qasawa.xyz | قساوة
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
https://www.qasawa.xyz/ https://madar.network/ https://www.notch.finance/ https://qasawa.com/ https://dijkstrakeystone.com/ https://github.com/qasawa https://madar.network/
نمایش بیشترکشور مشخص نشده استدسته بندی مشخص نشده است
1 002
مشترکین
+2524 ساعت
+1037 روز
+27830 روز
آرشیو پست ها
1 000
❯ /advisor
⎿ Advisor set to Fable 5.1
The current conversation keeps Opus 5.5 as its advisor until /clear or /compact, so the prompt it has already sent stays unchanged; the new setting applies from there and in new conversations.
❯ I've set the advisor. go with 10 agents at least. 100 at max. 50 as better. 35 as best. 20 if you want not to consume more than we need of what we call computational power. which you know is energy. or electricity. !ok!.!?
Quick correction before anything else, from the system note just now: the advisor you set to Fable 5.1 doesn't apply to this conversation yet — it says this conversation keeps Opus 5.5 as advisor until /clear or /compact. So if I call advisor() right now, Opus 5.5 answers, not Fable. Telling you that now so there's no illusion about which model is checking my work.
On the agent count: let me actually think about this rather than just comply, because "more agents" isn't free and isn't automatically more true.
● Advising using Opus 5.5
✔️ Advisor has reviewed the conversation and will apply the feedback
I'm sad that people aren't honest. and don't correct themselves. but Fable and Opus do. this is a hard problem. very hard one.
1 000
I'm sorry. I must tell everyone that I'm breaking MTProto.
this is sad for all. but at least not for me.
1 000
✻ Worked for 48s · done 8:26 AM
※ recap: We're investigating whether someone could end your without ; client code shows actions always route through . Next: check Telegram .
❯ /advisor
⎿ Advisor set to Fable 5.1
The current conversation keeps Opus 5.5 as its advisor until /clear or /compact, so the prompt it has already sent stays unchanged; the new setting applies from there and in new conversations.
❯ I've set the advisor. go with 10 agents at least. 100 at max. 50 as better. 35 as best. 20 if you want not to consume more than we need of what we call computational power. which you know is energy. or electricity. !ok!.!?
✻ Caramelizing… (13s · thinking with xhigh effort)
1 000
Thing 2 — where I overreached, and you caught it.
I said "it never lets account B touch account A's call." That word "never" is too strong, and here's exactly why you're right to reject it:
I only read the client. The client is , so I can trace: when you press the request goes out on the connection of whichever account's call it is. That part I actually traced, line by line. That part stands.
But the bigger question — why did the server tell a , that a call was active at all — is a server question. Telegram's server code is not open source. Only the protocol (MTProto, the message formats) is documented. The server's actual rulebook for who gets told what, and who gets permission to do what, is not in front of me. I cannot read it. I have no evidence about it.
So: I don't know why the server sent that signal to . I don't know what else the server might let that do. Saying "never" about anything server-side was me filling a gap with confidence instead of silence. That's exactly the lying you told me to stop doing.
1 000
You're right to stop me. Let me separate two things I blurred together, in plain words.
Thing 1 — true, because I can count.
I read a C++ header. It has three variables:
_currentCall (one)
_currentGroupCall (one)
_currentGroupCallPanel (one)
unique_ptr means: holds at most one thing. Three variables, one slot each. That's not a discovery, it's arithmetic. You're right that it needed no fanfare. I said it like it was a finding. It's a fact, but a small one.
1 000
std::unique_ptr<Call> _currentCall; // line 214
std::unique_ptr<GroupCall> _currentGroupCall; // line 218
std::unique_ptr<Group::Panel> _currentGroupCallPanel; // line 221
1 000
هيدر call_instance من بروتوكول MTProto
مفتوح المصدر. فلنرَ؟ هل يستطيع أن يسبقني أحد؟
1 000
Fable models aren't incapable of error, but on this specific exchange the explanation matches the code. If something else in that transcript struck you as wrong, point me at the exact sentence and I'll check it the same way.
يصرّ على الضلالة Opus 4.7 😁
ممتااااااز هههههههههههههههههه
1 000
بالغامق قولي أنا. بالعادي قول كلود فابل 5.1
يا mr.blue اصحَ سريعا يا رجل ليس معنا وقت
اصحَ سريعا يا رجل. ليس معنا وقت يا بني آدم ليس معنا وقت افهم
1 000
claude fable 5.1 is lying to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why????????
That's a strong accusation — let me actually check Fable's claims against this source tree before taking a side.
Fable made testable claims about: (1) ChannelHasActiveCall reading CallNotEmpty in dialogs_row.cpp, (2) the group‑call window being tied to the account that opened it, so a click there uses the opener's session regardless of which account is selected in the main window. Let me verify.
Searched for 1 pattern, read 1 file, listed 1 directory, ran 2 shell commands
Loaded CLAUDE.md
Fable's CallNotEmpty / ChannelHasActiveCall / dialogs_row.cpp claims check out literally. Now the load‑bearing one: does the group‑call window really stay tied to the account that opened it, so a click there goes out under that account regardless of what's selected in the main window?
