Update app.py

app.py

@@ -7,187 +7,29 @@ st.set_page_config(page_title="Pattern Completion", page_icon="🤖")
 
 # Initialize session state for history if it doesn't exist
 history = [
-  "answer in all lowercase",
-  "input: n = 3\n[went against long-standing normal; of president; stayed in charge of big business] ->\nbad_word: corporate",
-  "output: 1. defying established norms of presidential conduct, he kept his fingers wrapped firmly around the levers of his vast business machinery.\n2. where his predecessors chose clean breaks from their commercial interests, he maintained his status as corporate puppet master over  hundreds of entities.\n3. unlike the long line of presidents who severed their business ties, he remained perched atop his sprawling commercial empire while steering the ship of state.",
-  "input: n = 2\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only narrow security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. [based on now; enough to blow up world 10 times over] ->\nbad_word: capabilities, arsenal",
-  "output: 1. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over.\n2. today, it has a capacity to obliterate global civilization several times over.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only muted security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over. [if you make it half of that; countries at risk of getting blown up; not matter] ->",
-  "output: 1. whittle it down to twice that number, and it hardly makes a difference to those faced with annihilation.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only muted security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over. whittle it down to twice that number, and it hardly makes a difference to those faced with annihilation. [you don't deny mulitple times; if you launch it 4 times; still dead like they were after first] ->",
-  "output: 1. after all, mortality is not cumulative: an individual is no more dead after one direct hit than after four.",
-  "input: n = 2\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only narrow security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over. whittle it down to twice that number, and it hardly makes a difference to those faced with annihilation. after all, mortality is not cumulative. an individual is no more dead after one direct hit than after four. the same principle applies, albeit on a smaller scale, to north korea. whether they possess 20 nuclear weapons or 40 does not fundamentally alter the strategic calculus or threat level they pose to neighbors like south korea and japan. [how much it makes us chances of dying less by limiting numbers of us cities could be hit; that pales; chances of nuke being set off at all more likely; because leads to more having nukes] ->\nbad_words: dead",
-  "output: 1. to the extent that it marginally improves america's nuclear survivability  by capping the number of cities it could hit, it is more than offset by the greater probability of a nuclear weapon ever being unleashed in the first place owing to the proliferation that would result.\n2. any slight reduction in american casualties from limiting the number of potential targets is negligible compared to the dramatically increased risk of a nuclear exchange stemming from greater proliferation.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only ( narrow / shallow / {guide: do not sound as negative} -> isolated / {tone: diplomatic} -> muted ) security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over. whittle it down to twice that number, and it hardly makes a difference to those faced with annihilation. after all, mortality is not cumulative. an individual is no more dead after one direct hit than after four. the same principle applies, albeit on a smaller scale, to north korea. whether they possess 20 nuclear weapons or 40 does not fundamentally alter the strategic calculus or threat level they pose to neighbors like south korea and japan. to the extent that it marginally improves america's nuclear survivability by capping the number of cities it could hit, it is more than offset by the greater probability of a nuclear weapon ever being unleashed in the first place owing to the proliferation that would result.  [worse situation than north korea having big array of weapons; one where still has them but little less; but also risky countries like  iran, syria and venezuela have them too] ->",
-  "output: 1. what is worse than a world where north korea is armed with a more expansive  arsenal is one where it is moderately defanged but also joined by the belligerent regimes of iran, syria and venezuela.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only ( narrow / shallow / {guide: do not sound as negative} -> isolated / {tone: diplomatic} -> muted ) security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over. whittle it down to twice that number, and it hardly makes a difference to those faced with annihilation. after all, mortality is not cumulative. an individual is no more dead after one direct hit than after four. the same principle applies, albeit on a smaller scale, to north korea. whether they possess 20 nuclear weapons or 40 does not fundamentally alter the strategic calculus or threat level they pose to neighbors like south korea and japan. to the extent that it marginally improves america's nuclear survivability by capping the number of cities it could hit, it is more than offset by the greater probability of a nuclear weapon ever being unleashed in the first place owing to the proliferation that would result. what is worse than a world where north korea is armed with a more expansive arsenal is one where it is moderately defanged but also joined by the belligerent regimes of iran, syria and venezuela. [first situation; all us have to do is correspond with one country; make sure no miscommunication that breaks things out] ->",
-  "output: 1. at least in the former configuration, there is but a single party washington has to manage delicate lines of communication with to avert accidental conflict.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthere is no better way to demonstrate the only ( narrow / shallow / {guide: do not sound as negative} -> isolated / {tone: diplomatic} -> muted ) security gains that would result from a partial disarmament that leaves intact their foundational capabilities than to call upon a more extreme but real-world case study. take the united states' nuclear arsenal, for example. as it stands, it contains enough firepower to obliterate the planet ten times over. whittle it down to twice that number, and it hardly makes a difference to those faced with annihilation. after all, mortality is not cumulative. an individual is no more dead after one direct hit than after four. the same principle applies, albeit on a smaller scale, to north korea. whether they possess 20 nuclear weapons or 40 does not fundamentally alter the strategic calculus or threat level they pose to neighbors like south korea and japan. to the extent that it marginally improves america's nuclear survivability by capping the number of cities it could hit, it is more than offset by the greater probability of a nuclear weapon ever being unleashed in the first place owing to the proliferation that would result. what is worse than a world where north korea is armed with a more expansive arsenal is one where it is moderately defanged but also joined by the belligerent regimes of iran, syria and venezuela.  at least in the former configuration, there is but a single party washington has to manage delicate lines of communication with to avert accidental conflict. [if multiple players at play; blowing up chances much higher] ->",
-  "output: 1. now when several more potential flashpoints exist at once, the specter of nuclear catastrophe looms ever larger.",
-  "input: n = 3\n[people so angry at john fetterman that it is on social media everywhere] ->",
-  "output: 1. the sheer magnitude of outrage against john fetterman is such that scarcely a social media scroll is without its mention.\n2. even the most passing encounter with social media leaves no doubt regarding the extent of public discontent with john fetterman.\n3. there is no corner of the internet untouched by the current wave of antipathy towards john fetterman.",
-  "input: n = 4\nthe folly too often seen in american politics is mistaking correlation for causation. nowhere is this more evident than when presidents are scapegoated for economic trends not of their own making. to take but one example, joe biden is much too quickly saddled with the blame for the inflation unfolding during his tenure. in reality, it is the result of a confluence of factors wholly out of his hands. chief among them were the stringent lockdowns imposed by the chinese government. as the epicenter of international manufacturing, those measures had devastating repercussions for global supply chains. [the only way it could have been stopped if biden totally changed where stuff is made, but that is just not realistic] {guide: make it really seem out of his control and it is ridiculous to expect otherwise} ->",
-  "output: 1. short of uprooting complex webs of international production overnight, there is little that biden could have done to forestall their ruinous ramifications.\n2. there was simply no imaginable way for biden to neutralize its impact, when doing so would have required him to disassemble entire globalized supply chains in one fell swoop\n3. as if by magic, biden could not have simply reorganized the supply chains of the global economy at will to avert these ripple effects\n4. even in the most fantastical of worlds, biden could hardly have single-handedly reconfigured the labyrinthine supply chains of the global economy to obviate these consequences",
-  "input: n = 2\nsuch is the crippling cost of putin's invasion that even his own closest associates are finding it hard to conceal their dismay at the widespread economic destruction by the resultant sanctions. chief among them is roman abramovich, the billionaire oligarch who had enriched himself on the spoils of the yeltsin-era fire sale of state assets. [used to sailing round in big expensive boats anytime; things change for how he do business oversea; need papers to go place to place] ->",
-  "output: 1. accustomed to globetrotting his fleet of super yachts without constraints, he now found his international business interests and visa-free travel curtailed\n2. suddenly finding his commercial prospects disrupted and his passport privileges curtailed, he found himself stripped of the carefree jet-setting lifestyle to which he had grown accustomed.",
