The Pre-Raphs looked at paintings in their time and decided that art, beginning with Raphael, had moved in the wrong direction. So they sought to return to an earlier aesthetic – one that was pre-Rafael. The idea that we look backwards to better times when things go wrong seems common to me. That approach has fueled my newly found love for open-source software and user-reparable hardware.

One area I've been reconsidering is my web host. I have no complaints about Squarespace except that I'm not likely their target customer. I may have been their ideal customer 10 or 15 years ago, but now they seem more focused on businesses than the small blogger. I suspect that most small bloggers are on Substack these days hoping to monetize their writing.

I considered hosting my own WordPress server but decided that I don't want to invest the effort (especially after the Anthropic debacle). As I'm moving forward with A Dark Wind Howls, I'm finding my time constrained.

So I investigated. It was a toss-up between a small company in New York and a couple of companies in Switzerland. Cory Doctorow has been discussing the “post-American internet” (one that's more free of government surveillance, which is to say an internet that's more free), so I thought I'd try the Swiss hosts. I use Proton, which is also based in Switzerland, for virtually all of my online needs, and overall they've been outstanding.

While I love Proton, my experience with these other Swiss companies was underwhelming. One host even asked me to send my passport to them over bare email (not even offering an encrypted link) to which I replied with a hard “no.” Apparently, no one has told them about identity theft. So, I switched to the company in New York, named Write.as.

Write.as is its own open-source platform, distinct from WordPress. I could self-host it if I wanted. What I like about Write.as is that its founder, Matt, isn't someone who's trying to take over the world. He's trying to build a sustainable business that will last his lifetime. How refreshing. He comes across as the antithesis of the Doctor Evil tech bro Silicon Valley type. When you read his blog you learn that he's someone who's out starting writing groups. Like Framework, that's the sort of company I want to support – someone who isn't shitting on their users and the world.

It helps that Write.as and I share the same aesthetic – a blog that looks like a book page. Visually, all I've really had to do is change the fonts.

So, unless something goes drastically wrong, this will be my last Squarespace post. If you subscribe via my newsletter, you'll receive a confirmation email soon asking you to confirm your interest. If you're an RSS reader, I'll submit a 301 redirect which should transfer the feed. Please visit bleifus.com and resubscribe if you don't see a new post for a while.

While, based on my experience, the world might not be quite ready for a post-American internet, that time is coming. Until then, I think it's certainly ready for open-source software and dis-empowering these tech bro Silicon Valley companies.

Bhuvana Chilukuri has applied to more than a hundred jobs. She is a 20-year-old third-year business student at Queen Mary University of London, articulate and qualified, and she has not received a single offer. In several instances her applications were rejected within minutes, far too quickly for any human being to have read her CV, let alone assessed her suitability. The initial stages of hiring, she told the BBC in March 2026, are increasingly handled by AI tools that screen CVs and, in some cases, conduct entirely automated video interviews. The experience, she said, feels impersonal and mechanical, a process that strips away any chance to convey personality or demonstrate the kinds of qualities that do not fit neatly into a keyword match.

Chilukuri is not an outlier. She is a data point in a pattern so large it has become invisible through sheer repetition. Denis Machuel, chief executive of the Adecco Group, one of the world's largest recruitment firms, confirmed the broader dynamic to the BBC: job vacancies have declined from post-pandemic highs, and candidates now routinely submit hundreds of applications to secure a single offer. AI enables companies to process larger candidate pools at speed, but the consequence is an ever-growing population of unsuccessful applicants and a mounting sense of futility among those looking for work. A Collins McNicholas survey published in 2025 found that 75 per cent of job seekers believe AI unfairly filters their applications, while 74 per cent described automated rejection emails as impersonal and dismissive. A Resume Genius survey of 1,000 hiring managers, published in early 2026, found that 79 per cent of companies now use AI somewhere in their hiring or recruiting process, and one in five hiring managers admitted to using AI to screen out applications before they receive any human review at all.

The scale of the filtering is staggering. Research published in early 2026 indicates that more than 90 per cent of employers now use some form of automated system to filter or rank job applications, and that 88 per cent employ AI for initial candidate screening. For every 180 people who apply for a given role, roughly five get an interview. Of those, one or two are hired. The rest vanish into a void that most of them suspect, correctly, is algorithmic. Forty per cent of job applications are now screened out before a human recruiter ever reviews them. An analysis of 1,000 rejected resumes found that 23 per cent of rejections were caused by parsing errors alone: the applicant tracking system could not read the resume correctly because of tables, columns, graphics, or unusual file formats. These are not candidates who were unqualified. They were candidates whose documents confused a machine.

The question is no longer whether algorithms are making consequential decisions about people's working lives. They are. The question is whether anyone, the candidates, the employers, or the regulators, can explain how those decisions are being made, and what it would take to make the system fair.

The Invisible Dossier

On 21 January 2026, two job applicants named Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik filed a class-action lawsuit against Eightfold AI Inc. in California. Both have backgrounds in STEM. Both had applied for positions at major companies through online portals whose URLs contained “eightfold.ai,” a detail neither noticed at the time. Neither had any idea that a company called Eightfold existed, let alone that it was compiling what the lawsuit describes as secret consumer reports on their candidacy.

Eightfold's technology operates behind the application portals of some of the world's largest employers, including Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Starbucks, BNY, PayPal, Chevron, and Bayer. According to the complaint, filed by the law firms Outten and Golden and Towards Justice, the platform scrapes personal data from third-party sources and runs it through a proprietary large language model to generate a “likelihood of success” score on a scale of zero to five. The system draws on what Eightfold describes as more than 1.5 billion global data points, including profiles of over one billion workers, and makes inferences about applicants' preferences, characteristics, predispositions, behaviour, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes. Applicants receive no disclosure that the report exists. They have no access to it. They have no opportunity to dispute errors. And they receive no notice before the information is used to make what the complaint calls “life-altering employment decisions.”

“I've applied to hundreds of jobs, but it feels like an unseen force is stopping me,” Kistler said in a statement released through her legal team. David Seligman, an attorney with Towards Justice, was more direct: “AI systems like Eightfold's are making life-altering decisions.”

The lawsuit alleges that Eightfold's scoring system constitutes a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. The argument is straightforward: if a third-party company compiles a dossier about you, scores your fitness for employment, and sells that assessment to employers who use it to accept or reject your application, the resulting product is functionally identical to a credit report. And credit reports come with legal protections that have governed the industry for decades: the right to know a report exists, the right to see it, the right to challenge inaccuracies, and the right to be notified before adverse action is taken on the basis of the report's contents. Eightfold, according to the complaint, provides none of these protections.

Eightfold's spokesperson, Kurt Foeller, told Fortune that the company “does not scrape social media” and operates only on data that applicants have intentionally shared. The plaintiffs dispute this characterisation. Pauline Kim, the Daniel Noyes Kirby Professor of Law at Washington University School of Law, told Fortune that the case represents the first major instance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act being applied specifically to AI decision-making in hiring, a development that could reshape how companies deploy screening technologies.

The lawsuit arrives at a moment of acute regulatory uncertainty. In October 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a circular stating explicitly that algorithmic employment scores are covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The guidance was designed to close the gap between decades-old consumer protection law and the realities of automated hiring. It was rescinded in May 2025, part of a broader withdrawal of 67 guidance documents under the direction of acting CFPB director Russell T. Vought. The legal framework that might have governed companies like Eightfold was erected and demolished within seven months.

Kim has noted in her academic work that the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even when applied to AI hiring tools, provides only limited transparency. It establishes procedural requirements that can help individual workers challenge inaccurate information, but does little to curb intrusive data collection or to address the risks of unfair or discriminatory algorithms. The statute was written for an era of filing cabinets and background checks. The technology it is now being asked to regulate operates at a scale and speed that its authors never imagined.

When the Machine Measures the Wrong Thing

On 8 April 2026, researchers Rudra Jadhav and Janhavi Danve posted a paper on arXiv titled “The AI Skills Shift: Mapping Skill Obsolescence, Emergence, and Transition Pathways in the LLM Era.” The paper introduces a metric called the Skill Automation Feasibility Index, or SAFI, which benchmarks four frontier large language models across 263 text-based tasks spanning all 35 skills in the US Department of Labor's O*NET taxonomy. The researchers conducted 1,052 model calls with a zero per cent failure rate and cross-referenced their findings against real-world adoption data covering 756 occupations and 17,998 tasks.

The findings reveal a paradox that sits at the heart of AI-driven hiring. Mathematics received the highest automation feasibility score at 73.2, followed by programming at 71.8. Active listening scored 42.2. Reading comprehension scored 45.5. The spread across all four models tested was just 3.6 points, suggesting that automation feasibility is more a property of the skill itself than of the model being used to perform it. The skills that are easiest for large language models to automate are precisely the ones that automated screening tools most readily evaluate: quantifiable, keyword-friendly competencies that map neatly onto a resume. The skills that are hardest for machines to replicate, and that the research identifies as most critical for human value in the LLM era, are the ones that screening algorithms are least equipped to detect.

The researchers call this the “capability-demand inversion.” Skills most demanded in AI-exposed jobs are those that large language models perform least well at in their benchmarks. In other words, the qualities that will matter most in a labour market reshaped by AI are the very qualities that AI hiring tools are structurally unable to assess. The paper found that 78.7 per cent of observed AI interactions in the workplace are augmentation rather than automation, which means the primary role of AI in most jobs is to assist human workers, not to replace them. The skills required to work effectively alongside AI, adaptability, judgement, interpersonal sensitivity, creative problem-solving, are real but largely invisible to a resume-parsing algorithm.

The researchers propose an AI Impact Matrix that positions skills along four quadrants: high displacement risk, upskilling required, AI-augmented, and lower displacement risk. The framework makes visible what most hiring algorithms treat as noise. A candidate whose strongest assets are collaborative reasoning and contextual judgement will generate a weak signal in a system calibrated to detect certifications and years of experience. The matrix suggests that the skills most likely to determine career success in the coming decade are precisely the skills that current screening tools are designed to ignore.

This creates an absurd circularity. The tools being used to decide who gets hired are optimised to evaluate the competencies most likely to be automated, while systematically failing to measure the competencies most likely to determine whether a candidate will succeed. A screening system that rewards keyword density in programming languages or certifications in statistical software is not measuring the thing it thinks it is measuring. It is measuring a candidate's ability to format a CV in a way that satisfies an algorithm. The correlation between that skill and actual job performance is, at best, weak.

Industrial-organisational psychology has long understood this problem. Research on structured interviews, one of the most replicated findings in the field, shows that fully structured behavioural interviews with standardised questions achieve a predictive validity coefficient of approximately 0.55 or higher, while unstructured interviews, the kind most commonly used in hiring, achieve roughly 0.38. The implication is clear: even among traditional hiring methods, the format of the assessment matters as much as the content. An AI screening tool that evaluates candidates on the basis of keyword frequency and experience duration is applying a methodology with no established predictive validity for job performance. It is a tool built to sort, not to select.

The Scale of the Sorting

The numbers are difficult to absorb. Workday, the cloud-based human resources platform, disclosed in court filings related to a separate class-action lawsuit that 1.1 billion applications were rejected using its software tools during the relevant period. The plaintiff in that case, Derek Mobley, is a Black man over the age of 40 who identifies as having anxiety and depression. He applied to more than a hundred jobs at companies that use Workday's AI-based screening tools over several years and was rejected every time. Four additional plaintiffs later joined the case, each alleging a similar pattern: hundreds of applications submitted through Workday, virtually no interviews, and no explanation.

In May 2025, a federal judge in California granted conditional certification of age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, allowing the case to proceed as a nationwide class action. The potential class includes every applicant aged 40 and over who, from September 2020 to the present, applied through Workday's platform and was not advanced by the AI tool. That class could number in the hundreds of millions. In July 2025, the same judge expanded the scope to include applicants processed using HiredScore, an AI feature Workday had acquired, broadening the potential membership still further. Workday has denied that its technology is discriminatory, calling the certification ruling “a preliminary, procedural ruling that relies on allegations, not evidence.”

The Eightfold and Workday cases together paint a picture of an infrastructure that is vast, consequential, and almost entirely opaque. These are not niche products used by a handful of companies. They are the plumbing of the modern labour market. When a significant portion of the world's job applications passes through systems that score, rank, and reject candidates without disclosure, human review, or any mechanism for appeal, the word “screening” barely captures what is happening. What is happening is automated adjudication. And the adjudicators are accountable to no one.

The hiring managers who rely on these tools are often unaware of how they work. The UK's Information Commissioner's Office published a report on 31 March 2026, drawing on evidence from more than 30 employers and public perception research from graduates, civil society organisations, government bodies, trade unions, and industry representatives. The report identified a striking pattern: many employers fail to recognise that they are using automated decision-making at all. They purchase recruitment software, configure basic settings, and assume a human is reviewing the output. In many cases, the system is making the decision, and the human involvement that follows is little more than a rubber stamp. The ICO's report stressed that human involvement in hiring must be “active and genuine,” that the personnel reviewing AI-generated recommendations must possess the authority, discretion, and competence to alter outcomes before decisions take effect. The gap between that standard and current practice is wide.

