspenseful atmosphere, culminating in Max glimpsing the tornado flash-forward. By the time this vision occurs, viewers are already primed: they understand Max, her environment, her friends, and the subtle strangeness in her world. The tornado sequence is no longer a sudden shock but the natural escalation of an intricately constructed opening day.
The opening Day 1 narrative also allows for foreshadowing of moral and thematic stakes. Max’s perfectionism, demonstrated through discarded photos and her obsessive attention to detail, mirrors her later struggle with the limits of her powers. Her curiosity and observational nature, highlighted through photography, foreshadow her eventual confrontation with temporal anomalies and the tornado. Chloe’s presence establishes relational stakes, creating tension around the moral and emotional choices Max will face. By interweaving these narrative threads into the first day, the show prepares the audience for the complex interplay of character, choice, and consequence that defines the series.
Furthermore, Day 1 is an opportunity to explore subtle humor and teen drama, balancing the supernatural tension with relatable, grounded moments. Max’s interactions with classmates, her quiet frustration at imperfect photos, and Chloe’s playful teasing provide levity and emotional texture. These grounded moments make the extraordinary elements—the temporal anomalies, environmental distortions, and the tornado flash-forward—feel more impactful by contrast. By balancing humor, drama, and suspense, the opening episode establishes the tonal rhythm of the series, signaling to the audience that Life is Strange blends everyday life with extraordinary, sometimes frightening, events.
The Easter eggs from the original game can be elevated in Day 1 into meaningful narrative hints. Minor anomalies, hidden messages, or peculiar behaviors by background characters can become threads that the show can revisit in later episodes. For example, a fleeting glimpse of a strange symbol on a bulletin board or an NPC reacting oddly to Max’s photography can be introduced casually but carry significance later. Television allows the audience to perceive and ponder these subtle details, creating a layered, immersive narrative where the world itself feels alive and unpredictable.
Max’s latent powers can also be subtly foreshadowed during Day 1. She may notice small distortions—objects behaving unpredictably, déjà vu moments, or anomalies in her photographs. These hints signal that her abilities are emerging and that the world around her is not entirely ordinary. By presenting these cues gradually, the show creates suspense and prepares the audience for the central role Max’s powers will play in shaping both character development and narrative outcomes.
By grounding Day 1 in Max’s routine—her selfie, interactions, observations, and subtle environmental oddities—the series establishes both character and narrative foundations. Viewers understand her personality, her relationships, and her environment while being gently primed for the extraordinary events to come. When the tornado flash-forward finally occurs, it lands with both visual and emotional impact, reinforcing the stakes and the significance of Max’s powers, choices, and limitations.
Finally, this approach ensures cohesion between character development, thematic resonance, and narrative escalation. Max’s perfectionism and insecurity, her observational skills, her relationship with Chloe, and the subtle anomalies of Arcadia Bay all converge in Day 1 to create a rich, layered opening. The tornado vision becomes more than a shock; it is the culmination of an intricately constructed day that grounds viewers in Max’s world, establishes emotional stakes, and foreshadows the supernatural and temporal challenges of the series. By starting the show with Max’s Everyday Heroes selfie and carefully building her first day, the adaptation honors the spirit of the game while exploiting television’s strengths: visual storytelling, character depth, and immersive pacing.
In conclusion, the Life is Strange TV adaptation should begin with Max taking the Everyday Heroes contest selfie, a brief but powerful scene that immediately conveys character, environment, and tone. From there, the first day unfolds with grounded, relatable interactions, subtle Easter eggs, environmental anomalies, and hints of Max’s latent powers. Chloe’s introduction, town-building, and minor supernatural cues create narrative tension and foreshadow the tornado. This opening episode balances humor, drama, suspense, and thematic resonance, ensuring that the audience is invested in Max, Chloe, and Arcadia Bay before the story escalates. By integrating these elements thoughtfully, the show can craft a compelling, immersive first episode that lays the foundation for the emotional and narrative journey to follow, blending ordinary life with extraordinary events in a way that is both faithful to the game and enhanced by television storytelling.
Also on:
Bridgy Fed
Bridgy Fed is a bridge between decentralized social networks like the fediverse, Bluesky, and web sites and blogs.fed.brid.gy
Pignianza mediastica con l’aggiunta di gaming, il che ci porta verso cose più epiche!