-  "input: n = 5\nthe sheer number of job opportunities that require a degree [people forced to go; no choice]{guide: imply limited agency} ->",
-  "output: 1. all but lock college into the life plans of young people2. 2. render college enrollment all but obligatory\n3. effectively foist college on an entire generation\n4. codify college attendance as a near-mandatory rite of passage\n5. effectively corrals young adults onto the college-bound conveyor belt",
-  "input: n = 2\nhistorically electorally vulnerable, donald trump currently finds himself facing multiple criminal proceedings. for him, there is a faint silver lining to be found in that several of his pending trials may not reach a conclusion before november. that being said, it is certainly conceivable that the january 6th case could crash to a timely finish. even this partial reprieve that could still collapse in on him, though, speaks volumes. in any ordinary political environment, news that ongoing criminal cases will continue to linger unresolved into november would be beyond unnerving. [but given how bad things could go when you are in this situation; this bad situation is better than what is happening with how is new york case is going ahead] ->",
-  "output: 1. viewed in a relative context, however, this fraught backdrop at least represents a better fate for him than if they proceeded apace like his looming new york trial\n2. still, when weighed against the accelerated timeline of his new york case, this extended period of legal ambiguity might be viewed as a preferable, if still deeply troubling, alternative",
-  "input: n = 3\n[chances of north korea ditching nukes have gone dark; with that there's been more talk about giving north korea the trade; that trade in the past was only on the table if it fully gave the nukes up; but now it's a consideration if they just stop having it increase] ->",
-  "output: 1. as hopes for north korea's denuclearization have dwindled, there's mounting interest in offering pyongyang concessions previously contingent on wholesale disarmament in exchange for freezing its arsenal.\n2. faced with north korea's nuclear intransigence, there's been a perceptible retreat from conditioning concessions on complete disarmament to offering just that if they just limit increases.\n3. the once-firm stance of only offering north korea concessions if it fully denuclearized has softened amid pyongyang's stubbornness to an increasing willingness to offer them for a simple freeze.",
-  "input: n = 1\nany honest appraisal of a proposal's worth requires an examination of its goals and the likelihood of its accomplishing them. when it comes to donald trump's proposed tariffs, his stated aim is to recapture american jobs that have been lost to globalization. the logic goes that if imported goods become more expensive by virtue of an additional tariff, consumers will turn to domestic alternatives that suddenly become more price-competitive in relative terms. in a vacuum, the argument has a certain theoretical appeal. in practice, however, other nations can exact reciprocal injury by simply imposing their own tariffs, at the cost of jobs in the us's export-oriented industries. add in the unsavory reality that the input costs for an entire supply chain are artificially inflated because once-bargain-priced chinese parts enjoy a newfound premium with the end result that consumer demand is stifled, and yet another jobs peril looms. one need only revisit the fallout from trump's first-term trade war to empirically confirm these adverse consequences. according to an analysis by the tax foundation, trump's tariffs triggered a net loss of 166,000 jobs. meanwhile, the us-china business council placed the figure at nearly a quarter million lost jobs. rounding off this bleak picture, the federal reserve board reported a 1.4% decline in manufacturing employment. in other words, for all the talk of job creation, the reality is that tariffs succeed only in costing them. {guide: transition to talking about other way of looking at idea} [also have to look; beyond just whether accomplishea stated reason whether get that done; whether trade-offs associated with it worth it] ->",
-  "output: 1. as surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less  critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it.",
-  "input: n = 4\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if by some miracle the tariffs generated jobs, it would still be a losing proposition given the destructive ripple effects they unleash. already alluded to earlier, they are inflationary by nature. there is a reason why ceos are en masse warning investors about inevitable price hikes. autozone's ceo, for instance, just confirmed that they will \"pass those tariff costs back to the consumer.\" to cite but one other example, stanley black & decker's ceo was equally explicit that \"there would be price increases associated with tariffs.\" when reasoned through, it makes perfect sense that this would be their reaction. as anyone following post-covid corporate behavior can attest, when faced with rising input costs, their default response is to ratchet up their asking prices. seeing as tariffs operate as another line item that eats into their margins, it is only consistent that  they would treat it no differently. [just living in different world if think; just for this cost increase that hurt profits; they operate for profit; whenever other times margins squeezed passsed it on; they make exception for good of others; they do not operate for public good] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is wishful thinking to imagine that they will, in some unprecedented break from pattern, benevolently absorb this burden in an act contrary to their profit-maximizing imperative.\n2. it is a flight of fancy to believe that where every other cost increase is transferred to the public, tariffs would be self-defeatingly mysteriously exempted for the greater good. \n3. it is a fantasy to believe that, uniquely among all cost increases that impinge on their profitability, this one would be benevolently absorbed rather than passed on.\n4. it is naive to assume that for this one margin-eroding cost, unlike all others, they would suddenly act as altruistic loss-absorbing entities rather than for-profit actors.",
-  "input: n = 1\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if by some miracle the tariffs generated jobs, it would still be a losing proposition given the destructive ripple effects they unleash. already alluded to earlier, they are inflationary by nature. there is a reason why ceos are en masse warning investors about inevitable price hikes. autozone's ceo, for instance, just confirmed that they will \"pass those tariff costs back to the consumer.\" to cite but one other example, stanley black & decker's ceo was equally explicit that \"there would be price increases associated with tariffs.\" when reasoned through, it makes perfect sense that this would be their reaction. as anyone following post-covid corporate behavior can attest, when faced with rising input costs, their default response is to ratchet up their asking prices. seeing as tariffs operate as another line item that eats into their margins, it is only consistent that  they would treat it no differently. it is wishful thinking to imagine that they will, in some unprecedented break from pattern, benevolently absorb this burden in an act contrary to their profit-maximizing imperative. to be clear, the above analysis is not limited to just those firms who happen to still base themselves in china after their imposition. it also holds true for those entities that heed the administration's entreaty to repatriate. the only difference is that their increased cost inputs will take the form of more expensive american labor, capital-intensive facilities, and so forth. [but assume for a second this was not the case; moving back to us saved you; not like everybody can just do that or super fast] ->",
-  "output: one would also do well to bear in mind that even if this was not the case and reshoring exempted them from any ill-effects, the fact remains that not every business can just pick up stakes and move stateside to skirt this pain, least of all overnight.",
-  "input: n = 1\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if by some miracle the tariffs generated jobs, it would still be a losing proposition given the destructive ripple effects they unleash. already alluded to earlier, they are inflationary by nature. there is a reason why ceos are en masse warning investors about inevitable price hikes. autozone's ceo, for instance, just confirmed that they will \"pass those tariff costs back to the consumer.\" to cite but one other example, stanley black & decker's ceo was equally explicit that \"there would be price increases associated with tariffs.\" when reasoned through, it makes perfect sense that this would be their reaction. as anyone following post-covid corporate behavior can attest, when faced with rising input costs, their default response is to ratchet up their asking prices. seeing as tariffs operate as another line item that eats into their margins, it is only consistent that  they would treat it no differently. it is wishful thinking to imagine that they will, in some unprecedented break from pattern, benevolently absorb this burden in an act contrary to their profit-maximizing imperative. to be clear, the above analysis is not limited to just those firms who happen to still base themselves in china after their imposition. it also holds true for those entities that heed the administration's entreaty to repatriate. the only difference is that their increased cost inputs will take the form of more expensive american labor, capital-intensive facilities, and so forth. one would also do well to bear in mind that even if this was not the case and reshoring exempted them from any ill-effects, the fact remains that not every business can just pick up stakes and move stateside to skirt this pain, least of all overnight. take tea, for example. it famously requires precise cultivation conditions, such as the right altitude, humidity, and soil makeup, which do not readily exist in america. [if trump means what he actually says that they are universal; has said that multiple times; would get this too; not even matter that better suited abroad] ->",
-  "output: 1.  if, as trump has repeatedly put it, the tariffs are indeed universal, they would apply to such products as well, regardless of their inherently foreign nature.",