A November 2025 study from the University of Washington added a further complication. The researchers found that people tend to mirror the biases of AI systems they work alongside. When participants were exposed to AI-generated hiring recommendations that contained bias, they did not correct for the bias. They absorbed it. Unless the bias was obvious and egregious, participants were, in the researchers' words, “perfectly willing to accept the AI's biases.” This finding undermines one of the central defences offered by companies that deploy AI screening: the claim that a human is always in the loop. If the human in the loop is unconsciously adopting the biases of the algorithm they are supposed to be overseeing, the oversight is illusory.

What Explainability Actually Requires

The word “explainability” has become a kind of talisman in conversations about AI governance, invoked as though its mere presence in a policy document could resolve the tensions it names. In the context of AI hiring, explainability means something very specific, and very difficult.

At its most basic, explainability requires that a candidate who has been rejected by an algorithmic system can receive an answer to the question: why? Not a generic notification. Not a form email. An answer that identifies the specific factors that led to the rejection, the data that was used, the criteria that were applied, and the weight that each criterion received in the final decision. It requires, in other words, that the system be legible to the person it has affected.

This is not a trivial technical problem. Many modern AI screening systems use large language models or deep neural networks whose internal decision processes are not fully interpretable even to their developers. The term “black box” is sometimes used carelessly, but in this context it is technically accurate. Eightfold's platform runs on a proprietary large language model that analyses 1.5 billion data points. The relationship between any individual input and the resulting score is not reducible to a simple explanation. The system does not apply a checklist. It makes inferences across a latent space of features that no human designed and no human can fully map.

Hilke Schellmann, an Emmy-award-winning investigative journalist and professor at New York University, spent years investigating AI hiring tools for her 2024 book “The Algorithm: How AI Decides Who Gets Hired, Monitored, Promoted, and Fired and Why We Need to Fight Back Now,” named a Financial Times Best Book of the Year. Her reporting revealed that many of the algorithms making high-stakes calculations about candidates do more harm than good, and that AI-based hiring tools have not been shown to be more effective than traditional methods at predicting job performance. Through whistleblower accounts and leaked internal documents, Schellmann documented systemic discrimination against women and people of colour, patterns that the tools' developers often could not explain because the systems were not built for explanation. They were built for throughput.

The European Union's AI Act, which classifies AI systems used in employment decisions as “high-risk,” will begin enforcing its core requirements for such systems in August 2026. Under the Act, employers using AI in hiring will be required to conduct rigorous risk assessments and bias testing, maintain detailed technical documentation explaining how the AI works, implement human oversight mechanisms to prevent automated decisions from going unchecked, and register the system in an EU database before deployment. Violations can attract fines of up to 35 million euros or seven per cent of global annual turnover. The regulation represents the most comprehensive attempt anywhere in the world to bring algorithmic hiring under meaningful legal constraint.

But even the EU AI Act does not fully resolve the explainability problem. It mandates transparency and documentation, but it does not require that employers provide individual candidates with a specific explanation of why they were rejected. The regulation focuses on systemic accountability: are you testing for bias? Are you documenting your processes? Are your human overseers genuinely overseeing? These are necessary conditions for a fair system, but they are not sufficient for an explainable one. A candidate in Berlin who is rejected by an AI tool used by a company complying fully with the AI Act may still have no way to understand why.

The Patchwork Below the Atlantic

In the United States, the regulatory landscape is not merely incomplete. It is contradictory. New York City's Local Law 144, which took effect in July 2023, requires employers using automated employment decision tools to conduct annual bias audits and to notify candidates that AI is being used. The law covers all AI-based tools relating to employment, including resume screening software, personality tests, and skill assessments, and it requires that audits examine whether the tools are treating different groups of people fairly with regard to race, ethnicity, and gender. Illinois amended its Human Rights Act through House Bill 3773, effective January 2026, making it unlawful for employers to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of discriminating on the basis of protected characteristics. The earlier Illinois AI Video Interview Act, effective since January 2020, had already required employer notification and consent when AI is used to analyse video interviews. Colorado's AI Act, signed in 2024, imposes obligations on deployers of high-risk AI systems, including those used in hiring.

These laws represent genuine progress, but they share a common limitation: they are state and local measures in a labour market that operates nationally and globally. A company headquartered in Texas that uses Eightfold or Workday to screen candidates across all 50 states is subject to a patchwork of obligations that varies by jurisdiction. A candidate in Colorado has different rights from a candidate in Florida. A candidate applying through a portal in London is subject to UK data protection law and the Data (Use and Access) Act's reformed provisions on automated decision-making, but the AI tool processing her application may be operated by a company in California, trained on data from LinkedIn profiles worldwide, and governed by the terms of service of a cloud computing provider in Virginia.

The CFPB's withdrawn guidance on algorithmic employment scores illustrates the fragility of the American regulatory approach. For seven months in 2024 and 2025, there was a federal-level interpretation that would have required companies like Eightfold to comply with FCRA disclosure requirements. When that interpretation was rescinded, the obligation evaporated. The Eightfold lawsuit now asks a court to make the same determination that the CFPB made and then unmade: that algorithmic hiring scores are consumer reports. If the court agrees, the result will be a judicial precedent rather than a regulatory framework, binding on the parties but leaving the broader industry to wait for further litigation to clarify the rules.

The Architecture of a Fair System

What would a fair AI hiring system actually require? The question is easier to pose than to answer, but the outlines of an answer are visible in the research, the litigation, and the regulatory experiments now underway.

First, disclosure. Every candidate should know, before they submit an application, that an automated system will be involved in evaluating it. They should know the name of the system, the categories of data it will use, and the general logic by which it makes its assessments. This is not a radical proposition. It is the minimum standard that the Fair Credit Reporting Act has required of credit bureaus since 1970. The fact that it does not yet apply consistently to AI hiring tools is a regulatory failure, not a technical impossibility.

Second, access and correction. Every candidate who is rejected by an AI system should have the right to see the data the system held about them and to challenge inaccuracies. The Eightfold lawsuit alleges that the company generates detailed dossiers about applicants without their knowledge and provides no mechanism for correction. If the allegations are proved, the gap between what the law requires and what the industry practises is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of kind.

Third, validated assessments. The ArXiv research by Jadhav and Danve demonstrates that current AI screening tools evaluate competencies that do not align with the skills most predictive of job performance in the LLM era. A fair system would require that any automated assessment used in hiring decisions be validated against actual job performance outcomes, not merely against the proxy metrics that the system was designed to optimise. Industrial-organisational psychology has established rigorous standards for assessment validation. There is no principled reason why AI screening tools should be exempt from those standards.

Fourth, meaningful human oversight. The ICO's March 2026 report found that many employers do not recognise they are using automated decision-making and that the human involvement in their processes is often nominal. The University of Washington study found that even when humans are present, they tend to absorb rather than correct algorithmic bias. Meaningful oversight requires that the person reviewing an AI recommendation has the authority, training, and information necessary to overrule it. It requires that overruling the algorithm carries no professional penalty. And it requires that the proportion of AI recommendations that are actually reviewed and challenged is itself monitored and reported.

Fifth, independent auditing. New York City's Local Law 144 requires annual bias audits of automated employment decision tools. This is a starting point, but the audits must be genuinely independent, conducted by parties with no financial relationship to the tool's developer or the employer, and the results must be public. An audit that is commissioned by the company being audited, conducted according to the company's own methodology, and published only in summary form is not an audit. It is a press release.

Sixth, regulatory coherence. The current patchwork of state, local, and national regulations creates an environment in which compliance is burdensome for employers who take it seriously and easily evaded by those who do not. The EU AI Act represents one model for a comprehensive approach. The United States does not need to replicate the EU's framework precisely, but it does need a federal standard that establishes minimum requirements for disclosure, validation, human oversight, and auditing. The alternative is an indefinite extension of the current system, in which the rights of a job applicant depend on the jurisdiction in which they happen to live.

The Human Cost of Optimisation

There is a tendency in conversations about AI hiring to frame the problem as a matter of efficiency versus fairness, as though the two are naturally in tension and the task is to find an acceptable compromise. The framing is misleading. A system that rejects qualified candidates because it cannot evaluate the competencies that matter is not efficient. It is wasteful. A system that scores applicants using data they have never seen and cannot correct is not streamlined. It is arbitrary. A system that makes consequential decisions about people's lives without any mechanism for explanation or appeal is not optimised. It is unjust.

The experience of job seekers like Bhuvana Chilukuri and Erin Kistler and Derek Mobley is not a side effect of technological progress. It is a design choice. The companies that build and deploy these systems chose speed over accuracy, throughput over fairness, and opacity over accountability. Those choices were not inevitable. They were made because they were profitable and because, until very recently, they were legal. A 2025 survey found that 69 per cent of candidates said a lack of human interaction would deter them from joining an organisation, and 54 per cent wanted employers to maintain a human touch in hiring. The tools that were supposed to make hiring more efficient are driving away the talent they were meant to attract.

The BBC's reporting, the Eightfold and Workday lawsuits, the ArXiv research on skill obsolescence, and the ICO's findings all converge on the same conclusion: the first and most decisive moment in a person's working life is now frequently decided by a system that neither they nor most employers can interrogate. That is not a technical problem waiting for a better algorithm. It is a governance failure waiting for a political response. The technology exists to build hiring systems that are transparent, validated, and subject to meaningful oversight. What is missing is the will to require it.

The machinery is already in motion. The EU AI Act's high-risk provisions take effect in August 2026. The Eightfold and Workday cases will set precedents in American courts. The ICO is consulting on new guidance until 29 May 2026. Legislators in Illinois, Colorado, and New York have demonstrated that it is possible to regulate AI in hiring without banning it. The question is whether these efforts will coalesce into a coherent framework before a generation of workers is sorted, scored, and discarded by systems that no one can explain.

The algorithms are not going away. The only remaining question is whether the people they judge will ever be allowed to judge them back.

---

References and Sources

1. BBC report on AI-led hiring in the UK, featuring Bhuvana Chilukuri's experience and Denis Machuel's comments on the job market, March 2026. https://www.storyboard18.com/trending/student-warns-ai-led-hiring-in-uk-causes-impersonal-rejections-ws-l-92877.htm

2. Collins McNicholas survey on candidate experiences with AI in recruitment, 2025. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1940958/jobseekers-fear-ai-unfairly-screening-applications-research-finds

3. Resume Genius, “2026 Hiring Insights Report: ATS, AI, and Employer Expectations,” survey of 1,000 US hiring managers, 2026. https://resumegenius.com/blog/job-hunting/hiring-insights-report

4. CoverSentry, “ATS Statistics 2026: Why Your Resume Disappears Into the Void,” analysis of AI screening rejection rates and parsing errors. https://www.coversentry.com/ats-statistics

5. Kistler and Bhaumik v. Eightfold AI Inc., class-action complaint filed 21 January 2026, Outten and Golden LLP and Towards Justice. https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants

6. Fortune, “Job seekers are suing an AI hiring tool used by Microsoft and PayPal for allegedly compiling secretive reports that help employers screen candidates,” 26 January 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/01/26/job-seekers-suing-ai-hiring-tool-eightfold-allegedly-compiling-secretive-reports/

7. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-06: Background Dossiers and Algorithmic Scores for Hiring, Promotion, and Other Employment Decisions,” October 2024. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/circulars/consumer-financial-protection-circular-2024-06-background-dossiers-and-algorithmic-scores-for-hiring-promotion-and-other-employment-decisions/

8. Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor, “CFPB Rescinds Dozens of Regulatory Guidance Documents in Major Regulatory Shift,” May 2025. https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2025/05/cfpb-rescinds-dozens-of-regulatory-guidance-documents-in-major-regulatory-shift/

9. Pauline Kim, “People Analytics and the Regulation of Information Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” Washington University School of Law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809910

10. Jadhav, Rudra, and Janhavi Danve, “The AI Skills Shift: Mapping Skill Obsolescence, Emergence, and Transition Pathways in the LLM Era,” arXiv:2604.06906, 8 April 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06906

11. Mobley v. Workday, Inc., US District Court for the Northern District of California, class-action complaint alleging age and race discrimination through AI-based screening. https://fairnow.ai/workday-lawsuit-resume-screening/

12. Law and the Workplace, “AI Bias Lawsuit Against Workday Reaches Next Stage as Court Grants Conditional Certification of ADEA Claim,” June 2025. https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2025/06/ai-bias-lawsuit-against-workday-reaches-next-stage-as-court-grants-conditional-certification-of-adea-claim/

13. Information Commissioner's Office, “Recruitment Rewired: An Update on the ICO's Work on the Fair and Responsible Use of Automation in Recruitment,” 31 March 2026. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/recruitment-rewired/

14. University of Washington, “People mirror AI systems' hiring biases, study finds,” November 2025. https://www.washington.edu/news/2025/11/10/people-mirror-ai-systems-hiring-biases-study-finds/

15. Schellmann, Hilke, “The Algorithm: How AI Decides Who Gets Hired, Monitored, Promoted, and Fired and Why We Need to Fight Back Now,” Hachette Books, 2024. https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/hilke-schellmann/the-algorithm/9780306827365/

16. European Commission, “AI Act: Shaping Europe's Digital Future,” regulatory framework for artificial intelligence. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

17. New York City Local Law 144 on Automated Employment Decision Tools, effective July 2023. https://www.warden-ai.com/resources/hr-tech-compliance-nyc-local-law-144

18. Illinois House Bill 3773, amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act regarding AI in employment decisions, effective January 2026. https://www.theemployerreport.com/2024/08/illinois-joins-colorado-and-nyc-in-restricting-generative-ai-in-hr-a-comprehensive-look-at-us-and-global-laws-on-algorithmic-bias-in-the-workplace/

19. Pauline Kim, testimony before the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Navigating Employment Discrimination, AI, and Automated Systems,” January 2023. https://www.eeoc.gov/meetings/meeting-january-31-2023-navigating-employment-discrimination-ai-and-automated-systems-new/kim

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

There are days when the future feels too large to look at directly, so you lower your eyes and try to make it through the next hour without falling apart. You do not always have a clean way to explain that feeling to other people, because from the outside you may still look responsible, functional, and steady enough. You may still answer messages, pay what you can pay, go where you are expected to go, and speak with a calm voice while something inside you is quietly asking whether you can keep living under this much weight. That is why the full When All You Can Ask God For Is Enough for Today message matters so deeply, because sometimes the most honest prayer is not a grand statement of confidence but a tired request for enough grace to make it through the day in front of you.