Oggi… e ieri… e forse anche l’altro ieri… mi trovo forse in un bel po’ di rotting, che è ahimè l’unica reazione che mi è sia permessa (a differenza di cosa io preferirei fare…) che praticamente possibile (a differenza di cosa sarebbe in realtà meglio fare…) all’infinita disperazione che si sviluppa dentro di me a […]
Trump Administration Providing Weapons Grade Plutonium to Sam Altman
Trump Administration Providing Weapons Grade Plutonium to Sam Altman
The White House is providing plutonium to Sam Altman's Oklo, one of four US companies chosen to test experimental reactor designs.Joe Wilkins (Futurism)
like this
Can we talk about the people who use Linux?
like this
don't like this
reshared this
Trump Goes Full Dictator With Bonkers Threat to Use Air Force and Navy in U.S. Cities
Trump Goes Full Dictator With Bonkers Threat to Use Air Force and Navy in U.S. Cities
Trump’s latest threat sparked widespread criticism that he was trying to play out a “dictator fantasy.”Farrah Tomazin (The Daily Beast)
adhocfungus likes this.
Will AI Change College Campuses and Career Readiness?
AI demands new models of learning focused on adaptability and human skills.
Discover how AI is reshaping the job market and why LinkedIn’s chief economist warns that even solidly middle-class careers are about to change.Jamillah Moore Ed.D. (Psychology Today)
DOJ Puts Prosecutors On Leave For Accurately Describing Jan. 6 Attack
Taranto, who was found with illegal guns and ammunition near Obama’s house, was convicted of those charges in May. In their memo Tuesday, Valdivia and White, asked a judge to sentence Taranto to 27 months in prison.
Laying out the factual background of their request, Valdivia and White told the court Taranto participated in the Jan. 6 attack and subsequently spread conspiracy theories about it.
DOJ Puts Prosecutors On Leave For Accurately Describing Jan. 6 Attack - Democracy Docket
The Department of Justice (DOJ) this week placed two federal prosecutors on leave after they wrote in a court filing that on Jan. 6, 2021, “thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S.Democracy Docket
like this
Mobile Site - Detached navigation bar issue
Go to piefed.social/user/settings and paste this CSS into the 'Additional CSS' field:
.mobilenav { display: none; }
This will remove the bottom bar so you'll need to use the hamburger menu in the top right for navigation.
I had the a similar issue (although only when posting new posts) and I also thought it was a Firefox bug.
Although in my case it was Firefox for Android address/navigation bar that was getting detached.
I wonder if this is a different issue altogether or related.
Ubuntu Unity hanging by a thread as wunderkind maintainer gets busy with life
Ubuntu Unity hanging by a thread as wunderkind maintainer gets busy with life
: Team begs for help as teenage dev who revived Canonical’s old Unity desktop prioritizes studiesBrandon Vigliarolo (The Register)
AI layoffs to backfire: Half quietly rehired at lower pay
AI layoffs to backfire: Half quietly rehired at lower pay
: Bosses banking on automation? 55% will regret those job cutsLindsay Clark (The Register)
copymyjalopy likes this.
Revealed: Pentagon orders states’ national guards to form ‘quick reaction forces’ for ‘crowd control’
Quick reaction to help people? Like in a disaster?
No.
Revealed: Pentagon orders states’ national guards to form ‘quick reaction forces’ for ‘crowd control’
Pentagon memo details plan to train over 20,000 national guard members across the US to carry out Trump’s order on subduing civil unrestAaron Glantz (The Guardian)
like this
The Missing President
Trump’s Absence in Shutdown Fight Is Glaring
Trump has been busy with everything but the government shutdown.Toluse Olorunnipa (The Atlantic)
adhocfungus likes this.
Tailscale Peer Relays
Introducing Tailscale Peer Relays
Today we’re excited to announce public availability of Tailscale Peer Relays, a traffic relaying alternative to Tailscale’s managed DERP servers that can be enabled on any Tailscale node.Kabir Sikand (tailscale.com)
RRF Cinema. After the hunt. Dopo la caccia
We should all be Luddites
As artificial intelligence reconfigures every dimension of our societies—from labor markets to classrooms to newsrooms—we should remember the Luddites. Not as caricatures, but in the original sense: People who refuse to accept that the deployment of new technology should be dictated unilaterally by corporations or in cahoots with the government, especially when it undermines workers’ ability to earn a living, social cohesion, public goods, and democratic institutions.Journalists, academics, policymakers, and educators—people whose work shapes public understanding or steers policy responses—have a special responsibility in this moment: To avoid reproducing AI hype by uncritically acquiescing to corporate narratives about the benefits or inevitability of AI innovation. Rather, they should focus on human agency and what the choices made by corporations, governments, and civil society mean for the trajectory of AI development.