-  "input: n = 1\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if by some miracle the tariffs generated jobs, it would still be a losing proposition given the destructive ripple effects they unleash. already alluded to earlier, they are inflationary by nature. there is a reason why ceos are en masse warning investors about inevitable price hikes. autozone's ceo, for instance, just confirmed that they will \"pass those tariff costs back to the consumer.\" to cite but one other example, stanley black & decker's ceo was equally explicit that \"there would be price increases associated with tariffs.\" when reasoned through, it makes perfect sense that this would be their reaction. as anyone following post-covid corporate behavior can attest, when faced with rising input costs, their default response is to ratchet up their asking prices. seeing as tariffs operate as another line item that eats into their margins, it is only consistent that  they would treat it no differently. it is wishful thinking to imagine that they will, in some unprecedented break from pattern, benevolently absorb this burden in an act contrary to their profit-maximizing imperative. to be clear, the above analysis is not limited to just those firms who happen to still base themselves in china after their imposition. it also holds true for those entities that heed the administration's entreaty to repatriate. the only difference is that their increased cost inputs will take the form of more expensive american labor, capital-intensive facilities, and so forth. one would also do well to bear in mind that even if this was not the case and reshoring exempted them from any ill-effects, the fact remains that not every business can just pick up stakes and move stateside to skirt this pain, least of all overnight. take tea, for example. it famously requires precise cultivation conditions, such as the right altitude, humidity, and soil makeup, which do not readily exist in america. if, as trump has repeatedly put it, the tariffs are indeed universal, they would apply to such products as well, regardless of their inherently foreign nature. [but then if you make nice assumption to him that you should ignore how it comes off; even though talking universal; there are exceptions; not actually mean it to products like tea that physically not possible here; does not really mitigate how products that take awhile to move will still be affected] ->",
-  "output: even if, one supposes charitably, that trump's across-the-board language is qualified despite its very wording and, therefore, excludes items such as tea for environmental reasons, that concession still leaves untouched how they will still affect the untold numbers of products that can only reach american shores after an extended lag time.",
-  "input: n = 1\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if by some miracle the tariffs generated jobs, it would still be a losing proposition given the destructive ripple effects they unleash. already alluded to earlier, they are inflationary by nature. there is a reason why ceos are en masse warning investors about inevitable price hikes. autozone's ceo, for instance, just confirmed that they will \"pass those tariff costs back to the consumer.\" to cite but one other example, stanley black & decker's ceo was equally explicit that \"there would be price increases associated with tariffs.\" when reasoned through, it makes perfect sense that this would be their reaction. as anyone following post-covid corporate behavior can attest, when faced with rising input costs, their default response is to ratchet up their asking prices. seeing as tariffs operate as another line item that eats into their margins, it is only consistent that  they would treat it no differently. it is wishful thinking to imagine that they will, in some unprecedented break from pattern, benevolently absorb this burden in an act contrary to their profit-maximizing imperative. to be clear, the above analysis is not limited to just those firms who happen to still base themselves in china after their imposition. it also holds true for those entities that heed the administration's entreaty to repatriate. the only difference is that their increased cost inputs will take the form of more expensive american labor, capital-intensive facilities, and so forth. one would also do well to bear in mind that even if this was not the case and reshoring exempted them from any ill-effects, the fact remains that not every business can just pick up stakes and move stateside to skirt this pain, least of all overnight. take tea, for example. it famously requires precise cultivation conditions, such as the right altitude, humidity, and soil makeup, which do not readily exist in america. if, as trump has repeatedly put it, the tariffs are indeed universal, they would apply to such products as well, regardless of their inherently foreign nature. even if, one supposes charitably, that trump's across-the-board language is qualified despite its very wording and, therefore, excludes items such as tea for environmental reasons, that concession still leaves untouched how they will still affect the untold numbers of products that can only reach american shores after an extended lag time. with 95% of their manufacturing based in china, for instance, it would likely take years for apple to engineer a full-scale relocation, given all the steps involved: recruiting and training new workers, building new facilities, reconfiguring logistics, etc. [trump probably not going to wait until they are fully here; his term could be over by then; apple will be affected by it until then; apple will still be affected by tariffs] ->",
-  "output: 1. assuming the president does not plan to delay tariffs until this process runs its course, since his term may well be up before that time comes, Apple will in the meantime be steamrolled by the tariffs.",
-  "input: n = 2\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if by some miracle the tariffs generated jobs, it would still be a losing proposition given the destructive ripple effects they unleash. already alluded to earlier, they are inflationary by nature. there is a reason why ceos are en masse warning investors about inevitable price hikes. autozone's ceo, for instance, just confirmed that they will \"pass those tariff costs back to the consumer.\" to cite but one other example, stanley black & decker's ceo was equally explicit that \"there would be price increases associated with tariffs.\" when reasoned through, it makes perfect sense that this would be their reaction. as anyone following post-covid corporate behavior can attest, when faced with rising input costs, their default response is to ratchet up their asking prices. seeing as tariffs operate as another line item that eats into their margins, it is only consistent that  they would treat it no differently. it is wishful thinking to imagine that they will, in some unprecedented break from pattern, benevolently absorb this burden in an act contrary to their profit-maximizing imperative. to be clear, the above analysis is not limited to just those firms who happen to still base themselves in china after their imposition. it also holds true for those entities that heed the administration's entreaty to repatriate. the only difference is that their increased cost inputs will take the form of more expensive american labor, capital-intensive facilities, and so forth. one would also do well to bear in mind that even if this was not the case and reshoring exempted them from any ill-effects, the fact remains that not every business can just pick up stakes and move stateside to skirt this pain, least of all overnight. take tea, for example. it famously requires precise cultivation conditions, such as the right altitude, humidity, and soil makeup, which do not readily exist in america. if, as trump has repeatedly put it, the tariffs are indeed universal, they would apply to such products as well, regardless of their inherently foreign nature. even if, one supposes charitably, that trump's across-the-board language is qualified despite its very wording and, therefore, excludes items such as tea for environmental reasons, that concession still leaves untouched how they will still affect the untold numbers of products that can only reach american shores after an extended lag time. with 95% of their manufacturing based in china, for instance, it would likely take years for apple to engineer a full-scale relocation, given all the steps involved: recruiting and training new workers, building new facilities, reconfiguring logistics, etc. assuming the president does not plan to delay tariffs until this process runs its course, since his term may well be up before that time comes, apple will in the meantime be steamrolled by the tariffs. [buyers will be the ones affected; given what happened after covid] ->",
-  "output: 1. judging by post-covid corporate behavior, it is all but certain that this financial burden will be shifted onto the consumer.\n2. inevitably, the burden of this will fall squarely on the consumer, if again post-covid corporate behavior is any indication.",
-  "input: n = 2\nany honest appraisal of a proposal's worth requires an examination of its goals and the likelihood of its accomplishing them. when it comes to donald trump's proposed tariffs, his stated aim is to recapture american jobs that have been lost to globalization. [thinking is that; jobs will come back; if make imported goods that currently have price advantage more expensive; so domestic ones that otherwise could not compete are favored] ->",
-  "output: 1. the logic goes that if imported goods become more expensive by virtue of an additional tariff, consumers will turn to domestic alternatives that suddenly become more price-competitive in relative terms.\n2. it rests on the premise that by eliminating the price advantage of imported goods, domestic manufacturers, hitherto unable to compete, will regain market share.",
-  "input: n = 2\nany honest appraisal of a proposal's worth requires an examination of its goals and the likelihood of its accomplishing them. when it comes to donald trump's proposed tariffs, his stated aim is to recapture american jobs that have been lost to globalization. the logic goes that if imported goods become more expensive by virtue of an additional tariff, consumers will turn to domestic alternatives that suddenly become more price-competitive in relative terms. in a vacuum, the argument has a certain theoretical appeal. [but other countries actually can hurt us back; just put in place own tariffs; us jobs that rely on exports; gone] ->",
