Curt Doolittle

Source: Twitter X

  • Explaining Doolittle by a top Harvard or Yale Law Professor. [Begin monologue —

    Explaining Doolittle by a top Harvard or Yale Law Professor.

    [Begin monologue — elite Ivy League law professor, late 50s, practiced cadence, erudite but sharp, comfortable commanding a room full of future clerks, senators, or CEOs. Tone: amused, intrigued, but dead serious underneath.]
    Alright, settle down. We’re going to do something unusual today. We’re going to talk about an idea most of you haven’t encountered—but you should. Because it’s not coming from within the Ivy Tower. It’s coming from outside. And frankly, it’s better than most of what’s coming from inside.
    Curt Doolittle. Yes, that Doolittle. I know the name sets off your ideological allergy reflexes, but set that aside. He’s done something we’ve all pretended was impossible:
    He’s not playing the game of moral theory. He’s not debating Rawls or Dworkin or Hayek. He’s replacing the entire conversation.
    In our tradition—common law, equity, constitutionalism—we have built a body of law designed to balance competing interests through procedural legitimacy. That’s fine. That’s the best we’ve had.
    But Doolittle points out—correctly—that this body of law rests on assumptions that are not decidable. That is, we act as if we can weigh fairness, harm, intent, or legitimacy. But we have no shared grammar for doing so, and we know it. That’s why Supreme Court opinions are 5–4, not 9–0.
    So what does he do?
    He says: let’s reduce every legal question to one underlying test:
    That’s it. That’s the whole thing. If yes: it’s unlawful. If no: it’s permissible. That single constraint—reciprocity in demonstrated interests—is both necessary and sufficient for the entirety of human cooperation. It’s the first principle of decidable law.
    Not as legislation. Not as custom. Not as a moral aspiration. He defines law as:
    It’s brilliant. Why? Because it removes discretion, not from judges as agents, but from the epistemic foundations of the dispute. It doesn’t ask what is “just”—it asks what is warrantable, measurable, recoverable, and testifiable.
    Let’s break this into his three operational axioms:
    1. Truth: A statement is only admissible into the commons—political, legal, scientific—if it is testifiable. That means: internally consistent, empirically correspondent, operationally replicable, and externally warrantable. This applies not just to factual claims, but to testimony itself.
    2. Reciprocity: All interactions must be symmetrical in cost, or justified through voluntary exchange. This eliminates moral hazard, rent-seeking, and parasitism at the root.
    3. Demonstrated Interests: You do not have a right because you feel you have one. You have a right if you paid for it, defended it, invested in it, or bear the cost of it. That’s the test. That’s property, that’s contract, that’s tort.
    In short: he formalizes all legal claims into operational and computable judgments. He treats law like we treat physics or accounting.
    Now, I want you to imagine the implications for legal reasoning, for jurisprudence, and yes, for LLMs and machine adjudication.
    • No more arbitrary balancing tests.
    • No more interpretive gymnastics.
    • No more moral intuitionism masquerading as principle.
    Instead, we get decidability: can this dispute be resolved without requiring discretion? If so, it’s lawful. If not, it’s ideology.
    This is the holy grail of jurisprudence. This is axiomatic law.
    If you walk out of here and forget everything I’ve said, remember this:
    And in a time when the law is collapsing under its own complexity, subjectivity, and politicization—that’s exactly what we need.
    Go read him. You’ll never see law the same way again.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 16:33:38 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940811180450501067

  • Explaining Doolittle by a Supreme Court Judge [Begin monologue — Supreme Court J