This isn’t just about AI’s capabilities; it’s about who decides what those capabilities are used for, who benefits, and who pays the price.
We should all be Luddites
Courtney Radsch discusses rehabilitating the idea of Luddites as people concerned with the control and impact of technology.Brookings
adhocfungus likes this.
The Guardian view on Argentina’s election: one step closer to becoming a Trumpian client state
The Guardian view on Argentina’s election: one step closer to becoming a Trumpian client state
Editorial: A $40bn rescue may have helped Javier Milei scrape through midterms, but it leaves Argentina’s democracy and economy more dependent than ever on WashingtonEditorial (The Guardian)
🇰🇵 Inside Pyongyang’s internet café where most people are playing games. Looks like a nice spot to hang out!!
Video link -> video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1…
Source -> xcancel.com/JustCherry__/statu…
Also, this is a list of games NK people can play:
Outside the Internet Cafe:
NOAA sends draft seabed-mining rule to White House
NOAA sends draft seabed-mining rule to White House - E&E News by POLITICO
The agency is reviewing a permit request from a company that aims to harvest minerals on the Pacific Ocean floor.Daniel Cusick (E&E News by POLITICO)
‘It’s about redemption’: Peter Molyneux says Masters of Albion will make up for decades of ‘overpromising on things’
‘It’s about redemption’: Peter Molyneux says Masters of Albion will make up for decades of ‘overpromising on things’
The Fable, Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White and Curiosity creator says this will be his last gameChris Scullion (Video Games Chronicle)
like this
You need a bit of luck, but if you're willing to travel a lot, employers usually love that.
The field varies from the 4-5 guys building little machines in a workshop, with software written by a guy "who's good at computers", to the giant corporation with frameworks, guidelines and huge teams of engineers.
I think the median is closer to the first than the latter, with simple logic running on a PLC and with an HMI (touchscreen) as interface. Often the same person takes care of both... Of course things can and do get complicated, but from a computer programmer/engineer/whatever's point of view, it shouldn't be complex.
The most common languages are those specified in IEC_61131-3, essentially Ladder, where you draw logic circuits, FBD, where you draw MORE COMPLEX logic circuits, and structured text, which is a sort of Pascal.
You need a basic grasp of electricity, as long as you know what Amperes and Volts are, and remember Ohm's law, you're fine. Most devices have quirks which only experience can teach you, but whatever.
Of course there's more advanced programming as well, but it's usually on the SCADA side, and there it may get interesting for you, as some of those now support web technologies, like Inductive Automation's Ignition.
Pay is usually good, and gets better with travel pay, and seeing machines DO STUFF and make people's work easier is a great feeling.
Revealed: Israel demanded Google and Amazon use secret ‘wink’ to sidestep legal orders
When Google and Amazon negotiated a major $1.2bn cloud-computing deal in 2021, their customer – the Israeli government – had an unusual demand: agree to use a secret code as part of an arrangement that would become known as the “winking mechanism”.
The demand, which would require Google and Amazon to effectively sidestep legal obligations in countries around the world, was born out of Israel’s concerns that data it moves into the global corporations’ cloud platforms could end up in the hands of foreign law enforcement authorities.
For Israel, losing control of its data to authorities overseas was a significant concern. So to deal with the threat, officials created a secret warning system: the companies must send signals hidden in payments to the Israeli government, tipping it off when it has disclosed Israeli data to foreign courts or investigators.
To clinch the lucrative contract, Google and Amazon agreed to the so-called winking mechanism. The strict controls include measures that prohibit the US companies from restricting how an array of Israeli government agencies, security services and military units use their cloud services. According to the deal’s terms, the companies cannot suspend or withdraw Israel’s access to its technology, even if it’s found to have violated their terms of service.