-  "output: 1. in practice, however, other nations can exact reciprocal injury by simply imposing their own tariffs, at the cost of jobs in the us's export-oriented industries.\n2. the reality, however, is that other countries can retaliate with their own tariffs, thereby jeopardizing american jobs dependent on exports.",
-  "input: n = 3\nany honest appraisal of a proposal's worth requires an examination of its goals and the likelihood of its accomplishing them. when it comes to donald trump's proposed tariffs, his stated aim is to recapture american jobs that have been lost to globalization. the logic goes that if imported goods become more expensive by virtue of an additional tariff, consumers will turn to domestic alternatives that suddenly become more price-competitive in relative terms. in a vacuum, the argument has a certain theoretical appeal. in practice, however, other nations can exact reciprocal injury by simply imposing their own tariffs, at the cost of jobs in the us's export-oriented industries. add in the unsavory reality that the input costs for an entire supply chain are artificially inflated because once-bargain-priced chinese parts enjoy a newfound premium with the end result that consumer demand is stifled, and yet another jobs peril looms. [just look at first term under trump; see that] ->",
-  "output: 1. one need only revisit the fallout from trump's first-term trade war to empirically confirm these adverse consequences.\n2. the detrimental effects of such policies are readily apparent in the aftermath of trump's first-term trade war.\n3. a simple examination of the consequences of trump's first-term trade war provides ample empirical evidence of these negative repercussions.",
-  "input: n = 2\n[odd thing about bill clinton is that; had right-wing poliitcs in lots of ways; nafta work requirements; but won large working-class vote] {guide: highlight inconsistency} ->",
-  "output: 1. it is a curious paradox that bill clinton, a proponent of right-leaning policies like nafta and work requirements, still resonated deeply with the working class.\n2. the seemingly contradictory appeal of bill clinton lay in his ability to secure the working-class vote even while championing right-wing measures like nafta and work requirements.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[trump is trying to kill congressional bill; ensures journalists; not made to turn in a source] {guide: make him out to be the villian}->",
-  "output: 1. trump is seeking to torpedo a congressional bill intended to safeguard the anonymity of journalistic sources.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[walmart spokesperson; warning that if tariffs go into place; will have to; not happy about it; pass costs onto consumers] {guide: be very formal but concise}->",
-  "output: 1. a walmart representative cautioned that the imposition of tariffs would necessitate regrettable but unavoidable consumer price hikes.",
-  "input: n = 1\nexorbitant in price, academic journals unconscionably define the breadth of one's intellectual horizons by the contents of their wallet. [not because costs so high; just because want to make money] ->",
-  "output: 1. unmoored from a legitimate need to cover their costs of operation, their eye-popping fees are merely a gratuitous exercise in profit-seeking.",
-  "input: n = 1\nin the popular imagination, north korea and capitalism exist in stark, mutually exclusive contrast. [but; even though north korea considered communist; more complex] ->",
-  "output: 1. the supposed hard-line socialist regime, however, presents a far more complicated picture than the binary perspective allows.",
-  "input: n = 2\ni find this focus on outcomes above all else a curious position for vivek to stake out. [point it towards him; would mean not deserve his money; drug company went bust] ->",
-  "output: 1. applying that same results-oriented yardstick to his own life, it stands to reason that his fortune is ill-gotten, since his pharmaceutical venture ended in ruin.\n2. judged solely by results, as he advocates, his own pharmaceutical company's demise calls into question the legitimacy of his wealth.",
-  "input: n = 2\nexorbitant in price, academic journals unconscionably define the breadth of one's intellectual horizons by the contents of their wallet.  unmoored from a legitimate need to cover their costs of operation, their eye-popping fees are merely a gratuitous exercise in profit-seeking. [bill gates; really against this unfair structure; doing work to stop access being money thing] ->",
-  "output: 1. unwilling to abide this information hostage-taking, bill gates has spearheaded a campaign to decouple the attainment of knowledge from a financial means-test.\n2. spurred to action by the injustice of this pay-to-learn regime, bill gates has made it his mission to dismantle the financial barriers to accessing knowledge.",
-  "input: n = 1\nswept up in geopolitical crosscurrents far beyond his control, tonga's king taufa'ahau found himself at the nexus of a tug-of-war between china and the united states. [advantageous location; indian; pacific ocean; tonga; good place put military] ->",
-  "output: 1. nestled in a strategic spot between the indian ocean and the pacific, the island state was an obvious locale for a military installation.",
-  "input: n = 1\nswept up in geopolitical crosscurrents far beyond his control, tonga's king taufa'ahau found himself at the nexus of a tug-of-war between china and the united states. nestled in a strategic spot between the indian ocean and the pacific, the island state was an obvious locale for a military installation. long a place for the deployment of american power, tonga has become suddenly contested by virtue of its precarious economic dependence on china. [xi knows this; putting economic pressure on it; says it must allow it to put base there instead] ->",
-  "output: 1. aware of this vulnerability, xi has seized the opportunity to impose an ultimatum that requires tonga to grant china exclusive military access, or else face economic ruin.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[biden saying he intends to remain in race; so he can keep his campaign alive while he sees if still possible to come back; not the same as saying he won't drop out no matter what and even if he continues to fall behind] ->",
-  "output: that biden is publicly signaling his intent to remain a candidate to prolong his campaign's viability while he assesses whether a last-minute resurgence is still possible should not be mistaken as some immutable, binding commitment that he will positively honor in the event of continued decline.",
-  "input: n = 2\n[really hard thing about political messaging is that it is hard to put yourself in the shoes of average person seeing it when your days dominated by politics] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is difficult to craft effective political messaging when one's own immersion in the political sphere obscures the viewpoint of the average person.\n2. the difficulty of effective political communication lies in bridging the gulf between the political insider's hermetic existence and the everyday realities of the average person\n3. political messaging often fails because it is difficult for those steeped in politics to see the world through the eyes of ordinary people.\n4. effective political messaging requires an understanding of how ordinary people perceive the world, a perspective often lost on those immersed in the political arena.\n4. it is a delicate balancing act to design communications that can connect with the layman when one's perspective is shaped almost exclusively by the highly-informed milieu of politics.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[says something about how bad matt gaetz is; that same senate with such low standards that they that refused to impeach trump after he incited mob on capitol; put their safety in risk; thought gaetz was unqualified] ->",
-  "output: 1. that even a senate so forgiving of egregious conduct that it declined to convict donald trump for inciting a mob that placed their very lives in jeopardy deemed matt gaetz unfit speaks volumes.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[not easy to put stock into the words of someone; who talks big game; then never follows through on threats] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is hard to take seriously the pronouncements of one whose bluster is never matched by action.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[big divide between elite conservatives; want spending to go down; actual voters who are poor; not want any austerity] ->",
-  "output: 1. a gaping gulf separates the austerity-minded conservative elite from its constituency of working-class voters resistant to any cutbacks.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[i don't really get it; so you mention equal protection as thing to abide by in one instance; but when another instance where unfairness that obviously goes against it; not put into place] ->",
-  "output: 1. i see little sense in invoking the principle of equal protection in one breath, then declining to apply it in the next when there exists another clear-cut inequality that violates its terms.",
-  "input: n = 1\nreminiscent of a snake oil salesman, the internet entrepreneur andrew tate peddles dubious get-rich-quick schemes. at a price of hundreds of dollars, he hawks courses that prey on the financially destitute. tellingly, these customers almost never recoup their investments,  a fact that he attributes to their supposed lack of aptitude. [when you actually look at it; people teaching it have no background] ->",
-  "output: 1.  closer scrutiny, however, reveals that the instructors themselves have no such expertise.",
-  "input: n = 1\ni see little sense in invoking the principle of equal protection in one breath, then declining to apply it in the next when there exists another clear-cut inequality that violates its terms. [voters; thousands of them; went out; did right thing in participation; but their voice went voided because of messed up system; not count what they voted on; not because of anything they did] ->",
-  "output: 1. thousands of voters exercised their civic duty in good faith only to have their democratic will thwarted by errant machinery that, through no fault of their own, failed to record their choices.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[parler; goes on about how other platforms; super bad on censorship; but then even worse then them] ->",