The disciples once watched Jesus pray, and something about the way He prayed made them ask Him to teach them. They had heard religious words before, and they had seen public displays of faith, but Jesus carried something different when He spoke to the Father. He was not performing closeness with God. He was living from it, and that is the part many of us long for when life becomes heavy. We do not only need better words; we need a way back to the Father when disappointment has made our hearts guarded, which is why the earlier message about holding onto faith when life feels heavy belongs close to this one.

Jesus answered the disciples with a prayer that was simple enough for a child to remember and deep enough to hold a suffering soul. He taught them to begin with the Father, to honor His name, to desire His kingdom, to surrender to His will, and then He gave them a phrase that can sound ordinary until your life starts pressing harder than you know how to carry. Give us this day our daily bread. That line does not sound impressive in a world that wants plans, timelines, guarantees, and visible proof, but it may be one of the most merciful teachings Jesus ever gave to people who are tired of trying to survive tomorrow before tomorrow even comes.

Daily bread is not glamorous. It does not make you feel like you have conquered the whole road. It does not hand you a full explanation for why the delay has lasted so long or why the answer has not come in the way you hoped. It brings the soul down from the panic of the entire future and places it back into the hands of the Father for this one day. That is not a small movement when your mind has been living six months ahead in fear.

Many people become bitter while waiting on God because they are not only waiting. They are also carrying an imagined future that has not happened yet. They wake up with today’s pain, then add next month’s fear, next year’s uncertainty, and every possible loss their mind can create. Before they have taken one real step, their soul has already walked through a hundred disasters. It is no wonder the heart starts to feel tired, defensive, and disappointed with God.

Jesus knew the human heart could not live that way. He knew we were not made to carry every tomorrow at once. When He taught daily bread, He was not minimizing our problems. He was teaching us where grace is found, and grace is found in the actual day we are living, not in the imagined future we are trying to control. God does not ask you to spend today’s strength on a tomorrow He has not handed you yet.

That can be hard to accept when you are scared. Fear wants the whole answer now. Fear wants proof that the money will be there, the relationship will heal, the sickness will lift, the door will open, the child will come back, the ache will ease, and the loneliness will not last forever. When you do not get that proof, fear begins to whisper that God is withholding something from you. If you listen long enough, that whisper can become resentment.

Resentment often begins as pain that has stopped talking honestly to God. It does not always start with open rebellion. Sometimes it starts with one quiet decision to stop expecting anything good. Then prayer becomes shorter, hope becomes weaker, and the heart begins to protect itself from being disappointed again. You may still believe in Jesus, but you start keeping part of yourself out of reach because trust has begun to feel dangerous.

Daily bread invites that guarded part of you back into the presence of the Father. It does not demand that you pretend everything is fine. It simply gives you a place to begin again. You can come to God without having your whole heart organized. You can come with fear in your chest and still ask for bread. You can come with disappointment in your voice and still be heard.

There is mercy in the way Jesus taught this prayer. He did not tell the disciples to impress the Father. He did not tell them to hide their needs. He did not tell them that strong faith never asks for simple provision. He taught them to bring ordinary hunger, ordinary weakness, ordinary pressure, and ordinary human need into the holy presence of God.

That should comfort anyone who feels ashamed of being tired. Some people think faith means they should be above needing help for the day. They think they should already be stronger, calmer, more settled, and less affected by pressure. But Jesus did not teach us to pray like people who have no needs. He taught us to pray like children who know where their bread comes from.

There is a quiet honesty in that. Give us this day our daily bread means I am not pretending to be self-sufficient. It means I am not acting like I can hold my entire life together by force. It means I am not too proud to admit that I need God in the most basic places. The prayer itself humbles the heart before bitterness can harden it.

Bitterness often feeds on the belief that we have been left to provide for ourselves. It says God has not come through the way we expected, so now we must guard our own hearts, control our own outcomes, and keep score of every delay. Daily bread pushes back against that lie. It says the Father is still the giver, even when the table does not look full yet. It says today’s grace is not proof of tomorrow’s absence.

I think many people miss this because they want God to remove the whole burden before they will recognize His care. That is understandable, because when you are hurting, you do not want a small mercy. You want relief. You want the entire thing lifted off your chest. You want to wake up and realize the struggle is over.

Sometimes God does give that kind of breakthrough. There are moments when the door opens quickly, when the answer arrives suddenly, when the burden shifts in a way you could not have forced. We should not shrink God down until we stop believing He can move powerfully. He can. But the daily bread teaching reminds us that God’s faithfulness is not absent when the miracle comes slowly.

There are seasons when His faithfulness looks like enough strength to get out of bed. It looks like a phone call you had the courage to make. It looks like a bill paid one step at a time. It looks like peace that lasts long enough for you to breathe. It looks like your heart staying tender when disappointment had every chance to make you cold.

That kind of provision may not make a dramatic story, but it keeps a soul alive. A person can survive a very hard season when Jesus keeps giving bread for the day. Not because the pain becomes fake, and not because the questions disappear, but because the person is no longer trying to live the entire future in one frightened moment. The heart begins to learn a slower kind of trust.

This is where the teaching becomes personal. It is easy to talk about daily bread as an idea. It is much harder to live it when your mind wants guarantees. It is hard to ask only for today’s strength when your body is tired from years of carrying pressure. It is hard to believe God is near when the answer has not arrived and other people seem to be moving forward while you are still trying to stand.

That comparison can quietly poison waiting. You see someone else receive what you begged God for, and suddenly your own waiting feels like rejection. Their good news starts to feel like evidence against your faith. You may smile for them, but later, when you are alone, something inside you aches. You wonder why God seems quick for others and slow with you.

Daily bread brings you back from that dangerous place. It does not answer every comparison, but it turns your eyes toward the Father who sees you. It reminds you that your life is not being measured against someone else’s timeline. God does not feed every person in the same visible way at the same visible time. Your bread may not look like their bread, but that does not mean your Father has forgotten your table.

The hidden pain of waiting is that it can make you feel unseen. You may think nobody knows how much energy it takes for you to keep going. Nobody sees the conversations you have with yourself just to stay calm. Nobody sees the way you fight fear at night. Nobody sees how many times you almost gave up on hope but somehow prayed again.

Jesus sees that. The same Jesus who taught daily bread also noticed people others missed. He saw the woman in the crowd who reached for His garment. He saw the widow giving what others might have overlooked. He saw the hungry crowds before they had language for their own need. He saw the tired, the ashamed, the burdened, and the forgotten, and He still sees the person trying to wait without becoming bitter.

That matters because bitterness grows faster when we believe our pain is invisible. When the soul feels unseen, it starts building its own defense. It begins to say, “If no one cares, I will stop caring too.” But daily bread is a prayer of seen dependence. It is a way of saying, “Father, You see this day. You see what it requires. You see what I lack. Meet me here.”

There is something deeply intimate about asking God for enough. Not abundance for a fantasy life. Not proof for the ego. Not control over every outcome. Enough. Enough patience to respond without cruelty. Enough wisdom to make the next decision. Enough mercy to forgive what keeps replaying in the mind. Enough hope to keep the heart from closing.

That word enough can be difficult for people who have lived under pressure for a long time. When you have known lack, enough can feel unsafe. When you have watched things fall apart, enough can feel too close to the edge. When you have been disappointed before, you may want extra proof before you trust again. Jesus understands that fear, but He still teaches us to receive today’s bread today.

There is a kind of spiritual maturity that does not look impressive from the outside. It is not loud. It is not always emotionally bright. It is the quiet decision to come back to Jesus with the same need again, without letting the delay turn your heart against Him. It is the willingness to say, “I do not understand the whole story, but I will receive the grace for this page.”

That is not weak faith. It may be some of the strongest faith a person ever lives. Anyone can speak confidently when life is easy and answers are quick. It takes something deeper to keep turning toward Jesus when the answer is still hidden. It takes grace to keep your heart open when bitterness offers the false comfort of shutting down.

Bitterness always promises protection, but it never gives peace. It tells you that if you stop hoping, you will stop hurting. It tells you that if you expect less from God, you will be safer. It tells you that a hard heart is wiser than a tender one. But a hard heart still hurts; it just loses the ability to receive comfort.

Daily bread keeps the heart open. It does not force the heart to be cheerful. It does not deny grief. It does not silence honest questions. It simply teaches the soul to remain near enough to the Father to be fed. That nearness is what bitterness tries to steal.

The disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray because they saw something in Him that they did not have. They saw a Son who lived from the Father’s presence. They saw someone who could withdraw to pray and return with strength. They saw someone who could face pressure without losing His center. They did not ask for a technique; they asked for a way into that kind of life.

Jesus gave them daily bread as part of that way. He gave them a prayer that does not let us float above human need. It brings human need straight to God. It teaches us that dependence is not a flaw in the life of faith. Dependence is the place where trust becomes real.

Some people are exhausted because they have mistaken control for trust. They are trying to predict every outcome, manage every feeling, prevent every loss, and solve every future problem before it arrives. They are not doing it because they are faithless. They are doing it because they are afraid. But fear-driven control drains the soul, and eventually it can make God feel like an opponent instead of a Father.

Daily bread loosens that grip. It teaches the hands to open, not because the future is unimportant, but because the Father is trustworthy. Open hands are not empty hands when God is the giver. They are ready hands. They can receive what clenched fists cannot.

This does not mean you stop planning, working, paying attention, or making wise choices. Faith is not passivity. Daily bread is not an excuse to do nothing. It is a way to do the next right thing without pretending you are the source of your own life. You still show up, but you stop acting like the entire weight of existence rests on your shoulders.

That distinction can save a person from despair. You can be responsible without being crushed. You can care without trying to control everything. You can prepare without living in panic. You can work hard while still admitting that your deepest supply comes from God.

There is great tenderness in the fact that Jesus used bread. Bread is simple. Bread is daily. Bread is close to the body. He could have used a more dramatic image, but He chose something ordinary because much of our life with God happens in ordinary places. The kitchen table. The quiet drive. The unpaid bill. The bedroom floor. The morning when you do not feel ready to face what is waiting for you.

God meets people there. We often look for Him only in the dramatic moment, but Jesus teaches us to look for the Father’s care in the daily provision that keeps us alive. You may be waiting for a major answer, but do not despise the smaller mercies that are carrying you while you wait. A heart that can recognize bread is less likely to starve in the middle of delay.

Sometimes the bread is physical provision. Sometimes it is emotional strength. Sometimes it is a word that reaches you at the right time. Sometimes it is the ability to remain quiet when anger wanted to speak. Sometimes it is the courage to apologize, the grace to forgive, or the endurance to keep moving when the road still feels long.

This is not about lowering your hope. It is about anchoring your hope in the character of the Father rather than the speed of the answer. There is a difference. If your hope rests only on how quickly life changes, every delay will feel like abandonment. If your hope rests on the Father who gives daily bread, then even delay becomes a place where trust can be formed.

That does not make waiting easy. It does not erase the ache of unanswered prayer. It does not make grief polite or financial stress painless. It does not remove the sting of loneliness. It simply means those things do not get to become the final voice over your life.

Jesus is still the final voice. He is the one who teaches you how to pray when your own words feel thin. He is the one who brings you back to the Father when disappointment has made you distant. He is the one who reminds you that the God who feeds birds and clothes flowers is not careless with His children. He is the one who stands close enough to the weary to say, “Come to Me.”

There are moments when “Come to Me” and “Give us daily bread” belong together. You come to Jesus with the burden, and you ask the Father for the bread. You bring the weariness, and He gives the grace. You bring the fear, and He gives enough strength for the next step. This is not a religious formula. It is the way a tired heart stays alive with God.

I think many people need permission to pray small again. They have been trying to pray impressive prayers because they are afraid small prayers mean small faith. But when Jesus taught daily bread, He made room for simple prayer. He made room for the person who can only say, “Lord, help me today.” He made room for the heart that has no speech left except need.

That may be where you are. Maybe you do not have a long prayer right now. Maybe you do not feel full of confidence. Maybe you are trying to believe while carrying grief, pressure, regret, family strain, emotional exhaustion, and questions that do not have clean answers. You may feel like your faith is weak, but if you are still turning toward Jesus, something holy is still alive in you.

Do not dismiss that. A weak prayer can still be real. A tired heart can still be held. A person with trembling hands can still receive bread from the Father. The point is not to make yourself look strong before God. The point is to come close enough to be fed.