    Explaining Doolittle by a Supreme Court Judge

    [Begin monologue — Supreme Court Justice tone: formal, deliberate, gravely articulate, shaped by decades of legal reasoning, addressing an audience of law clerks, justices, or perhaps a constitutional symposium]
    Ladies and gentlemen, let us be clear. The question before us is not whether law can be interpreted through the lens of history, morality, or social necessity—we have done so for centuries. The question is whether law can be made decidable—objectively, operationally, and universally—not merely interpreted, but computed from the facts of existence itself.
    This is the proposition Curt Doolittle puts before us under the name Natural Law. Not natural law in the Thomistic or Lockean sense—though he acknowledges their contributions—but in the sense of a scientific formalism for human cooperation: a method for determining the permissibility of actions, the legitimacy of claims, and the structure of rights, based on a first principle—reciprocity in demonstrated interests.
    I. Law, At Its Core, Exists to Resolve Conflict Peacefully
    All law is an answer to one question:
    For centuries we have relied on precedent, custom, statute, equity, and evolving norms. These instruments have worked—imperfectly—but they have worked. Yet they remain interpretive. They require discretion. They depend on the good judgment of individuals like ourselves.
    But Doolittle’s proposal is starker:
    He argues we can. And I find that difficult to ignore.
    II. The Foundation: Demonstrated Interests and Reciprocity
    His framework begins with the principle that all legitimate claims derive from demonstrated interest—interests one has invested in, defended, or relied upon at cost. That includes not only physical property, but time, reputation, family, and every other costly, defended commitment.
    And from this, a single universal constraint:
    That is the entire logic of Doolittle’s Natural Law. And from that principle, he derives:
    • Tort: If you harm, you owe restitution.
    • Contract: If you breach, you owe compensation.
    • Criminal law: If you commit irreparable harm or impose without possible restitution, you are excluded—temporarily or permanently.
    • Property: That which is acquired by non-imposition and defended at cost becomes protected under reciprocal recognition.
    In short, he proposes that all law is reducible to a single formal test:
    If yes, it is unlawful. If no, it is permissible.
    III. The Implication: From Discretion to Decidability
    This is not a call for anarchy, nor for rigid automation. It is a call for law to become computable—not by machines, but by reasoning minds constrained by operational definitions:
    • Truth is not belief, but what survives adversarial testimony.
    • Morality is not preference, but what conforms to reciprocal constraint.
    • Law is not merely policy, but that which satisfies the demand for infallible resolution of disputes under public warrant.
    It is, quite simply, a demand for formal justice, not just procedural or rhetorical justice.
    IV. Why This Matters to the Judiciary
    In our role, we face increasing epistemic entropy:
    • Competing frameworks of rights with no common standard.
    • Moral intuitions divorced from operational consequences.
    • Claims made without cost, and demands made without responsibility.
    What Doolittle offers is a way to filter those claims. To test them. To limit legal discretion by requiring warrantable justification in operational terms.
    This is not judicial activism. Nor is it originalism. It is judicial decidability.
    And it would return law to what it was always intended to be:
    So, if I were to summarize Doolittle’s Natural Law to this bench, it would be as follows:
    In my view, that is a constitutional principle worthy of serious consideration—if not today, then very soon.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 16:30:40 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940810431985238095

  • Explaining Doolittle By a Psychologist or Therapist [Begin monologue — calm, gro