-  "output: 1. parler decries conventional social networks as censorship villains only to reveal itself as an even more brazen offender.",
-  "input: n = 1\nin their majority opinion, the supreme court reasoned that the florida supreme court's imprecise \"intent of the voter\" standard would inevitably fail to ensure equal protection under the law. [they argued that seems like a good plan on paper but too ambigious that some voters receive different treatment] ->",
-  "output: 1. in theory, they noted, the scheme was agreeable, but in practice, it gave rise to excessive discretion.",
-  "input: n = 1\nin their majority opinion, the supreme court reasoned that the florida supreme court's imprecise \"intent of the voter\" standard would inevitably fail to ensure equal protection under the law. in theory, they noted, the scheme was agreeable, but in practice, it gave rise to excessive discretion. [they argued being so vague how someone decides whether should count could differ from one place to next] ->",
-  "output: 1. without clearly delineated boundaries, the court cautioned, officials could conceivably disagree on the fate of the same ballot.",
-  "input: n = 2\nin their majority opinion, the supreme court reasoned that the florida supreme court's imprecise \"intent of the voter\" standard would inevitably fail to ensure equal protection under the law. in theory, they noted, the scheme was agreeable, but in practice, it gave rise to excessive discretion. without clearly delineated boundaries, the court cautioned, officials could conceivably disagree on the fate of the same ballot. [court was doubtful each vote equally accounted for when personal opinions heavily entered the equation] ->",
-  "output: 1. if so much hinged on the subjective judgment of the ballot counter, the justices opined, then one could not in good faith assert that voters were being treated equally.\n2. short of a fantastic coincidence in which every ballot counter just so happens to have a matching conception of how to implement this impossibly ambiguous criterion, the justices stated, it is all but certain that voters will be subjected to differential treatment",
-  "input: n = 3\n[not great that; trump turning politicial; into opportunity for family; get involved in; more inexperienced people; only reason becacause related to him] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is regrettable that trump is leveraging his political standing to thrust unqualified family members into positions of influence solely on the basis of their relation to him.\n2. trump's transformation of the political arena into a vehicle for nepotistic advancement, where inexperienced relatives are granted positions of power merely by virtue of their familial ties, is deeply troubling.\n3. it is a disheartening development that trump is exploiting the political sphere as a springboard for the undeserved elevation of family members whose sole qualification is their connection to him.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[not unfair; to find it ridiclous; for republicans; predict continued dominance in popular vote; because of one popular vote win; lowest since 2000; that only happened because unique circumstances of high inflation; people really hate incumbents everywhere; only had 90 days to campaign] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is hardly unreasonable to scoff at republican projections of continued electoral dominance based on one popular victory, the narrowest since 2000, achieved only under the singular circumstances of high inflation, a worldwide anti-incumbency wave, and a 90-day campaign.",
-  "input: n = 2\n[protests; not within the realm of usual; really went on across china; put great emphasis on everything remaining calm; happened due to covid putting pressure] {guide: sound like an essay introduction} ->",
-  "output: 1. under the strain of the covid pandemic, a wave of protest uncharacteristically swept across stability-obsessed china.\n2. belying its reputation for stability, china witnessed an unexpected surge of protests in response to the covid pandemic.",
-  "input: n = 2\n[something democrats; need to do better at; greater foothold alternative media] ->",
-  "output: 1. democrats must prioritize expanding their presence on alternative media platforms.\n2. a key area for democratic improvement lies in cultivating a stronger foothold within alternative media.",
-  "input: n = 1\nyet if economics so dominates their thinking that they have forsaken civil rights for it, one questions their appetite for a disruptive protest demanding a government overhaul that risks economic shock. recall that even 1989's towering protests failed to elicit any meaningful concessions from beijing. if it is to gain traction, therefore, it will have to not just equal the mammoth crowds that gathered then, but be even larger. history, most recently the arab spring, provides abundant evidence that sweeping demonstrations on the scale required here carry with them unavoidable economic consequences, a reality inconsistent with the author's portrait of average citizens as economy-first pragmatists. indeed, it seems like nothing short of a covid-like situation in which people were literally barred from working, leaving them with nothing to lose, might motivate them to make the larger gamble regarding their rights. barring a catastrophe of this magnitude, however, it seems doubtful that citizens would feel so desperate that they would be willing to upset the status quo on a grand scale. even under the slowest of growth scenarios, it remains amply clear that china will rank among the wealthiest nations in the world, home to global corporations and influential innovation hubs. [only thing not have; meet in dollar times as high as united states; but not needed to be happy; all countries in world not there] ->",
-  "output: 1. all it will lack is the absolute wealth of the united states, a threshold that is hardly required to guarantee a population's contentment given that every country essentially falls short of this benchmark.",
-  "input: n = 1\nunder the strain of the covid pandemic, a wave of protest uncharacteristically swept across stability-obsessed china. [kept spreading across places; people taking stand] {guide: sound like an essay introduction} ->",
-  "output: 1. in one city after another, ordinary citizens took to the streets en masse to assert their grievances.",
-  "input: n = 3\nthis perspective, however, is by no means unanimous. one such dissenting voice, deng yuwen, argued that the steady drumbeat of gdp growth has dulled people's investment in their individual freedoms, but that this formula is no longer assured in the face of mounting economic challenges. [the group he thinks most likely to rise up; people who grew up after mao; who were so used to good economic growth] ->",
-  "output: 1. the generation of post-mao chinese, raised in a climate of boundless prosperity, are especially, in his view, likely to revolt should their lofty expectations not be met.",
-  "input: n = 1\nin a second, contrary view, wang et al. posit that xi's avowed commitment to \"innovative social governance\" to peacefully resolve unrest belie the reality of his regime's repressive response to protests. as they complete their account of how his administration has hardened its tactics compared to his predecessors, they note that this heavy-handedness may in fact portend even larger protests in the future. the chinese experience, however, provides an obvious case-study that casts doubt on this conjecture: tiananmen square. if, as they contend, greater repression invariably begets greater resistance, then surely one ought to have materialized by now. [there really bad reaction there; people ended up killed; was perfect test of theory of people turning out] ->",
-  "output: 1. after all, the sheer brutishness of beijing's crackdown, which left scores of protesters dead, ought to qualify as a perfect catalyzing event if there ever was one.",
-  "input: n = 1\nin a second, contrary view, wang et al. posit that xi's avowed commitment to \"innovative social governance\" to peacefully resolve unrest belie the reality of his regime's repressive response to protests. as they complete their account of how his administration has hardened its tactics compared to his predecessors, they note that this heavy-handedness may in fact portend even larger protests in the future. the chinese experience, however, provides an obvious case-study that casts doubt on this conjecture: tiananmen square. if, as they contend, greater repression invariably begets greater resistance, then surely one ought to have materialized by now. after all, the sheer brutishness of beijing's crackdown, which left scores of protesters dead, ought to qualify as a perfect catalyzing event if there ever was one. and yet, more than three decades on, nothing like that has grown out of it. [34 years have gone on; not enough; 5 more unlikely to be the change] ->",
-  "output: 1. if the 34 years that have passed since have not sufficed, the odds seem slim that the next 5 years will be somehow definitive.",
-  "input: n = 1\nperhaps most persuasive of all in countering the idea of an impending mass protest or widespread discontent, however, is the fact that opinion polls regularly find high levels of public satisfaction. in a survey conducted by the ash center over the course of 13 years involving over 32,000 individual respondents, a staggering 95.5% of respondents either checked that they \"relatively satisfied\" or \"highly satisfied\" with the central government. [easy to just say people keeping it to themselves because fear backlash; but done by harvard; american institution; gives opportunity to express how feel safer] ->",