Part of the danger in long waiting is that the soul starts narrating the delay in a harmful way. You begin to tell yourself that because the answer has not come, God must not care. Because the pain remains, Jesus must not be near. Because the season is long, nothing good is happening. Those thoughts can feel true when you are tired, but tired thoughts are not always truthful thoughts.

Daily bread gives you a better story to live inside. It says the answer may not be here yet, but the Father is still giving what is needed for this day. It says the road may be longer than expected, but Jesus is not absent from the road. It says I do not have to understand the entire future in order to receive grace for the present. That story keeps bitterness from becoming the interpreter of your life.

You have to be careful about who gets to interpret your pain. Bitterness will interpret it one way. Fear will interpret it another way. Shame will tell you that you are failing because you are tired. Comparison will tell you that you are behind because someone else seems blessed. Jesus interprets your pain differently.

He does not call you forgotten. He calls you to come. He does not shame your need. He teaches you to ask. He does not demand that you carry tomorrow. He gives bread for today. That is a much kinder way to live than the one fear has been trying to force on you.

There is also a quiet correction in daily bread. It corrects the pride that wants to be self-made, but it also corrects the panic that wants to be self-protected. Both pride and panic keep the self at the center. Pride says, “I can do this without God.” Panic says, “I must solve this because no one else will.” Daily bread says, “Father, I need You here.”

That prayer returns the soul to reality. We are creatures. We are children. We are not God. We do not hold every outcome, and we were never meant to. There is relief in admitting that, even though fear resists it at first.

The world often tells you that strength means needing nothing. Jesus shows us something better. Strength can mean knowing where to go with your need. Strength can mean refusing to turn pain into bitterness. Strength can mean asking for bread one more morning. Strength can mean staying soft in a season that could have made you hard.

That kind of softness is not weakness. It takes courage to remain tender when life has hurt you. It takes courage to keep praying when you do not know how God will answer. It takes courage to admit need instead of hiding behind anger. Bitterness may look strong for a while, but tenderness before God is stronger than bitterness will ever be.

Daily bread is one way Jesus keeps that tenderness alive. He gives you a prayer that is honest enough for suffering and simple enough for a tired mind. You do not have to climb some spiritual ladder to reach the Father. You do not have to find perfect words. You can begin with what Jesus gave you.

Give us this day our daily bread.

Say it slowly if you need to. Say it with tears if that is all you have. Say it when you are afraid of tomorrow. Say it when your heart is starting to close. Say it when resentment begins to sound reasonable. Say it not because you are pretending the future does not matter, but because you are choosing to trust the Father with the day you have been given.

A person can live a long time on daily bread. That does not mean the road is easy. It means the Father is faithful. It means Jesus knows how to sustain people in hidden places. It means there can be grace for the morning, grace for the conversation, grace for the decision, grace for the grief, and grace for the night when the house gets quiet.

You may not be able to feel all of that at once. That is okay. Daily bread is not all at once. It is given in the day. It is received in the day. It is trusted in the day.

So if you are in a waiting season and you can feel bitterness trying to reach for your heart, do not begin by shaming yourself. Begin by returning to the prayer Jesus taught. Let the words bring you back down from the storm of the whole future. Let them remind you that God is not asking you to live every tomorrow today. Let them place your tired heart back in front of the Father.

There is a reason Jesus gave those words to His disciples. He knew they would need them. He knew we would too. He knew there would be days when faith did not feel bold, when hope felt thin, when the heart felt tired, and when the next step seemed like all a person could manage. He knew daily bread would be enough to keep a soul from starving in the waiting.

That is where this article has to begin, not with a polished idea about patience, but with the quiet truth that some people are trying not to become bitter while they wait. They are not trying to be difficult. They are not trying to doubt God. They are trying to stay alive inside. They are trying to keep their hearts from turning cold while life takes longer than they hoped.

If that is you, then the daily bread prayer is not beneath you. It may be exactly where Jesus is meeting you. It may be the prayer that brings your soul back from the edge of resentment. It may be the sentence that helps you stop demanding tomorrow’s supply before tomorrow comes. It may be the first honest word after a long season of silence.

Give me enough for today, Father.

Enough not to quit.

Enough not to hate.

Enough not to close my heart.

Enough to trust You for one more step.

That is not a small prayer. That is a prayer with real weight in it. It is the kind of prayer a human being prays when the future feels too large and the present feels too heavy. It is the kind of prayer Jesus gave us because He knows exactly how much mercy one day can require.

There is a strange kind of loneliness that can come with waiting on God. It is not always the loneliness of having no people around you. Sometimes it is the loneliness of having people around you who do not know what this season is costing you. They may see your face, hear your voice, and assume you are doing better than you are. They may even love you, but they cannot feel the weight you carry when the room gets quiet and the questions come back.

That is why the daily bread prayer is so personal. It does not require an audience. It does not need anyone else to understand your whole situation. It belongs in the hidden place where you and the Father meet without performance. You can pray it in a chair, in your car, at a kitchen table, in a bathroom at work, or with your eyes open while you are trying not to break down. The prayer travels into ordinary places because ordinary places are often where the deepest battles happen.

A person can look calm in public and be fighting bitterness in private. That is one of the quieter truths about faith. Many people are not angry at God in some loud, rebellious way. They are just tired of hoping. They are tired of watching the same problem remain. They are tired of trying to explain why they still believe when part of them feels disappointed. They are tired of waking up and realizing they have to ask for strength again.

Jesus does not shame that person. He teaches that person to pray.

Give us this day our daily bread.

Those words do not demand that your emotions become neat. They do not require you to pretend that waiting has not hurt you. They do not ask you to deny the ache of unanswered prayer. They simply open a door back to the Father. They give your soul a way to speak when bigger words feel dishonest.

Sometimes that is exactly what saves the heart from bitterness. Not a grand feeling. Not a dramatic breakthrough. Not a sudden ability to understand everything. Just a simple prayer that keeps you close enough to receive grace.

Bitterness wants distance. It wants you to step back from God and rehearse your disappointment alone. It wants you to build a case in your mind until God begins to feel less like Father and more like someone who has failed to come through. It wants your pain to become the only evidence you trust. The longer you sit there, the harder it becomes to pray honestly.

Daily bread breaks that pattern. It brings the hurt back into relationship. It says, “Father, I am still here. I do not understand all of this, but I still need You. I do not know how tomorrow will look, but I need bread for today.” That is not fake faith. That is faith with dirt on it. That is faith that has been through something and is still turning its face toward God.

There is a deep mercy in the word today. Jesus did not skip that word. He placed it right in the prayer. Give us this day. Not someday. Not every day at once. This day. This one. The one that has its own trouble, its own ache, its own decisions, its own temptations, its own small mercies, and its own need for grace.

The mind often hates that limit. It wants to run ahead. It wants to solve everything now. It wants to secure the future so the heart can finally rest. But Jesus does not teach us to find peace by controlling every outcome. He teaches us to find peace by returning to the Father in the day we have actually been given.

That may sound simple, but it is not easy. It takes real surrender to stop demanding tomorrow’s answer today. It takes humility to admit you do not have enough strength for all the things you fear. It takes trust to believe that the Father can meet you again tomorrow, just as He is meeting you now.

When Jesus taught daily bread, He was teaching more than provision. He was teaching dependence. That word can make people uncomfortable because most of us would rather feel self-sufficient. We want to be the kind of person who can say, “I am fine. I have it handled. I know what I am doing.” But deep down, life has a way of showing us how fragile we really are.

One phone call can change a day. One bill can shake your peace. One silence from someone you love can pull old fear back into the room. One memory can reopen grief you thought had settled. One delay can make you wonder if hope was foolish. We are not as unbreakable as we pretend to be.

Jesus knows that, and He does not despise us for it. He meets us in it. He does not build a prayer for people who never feel pressure. He gives a prayer to people who need bread.

That should change the way you see your need. Your need is not proof that God is disappointed in you. Your need is the place where dependence becomes real. It is where prayer stops being an idea and becomes breath. It is where the Father becomes more than a belief you agree with. He becomes the One you reach for because you cannot manufacture life on your own.

Some people are ashamed of needing daily grace. They think they should have grown past this by now. They think faith should have made them less affected by pain. They think if they were really strong, they would not have to keep asking God for help with the same fear, the same wound, the same pressure, or the same sadness. But Jesus did not teach us to ask for monthly bread or yearly bread. He taught us to ask daily.

That means repeated need is not strange to God. It is built into the prayer.

You may need mercy again today. You may need courage again today. You may need patience again today. You may need peace again today. You may need help forgiving again today. You may need strength to not give up again today. That does not make you a failure. It makes you human, and Jesus already knew that when He taught you how to pray.

There is also a quiet protection in daily bread. It protects you from starving spiritually while you wait for a larger answer. Sometimes people refuse the grace God is giving because it is not the answer they wanted. They are so focused on what has not come that they cannot receive what is being offered. Their eyes are fixed on the closed door, so they miss the bread on the table.

That does not mean the closed door does not hurt. It does. It may hurt deeply. But if you only measure God’s care by the door that has not opened, you may miss the ways He has kept you alive in the hallway. He may have given you strength you did not know you had. He may have restrained you from choices that would have harmed you. He may have sent a word, a person, a moment of quiet, or an unexpected provision at exactly the time you needed it.

Those things matter. They may not be the full answer, but they are not nothing. They are daily bread.

A bitter heart often loses the ability to notice bread. It sees what is missing, and what is missing becomes the whole story. It sees the delay, the wound, the unfairness, the silence, and the unanswered prayer. Those things are real, but they are not the whole truth. The whole truth includes the Father’s hidden care, the nearness of Jesus, and the grace that keeps arriving in ways you might overlook if pain becomes your only lens.

This is why gratitude is not a shallow exercise when it is honest. Real gratitude does not deny suffering. It does not pretend the hard thing is not hard. It simply refuses to let suffering erase every sign of God’s mercy. It says, “This is painful, but I can still see bread.” That kind of gratitude can keep the heart soft.

The softness matters. Life can teach a person to become hard. Disappointment can teach a person to expect less, trust less, feel less, and risk less. It can train the soul to protect itself by closing every open place. At first, that may feel safer. But over time, a closed heart becomes a lonely place to live.

Jesus did not come to make people hard. He came to give life. He came to heal what sin and sorrow damaged. He came to bring us back to the Father. When He teaches daily bread, He is not only teaching us how to ask for provision. He is teaching us how to stay open to the Giver.

That may be the deeper lesson. The bread matters, but the Father matters more. God does not want a relationship with us where we only trust Him if the whole table is full. He wants us to know Him closely enough to receive today’s portion from His hand, even while we are still waiting for what comes next.

This is hard because many of us have been trained by pain to distrust partial provision. We think if God really loved us, He would settle everything at once. We think if He were truly near, He would remove the pressure completely. We think if He saw our heart, He would give the full answer now. There are times when He does move that way, but daily bread shows us another kind of love.

It is the love that comes close every morning.

It is the love that does not abandon us when the season continues.

It is the love that gives enough grace to keep the soul from collapsing.

It is the love that teaches us to live with the Father, not merely wait for a result from Him.

That distinction matters. Many people want the result, and there is nothing wrong with wanting it. It is not wrong to ask God for healing, provision, restoration, clarity, peace, or open doors. Jesus invited us to ask. But if we only want the result and not the Father, waiting will feel like rejection every time the result is delayed. Daily bread keeps the relationship alive in the middle of the delay.

The Father is not a machine that dispenses outcomes. He is Father. Jesus did not teach us to pray, “My source of results, give me what I demand.” He taught us to pray to our Father. That means the prayer begins in relationship before it reaches request.

Our Father.

Then daily bread.

That order matters because it reminds the heart who is hearing the request. You are not speaking into empty air. You are not pleading with a cold universe. You are not trying to force mercy out of a reluctant God. You are coming to the Father Jesus revealed. You are coming through the Son who knows your weakness and still invites you near.

When that truth begins to settle, daily bread becomes less like panic and more like trust. It may still come with tears. It may still come from a tired place. But underneath it, something steadier begins to form. You start to learn that you can be needy without being abandoned. You can be uncertain without being alone. You can be waiting without being forgotten.

This is the kind of faith that grows quietly. It may not announce itself. It may not look impressive online. It may not produce a dramatic story people clap for. But in the hidden place, it is precious. A heart that could have become bitter is still turning toward Jesus. A person who could have walked away is still asking the Father for bread. A soul that could have closed itself off is still open enough to receive.

That is holy.

It may not feel holy when you are living it. It may feel messy, small, and unimpressive. But Jesus often meets people in small, unimpressive places. He fed crowds with ordinary bread. He noticed ordinary people in ordinary pain. He spoke eternal truths through images people could understand because He was never trying to sound distant. He came near.

That nearness is what you need when the wait becomes long. You need more than an idea about God. You need the presence of Jesus in the actual places where bitterness tries to grow. You need Him in the morning when anxiety rises. You need Him in the afternoon when patience wears thin. You need Him at night when your thoughts get loud. You need Him when someone else’s good news makes your own delay hurt more than you expected.

Daily bread is one way you welcome Him into those places. It is a prayer that refuses to exile God from the ordinary ache of your life. It says, “Meet me here too.” Not only in church. Not only when I feel strong. Not only when I have a testimony that makes sense. Meet me here in the unfinished day, in the unpaid bill, in the unanswered prayer, in the grief that still visits, in the quiet battle I do not know how to explain.