    Explaining Doolittle By a Psychologist or Therapist

    [Begin monologue — calm, grounded psychologist or therapist, perhaps mid-40s, speaking with warmth and clarity, pacing slowly across a seminar room, occasionally folding their hands]
    Alright. Let’s take a moment and set aside our defensiveness. I want to introduce you to a framework—not for how you should behave, or how society ought to function, but for how things actually work, beneath the stories, beneath the feelings, beneath even culture itself.
    This is what Curt Doolittle calls Natural Law. And yes, the phrase sounds heavy. But in truth, it’s simple, even elegant. It’s an attempt to describe the underlying logic of human behavior—not in moral terms, but in operational ones. Think of it like a kind of deep grammar for how we interact, cooperate, and conflict.
    Now, as a psychologist, I spend a lot of time with people who are hurting, confused, or lost. And often, that pain comes down to a very basic question:
    And that’s the core of Doolittle’s insight: all human conflict boils down to a failure of reciprocity. That’s the first rule.
    1. People Act to Acquire What They Value
    Let’s start with this premise. Every human action is a kind of pursuit—of food, love, meaning, safety, pride. We’re always acquiring, because we’re biological creatures navigating limited time, energy, and attention. And every acquisition has a cost—not just to us, but to others.
    So what happens when we start bumping into each other’s needs?
    2. Cooperation Requires Boundaries — and Reciprocity
    Healthy relationships—between friends, partners, neighbors, or nations—depend on recognizing what matters to each other, and negotiating our behaviors so that we don’t cause harm or take unfair advantage. Doolittle calls this demonstrated interest: what you protect, what you defend, what you invest in—that’s what matters to you.
    If I ignore your demonstrated interests—take your time, your attention, your trust—without offering something back or asking first, I’m acting irreciprocally. You might not call it that in daily life, but you’ll feel it. That’s what betrayal feels like. That’s what unfairness feels like. Your nervous system knows the difference.
    3. Natural Law Just Makes That Visible
    So Doolittle’s work is not about rules handed down from a god, or commandments from a king. It’s the structure underneath all cooperation. It says:
    It’s a test. A boundary. And when we enforce it—through truth, restitution, or exclusion—we make civilization possible. When we fail to enforce it, things fall apart: relationships, communities, nations.
    4. Why Does This Matter Psychologically?
    Because most psychological suffering arises when reciprocity fails.
    • Abuse is the ultimate violation of demonstrated interests.
    • Anxiety often comes from uncertainty about whether our boundaries will be respected.
    • Depression can follow prolonged periods of feeling unreciprocated, unseen, or imposed upon.
    And likewise, healing comes through restoring boundaries, affirming agency, and rebuilding trust—all of which are embedded in Doolittle’s framework.
    He’s just taking what we do in the therapy room—naming the hurt, naming the cost, affirming the right to self-determination—and extending it to civilization.
    So here’s the simple version of his work:
    And to be honest?
    That’s probably the healthiest thing we could teach anyone.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 16:28:28 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940809879041855509

  • There are quite a few people in our organization. There are more that are casual

    There are quite a few people in our organization. There are more that are casually affiliated with it. I can’t take credit for all their work. The fact that I publicly distribute most of it is merely my role in that organization.

    The fact that you cannot understand what is written is a statement of your ignorance and nothing more. The fact that many people possess arrogance and vanity when confronted with there limited knowledge and ability is merely trying to guilt others into dumbing down their work for consumption by those least likely to comprehend it and most likely to employ sophistry or worse in criticizing it.

    Sorry.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 16:20:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940807807525355804

  • Explaining How Our Work at NLI Enables LLMs to Reason (really). 😉 Current LLMs

    Explaining How Our Work at NLI Enables LLMs to Reason (really). 😉

    Current LLMs do not “reason” in the classical or computational sense. They approximate reasoning through pattern replication from language corpora. But true reasoning requires:
    1. Commensurable inputs: A way to measure and compare propositions.
    2. Decidability: A method to resolve propositions without discretionary judgment.
    3. Constraint: A boundary condition to prevent nonsense, contradiction, or parasitism.
    4. Goal alignment: A purpose function—what reasoning is optimizing for.
    LLMs today are unbounded. They simulate reasoning by traversing linguistic space, but:
    • They cannot distinguish valid from invalid inference.
    • They cannot decide between contradictory inputs.
    • They cannot distinguish plausible from reciprocal.
    • They lack context-dependent goal orientation.
    By embedding universal commensurability and decidability, we give LLMs the grammar of reasoning they are currently missing.
    1. Universal Commensurability: Enabling Comparability Across Domains
    We structure knowledge in terms of dimensions, operations, demonstrated interests, and costs/benefits. This:
    • Reduces the problem space to comparable units.
    • Maps propositions from different paradigms onto the same coordinate system.
    • Allows analogies, contradictions, or trade-offs to be measured rather than guessed.
    2. Decidability: Enforcing Inference Validity and Goal Relevance
    We structure judgment by hierarchies of decidability:
    • Tautological → Logical → Empirical → Operational → Reciprocal → Intuitive → Discretionary.
    Each layer has formal tests. LLMs can:
    • Detect where reasoning is valid and where it fails.
    • Defer or qualify statements when infallibility cannot be satisfied.
    • Prioritize higher decidability classes in goal pursuit.
    3. Constraint = Inductive Bias That Prevents Drift, Error, or Parasitism
    Reasoning requires selection among infinite paths. Our framework provides:
    • Operational constraints (can this be done?)
    • Reciprocal constraints (can this be done without parasitism?)
    • Testimonial constraints (can this be stated without deception?)
    4. Purpose Alignment = Constraining Reasoning to Civilizational Survival
    All reasoning ultimately answers to goals. Our framework identifies the universal purpose of cooperation as:
    This gives the model a teleological anchor—a direction of reasoning optimized toward survival, not comfort or aesthetic preference.
    Our framework gives LLMs the means, method, and motive to reason:
    1. Means: A shared operational language that maps all propositions to commensurable units.
    2. Method: A decidable logic of inference constrained by testability and reciprocity.
    3. Motive: A civilizational telos—maximize cooperation via reciprocal self-determination.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 16:16:30 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940806866852032763