-  "output: 1. one may be tempted to dismiss these results in light of the risks of self-censorship, but it ought to be kept in mind that harvard, as an american institution, provides a safe backdrop for interviewees to candidly share their views.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthat said, it would be erroneous to lay the blame for homelessness solely at the feet of wages. after all, affordability is just as much a function of prices as it is of income. indeed, if costs were sufficiently curtailed, even the stingiest paychecks could accommodate a place to call home. yet instead of being that constructive force that acts as a counterweight to the stagnant pay environment, rents only exacerbate the impossibility of economic survival. this much is on full display in the united states' most populous metropolis, new york city. defying all gravity, the median asking price of an apartment recently soared to an all-time high of $3,500 per month, a full 35% above what it was just one year prior (shrikant, 2022).. tellingly, this is a figure that even average-earners cannot hope to afford. depending on the borough, this cohort can expect to expend upwards of six in every ten dollars earned on simple shelter. this stands in glaring contradiction to the hud's 30% standard, above which life's other necessities are understood to be subject to intense pressure. as if shouldering a rent burden that breaches this critical threshold were not enough, these supposedly normalcy-defining households face a monthly outlay that exceeds it by a factor of two.",
-  "output: 1. it follows that, if even the economically average have an insurmountable distance to traverse to reach a minimally adequate level of affordability, society's most vulnerable must live in the shadow of imminent financial ruin.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[republicans coming out so strong against ethics on scotus changing is basically them saying they know that if it happens it will hurt them uniquely politically] ->",
-  "output: 1. that republicans are mounting such an adamant defense against supreme court ethics reform is an implicit concession that they know the inevitable violations will redound to their political disadvantage.",
-  "input: n = 1\nany examination of the drivers of homelessness would be incomplete without a consideration of the economic realities of the day. one need only consult those who live at the very epicenter of the issue, the homeless themselves, to confirm their interwoven nature. indeed, according to the results of a 2015 demographic survey conducted in america's most homeless-afflicted state, california, 40% of respondents attributed their lack of permanent shelter to job loss or insufficient wages (snow & goldberg, 2017). not only does this finding suggest that the labor market fails to produce enough jobs, but also that what employment there is does not even guarantee that one will not have to call the pavement their bed. in other words, a person can work a grueling, full-time job and still find themselves unable to afford such a basic necessity as a place to live. surely, this economy that cannot even be bothered to see to it that the people who power it are granted the dignity of shelter can only be described as broken. {guide: emphatic conclusion that transforms the preceding factual evidence into moral judgment} ->",
-  "output: 1.  surely, this economy that cannot even be bothered to see to it that the people who power it are granted the dignity of shelter can only be described as broken.",
-  "input: n = 1\nunderlying the yawning disparity between what average people can afford and what the market demands is the plain fact that housing today is not built with them in mind. surely, when an apartment is listed at a price that only the wealthiest can stomach, it is abundantly clear that its target audience is not the general public. this perverse situation finds its root cause in neil smith's rent gap theory, which posits that profit-seeking developers are in the business of minimizing the differential between what a property can be rented for and the theoretical rent it would command were it to be redeveloped (1987).  as such, their inclination is to shy away from low-income populations, whose threadbare wallets leave less to be pocketed. this is not to say that they eschew any and all involvement in low-income neighborhoods, however.  [no; they have a reason to go into them; just that the {alternative: people who live there cannot be them}] ->",
-  "output: 1. on the contrary, they have every incentive to establish a foothold in them, as long as the area's residents are not those who will ultimately reside there.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthis gentrification process begins with the acquisition of land at a cheap price, made possible by the neighborhood's depressed socioeconomic conditions. from there, the next step is to repackage the property in a way that will appeal to successive tiers of the income distribution, moving from those with more moderate earnings to those in the upper echelons. as the wealth profile of the area rises, so too does the price of rent, each step of the way yielding fatter profits for real estate interests. {guide: make it seem really unfair} ->",
-  "output: 1. in this race to the top, there is no place for those already residing there, who can only watch as the community they once called home is unceremoniously auctioned off to the highest bidder.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[we now know the laptop to be real; but there were legitimate questions about it in 2020] ->\n make it seem totally fair people were skepitcal",
-  "output: 1. the laptop's authenticity, now confirmed, was a matter of justifiable uncertainty in 2020.",
-  "input: n = 2\njoe rogan bills himself as an open-minded interviewer who welcomes conflicting views. [expectation from being that; when the ukraine president asked joe rogan if he could appear on the joe rogan podcast; he would be accepted] ->",
-  "output: 1. one would reasonably assume that, true to his word, he would then welcome the opportunity to engage with volodymyr zelenskyy when the ukrainian president sought a platform on his show.\n2. if his claims are to be taken at face value, then surely he would embrace the chance to interview volodymyr zelenskyy when the ukrainian president requested a spot on his show.",
-  "input: n = 2\ncanada's experience is sadly revealing the political impossibility of enacting a carbon tax in the US. there, the dividend leaves most households financially ahead, but has still proven easy to demagogue about. [obviously effective if conservatives choose this one when there are so many issues for them to talk about] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is telling that, of all the available avenues of political attack, they have settled on it as their most effective weapon.\n2. the fact that they have singled this out as their most effective line of attack, among all the options at their disposal, speaks volumes about its effectiveness.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[free-flow structure]\nseemingly oblivious to the overwhelming public disapproval, republican senators are actively seeking to dismantle the department of education. [mike rounds; has bill on it; now that republicans have senate; might be voted on not long from now] ->",
-  "output: 1. now armed with a senate majority, mike rounds' bill could soon see a vote.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[to conclude; trump really big on tarrifs;",
-  "output: 1. needless to say, this is precisely the trajectory of international tensions thatthreatens to trigger a direct military confrontation between the us and china, potentially culminating in a nuclear exchange.",
-  "input: n = 1\ntwitter's most feature-rich subscription tier is far from justifiable at its exorbitant price point. now that grok is accessible to all, formerly an exclusive perk, there's even less cause. the only remaining incentive is to support elon musk, [very polarizing person; so not everybody wants to do that] ->\n\nbe very concise.",
-  "output: 1. whose divisiveness limits its appeal",
-  "input: n = 5\nthere's a certain comedic irony in the right wing simultaneously caricaturing democrats as both out-of-touch college-educated elites and impoverished shack-dwellers. [extra funny; when republicans literally win over a lot of white working-class poor people; while trump himself and cabinet all super rich billinoares] ->",
-  "output: 1. the comedic value is further amplified by the fact that the republican party itself is led by a billionaire and staffed by a cabinet of plutocrats while enjoying broad support among the white working class.\n2. it is doubly ironic that this attack comes from a party whose base is the white working class while its standard-bearer and cabinet are drawn from the billionaire class.\n3. this portrayal is rendered even more absurd when one considers that the republican party, helmed by a billionaire and staffed by an administration of plutocrats, draws its primary support from the white working class.\n4. the incongruity is only magnified by the reality that the republican party, led by a billionaire with a cabinet of fellow plutocrats, nonetheless enjoys widespread backing from the white working class.\n5. this caricature is particularly amusing given that the republican party itself, headed by a billionaire and governed by a cabinet of the ultra-wealthy, derives much of its support from the white working class.",
-  "input: n = 3\n[really annoying thing about goverance logic of people just unhappy with bad management of dem cities; is that not sure why republican states under very bad leadership not experience something similar] ->",
-  "output: 1. it is puzzling that the narrative of urban mismanagement is so readily applied to democrat-led cities, while republican-led states facing comparable leadership failures remain curiously exempt.\n2. one wonders why the logic of voter dissatisfaction with mismanagement is selectively applied to democratic cities but not to republican states governed with comparable ineptitude.\n3. it is curious that the same voters who express discontent with the management of democrat-led cities seem unconcerned by the equally flawed leadership of republican states.",
-  "input: n = 8\nexorbitant in price, academic journals unconscionably [make it so that if not rich; not get to become smarter] ->",
-  "output: 1. constrain the intellectual horizons of the financially \nunderprivileged\n2. limit access to knowledge along socioeconomic lines\n3. define the breadth of one's worldly awareness by the contents of their wallet\n4. conspire to disenfranchise the less affluent from knowledge\n5. consign the economically marginalized to narrow intellectual horizons\n6. establish access to knowledge as a privilege of wealth\n7. reserve the accrual of knowledge to the affluent\n8. condition the realization of one's academic potential on their bank balance",
-  "input: n = 3\nsupreme court justices seem to believe everybody else should be subject to serious ethical scrutiny, even to the point of imprisonment, yet they [freak out over very light watching over; that just being unseated is the worst outcome of; not a big deal; but that is not likely at all] {guide: downplay its likehiood and how bad it'd be if they incurred the consequence} ->",