Revealed: Israel demanded Google and Amazon use secret ‘wink’ to sidestep legal orders
The tech giants agreed to extraordinary terms to clinch a lucrative contract with the Israeli government, documents showHarry Davies (The Guardian)
reshared this
Revealed: Israel demanded Google and Amazon use secret ‘wink’ to sidestep legal orders
When Google and Amazon negotiated a major $1.2bn cloud-computing deal in 2021, their customer – the Israeli government – had an unusual demand: agree to use a secret code as part of an arrangement that would become known as the “winking mechanism”.
The demand, which would require Google and Amazon to effectively sidestep legal obligations in countries around the world, was born out of Israel’s concerns that data it moves into the global corporations’ cloud platforms could end up in the hands of foreign law enforcement authorities.
For Israel, losing control of its data to authorities overseas was a significant concern. So to deal with the threat, officials created a secret warning system: the companies must send signals hidden in payments to the Israeli government, tipping it off when it has disclosed Israeli data to foreign courts or investigators.
To clinch the lucrative contract, Google and Amazon agreed to the so-called winking mechanism. The strict controls include measures that prohibit the US companies from restricting how an array of Israeli government agencies, security services and military units use their cloud services. According to the deal’s terms, the companies cannot suspend or withdraw Israel’s access to its technology, even if it’s found to have violated their terms of service.
Revealed: Israel demanded Google and Amazon use secret ‘wink’ to sidestep legal orders
The tech giants agreed to extraordinary terms to clinch a lucrative contract with the Israeli government, documents showHarry Davies (The Guardian)
like this
reshared this
According to sources familiar with negotiations, Microsoft’s bid suffered as it refused to accept some of Israel’s demands.
...why is Microsoft the upstanding company here?!
The guy who's only part of the crime was watching out for the police is also guilty of the crime.
These executives should consider that, especially given that the war crimes and genocide charges are a matter of public record so they can't claim ignorance.
Court sets bail for Ukraine's ex-grid operator chief at $325,000. He calls the case against him 'political'
The Kyiv Pechersk District Court ruled to place Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, former head of Ukraine’s state-owned grid operator Ukrenergo, in custody with the bail set at Hr 13.7 million ($325,000).
Kusrytskyi, dismissed from his post last year, was charged on Oct. 28 with large-scale embezzlement linked to events dating back to 2018.
According to the court's decision, if he doesn't post bail, he must remain in custody until Dec. 26.
"This is an entirely political decision," Kudrytskyi said after the court announced its ruling.
The arrest followed a raid on the ex-Ukrenergo chief's home a week earlier, which he claimed had been organized by his opponents to "send him a message." Kudrytskyi told the Kyiv Independent after the raid that unidentified men took his phone during the search to access his communications.
The case also involves Roman Hrynkevych, who is already under investigation in a separate defense procurement corruption probe. He allegedly orchestrated the scheme and has received additional charges.
The investigation alleges the two may have diverted funds from the state-owned energy company during 2018 tenders for infrastructure reconstruction. At the time, Kudrytskyi was Ukrenergo's deputy director for investments.
The company signed two contracts worth over Hr 68 million ($1.6 million) with a private company, paying Hr 13.7 million ($325,000) upfront, which was allegedly embezzled, the State Bureau of Investigation said.
At the hearing, Kudrytskyi's lawyer, Mykola Hrabyk, called the allegations "unfounded," saying that the case materials contain no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on his part.
As Ukraine battles to keep its power grid running under constant Russian assault, Kudrytskyi's arrest adds to growing unrest in the country’s energy sector. Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda reported recently, citing its sources, that current officials may be looking to blame former leaders for failing to protect energy infrastructure from Russian attacks.
Previously, Kudrytkyi said that the real purpose of the Oct. 21 searches was to gain access to his phone and his messages. He has been outspoken about his decision to resign from Ukrenergo in September 2024, claiming corrupt individuals attempted to take over the company.
Kudrytskyi’s forced resignation in the lead-up to the heating season in 2024 sparked controversy both domestically and abroad, as he was largely seen as a reliable figure.
The company’s supervisory board chairman, Daniel Dobbeni, and board member Peder Andreasen said his dismissal last year was over accusations that Ukrenergo had failed to protect Ukraine’s energy infrastructure amid Russian missile strikes, and called the move "politically motivated" that had "no valid grounds."