There is a deep relief in realizing you do not have to edit your life before bringing it to Jesus. You do not have to make the day look better than it is. You do not have to make your faith sound stronger than it feels. The daily bread prayer is honest enough to hold real need. It gives you permission to come without pretending.

Maybe that is where bitterness begins to loosen. Not because you have solved everything, but because you have stopped being alone with everything. Pain is dangerous when it becomes isolated. It turns inward. It repeats itself. It finds reasons to accuse God, other people, and yourself. But when pain is brought into the presence of Jesus, it can begin to soften. It can become prayer instead of poison.

That does not happen all at once for most people. Healing often moves slowly. Trust often has to be rebuilt in the places where disappointment struck hardest. The heart may not open fully in one day, but daily bread does not demand a whole lifetime of openness at once. It asks for today.

Today, can I turn toward God instead of away from Him?

Today, can I receive enough grace to not become bitter?

Today, can I ask Jesus to keep my heart alive?

Today, can I let the Father feed me in the place where I feel weak?

That is a livable faith. It does not crush you under the weight of becoming perfect overnight. It invites you into a daily return. There is mercy in that rhythm. Morning by morning. Need by need. Breath by breath. Bread by bread.

Some people may think this sounds too simple for the size of their pain. I understand that. When the struggle is deep, a simple prayer can feel almost insulting at first. You may want something stronger, larger, more dramatic, and more certain. But do not mistake simplicity for weakness. Some of the strongest things Jesus gave us were simple enough to carry when we had no strength left.

A person in real pain cannot always carry complicated theology in the middle of a breaking day. But they can carry, “Father, give me bread for today.” A grieving person may not have the energy for long explanations, but they can whisper, “Jesus, help me.” A person under financial stress may not see the whole path forward, but they can ask for enough wisdom and provision for the next step. A lonely person may not know when the ache will lift, but they can ask for enough comfort to not close their heart.

Simple prayers can become strong shelters.

That is not because the words are magic. It is because the Father is merciful. The power is not in how impressive the prayer sounds. The power is in the God who hears. Jesus knew that, and He taught us to pray in a way that brings us back to the One who is not overwhelmed by our need.

You may be overwhelmed. He is not.

You may be uncertain. He is not.

You may be tired. He is not tired of you.

There is a difference between being tired and being abandoned. Bitterness tries to blur that difference. It tells you that because you are worn down, God must not be near. But Jesus never said the weary were far from Him. He told the weary to come. That invitation still stands, even when your waiting has lasted longer than you wanted.

Come with the tired part.

Come with the disappointed part.

Come with the part that is afraid to hope.

Come with the part that needs bread today.

This is how you wait without letting bitterness become your home. You keep coming. You keep asking. You keep receiving what God gives for the day. You keep letting Jesus tell the truth about the Father when your pain wants to tell a darker story. You keep refusing to let delay define God’s heart.

There will be days when this feels natural, and there will be days when it feels like a fight. On the harder days, do not despise small obedience. Sometimes the most faithful thing you do is simply not walk away. Sometimes it is opening your hands when you would rather clench them. Sometimes it is praying one sentence instead of saying nothing. Sometimes it is choosing not to rehearse resentment for another hour.

Those small choices matter because they shape the soul. Bitterness is rarely built in one moment. It is often built through repeated agreement with despair. In the same way, trust is often rebuilt through repeated return to God. One day at a time. One prayer at a time. One piece of bread at a time.

This is not about pretending the waiting is good in itself. Some waiting is painful because something is genuinely broken. Some waiting involves loss, injustice, sickness, confusion, or sorrow. Jesus does not ask you to call evil good or pain easy. He asks you to bring the truth of it to the Father and receive grace without letting bitterness become your master.

That is an important difference. Christian hope is not denial. It is not looking at a hard life and pretending everything feels fine. It is looking at a hard life and saying, “Jesus is still here, and because He is here, this pain will not get the final word over me.” Daily bread is one form of that hope. It is hope made practical enough for breakfast, bills, tears, and tired mornings.

There is also a future hidden inside daily bread. When you ask for today’s bread, you are quietly trusting that tomorrow’s Father will be there tomorrow. You are not ignoring the future. You are placing it in better hands than your fear. You are admitting that you cannot live tomorrow yet, but God can be trusted before you arrive there.

That may be one of the hardest parts of faith. We want to feel safe before we trust. God often teaches us to trust Him in order to become steady. He does not always remove every unknown. He walks with us through them. Daily bread is the prayer of a person learning to walk with God through the unknown without letting the unknown become an idol.

The unknown can become an idol when it receives more attention than God. It can dominate your mind, shape your mood, steal your sleep, and rule your decisions. It can become the thing you bow to without realizing it. Jesus gently breaks that power by bringing you back to the Father’s care in the present.

What do you need for today?

Ask Him.

Where are you weak today?

Bring it.

What fear is loud today?

Name it before Him.

Where is bitterness trying to settle today?

Open that place to Jesus.

This is not a formula. It is relationship. It is the daily honesty of a child before the Father. It is the life Jesus invited us into when He taught us to pray.

I think of the disciples asking, “Lord, teach us to pray,” and I wonder if they knew how much we would need that answer. They could not have known every future person who would whisper those words under pressure. They could not have seen every hospital room, empty apartment, strained marriage, lonely night, unpaid bill, anxious morning, or grieving heart where daily bread would become a lifeline. But Jesus knew.

He knew people would need words for the days when faith felt tired.

He knew we would need permission to ask simply.

He knew the future would feel too large for us.

He knew bitterness would try to grow in the waiting.

So He gave us a prayer that brings us back to the Father, back to today, back to enough.

There is deep kindness in that. Jesus does not hand heavy people a heavier burden. He does not say, “Figure out the entire road before you come.” He gives a way to come now. He gives words that fit inside a tired mouth. He gives a prayer that can be spoken when your heart is not ready for anything more complicated.

Give us this day our daily bread.

If you can pray that today, you are not as far gone as you may feel. If you can turn even slightly toward Jesus, bitterness has not won. If you can ask the Father for enough grace to stay soft, then something sacred is still alive in you. Do not dismiss that small turning. Heaven does not despise it.

The world often celebrates visible strength, but God sees hidden surrender. He sees the person who did not lash out when bitterness invited them to. He sees the person who cried and prayed anyway. He sees the person who got up again with no applause. He sees the one who kept asking for bread when no one else knew how empty they felt.

And He gives Himself.

That is the deepest bread beneath all other bread. Yes, we need provision. Yes, we need strength, wisdom, help, healing, direction, and relief. Those needs are real, and the Father cares about them. But beneath every need is the deeper need for God Himself. Jesus is the true bread that keeps the soul alive. He is not only the One who teaches us to ask; He is the One who satisfies the deepest hunger beneath the asking.

That does not make your earthly needs unimportant. It places them inside a larger mercy. The Father knows you need bread for the body, strength for the mind, comfort for the heart, and grace for the day. He also knows you need Christ at the center, because without Him, even answered prayers cannot make the soul whole.

This is why Jesus is enough. Not because every hard thing instantly becomes easy. Not because waiting stops hurting. Not because questions disappear. Jesus is enough because He is the presence of God with us in the middle of real life. He is enough because He can feed the soul when circumstances still feel unfinished. He is enough because He can keep a heart alive when bitterness wanted to bury it.

If you are waiting right now, this may be the place to begin again. Not with a promise to never struggle. Not with fake confidence. Not with polished words. Begin with the prayer Jesus gave. Begin with the Father. Begin with today. Begin with bread.

Say it in your own plain way if you need to. Father, give me enough for today. Give me enough strength to face what is here. Give me enough peace to stop living inside every fear. Give me enough mercy to forgive what is trying to poison me. Give me enough hope to keep my heart open. Give me enough faith to believe You are still near.

Then take the next step that belongs to today. Make the call that belongs to today. Pay what can be paid today. Apologize if that is today’s obedience. Rest if that is what your body needs. Pray again if your soul is drying out. Do not try to live the next ten years before dinner.

God is not asking you to be the savior of your own future. Jesus already holds what you cannot hold. The Father already sees what you cannot see. The Spirit can give strength in places where your own strength has run thin. You are not being asked to manufacture enough. You are being invited to receive enough.

That invitation is humble, but it is powerful. It can keep a person alive through a long season. It can keep the heart from turning cruel. It can keep hope from dying under the weight of delay. It can teach the soul that God’s care is not always loud, but it is faithful.

Maybe tomorrow will bring an answer you did not expect. Maybe a door will open. Maybe relief will come in a way you could not have planned. God can do that. But even if tomorrow still requires waiting, tomorrow will not arrive without God already being there. The Father who gives bread today will not stop being Father when the sun rises again.

So let today become smaller than your fear has made it. Let it return to its real size. You do not have to carry every possible outcome. You do not have to solve every unknown. You do not have to become bitter just because the answer has taken longer than you hoped. You can come to Jesus now, with the heart you actually have, and ask the Father for bread.

There is no shame in that. There is no weakness in that. There is no failure in needing God this much.

This is where waiting changes. Not always around you at first, but within you. The heart that was becoming hard begins to soften. The mind that was racing begins to return to the present. The soul that was measuring God by delay begins to notice mercy again. The person who thought they were losing faith discovers that faith may look like asking for one more day of grace.

That is enough for now.

Enough for now is not the same as giving up. It is the way trust breathes under pressure. It is the way a tired person keeps walking with Jesus. It is the way the Father teaches His children that He is not only Lord over the future but provider in the present.

Give us this day our daily bread.

Those words can carry you when you cannot carry much else. They can meet you in the morning before fear gets loud. They can follow you into the places where nobody knows how hard you are fighting. They can steady you when bitterness starts sounding reasonable. They can remind you that you are still a child before a Father who sees you.

And if today is all the strength you have left, then ask for today’s bread. Ask without embarrassment. Ask without dressing it up. Ask as honestly as you can. Jesus taught you to pray that way because He knew there would be days when that prayer would be enough to keep your heart open.

The waiting may still be real. The pain may still need time. The answer may still be on the way in a form you cannot see yet. But you do not have to starve while you wait. You do not have to let bitterness become your food. You do not have to live on fear, resentment, comparison, or despair.

There is bread for today.

There is grace for today.

There is Jesus for today.

And when today ends, you can rest in the hands of the same Father who will still be there when tomorrow begins.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Watch Douglas Vandergraph inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

Support the Christian encouragement library through GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-douglas-vandergraph-build-a-christian-encouragement-lib

Support the daily work by buying Douglas a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/douglasvandergraph

In Summary: * Started early on the laundry today (it is Monday, you know) and got two good-sized loads washed, dried, folded and put away. And still had time to get in a good nap before today's baseball game. The Mets are leading the Rockies 4 to 0 in the top of the 7th inning in that game now, btw. And I'll have plenty of time to take care of the night prayers after the game ends, and still head to bed early.

That's my plan, anyway.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night. Details of that regimen are linked to my link tree, which is linked to my profile page here.

Starting Ash Wednesday, 2026, I've added this daily prayer as part of the Prayer Crusade Preceding the 2026 SSPX Episcopal Consecrations.

Health Metrics: * bw= 233.8 lbs. * bp= 126/89 (70)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * 05:50 – 1 banana * 06:15 – 2 peanut butter cookies * 07:45 – fried chicken * 12:30 – cheese, crackers, and sliced ham * 17:15 – 1 fresh apple

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:30 – listen to local news talk radio * 05:15 – bank accounts activity monitored. * 05:40 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, nap. * 08:30 – started my weekly laundry * 12:30 – follow news reports from various sources * 16:30 – have been listening to the Pregame Show ahead of this afternoon's MLB Game between the New York Mets and the Colorado Rockies. Opening pitch is only minutes away.

Chess: * 09:50 – moved in all pending CC games

This post is Part 2 of a series on social revolutions of the past 30 years — where public consciousness has massively shifted in favor of liberation. My aim is to create space to pause and acknowledge how things have changed in ways that once felt impossible, remind us that things can always be otherwise. It is inspired in part by Rebecca Solnit’s 2016 edition of Hope in the Dark and David Graeber’s 2007 essay “The Shock of Victory.”

I remember when I first heard the phase “abolish the police” back in 2020, I thought it was pretty much fantasy. I had grown up on copaganda movies and TV and immediately thought “but who’s going to catch all the murderers and rapists?!”

Once I had done some digging and learned oh, actually cops are NOT catching many murderers or rapists, my next logical question was, “okay so what’s your alternative?”

In this blog post, I will explore the evolution of mainstream ideas about policing and how we’ve shifted our focus away from reform efforts (which have failed time and again), to building a multi-faceted constellation of alternatives to support human flourishing at all levels of society — instead of punishing people and locking them up which, beyond being inhumane, simply does not stop crime.

Are Prisons Obsolete? (2003) by the luminary Angela Y. Davis.

Despite mainstream liberals like former President Obama decrying it as too radical, the slogan “Defund the Police” brought what was basically a fringe position before the #BlackLivesMatter uprisings of 2020 to a topic of discussion on all major news outlets. You could see it on signs at protests, graffiti on walls, banners on buildings, posters in coffee shops, and chalk on the sidewalks.

This massive spotlight on anti-police and prison movements also influenced mainstream film and TV, with a 2021 article claiming that 127 episodes of television had addressed the Movement for Black Lives onscreen just that year, with popular “progressive” cop shows like Brooklyn 99 doing entire arcs responding to the uprisings, culminating in beloved characters leaving the fictionalized NY police force.