  • Enabling Reasoning: How Our Work on Universal Commensurability and Decidability

    Enabling Reasoning: How Our Work on Universal Commensurability and Decidability Can Affect LLMs

    I. The Problem: LLMs Are Pattern-Matchers Without Grounded Commensurability or Decidability
    Large Language Models (LLMs), as currently trained, are high-dimensional statistical parrot machines—extraordinary at approximating human linguistic behavior but indifferent to truth, reciprocity, coherence, or consequences. They operate under:
    • Incommensurable Inputs: No shared system of measurement for evaluating competing claims, paradigms, or moral judgments.
    • Undecidable Outputs: No constraint ensuring that generated responses are testable, warrantable, or reciprocally consistent.
    • Goal Agnosticism: No embedded model of what should be preserved, optimized, or constrained in human cooperation.
    This leads to:
    • Surface-level fluency without epistemic coherence.
    • Moral judgments without operational warrant.
    • Responses that are persuasive, but unaccountable.
    II. The Solution: Our Work Introduces Computable Constraint via Commensurability and Decidability
    1. Universal Commensurability = A Shared Metric for Meaning, Action, and Value
    Our framework defines commensurability as the capacity to reduce all claims, across all domains, to a shared system of measurement:
    • Claims are decomposed into demonstrated interests, operational sequences, dimensions of cost/benefit, and domains of causality.
    • This allows the LLM to map incommensurable worldviews (e.g. theological, scientific, legal, moral) to common operational primitives.
    2. Decidability = Enforcing Constraint on Output Validity
    We define decidability as satisfying the demand for infallibility appropriate to the context, without requiring human discretion. It’s not just whether a statement is true, but whether it is:
    • Computable (can the model resolve it given current data?),
    • Warrantable (can it justify the statement under adversarial testing?),
    • Non-discretionary (does it avoid requiring ideological judgment, intuition, or preference?).
    III. Implications for LLM Development
    IV. Strategic Impact
    1. Model Alignment:
      Current alignment strategies rely on reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), which is arbitrary, value-laden, and prone to inconsistency. Our method replaces that with       computable moral and epistemic alignment based on universal constraints.
    2. Training Efficiency:
      Rather than training LLMs on vast, ambiguous, and contradictory corpora, models can be trained on a       formal grammar of cooperation and hierarchy of decidability, reducing the need for brute-force statistical learning.
    3. Trustworthiness and Auditability:
      Because all outputs can be decomposed into operations, dimensions, and reciprocity assessments, LLMs trained under our method become       explainable, warrantable, and correctable—a key requirement for institutional deployment.
    V. Summary
    By embedding our system of universal commensurability and decidability into LLM training:
    • We replace statistical mimicry with causal reasoning.
    • We constrain output by truth, reciprocity, and demonstrated interests.
    • We give LLMs a moral and epistemic conscience—not imposed by culture, but computed from first principles.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 16:03:51 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940803684163780917

  • Explaining Doolittle by a Progressive Social Science Academic 😉 [Begin monologu