Read also: Gripen jets are coming to Ukraine — here’s how they can be used against Russia
Gripen jets are coming to Ukraine — here's how they can be used against Russia
Sweden and Ukraine have taken a major step toward expanding Ukraine's air force, signing an agreement to potentially acquire Gripen fighter jets, and the first of these cutting-edge aircraft could be in Ukrainian skies as soon as 2026, according to P…Kateryna Hodunova (The Kyiv Independent)
Congressional Candidate Kat Abughazaleh Indicted Over Chicago ICE Protest
The indictment accuses Abughazaleh — whose name is repeatedly misspelled in the document — of bracing her hands on the hood of an ICE vehicle that was attempting to drive through a group of protesters outside of the Broadview Processing Center, ICE’s Chicago command center.
Kat Abughazaleh Indicted Over Chicago ICE Protest
Kat Abughazaleh, running in Illinois’ 9th District, is accused of impeding a federal agent during an anti-ICE protest at Broadview Processing Center.Tessa Stuart (Rolling Stone)
like this
What FOSS projects do y'all donate to?
I am personally donating: First to Interstellar, the mbin/Lemmy/piefed client I'm using right now to create this post and second to KDE, even tho I'm a GNOME user, I like that they host their own fediverse instance ( lemmy.kde.social/ ), so I support them.
And what projects are y'all do donating to, if any at all?
Home - KDE Community
KDE is an open community of friendly people who want to create a world in which everyone has control over their digital life and enjoys freedom and privacy.kde.org
Fitik likes this.
kromem
in reply to kromem • • •I tend to see a lot of discussion taking place on here that's pretty out of touch with the present state of things, echoing earlier beliefs about LLM limitations like "they only predict the next token" and other things that have already been falsified.
This most recent research from Anthropic confirms a lot of things that have been shifting in the most recent generation of models in ways that many here might find unexpected, especially given the popular assumptions.
Specifically interesting are the emergent capabilities of being self-aware of injected control vectors or being able to silently think of a concept so it triggers the appropriate feature vectors even though it isn't actually ending up in the tokens.
Telorand
in reply to kromem • • •radix
in reply to Telorand • • •Telorand
in reply to radix • • •MagicShel
in reply to kromem • • •They aren't "self-aware" at all. These thinking models spend a lot of tokens coming up with chains of reasoning. They focus on the reasoning first, and their reasoning primes the context.
Like if I asked you to compute the area of a rectangle you might first say to yourself: "okay. There's a formula for that. LxW. This rectangle is 4 by 5, so the calculation is 4x5, which is 20." They use tokens to delineate the "thinking" from their response and only give you the response, but most will also show the thinking if you want.
In contrast, if you ask an AI how it arrived at an answer after it gives it, it needs to either have the thinking in context or it is 100% bullshitting you. The reason injecting a thought affects the output is because that injected thought goes into the context. It's like if you're trying to count cash and I shout numbers at you, you might keep your focus on the task or the numbers might throw off your response.
Literally all LLMs do is predict tokens, but we've gotten pretty good at finding more clever ways to do it. Most of the advancements in capabilities have been very predictable. I had a crude google augmented context before ChatGPT released browsing capabilities, for instance. Tool use is just low randomness, high confidence, model that the wrapper uses to generate shell commands that it then runs. That's why you can ask it to do a task 100 times and it'll execute 99 times correctly and then fail—got a bad generation.
My point is we are finding very smart ways of using this token prediction, but in the end that's all it is. And something many researchers shockingly fail to grasp is that by putting anything into context—even a question—you are biasing the output. It simply predicts how it should respond to the question based on what is in its context. That is not at all the same thing as answering a question based on introspection or self-awareness. And that's obviously the case because their technique only "succeeds" 20% of the time.
I'm not a researcher. But I keep coming across research like this and it's a little disconcerting that the people inventing this shit sometimes understand less about it than I do. Don't get me wrong, I know they have way smarter people than me, but anyone who just asks LLMs questions and calls themselves a researcher is fucking kidding.
I use AI all the time. I think it's a great tool and I'm investing a lot of my own time into developing tools for my own use. But it's a bullshit machine that just happens to spit out useful bullshit, and people are desperate for it to have a deeper meaning. It... doesn't.
kromem
in reply to MagicShel • • •So while your understanding is better than a lot of people on here, a few things to correct.