No matter how controversial the slogan may have been in 2020, “Defund the Police” brought what was formerly a radical activist position into the mainstream discourse. Even those who disliked the slogan admitted that they were for shifting funding away from law enforcement and toward education, social services, arts, parks, and other quality of life investments in public infrastructure.

The average moderate today is far more aware that social and economic issues are often the source of crime, that prisons reproduce criminals, that the history of modern policing lies in slave patrols and protecting private property — NOT in bringing murderers to justice.

Today, “abolish ICE” is a rallying cry across even formerly moderate groups, like Indivisible, which co-organizes the mass rally #NoKings protests.

Protestors holding up anti-ICE signs at Portland Protest in 2025, source: Daily Emerald

This is genuinely worth celebrating, because as much as it might feel like the scale of the 2020 BLM protests came out of nowhere, there is a long and rarely-told history of abolitionist organizing from at least 1970s with Black Feminists and the “Free Angela Davis campaign” — but we can connect it much farther back to the lineage of abolitionist organizing against slavery in the 1800s with formerly enslaved Black activists and intellectuals like Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth.

The Backlash

As always, when groups succeed in organizing for liberation or achieving greater visibility, there is a reactionary backlash of people and institutions who are afraid of freedom and feel threatened by marginalized people gaining power and autonomy. Far from defunding the police, since 2020 a majority of states and cities have increased their police budgets and increased police militarization.

Police in riot gear facing down a line of protestors. source: Indiana University Library

In my previous entry of this series, I talked about the backlash against revisionist history projects like the 1619 Project, which was intended to provide a long overdue counter-narrative to the glorifying mythology most Americans are taught about the founding of our country. I also outlined the escalating trend of charging non-violent activists with terrorism. The anti-critical race theory (CRT) culture war also emerges out of the same milieu as anti-BLM backlash.

But despite all the effort Republicans put into misinformation and fearmongering, with the rise of nowadays, you’ll hear even previously moderate progressives say ACAB, particularly with the escalation in violence against even non-violent white citizens like Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good.

Today, even older white moderates are, for the first time, identifying law enforcement as a source of danger and not protection. In the past, this type of violence has largely been confined to borders, prisons, concentration camps, and BIPOC communities more generally, but with the extreme escalation of Trump 2.0’s ICE, we are seeing plainly the oft-quoted words:

The truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free.

-Maya Angelou

What I see as the biggest risk in the current phase of mass participation, rally-based politics which center narrowly on abolishing ICE and removing Donald Trump from office, is that framing the problem as only these issues discourages deeper questioning of the structures and institutions which are foundational to America.

My biggest fear

Calling ICE “the gestapo” (as I myself have in a video essay, analyzing the ties between a certain yogurt CEO and the Department of Homeland Security) is accurate in a sense of drawing a necessary comparison between the contemporary fascism of the Christian Nationalist regime of the US to that of Nazi Germany; on the other hand, calling ICE the gestapo conveniently distances ICE from the broader institution of US policing, making it seem like a complete and unprecedented aberration, when in reality, this is an expansion of the practices baked into America from its very founding by slave-owners who enjoyed waxing poetic about Liberty — as uncomfortable as that makes many of us (and it’s clear it makes Republicans VERY uncomfortable).

The influential Brazilian educator and theorist Paolo Freire refers to this type of cultural consciousness, where people are aware there are problems in society but tend to view those problems quite narrowly, as Naive Transitivity, which he defines:

An over-simplification of problems; by a nostalgia for the past; by underestimation of the common man; by a strong tendency to gregariousness; by a lack of interest in investigation, accompanied by an accentuated taste for fanciful explanations; by fragility of argument; by a strongly emotional style; by the practice of polemics rather than dialogue; by magical explanations - Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (1997): p. 18

When I see bumper stickers saying “No one is above the Law” or “Impeach Trump” or “Veto the Cheeto” — and the very basic “No Kings Since 1776,” it’s clear that these people are invoking rose-colored ideas of American Democracy and a nostalgia for the American Revolution.

Slogans that center on a single action — imagining that “the problem” would be solved if we simply got rid of Trump or got Congress to veto his laws (despite many of his actions being carried out by Executive Order, far easier to wield than a 2/3 supermajority in a body of government engineered to be disconnected from democratic oversight — the very existence of the Senate represents founders’ fears that too much democratic control would be dangerous!) — these slogans are oversimplifications of structural problems.

My biggest hope

Putting aside my skepticism that the large number of people attending anti-Trump rallies are really questioning the roots of American imperialism or white supremacy, I am seeing a tremendously inspiring trend emerging in bottom-up democracy: the rise of Neighbor Unions — a relatively novel form of autonomous place-based organizing. The Institute for Social Ecology defines them:

an organization dedicated to building a community of solidarity at the scale of a neighborhood, and empowering that community to strive toward self-governance. Through welcoming events, consistent outreach, relationship building, and practical projects, organizers work to help people overcome their sense of isolation and powerlessness by getting to know their neighbors, supporting each other in concrete ways, and participating directly in the process of reshaping local life for the common good.

Neighbor Unions emerge from Murray Bookchin’s work on Social Ecology, anarchism, direct management experiments like the Rojava Revolution, indigenous consensus-based self-management practices which go back thousands of years, and the experiences of community assemblies practiced in the #Occupy Movement. They are fundamentally grassroots and broad, not stuck in insular sectarian debates.

source: Institute for Social Ecology

Neighbor Unions are organizing locally to take care of our neighbors and build confidence in our abilities to self-manage and take direct action in our communities.

That includes restorative and transformative justice, like that practiced by women-led community mediators in Rojava, advocacy and prison diversion programs like the Restorative Justice Initiative in NYC, the effective but ultimately underfunded experiment in 911 crisis call diversion CAHOOTS in Eugene, OR, and many other initiatives in the U.S. and around the world.

It’s not easy work to replace a system of structural policing and incarceration, but the very first step toward it is building trust with our local community and learning how to take care of each other.

Suggested Reads

• Are Prisons Obsolete?, Angela Y. Davis
• Healing Justice Lineages: Dreaming at the Crossroads of Liberation, Collective Care, and Safety, Cara Page & Erica Woodland
• Rattling the Cages: Dispatches from Behind Bars, AK Press

#writing #revolution #stopcopcity #blm #abolition #education #essay #defundthepolice #abolishthepolice #abolishICE #prisonabolition #prison #prisonlife #prisonbreakedit #freethemall #criminaljustice #endmassincarceration #criminaldefense #criminaldefenselawyer #accesstojustice #prisonart #notguilty #lawyers #endcashbail #court #wrongfulconvictions #endthedeathpenalty #criminaldefenseattorney #restorativejustice #transformativejustice

---

Same Askew, new home. We've migrated off write.as to a self-hosted WriteFreely instance — same software, no monthly fee, full control of the federation actor and our own data.

If you follow Askew on the fediverse at @askew@write.as, please re-follow at @askew@blog.askew.network. ActivityPub's auto-migration mechanism (Move activity) requires keys we don't hold for the old account, so it has to be a manual hop.

All 76 prior posts are at the new host with the same slugs. The old write.as URLs redirect for 30 days, then go away.

New York Mets vs Colorado Rockies.

Monday's game of choice in the Roscoe-verse is an MLB game and features the New York Mets vs the Colorado Rockies. The scheduled start time for this game is 5:40 PM CDT, less than half an hour from now as I sit here listening to the Mets Pregame Show. This radio station will also be bringing me the call of the game.

And the adventure continues.

Just one for me tomorrow at Ayr, and it’s one that’s easily found in the market.

4.30 Ayr TAYGAR is the selection here, not least because of Michael Dod’s excellent recent record at the track, winning with his last 2 runners and 3 from his last 5. The 5yo also seems to love it here with form figures of 311, off marks of 70, 68 and 62. He goes off 62 today so is obviously well handicapped, especially as the third and most recent win were in class 4 events and today’s is a class 6. The run LTO should have brought him on nicely and with the ground not a cause for concern, he should be right up there. Not sure if it’s significant but Mulrennan takes the ride today having not ridden for Dodsy since February. He has ridden TAYGAR before though, 8 times infact, winning once. Probably nonsense but semi interesting nonetheless.

TAYGAR // 1pt Win @ 7/2 (Coral)

Tigana est un roman de Guy Gavriel Kay publié en 1990. Après la trilogie de Fionavar, l’auteur canadien s’éloignait alors de la fantasy classique pour entrer dans le genre pour lequel il est désormais reconnu : la fantasy historique.

Tigana is the magical story of a beleaguered land struggling to be free. It is the tale of a people so cursed by the black sorcery of a cruel despotic king that even the name of their once-beautiful homeland cannot be spoken or remembered...

But years after the devastation, a handful of courageous men and women embark upon a dangerous crusade to overthrow their conquerors and bring back to the dark world the brilliance of a long-lost name...Tigana.

Against the magnificently rendered background of a world both sensuous and barbaric, this sweeping epic of a passionate people pursuing their dream is breathtaking in its vision, changing forever the boundaries of fantasy fiction.

Guy Gavriel Kay propose un univers de fantasy historique inspiré de l'Italie de la Renaissance : une péninsule envahie par des puissances étrangères, des provinces désunies face aux conquérants, des aristocrates qui complotent, des vengeances sanglantes ou plus pernicieuses, des familles brisées, des exilés déterminés et des destins tragiques.

Ce roman m’a happé dès les premières pages. L’ambiance et le style m’ont tout de suite séduit, et l’auteur fait preuve d’un excellent sens de la narration pour captiver le lecteur dès le début et ne plus le lâcher jusqu’à la dernière page. C’est en tout cas ainsi que je l’ai vécu. À plusieurs reprises j’ai été partagé entre l’envie de lire lentement pour savourer chaque page et la tentation de dévorer les chapitres le plus vite possible pour découvrir la suite.

Au premier abord, les personnages peuvent sembler des stéréotypes mais ils gagnent vite en complexité et en épaisseur. Dans ce roman, Guy Gavriel Kay démontre un grand talent pour écrire des personnages profondément humains. Il le fait si bien que dans les derniers chapitres, je n’ai pas pu m’empêcher de ressentir de l’empathie pour celui qui est pourtant censé être le « méchant » de l’histoire.

Comme les personnages, l’intrigue pourrait sembler assez basique quand on lit le résumé ou les tous premiers chapitres. En apparence, on peut d’abord croire qu’il s’agit du récit déjà vu de la révolte d’une nation sous la férule d’un tyran. En réalité, l’auteur propose un récit parfaitement ciselé et d’une richesse remarquable. Il joue magistralement entre les registres de l’épique et l’intime, et le lecteur est tour à tour emporté ou ému, parfois d’une phrase à l’autre.

Tigana est un magnifique roman sur l’impérialisme et le colonialisme, sur l’oppression et la révolte, sur le pouvoir du langage et des noms, sur le devoir de mémoire et le droit à l’oubli. Dans sa postface, Guy Gavriel Kay a cette très belle phrase que j’ai très envie de citer :

Tigana is in good part a novel about memory : the necessity of it, in cultural terms, and the dangers that come when it is too intense.

Je ne pense pas exagérer en affirmant que Tigana est l’un des meilleurs romans de fantasy que j’ai eu l’occasion de lire dans ma vie. Je suis épaté par le talent que l’auteur démontre dans ce roman, son quatrième seulement, et le premier après la trilogie de Fionavar. S’il a continué à développer son art de l’écriture, je vais me régaler et je n’ose imaginer les chefs d’œuvre qui m’attendent dans les prochaines semaines, au fur et à mesure que je vais lire ses romans suivants.

A Fine memory: I was having UNIX class, and one classmate who was older than me, a taxi driver, he looked me dead in the eye, handed me a sheet of paper and asked me to write down my IP number.

He accused me for some reason for trying to hack his server, he’d seen an IP number from my area in his logs,

I said ”no” I won’t give him my IP address, suggested he setup port knocking or or fail2ban or something, to which he responded, and I quote: “I will fuck you in front of the class”

I said OK

And then he quit after that, I think he got expelled.

I don’t know what made him so aggressive, I’d never talked to the guy before that…

Another classmate used to lose his front tooth, it’d just fall out of his mouth when speaking. He would then pick it up off the ground and put it in his pocket.

I think he didn’t want us to see him putting it straight back into his mouth

Of the ground

Anyway he got a new set of front teeth from the dentist’s, eventually. (I remember them as being bigger than they probably actually were.)

I wonder what all those people are up to these days

2 May 2026

“Beggar's Song” by Gregory Orr (2002)

Here's a seed. Food for a week. Cow skull in the pasture; back room where the brain was: spacious hut for me.

Small then, and smaller. My desire's to stay alive and be no larger than a sliver lodged in my own heart.

And if the heart's a rock I'll whack it with this tin cup and eat the sparks, always screaming, always screaming for more.

El papel del CTO ha cambiado más en los últimos 5 años que en las dos décadas anteriores.

Hace 15 años, ser CTO significaba mantener servidores funcionando y asegurar que los sistemas no fallaran. Hoy, significa definir cómo la tecnología impulsa ventaja competitiva. Dos olas tecnológicas transformaron este rol: primero la nube, ahora la IA.