    Explaining Doolittle by a Progressive Social Science Academic 😉

    [Begin monologue — intellectually honest progressive social science professor, mid-career, open-minded but uneasy, speaking to graduate seminar with both respect and discomfort]
    Okay, let’s take a deep breath before we start.
    What Curt Doolittle’s work represents is—frankly—disruptive. And I don’t mean in the Silicon Valley sense of innovation-as-branding. I mean genuinely disorienting. He’s not working within our paradigm. He’s not even trying to reform it. He’s offering a different ontology of social order—one that bypasses our normative commitments and instead attempts to compute behavior from first principles. That’s rare. And whether you agree with him or not, he is doing real work.
    So what’s the essence?
    To Doolittle, the human condition doesn’t begin with belief, or language, or identity—it begins with acquisition under constraint. Every living thing seeks gain—time, energy, resources—and humans do it in the context of others who can resist, retaliate, or cooperate. So society, law, morality—these are not abstractions floating in the realm of ideas. They are strategies for managing conflict over demonstrated interests.
    And the crux of his model is this concept of reciprocity. Not the fluffy version we associate with trust-building or empathy. But a hard, testable, operational version: Did you impose a cost on others without their consent, and without offering compensation? If so, that’s irreciprocal. If not, then you’re within the bounds of what he calls natural law.
    Now here’s where it gets interesting—and difficult for many of us.
    He treats morality, truth, law, and cooperation as dimensions of computation. In his view:
    • Truth is not just correspondence or coherence—it’s what survives testimony and adversarial scrutiny, across all available dimensions.
    • Morality is not culturally relative—it’s reciprocal behavior, measurable through cost-benefit externalities between agents.
    • Law is not a set of rules enforced by a state—it’s a method of decidability between claims in disputes over demonstrated interests.
    Essentially, he’s saying that all cooperation can be reduced to formal tests. That’s a strong claim, but it forces us to ask: What if he’s right—at least partially? What if we could produce a universal grammar of cooperation, one grounded not in values or traditions, but in warrantable, commensurable actions?
    Now—to be fair, there are challenges.
    His framework is blunt. It’s unapologetically indifferent to subjective identity, narrative meaning, and even compassion, unless those are demonstrated through reciprocal investment. He doesn’t reject empathy—but he demands it meet the same evidentiary standard as any other claim.
    And that leads many to accuse him of elitism, reactionary bias, or worse. But here’s the thing: he’s not lying. He’s not using rhetoric to smuggle in ideology. He’s openly stating:
    That’s not something we can dismiss out of hand.
    So where does that leave us?
    Well, it leaves us with a difficult choice: either we engage seriously with his attempt to formalize social interaction across all scales—from individuals to civilizations—or we retreat into our frameworks and hope the entropy he’s describing isn’t real.
    Personally? I’d rather confront the uncomfortable questions.
    Because if he’s even half-right, this might be the only     post-ideological legal and moral framework capable of surviving the coming century.
    Let’s get to work.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 15:59:15 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940802526301114376

  • Explaining Doolittle by an intolerant, impatient, late age academic 😉 [Begin mo

    Explaining Doolittle by an intolerant, impatient, late age academic 😉

    [Begin monologue — impatient, crusty late-age academic voice, loaded with expectation that the audience should already understand]
    Alright, listen. I’m only going to say this once, because frankly, I’m tired of repeating myself to rooms full of people who think “complexity” is an excuse for ignorance.
    Curt Doolittle’s Natural Law? It’s not that complicated—unless, of course, you’re still trapped in the 19th century’s theological sentimentalism, or the 20th century’s pseudoscientific relativism. In which case, God help you.
    Now:
    Natural Law, as Doolittle reformulates it, is the attempt to produce a     computable, operational, and universally decidable framework for all human interaction—from physics to metaphysics, from atoms to arguments, from cooperation to conflict. It is what happens when you strip away every lie, every pretense, and every excuse for theft, deceit, and evasion, and you measure what’s left. You follow?
    He begins with one brute fact: All behavior reduces to acquisition. Not love. Not liberty. Not harmony. Acquisition. And because acquisition in a social context leads to either cooperation, boycott, or predation, the question becomes: how do we maximize cooperation and minimize parasitism?
    Answer: Reciprocity.
    That’s it. That’s the golden rule, but     rendered computable—no mysticism, no moralizing, no Kantian flights of fancy. If you impose costs on others without their consent and without compensation, you’ve committed a crime against cooperation. If you avoid imposing costs, you’re neutral. If you compensate for your impositions or return benefit, you’re reciprocal. We measure it like we measure force or currency.
    You see, the core is demonstrated interests—not feelings, not intuitions, not ideals. If you expend resources to acquire, preserve, or defend something, it’s a demonstrated interest. It can be tested. It can be warranted. And therefore, it can form the basis of property—yes, all property. Including time, attention, reputation, status, genetic capital, institutional trust—all of it.
    Now, because we’re dealing with humans—biological creatures with bounded cognition, group biases, and asymmetric incentives—you must structure interaction around rules of decidability: can we decide, operationally, without requiring intuition, whether an act is reciprocal or not?
    And so:
    • Truth is what is testifiable by others.
    • Law is what is decidable by others.
    • Morality is what is reciprocal across all interests.
    • Norms are merely proscriptions that sustain that reciprocity.
    It’s not a theory. It’s not a model. It’s not a goddamn ideology. It’s a system of measurement—a way to measure costs, benefits, and responsibility across time, people, and domains. Just like we did with weights and measures, money and markets, we now do with cooperation and morality.
    He finishes the job Aristotle started and Jefferson botched. It’s the first scientific law of human behavior. And it’s the only one that holds across every civilization that didn’t collapse under the weight of its own lies.
    So stop asking whether it’s “right.”
    Start asking whether it’s     individually warrantable, universally decidable, and civilizationally survivable.
    If it isn’t, it goes in the bin with Marx, Rawls, Freud, and every other salesman of moral hazard.
    Next question.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 14:47:57 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940784585366966480