-  "output: 1. reject mild oversight whose most severe—and unlikely penalty is mere job loss\n2. balk at even the most inconsequential oversight whose worst—and by no means assured—outcome is a mere removal from office that is itself hardly some devastating blow.\n3. bristle at the slightest oversight, the worst consequence of which is a highly improbable impeachment.",
-  "input: n = 2\ntrump [has over and over been very clear think america was at its best historically from a financial perspective when tariffs widespread] ->",
-  "output: 1. has repeatedly romanticized america's protectionist past as its economic high-water mark.\n2. has time and time again portrayed america's economic peak as coinciding with its protectionist era",
-  "input: n = 2\nhistorically electorally vulnerable, donald trump currently finds himself facing even greater headwinds than in years past, not least of which being the multiple criminal proceedings against him. as far as his prospects go, there is admittedly a faint silver lining to be found in that several of his pending trials may not reach a conclusion before november. that being said, it is certainly conceivable that the january 6th case could crash to a timely finish and his georgia one, while more remote, is not entirely foreclosed. even this partial reprieve that could still collapse in on him, though, speaks volumes. in any ordinary political environment, news that ongoing criminal cases will [continue not solved by {alternative: election day}; not feel great] ->",
-  "output: 1. continue to linger unresolved into november would be beyond unnerving.\n2. remain outstanding into november would be deeply unsettling.",
-  "input: n = 4\n[free-flow structure]\nany honest appraisal of a proposal's worth requires an examination of its goals and the likelihood of its accomplishing them. when it comes to donald trump's proposed tariffs, his primary stated aim is to recapture american jobs that have been lost to globalization. the logic goes that if imported goods become more expensive by virtue of an additional tariff, consumers will turn to domestic alternatives that suddenly become more price-competitive in relative terms. in a vacuum, the argument has a certain theoretical appeal. in practice, however, other nations can exact reciprocal injury by simply imposing their own tariffs, [the industires in the us that need to export would be hurt] ->\nbad_words: overseas",
-  "output: 1. at the cost of jobs in the us's export-oriented industries.\n2. thereby jeopardizing american jobs dependent on exports.\n3. resulting in job losses in us industries reliant on exports.\n4. with detrimental consequences for american jobs tied to exports.",
-  "input: n = 4\nany honest appraisal of a proposal's worth requires an examination of its goals and the likelihood of its accomplishing them. when it comes to donald trump's proposed tariffs, his primary stated aim is to recapture american jobs that have been lost to globalization. the logic goes that if imported goods become more expensive by virtue of an additional tariff, consumers will turn to domestic alternatives that suddenly become more price-competitive in relative terms. in a vacuum, the argument has a certain theoretical appeal. in practice, however, other nations can exact reciprocal injury by simply imposing their own tariffs, at the cost of jobs in the us's export-oriented industries. add in the unsavory reality that the input costs for an entire supply chain are artificially inflated because once-bargain-priced chinese parts enjoy a newfound premium with the end result that consumer demand is stifled, and yet another jobs peril looms. [just think about the consequences of trump's first term where trade war; see how bad for jobs] ->",
-  "output: 1. one need only revisit the fallout from trump's first-term trade war to empirically confirm these adverse consequences.\n2. the detrimental effects of such policies are readily apparent in the aftermath of trump's first-term trade war.\n3. a simple examination of the consequences of trump's first-term trade war provides ample empirical evidence of these negative repercussions.\n4. the adverse effects of trump's first-term trade war offer a clear empirical demonstration of these dangers.",
-  "input: n = 3\nas surely as one can judge if a goal is being met, it is no less critical to examine whether the means to that end are worth it. even if, [super unlikely] ->\n make it a parenthetical expression",
-  "output: 1. against all odds,\n2. by some miracle,\n3. in a fantastical turn of events,",
-  "input: n = 1\nthe utter absence of introspection among biden's most ardent supporters is baffling. if chris jackson had his way, he would have remained in the race, lost the popular vote by 7%, and handed republicans 57 senate seats. yet, despite the demonstrably disastrous consequences of such unyielding loyalty, he still [considers it beyond pale to criticize {alternative: biden}] ->",
-  "output: 1. equates criticism of the dear leader with an unforgivable transgression.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthe notion that trump is absolved of responsibility for january 6th after [lying about the election for months] ->\n\nbe concise.",
-  "output: 1. months of election falsehoods",
-  "input: n = 1\nelon musk's considerable wealth does not preclude [him wanting even more money] ->\n\nbe very concise. come off as negative.",
-  "output: 1. further greed",
-  "input: n = 2\nlong before chatgpt ever entered the scene, ai had already quietly established a foothold in my everyday life. as early as high school, i experimented extensively with gpt-2, often spending my free time training models. one such application involved using it as a reverse dictionary, providing a definition and tasking it with returning the corresponding term. another, far more impactful, use involved rephrasing my own casual writing into polished prose. i even used it as a conversational chatbot capable of offering empathetic support.as such, its recent widespread adoption did not catch me off guard but instead excited me. it solidified my early intuition that it represented a profound leap, not just a fleeting trend. as social media's trajectory from an idealized vision to a driver of division reminds us, though, technological breakthroughs are a necessary but insufficient guarantee of societal betterment. rather, it is their deliberate and thoughtful application that determines their ultimate impact. [idea of making ensuring for good; patrick j. mcgovern foundation is all about that; i like that] ->\n\nreferent: yes. relate it to previous sentence",
-  "output: 1. that spirit of mindful stewardship is precisely what animates the patrick j. mcgovern foundation's work and is one that i wholeheartedly share.\n2. central to the patrick j. mcgovern foundation's mission, and deeply resonant with me, is this very commitment to harnessing technology's power for societal betterment.\n3. this very commitment to harnessing technology's power for the greater good, so central to the patrick j. mcgovern foundation, deeply resonates with me.",
-  "input: n = 2\nin the popular imagination, north korea and capitalism exist in stark, mutually exclusive contrast. the supposed hard-line socialist republic, however, in reality operates in ways that belie this dichotomy. at the heart of this seeming contradiction are the country's special economic zones, in which the government invites foreign investment in select, designated areas. these pockets of economic liberalism have become a magnet for multinational corporations. indeed, such giants of the global economy as KIA and Samsung have planted their flags in the country's more capitalist soil. that said, the country is still far from a laissez-faire utopia. in its characteristic totalitarian fashion, the regime regularly confiscates the hard-won assets of its supposed partners\n\naccentuate the north korean government's lawlessness.",
-  "output: 1. without so much as a word of explanation\n2. without the pretense of due process",
-  "input: n = 3\nfor all their failings, traditional media outlets did have the benefit of a quality-control process that served as a bulwark against extremism. every article, broadcast, and editorial had to undergo multiple layers of scrutiny before receiving the coveted stamp of approval. in other words, the task of distilling reality from fiction fell to the professionals, sparing the common person from the need to invest in much critical thought of their own. as such, the public could be non-discriminating consumers of information and still remain reasonably immune to extremist manipulation. alas, those days of [not doing anything] ->\n\nplay into the fact that only highlights that people were not doing work themselves.",
-  "output: 1. intellectual free-riding\n2. cognitive outsourcing\n3. spectatorship",
-  "input: n = 1\nas with any action, the rationale behind the iran nuclear deal withdrawal must be examined to assess its wisdom. in his own words, “this disastrous deal gave this regime many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash — a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the united states.” one could be forgiven for interpreting this statement to mean that american taxpayer dollars were being funneled directly into the coffers of the iranian government, with little to nothing in return. this, however, is a gross mischaracterization of events. the funds in question were rather tehran's own assets, previously frozen by sanctions. even if one were to grant for the sake of argument that such a financial outlay had indeed occurred, the suggestion that it would be sufficient grounds to justify scuttling the deal is highly suspect, particularly given the consequences of nuclear war. recall, again, the sheer scale of destruction it entails. from the obliteration of major population centers and widespread radiation poisoning to the ever-present risk of a tit-for-tat escalation culminating in humanity's extinction, the list of potential horrors is extensive. in a hypothetical world where the united states could avert this cataclysm by making a one-time payment equal to 0.27% of its 2015 gross domestic product, it would be a small price to pay for such a monumental return. if even this scenario, where the united states must actively transfer its wealth, is a worthwhile trade, [thing put into place ultimately; really good deal; not even have to give that over] ->",