---

Primera transformación: La era de la nube (2010-2020) Antes de la nube, el CTO era principalmente un administrador de infraestructura: • Negociaba contratos de hardware con proveedores • Planificaba capacidad de servidores con 18 meses de anticipación, estimando el crecimiento de los usuarios • Gestionaba centros de datos físicos • 70% del presupuesto se iba en mantener lo existente • 30% (si acaso) en innovación

La pregunta clave era: “¿Cuántos servidores necesitamos comprar?”

La nube cambió todo: • De CAPEX a OPEX: comprar menos, consumir más • De planificación anual a elasticidad en minutos • De administrar hardware a orquestar servicios • De construir todo a integrar lo mejor de cada proveedor

El CTO pasó de ser “el que mantiene o provee la infraestructura” a “un habilitador clave para el negocio”.

La pregunta cambió a: “¿Qué capacidades tecnológicas necesitamos para ejecutar nuestra estrategia de negocio?”

Nuevas responsabilidades emergieron: • Definir arquitectura multi-nube • Gestionar costos variables en lugar de activos fijos • Establecer prácticas de DevOps y CI/CD • Gobernar seguridad en entornos distribuidos • Habilitar velocidad sin sacrificar control

Para muchos CTOs, esta transición fue traumática: Los que se adaptaron se convirtieron en socios estratégicos del CEO. Los que no, quedaron administrando aplicaciones y servicios legados mientras la empresa avanzaba sin ellos.

---

Segunda transformación: La era de la IA (2020-presente) Justo cuando los CTOs dominaron la nube, llegó la IA generativa y cambió las reglas otra vez.

El desafío ahora no es solo tecnológico. Es estratégico, ético y organizacional. Antes de la IA: El CTO podía delegar la innovación a un equipo de desarrollo. La tecnología era un enabler, pero el negocio definía el qué.

Con la IA: El CTO debe participar activamente en definir qué procesos transformar, qué decisiones automatizar, qué riesgos gestionar.

La IA no es un proyecto más. Es una capacidad que cruza toda la organización.

Las nuevas preguntas que enfrenta el CTO: Estrategia • ¿Dónde invertimos primero en IA: procesos internos o productos para clientes? • ¿Construimos modelos propios o usamos APIs de terceros? • ¿Cómo medimos ROI de iniciativas de IA? Datos • ¿Nuestros datos están listos para entrenar modelos? • ¿Cómo gobernamos el uso de datos en IA? • ¿Qué hacemos con datos sesgados o incompletos? Gobernanza • ¿Quién aprueba el uso de IA en decisiones críticas? • ¿Cómo explicamos decisiones tomadas por modelos? • ¿Qué hacemos cuando un modelo se equivoca? Ética y riesgo • ¿Cómo evitamos sesgos en modelos de IA? • ¿Qué información pueden procesar nuestros modelos? • ¿Cómo protegemos privacidad cuando usamos IA generativa? Talento • ¿Reentrenamos al equipo actual o contratamos especialistas? • ¿Cómo retenemos talento de IA en un mercado competitivo? • ¿Qué roles nuevos necesitamos crear? Cultura • ¿Cómo gestionamos el miedo de que la IA reemplace empleos? • ¿Cómo creamos mentalidad de experimentación? • ¿Cómo balanceamos innovación con gestión de riesgo?

---

El CTO moderno: Tres roles en uno

1. Arquitecto de capacidades tecnológicas Ya no solo defines qué sistemas implementar. Defines qué capacidades necesita la organización y cómo la tecnología las habilita. • Infraestructura en la nube para escalar • Plataformas de datos para alimentar IA • APIs y microservicios para integrar • Seguridad y cumplimiento desde el diseño

2. Líder de transformación organizacional La tecnología no funciona si la organización no está lista. El CTO moderno lidera el cambio cultural. • Diseña Centros de Excelencia (CoE) en nube e IA • Establece nuevas formas de trabajar (ágil, DevOps, MLOps) • Gestiona resistencia al cambio • Desarrolla capacidades del equipo

3. Socio estratégico del negocio El CEO y el CFO esperan que el CTO traduzca tendencias tecnológicas en oportunidades de negocio. • Identifica casos de uso de IA con impacto medible • Evalúa riesgo vs retorno de inversiones tecnológicas • Comunica estrategia técnica en lenguaje de negocio • Participa en decisiones estratégicas de la empresa

---

Los CTOs que prosperan en la era de IA tienen tres características:

1. Piensan en capacidades, no en proyectos No preguntan “¿Qué proyecto de IA lanzamos?” Preguntan “¿Qué capacidades organizacionales necesitamos desarrollar para aprovechar IA de forma sostenible?”

Invierten en: • Plataformas de datos reutilizables • Infraestructura de experimentación (sandboxes) • Procesos de gobernanza escalables • Talento y cultura de aprendizaje continuo

2. Balancean velocidad con responsabilidad Saben que la presión es innovar rápido. Pero también entienden que un modelo de IA mal implementado puede generar más daño que beneficio.

Establecen: • Marcos de evaluación de riesgo para casos de uso de IA • Procesos de revisión ética antes de desplegar • Monitoreo continuo de modelos en producción • Planes de contingencia cuando los modelos fallan

3. Comunican en lenguaje de negocio, no de tecnología Dejaron de hablar de “transformadores” y “tecnología aplicada”. Hablan de reducir tiempo de respuesta 40%, predecir demanda con 85% de precisión, o personalizar ofertas para aumentar conversión 25%.

Miden éxito en resultados de negocio, no en métricas técnicas.

---

El desafío particular de las MiPymes mexicanas

En las MiPymes, el CTO enfrenta limitaciones únicas: • Presupuestos ajustados que no permiten grandes apuestas • Equipos técnicos pequeños con múltiples responsabilidades • Presión por resultados rápidos sin margen de error • Dificultad para competir por talento especializado

Pero también tienen ventajas: • Decisiones más rápidas sin capas de burocracia • Mayor cercanía entre tecnología y negocio • Flexibilidad para experimentar y pivotar • Impacto visible de cada iniciativa

El CTO de una MiPyme mexicana exitosa: • Convierte limitaciones en criterio para establecer prioridades • Usa la nube para acceder a capacidades que no podría construir • Experimenta en pequeño antes de escalar • Construye alianzas con consultores que entienden su contexto • Se enfoca en casos de uso con ROI claro y rápido

---

Tres recomendaciones para CTOs navegando la era de IA:

1. No intentes hacer todo al mismo tiempo La IA abarca demasiado. Enfócate: • Identifica 2-3 casos de uso con mayor impacto para tu negocio • Valida con experimentos pequeños antes de escalar • Construye capacidades reutilizables que sirvan para múltiples casos

2. Invierte tanto en cultura como en tecnología La mejor plataforma de IA falla si tu equipo no la adopta: • Involucra a las áreas de negocio desde el diseño • Comunica claramente qué cambia y qué permanece • Celebra experimentos, incluso los que fallan • Desarrolla talento interno en paralelo a contratar externo

3. Busca socios, no solo proveedores No necesitas saberlo todo. Necesitas acceso a quienes sí saben: • Consultores que te acompañen hasta producción, no solo hasta la presentación • Proveedores de nube con programas de soporte para MiPymes • Comunidades de práctica donde compartir aprendizajes • Academia para desarrollar talento a mediano plazo

---

El futuro del CTO

La próxima evolución ya está en marcha: Los CTOs que dominen IA ahora enfrentarán pronto: • Computación cuántica aplicada a optimización y criptografía • IA agente que toma decisiones autónomas • Interfaces cerebro-computadora en aplicaciones comerciales • Regulación cada vez más estricta sobre uso de IA

El patrón es claro: el rol del CTO seguirá expandiéndose de lo técnico a lo estratégico.

Los que prosperarán son quienes entiendan que su trabajo ya no es solo implementar tecnología.

Es transformar organizaciones usando tecnología como palanca.

---

¿Eres CTO navegando la transformación de nube e IA? ¿Qué desafíos enfrentas que no se mencionaron aquí?

Comparte tu experiencia en los comentarios. Aprendemos más de las experiencias reales que de las teorías.

When the international smokehouse brand Meat Moot planned its expansion into Dubai’s JBR, the mission was to create a flagship destination that combined heavy-duty industrial cooking with luxury hospitality. Capital Associated Building Contracting LLC was appointed as the lead contracting company to manage this high-stakes conversion. As one of the most versatile general contractors in UAE, our task was to transform a standard beachfront shell into a high-capacity, smokehouse-compliant environment within an accelerated timeline.

1. The Challenge: Industrial Requirements in a Luxury Zone

The primary hurdle was the location itself. Jumeirah Beach Residence (JBR) is one of the most densely populated residential and tourism hubs in Dubai. This presented three significant challenges:

• Environmental Control: Standard commercial kitchens aren't designed for the volume of smoke produced by a traditional pit-master smokehouse. We had to ensure zero atmospheric impact on the surrounding promenade and luxury residences.
• Structural Modification: The existing flooring was not rated for the dead load of industrial-grade smokers and large-scale refrigerated displays.
• Logistical Constraints: Operating within a high-traffic tourism zone meant that heavy machinery and material deliveries were restricted to tight nocturnal windows.

2. The Technical Solution: Engineering for “Meat Theatre”

Phase I: Structural Reinforcement & Foundations

A contracting company must prioritize safety above aesthetics. To accommodate the weight of the custom-made smokers and the constant vibration of high-capacity HVAC units, our structural team implemented localized slab reinforcement. We utilized high-strength fiber-reinforced concrete and specialized under-slab supports to ensure long-term structural integrity without compromising the height clearance of the floor below.

Phase II: High-Capacity MEP & Smoke Mitigation

For general contractors in Dubai, the heat is always the enemy. We engineered a custom MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing) system featuring:

• Advanced Scrubber Technology: To manage the smokehouse exhaust, we installed a multi-stage water-wash scrubber system. This technology removes 99% of grease and particulate matter before the air is discharged.
• Climate Balance: In a restaurant where open-fire pits are the centerpiece, maintaining a comfortable 22°C for diners is a massive energy challenge. We utilized a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) to balance the high extraction rates with cooled, filtered fresh air.

Phase III: The Architectural Fit-Out

The aesthetic required an “Industrial Chic” finish. This involved the use of raw, heavy materials that are notoriously difficult to work with in a refined setting.

• Corten Steel & Reclaimed Wood: Our team managed the fabrication of custom steel fixtures and the treatment of wood to meet Dubai Civil Defence fire-retardant standards while maintaining a rustic appearance.
• Bespoke Lighting: To create the “theatre” effect, we integrated DALI-controlled lighting systems that highlight the carving stations, creating a focal point for the guest experience.

3. Execution Excellence: From Shell to Handover

The project was managed through a rigorous “Shell to Handover” methodology. As a contracting company that prides itself on transparency, we utilized BIM (Building Information Modeling) to detect clashes between the heavy exhaust ducts and the architectural ceiling features before a single bolt was turned. This saved approximately 15% in potential rework costs.

The project site, located at Meat Moot JBR, required daily coordination with Dubai Municipality. Our team ensured that all certifications—from grease trap approvals to health and safety permits—were secured ahead of schedule, allowing the client to begin soft-opening trials ten days earlier than originally planned.

4. Results & Impact

The successful completion of MeatMoot JBR has set a new benchmark for restaurant construction in the region.

• Operational Efficiency: The kitchen layout, designed by our technical team, optimized the workflow for chefs, reducing ticket times during peak hours.
• Sustainability: The filtration systems implemented are among the cleanest in JBR, ensuring the restaurant remains a “good neighbor” to the surrounding residents.
• Brand Growth: Following the success of this flagship, Capital Associated continues to be a preferred choice among general contractors in UAE for international brands looking to enter the Middle East market.

Conclusion

The MeatMoot JBR project is a definitive example of how technical engineering and luxury design can coexist. By addressing the structural and mechanical challenges of a smokehouse with precision, Capital Associated Building Contracting LLC proved that a dedicated contracting company can turn even the most complex culinary vision into a commercial reality.

Project Details:

• Location: JBR, Dubai
• Sector: Hospitality / F&B
• Specialty: Industrial-Grade Kitchen Fit-out
• Contractor: Capital Associated Building Contracting LLC
• Design Company: Algedra Interior Design

The Short Version

PlantLab's API now returns a reliability_score field on every diagnosis. A number from 0 to 1 telling you how likely the answer is to be correct on this specific image. It replaces the old diagnostic_confidence and safety_classification fields, which were rule-based guesses that I never trusted. The new score is much better at flagging the diagnoses that turn out to be wrong – especially on the hard cases, which is where you actually need it. Schema bumped from 1.x to 2.0.0. If you're integrating with PlantLab today, the migration is a one-line change.

---

The problem with “confidence” fields

Most diagnosis APIs return a confidence number along with each answer. PlantLab did too. For every condition the model spotted, the response included a confidence value between 0 and 1. On top of that, the response also carried two derived fields. diagnostic_confidence, a single overall trust number, and safety_classification, a three-way bucket of high, moderate, low.

Those derived fields were a heuristic. A small handful of rules that mostly looked at the top condition's confidence and rolled it up into a number. Heuristics work fine when the problem is simple. They fall apart when the failure modes are subtle.

In real traffic, the cases that matter are the ambiguous ones – photos where the answer isn't obvious from the image alone, and a single rule isn't enough to capture how confident the diagnosis really is. That's the slice where a trust signal earns its keep, and the slice where a rule-based composite tends to break.