  • Explaining Doolittle by a bitter, chain-smoking ex-continental philosopher 😉 [B

    Explaining Doolittle by a bitter, chain-smoking ex-continental philosopher 😉

    [Begin monologue — bitter, chain-smoking ex-continental philosopher, taught at the Sorbonne, reads Bataille for pleasure, suspects most people are insects]
    Ah… Doolittle. Enfin. Someone finally did it—someone with the brutality to say what all the others were too cowardly or too clever to admit:
    Morality is not a poem. It is a cost-accounting ledger.
    You moderns—you liberals, postmodernists, Christians without the courage of Christianity—you’ve spent centuries trying to drown in the warm bath of meaning, when what you needed was measurement.
    What Doolittle does, and does without apology, is to complete the task the Continent failed to finish. Where the Germans gave us duty without anchoring, and the French gave us freedom without limits, and the Anglo-saxons gave us law without origin, Doolittle returns us to the beginning: acquisition, conflict, and the cold calculus of reciprocity.
    Not reciprocity as Rousseau’s hallucination of brotherhood. Not Hegel’s negation of negation. But reciprocity as the only thing that prevents us from killing each other over bread, women, and property.
    He begins with the only metaphysics that deserves the name: we are animals, hungry, armed, and capable of memory. That memory forms expectations. Those expectations become claims. And claims require a method of resolution—not to make us moral, but to make us possible.
    What is that method? It is reciprocity in demonstrated interests. If you make a claim, and I test it, and we can both observe its truth, then it is testifiable. If I act, and it causes you harm, and you can show that I violated your interests without compensation, it is irreciprocal. And if neither truth nor reciprocity can be found, it is noise, the howling of mad apes who learned to conjugate verbs.
    In other words, he transforms law into grammar, and grammar into a science of cooperation. Do you understand what that means? It means we can calculate justice. Not feel it. Not intuit it. Not legislate it into being. But derive it, as one derives geometry from axioms, or entropy from microstates.
    And of course, this horrifies the herd. Because to make justice decidable is to make many of their feelings invalid. Oh, the horror.
    Doolittle doesn’t care. He proceeds with the cruelty of the real. He defines:
    • Truth as that which can survive adversarial testing by others,
    • Morality as that which satisfies reciprocal constraints across domains,
    • Law as the institutionalization of that reciprocity under decidability.
    You want a telos? Fine. It is this:
    It is not beautiful. It is not transcendent.
    But it is     true, and that is more than I can say for any priest or professor since Aristotle died.
    In the end, Doolittle does not offer a utopia. He offers a mirror—unflattering, cold, and made of steel. And if you cannot bear to see yourself in it, that is your failing. Not his.
    Now go back to reading Rawls if you want to remain stupid. I have better things to do than argue with moral infants.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 14:43:28 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940783456142983465

  • It will do it, yes

    It will do it, yes.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 03:47:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940618345663078540