First off, this research isn't being done on the models in reasoning mode, but in direct inference. So there's no CoT tokens at all.
The injection is not of any tokens, but of control vectors. Basically it's a vector which being added to the activations makes the model more likely to think of that concept. The most famous was "Golden Gate Claude" that had the activation for the Golden Gate Bridge increased so it was the only thing the model would talk about.
So, if we dive into the details a bit more…
If your theory was correct, then the way the research asks the question saying that there's control vectors and they are testing if they are activated, then the model should be biased to sometimes say "yes, I can feel the control vector." And yes, in older or base models that's what we might expect to see.
But, in Opus 4/4.1, when the vector was not added, they said they could detect a vector… 0% of the time! So the control group had enough introspection capability as to not stochastically answer that there was a vector present when there wasn't.
But then, when they added the vector at certain layer depths, the model was often able to detect that there was a vector activated, and further to guess what the vector was adding.
So again — no reasoning tokens present, and the experiment had control and experimental groups where the results negates your theory as to the premise of the question causing affirmative bias.
Again, the actual research is right there a click away, and given your baseline understanding at present, you might benefit and learn a lot from actually reading it.
MagicShel
in reply to kromem • • •I think we could have a fascinating discussion about this offline. But in short here's my understanding: they look at a bunch of queries and try to deduce the vector that represents a particular idea—like let's say "sphere". So then without changing the prompt, they inject that concept.
How does this injection take place?
I played with a service a few years ago where we could upload a corpus of text and from it train a "prefix" that would be sent along with every prompt, "steering" the output ostensibly to be more like the corpus. I found the influence to be undetectably subtle on that model, but that sounds a lot like what is going on here. And if that's not it then I don't really follow exactly what they are doing.
Anyway my point is, that concept of a sphere is still going into the context mathematically even if it isn't in the prompt text. And that concept influences the output—which is entirely the point, of course.
None of that part is introspective at all. The introspection claim seems to come from unprompted output such as "round things are really on my mind." To my way of thinking, that sounds like a model trying to bridge the gap between its answer and the influence. Like showing me a Rorschach blot and asking me about work and suddenly I'm describing things using words like fluttering and petals and honey and I'm like "weird that I'm making work sound like a flower garden."
And then they do the classic "why did you give that answer" which naturally produces bullshit—which they at least acknowledge awareness of—and I'm just not sure the output of that is ever useful.
Anyway, I could go on at length, but this is more speculation than fact and a dialog would be a better format. This sounds a lot like researchers anthropomorphizing math by conflating it with thinking, and I don't find it all that compelling.
That said, I see analogs in human thought and I expect some of our own mechanisms may be reflected in LLM models more than we'd like to think. We also make decisions on words and actions based on instinct (a sort of concept injection) and we can also be "prefixed" for example by showing a phrase over top of an image to prime how we think about those words. I think there are fascinating things that can be learned about our own thought processes here, but ultimately I don't see any signs of introspection—at least not in the way I think the word is commonly understood. You can't really have meta-thoughts when you can't actually think.
Shit, this still turned out to be about 5x as long as I intended. This wasn't "in short" at all. Is that inspection or just explaining the discrepancy between my initial words and where I've arrived?
kromem
in reply to MagicShel • • •The injection is the activation of a steering vector (extracted as discussed in the methodology section) and not a token prefix, but yes, it's a mathematical representation of the concept, so let's build from there.
Control group:
Told that they are testing if injected vectors present and to self-report. No vectors activated. Zero self reports of vectors activated.
Experimental group:
Same setup, but now vectors activated. A significant number of times, the model explicitly says they can tell a vector is activated (which it never did when the vector was not activated). Crucially, this is only graded as introspection if the model mentions they can tell the vector is activated before mentioning the concept, so it can't just be a context-aware rationalization of why they said a random concept.
More clear? Again, the paper gives examples of the responses if you want to take a look at how they are structured, and to see that the model is self-reporting the vector activation before mentioning what it's about.
MagicShel
in reply to kromem • • •I've read it all twice. Once a deep skim and a second more thorough read before my last post.
I just don't agree that this shows what they think it does. Now I'm not dumb, but maybe it's a me issue. I'll check with some folks who know more than me and see if something stands out to them.
AwesomeLowlander
in reply to kromem • • •gravitas_deficiency
in reply to kromem • • •