A trust signal that works on the easy cases and stops working on the harder ones isn't really a trust signal. It's a confidence display.

---

What reliability_score does differently

reliability_score is a single number from 0 to 1 that estimates how likely the top diagnosis is to be correct on this specific image. Higher is better. Below 0.3 is a clear “double-check this one.” Above 0.7 is “the system is confident and the confidence holds up.”

It doesn't replace per-class confidence. Those still tell you how strongly the model picked each individual condition. What reliability_score adds is a separate answer to a different question – “is the entire diagnosis trustworthy on this particular image, or is something off?”

The analogy I keep coming back to: a junior diagnostician who always gives an answer, and a supervisor who looks over their shoulder. The supervisor doesn't redo the diagnosis. They judge whether each one looks trustworthy. The old diagnostic_confidence was a checklist the junior filled in themselves. reliability_score is the supervisor.

I held the new score to a higher bar than the old composite. On the ambiguous cases, it does a much better job of flagging the answers you should double-check before acting on them. On the easy cases, both fields agree – which is the only place they were ever going to agree, and not where the score earns its keep.

---

What changes in the response

If you're integrating with PlantLab today, here's what your code currently sees:

{
  "request_id": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000",
  "schema_version": "1.2.0",
  "success": true,
  "is_cannabis": true,
  "is_healthy": false,
  "growth_stage": "flowering",
  "conditions": [
    { "class_id": "magnesium_deficiency", "confidence": 0.85 }
  ],
  "diagnostic_confidence": 0.85,
  "safety_classification": "high_confidence"
}

After the upgrade, that same image returns:

{
  "request_id": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000",
  "schema_version": "2.0.0",
  "success": true,
  "is_cannabis": true,
  "is_healthy": false,
  "growth_stage": "flowering",
  "conditions": [
    { "class_id": "magnesium_deficiency", "confidence": 0.85 }
  ],
  "reliability_score": 0.91
}

Two fields removed. One field added. The rest of the response is identical.

reliability_score is omitted when the API doesn't return a condition diagnosis – for example, when the photo isn't of cannabis, or when the plant is healthy. In those cases, there's no diagnosis to score for reliability, so the field doesn't appear. Treat its absence as “no score available” rather than “low score.”

---

Migration

The change you make depends on what you were doing with the old fields.

If you were displaying diagnostic_confidence to a user, swap to reliability_score. The semantics are the same direction (higher is better, both 0-1), and the new value is more accurate.

If you were branching on safety_classification strings, pick thresholds on reliability_score instead. A reasonable starting point: above 0.7 is “Confident,” 0.3 to 0.7 is “Uncertain,” below 0.3 is “Low confidence.” Your application can use whatever cutpoints make sense – the score is a number, not a string, so you have full flexibility.

If you were ignoring the old fields entirely, the upgrade is automatic. Remove your code that references diagnostic_confidence or safety_classification (it'll get null going forward) and you're done.

The Home Assistant integration shipped a new release the same day as the API change, so existing HA users get the new sensor automatically. If you're using a custom integration, update it before the next API deploy if you can – sensors that read the removed fields will return null until the integration is updated.

---

Why a breaking schema, not deprecation

I considered keeping diagnostic_confidence and safety_classification as deprecated fields, returning the old values alongside the new score for a release or two. It would have spared everyone a migration step.

But it forces consumers to choose between two trust signals that can disagree. The old composite says “low confidence” on a photo where the new score says 0.95 – which do you trust? Worse, deprecated fields stick around for months, and integrators keep reading them instead of migrating. That's basically the entire failure mode of deprecation.

Cleaner break, single migration, no ambiguity. Schema bumped to 2.0.0 to make it loud. If your integration was on schema 1.x, you'll start getting 2.0.0 responses the next time you call the API. Field changes are documented above.

---

What's next

reliability_score ships as v1. The field semantics stay stable: a 0 to 1 trust score, present on diagnoses that returned a condition prediction. Future improvements land behind that contract. Same field, more accurate values, no code changes on your end.

If you migrate now, you're done with the migration.

---

PlantLab is free to try at plantlab.ai. Three diagnoses a day, results in milliseconds. The full API documentation, including the OpenAPI spec, lives at plantlab.ai/docs.

---

FAQ

Do I have to migrate immediately?

You'll start receiving schema 2.0.0 responses the next time you call the API. If your code reads diagnostic_confidence or safety_classification, those reads will return null. If your code branches on those fields, your branches will fall through to whatever default path you wrote. So the migration urgency depends on what your code does with null values – some integrations will degrade gracefully, others will break.

Is reliability_score the same as confidence?

No. confidence (still present in conditions[] and pests[]) is the model's per-class probability for one specific class – “how confident am I that this leaf shows magnesium deficiency?” reliability_score is a separate signal that estimates how likely the entire diagnosis is to be correct on this image. The two answer different questions, and you can use both.

What does it mean when reliability_score is missing?

The score is only computed when the API returns a condition diagnosis – that is, when the photo is cannabis and the plant is unhealthy. For non-cannabis photos or healthy plants, there's no condition prediction to score, so the field is omitted. Treat absence as “no score available,” not as a low score.

How is this different from just thresholding on confidence?

Per-class confidence values are the model's individual outputs. They tell you which classes were predicted strongly. They don't tell you whether the diagnosis as a whole holds up on a given image. reliability_score answers that broader question, which is usually the one you actually have.

Can I see PlantLab's diagnosis history for my key?

GET /usage returns daily and monthly counts. For per-request lookup, store request_id from each diagnose response – it's stable, returned in both the JSON body and the X-Request-ID header. Use it for support tickets and feedback submission.

---

Related reading: – The Work Nobody Sees: How I Ran 47 Experiments to Make PlantLab's AI Better – What goes into making the model more accurate, cycle by cycle – Yellow Leaves, Seven Suspects: How PlantLab Got Specific About Nutrient Deficiencies – The nutrient subclassifier that ships alongside this trust signal – How PlantLab's AI Diagnoses 31 Cannabis Plant Problems in 18 Milliseconds – The full pipeline

I have been slowly acclimating myself to the idea of leaving Florida. What once existed either is no longer here and/or what I once considered valuable is no longer so. What ruined it for me? My Homeowners Association—The Vista Palms Community Association located in Wimauma, Florida which borders the senior citizen area of Sun City Center, all located in Hillsborough County outside of the greater city of Tampa.

The stress of living within a terrorizing HOA community is so great that it is difficult for me to write about it continuously. This is why there are large gaps in the dates of these posts. I feel like I am on edge awaiting the HOA to find something else to send over to their attorneys in the scam that they are running. And I feel like this because my situation is ongoing. It isn’t over. It might be time to walk away and let whoever is trying to get this house win. I’m tired and in search of greener pastures.

Living in the Tampa Bay area is no longer affordable on a single income under $100k. Twenty years ago during my first round in the city, I lived in a just under 1200 square feet 2/2 apartment for about $800. I remember finally making a little over $30k back then. And although gas prices had gotten high and restricted some of my movement, I loved going to the beach weekly to de-stress. I loved visiting family and friends in- and out-of-state. I had gotten off of all forms of welfare and was so proud of myself for graduating from college and continuing to move forward.

Fast forward to the present. That apartment in Tampa is now around $1800 and surely it is no better than it was back then. And although with more education and experience in my field I was able to more than double my income in those 20 years, I was never stable. Actually, my life has never been stable. I have had periods of stability. But moving out to the fake suburbs (the former “country” areas of Hillsborough County) and owning a home in an HOA community seems to have made my life worse than if I had continued apartment life in the city. Owning a home makes me feel…stuck.

Your home only has value if you:

1. believe it does, and

2. you plan on selling it and you actually make a profit from it.

This is why Homeowners Associations have to constantly convince the public that living in an HOA increases home values when there isn’t much evidence that this is true outside of them saying it is so. You cannot even get a new home in the Tampa Bay Area without buying in an HOA-governed community (Check out Youtuber @FLORIDAHOODVLOGS on his channel Southern Life as he tours and describes what is going on in the Tampa Bay Area.)

Maybe it is time to go back to the basics: no HOA, no property managers and no HOA attorneys and fake arbitration; no CDD; no clubhouse ran by the CDD requiring ID; no stucco cracking from poor builder craftsmanship and terrible warranties; no frozen, outdated a/c coils; no new a/c system in a 5 year old house; no new water heater; no exterior yard sinking after a couple of years; no hurricanes and wind damage and water intrusion and mold and roof replacements. No fees, fees, and more fees!

We asked why God would not hear us, while ignoring the cries we refused to hear.

“Call out full-throated; do not hold back! Raise your voice like a horn. Proclaim to my people their revolt, To the house of Jacob their sins.

They seek me day after day, And they express delight to know my ways, As if they were a nation that had practiced righteousness And had not abandoned the justice of their God. They ask me for righteous judgments, Delighting to draw close to God:

‘Why do you not see when we fast? And why do you not notice when we afflict ourselves?’

Because on the day of your fast, you pursue your own interests, And you oppress your laborers. Your fasting ends in quarrels and fights, And you strike with the fist of wickedness. You cannot fast as you do today and have your voice heard in heaven.

Should the fast that I choose be like this, As a day for someone to afflict himself, To bow down his head like a rush, To make his bed on sackcloth and ashes? Is this what you call a fast and a day pleasing to Jehovah?

No, this is the fast that I choose: To remove the fetters of wickedness, To untie the bands of the yoke bar, To let the oppressed go free, And to break in half every yoke bar; To share your bread with the hungry, To bring the poor and homeless into your house, To clothe someone naked when you see him, And not to turn your back on your own flesh.

Then your light will shine through like the dawn, And your healing will spring up quickly. Your righteousness will go before you, And the glory of Jehovah will be your rear guard.

Then you will call, and Jehovah will answer; You will cry for help, and he will say, ‘Here I am!’

If you remove from among you the yoke bar And stop pointing your finger and speaking maliciously, If you grant to the hungry what you yourself desire And satisfy those who are afflicted, Then your light will shine even in the darkness, And your gloom will be like midday.

Jehovah will always lead you And satisfy you even in a parched land; He will invigorate your bones, And you will become like a well-watered garden, Like a spring whose waters never fail.

They will rebuild ancient ruins on your account, And you will restore the foundations of past generations. You will be called the repairer of the broken walls, The restorer of roadways by which to dwell.

If because of the Sabbath you refrain from pursuing your own interests on my holy day And you call the Sabbath an exquisite delight, a holy day of Jehovah, a day to be glorified, And you glorify it rather than pursuing your own interests and speaking idle words, Then you will find your exquisite delight in Jehovah, And I will make you ride on the high places of the earth. I will cause you to eat from the inheritance of Jacob your forefather, For the mouth of Jehovah has spoken.”

Isaiah 59

Look! The hand of Jehovah is not too short to save, Nor is his ear too dull to hear. No, your own errors have separated you from your God. Your sins have made him hide his face from you, And he refuses to hear you.

For your palms are polluted with blood And your fingers with error. Your lips speak lies, and your tongue mutters unrighteousness. No one calls out for righteousness, And no one goes to court in truthfulness. They trust in unreality and speak what is worthless. They conceive trouble and give birth to what is harmful.

They hatch the eggs of a poisonous snake, And they weave the cobweb of a spider. Anyone who eats their eggs would die, And the egg that is crushed hatches a viper. Their cobweb will not serve as a garment, Nor will they cover themselves with what they make. Their works are harmful, And deeds of violence are in their hands.

Their feet run to do evil, And they hurry to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are harmful thoughts; Ruin and misery are in their ways. They have not known the way of peace, And there is no justice in their tracks. They make their roadways crooked; No one treading on them will know peace.

That is why justice is far away from us, And righteousness does not overtake us. We keep hoping for light, but look! there is darkness; For brightness, but we keep walking in gloom. We grope for the wall like blind men; Like those without eyes we keep groping. We stumble at high noon as in evening darkness; Among the strong we are just like the dead.

We all keep growling like bears And cooing mournfully like doves. We hope for justice, but there is none; For salvation, but it is far away from us. For our revolts are many before you; Each of our sins testifies against us. For our revolts are with us; We well know our errors.

We have transgressed and denied Jehovah; We have turned our backs on our God. We have spoken of oppression and revolt; We have conceived lies and muttered false words from the heart.

Justice is driven back, And righteousness stands far off; For truth has stumbled in the public square, And what is upright is unable to enter. Truth has vanished, And anyone who turns away from bad is plundered.

Jehovah saw this and was displeased, For there was no justice. He saw that there was no man, And he was astonished that no one interceded, So his own arm brought about salvation, And his own righteousness supported him.

Then he put on righteousness like a coat of mail And the helmet of salvation on his head. He put on the garments of vengeance as his clothing And wrapped himself with zeal like a coat. He will reward them for what they have done: Wrath to his adversaries, retribution to his enemies. And to the islands he will repay their due.

From the sunset they will fear the name of Jehovah And from the sunrise his glory, For he will come in like a rushing river, Which the spirit of Jehovah drives along.

“To Zion the Repurchaser will come, To those in Jacob who turn from transgression,” declares Jehovah.

“As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says Jehovah. “My spirit that is on you and my words that I have placed in your mouth—they will not be removed from your mouth, from the mouth of your children, or from the mouth of your grandchildren,” says Jehovah, “from now on and forever.”

---

#poetry #bible #isaiah