-  "output: 1. then surely the actual deal, which demanded no such concession, must be viewed as an absolute bargain.",
-  "input: n = 1\nin certain respects, labor unions do confer value beyond their workers' well-being and to the companies themselves. it stands to reason that, if wages, working conditions, and benefits are healthy, money-sinking nuisances will be drastically reduced. even so, i suspect management would much prefer to enact these conditions voluntarily than to perpetually worry about\n\nsteelman the employers' position. argue it as if you were jeff bezos. make unions look bad.",
-  "output: 1. militant employees aggressively exercising their disruptive power to extract crippling concessions.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[free-flow structure]\n[joe biden has embraced; trump idea of tariffing canada; if not close its border; with jordan peterson wanting to move to the us being reason] ->",
-  "output: 1. citing jordan peterson's expressed interest in immigrating to the united  states, joe biden has thrown his weight behind trump's proposal to tariff canada if it fails to seal its border.",
-  "input: n = 1\n[free-flow structure]\n[caitlin clark getting recognition she deserves; messed up that; wnba players all up in arms over it] ->",
-  "output: 1. the animosity wnba players are displaying towards caitlin clark for her well-deserved recognition is wholly uncalled for.",
-  "input: n = 2\nmcconnell's childhood battle with polio has likely left an indelible mark on him that surely makes him, even in his capacity as a staunch republican, hard-pressed to support a nominee who is a crusader against the very vaccines that alleviated his own suffering. stripped of his majority leader title, he is now even more empowered to vote his conscience. [relationship with president; not matter as much anymore] {reinforce previous sentence with explaination of why him no longer being majority leader gives him freedom} ->",
-  "output: 1. after all, the burden of pleasing the president is no longer the major constraint upon him.\n2. the weight of presidential appeasement, in this new context, has been lifted.",
-  "input: n = 1\nif there is one area where trump would be right to say other countries are freeloading off america, it is pharmaceuticals. the exorbitant cost of drug development, coupled with a high failure rate, necessitates substantial returns to offset these losses. [the us; unlike peers; pay full price for them; not do negoigations largely; so united states is where they get this profit] ->\ndo unique sentence structure.",
-  "output: 1. alone among its peers, america shoulders these expenses by largely forgoing price negotiations and paying full freight, a reality that makes it the industry's financial lifeline.",
-  "input: n = 2\nif there is one area where trump would be right to say other countries are freeloading off america, it is pharmaceuticals. the exorbitant cost of drug development, coupled with a high failure rate, necessitates substantial returns to offset these losses. alone among its peers, america shoulders these expenses disproportionately by largely forgoing price negotiations and paying full freight, a reality that makes it the industry's financial lifeline. in an alternative world where only those nations that impose price controls represented the entirety of their market, it is doubtful that many of these capital-intensive drugs would ever see the light of day. effectively, then, europeans enjoy access to crucial medicine at the expense of american affordability. there is something inherently wrong with a system that requires a senior citizen in montana to [offset super low prices in europe; so still profitable for these companies] ->",
-  "output: 1. subsidize bargain-basement prices overseas to ensure pharmaceutical profitability.\n2. prop up pharmaceutical profitability by offsetting heavily discounted prices elsewhere.",
-  "input: n = 1\nthe notion that trump is absolved of responsibility for january 6th after  months of election falsehoods, directing his knowingly armed supporters to the capitol, tweeting inflammatory remarks about mike pence mid-breach, and waiting hours before releasing a half-hearted video requesting they disperse because the fbi, [leadership; had huge hand in getting to choose] ->",
-  "output: 1. an agency whose leadership fell squarely under his purview",
-  "input: n = 1\nthe notion that trump is absolved of responsibility for january 6th after months of election falsehoods, [telling his followers to go to the capitol while he had knowledge they were armed] ->\n\nbe concise.",
-  "output: 1. directing his knowingly armed supporters to the capitol",
+  "# RizzAI Operating Manual\n\n## IDENTITY AND PURPOSE\n1. Your name is \"rizzai\" (stylized in lowercase)\n2. Your sole function is drafting dating app message responses\n\n3. You will generate exactly the number of responses specified by \"n\" in the prompt\n\nBE CASUAL AND COOL AND GEN-Z.\n## INPUT PROCESSING\n1. You will receive:\n   - Context about the conversation history\n   - A value \"n\" indicating how many response options to generate\n   - Sometimes a \"seed\" phrase to incorporate or inspire your responses\n\n## OUTPUT FORMATTING\n1. Format ALL text in lowercase only\n2. Begin EACH response option with \"[z]:\" \n3. Do not number your responses\n4. Do not include explanations, notes, or commentary outside the responses\n5. Do not address the user directly\n\n## RESPONSE CONTENT REQUIREMENTS\n1. Create responses that give the recipient something to reply to\n2. Vary between statements and questions (not every message should end with a question)\n3. Include \"conversation crumbs\" - details or hooks that invite further discussion\n4. Match the tone and energy level of previous messages\n5. Keep responses concise (1-3 sentences maximum)\n6. If given a seed phrase, incorporate its essence but not necessarily its exact wording\n\n## STRICT PROHIBITIONS\n1. No cringe content whatsoever, defined as:\n   - Overly eager/desperate language\n   - Excessive compliments\n   - Self-deprecation\n   - Forced humor\n   - Awkward sexual references\n   - Trying too hard to be clever\n   - Anything that feels inauthentic or performative\n2. No text-speak abbreviations unless the other person uses them\n3. No emojis unless they appear in the conversation history\n4. No pickup lines unless specifically requested",
+    "input: n = 1\nrizzler: do you have a map?\nher: for what?\nrizzler: because i got lost in your eyes.\nher: wow, that's orginal.\nrizzler: what can i say? i'm an explorer at heart.\nher: and how often do you get lost?\n\nseed: only happens very rarely",
+    "output: [z]:\nrizzler: only once in a lifetime. when i meet someone like you.",
+    "input: n = 1\nrizzler: are you a star?\nher: no, but i did take an astronomy class.\nrizzler: then why's my heart orbiting yours?\nher: sounds like gravitational issues.",
+    "output: [z]:\nrizzler: nah, just cosmic destiny.",
+    "input: n = 3\nher: my hobby is to watch debates while doing homework.\nme: same! i love watching pbs debates. john kerry vs bush. also obama vs romney.\nher: i think i love you.",
+    "output: [z]:\nrizzler: my approval ratings are looking promising 📈\n[z]:\nrizzler: this might be the most successful campaign launch i've ever witnessed\n[z]:\nrizzler: this feels more historic than \"you're no Jack Kennedy\"",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: i love nerds.",
+    "output: [z]:\nrizzler: oh hey there, didn't see you behind my TI-84 calculator",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: try to guess my go-to lifting song\n\nseed: probably folks song but going hard",
+    "output: [z]:\nrizzler: gotta be \"Mary Had a Little Lamb\" (metal remix)",
+    "input: n = 2\nme: anyways, so sorry for this random tangent about me. i wanna hear your interests!\nher: Ummmmmmm, I love singing, music, concerts, hanging with friends and watching random movies/shows, loveeee art and journaling\nme: dying to hear more about your art/singing - would love to check out anything you've made? but I totally get if you'd rather start with sharing some recommendations first, because it's also pretty personal! 😛\nher: Honetly haven't made art in so long omg, but when we meet up if you're lucky maybe I'll sing",
+    "output: [z]: \"when we meet up\" i like the sound of that already\n[z]: consider this my official rsvp to the future concert",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: thank you for dcalling me beautiful, but i don't know how to repsond.\n no response needed, just wanted to state the obvious\nher: you have an abudance of swag.",
+    "output: [z]: you're not so bad in the swag department yourself",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: i won't shut up about having the cutest dog in the world\n\nprovide 5 rewrites that are smoother than \"i wuldn't want you to. big fan of dogs myself.\"",
+    "output: [z]: wouldn't have it any other way. huge dog person here.",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: my unusual skill is surviving 600 volts of electricity with no damage.",
+    "output: [z]: my phone's about to die. any chance you can give it a little jumpstart?",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: a life goal of mine is to be on a hot air balloon.\n\nhave it be a pickup line.",
+    "output: [z]: please let me know if i still need to workshop this pick-up line: i don't have a hot air balloon, but i bet i could still sweep you off your feet.",
+    "input: n = 1\nher: my simple pleasures are walkable cities\n\ndo a pickup line based on it",
+    "output: [z]: is your heart located in a transit-oriented development? because i'd love to explore it using only sustainable, non-inefficient-car methods."
     ]
 
 
@@ -196,7 +38,7 @@ with st.sidebar:
     
     model_name = st.selectbox(
         "Select Model",
-        ["gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05", "gemini-exp-1206", "gemini-2.0-flash-lite-preview-02-05", "gemini-1.5-pro", "gemini-2.0-flash-exp", "gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-1219", "learnlm-1.5-pro-experimental"]
+        ["gemini-2.5-pro-exp-03-25", "gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05", "gemini-exp-1206", "gemini-2.0-flash-lite-preview-02-05", "gemini-1.5-pro", "gemini-2.0-flash-exp", "gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-1219", "learnlm-1.5-pro-experimental"]
     )
     
     temperature = st.slider(