More background: https://github.com/simonw/llm/issues/12
(Also check out https://github.com/day50-dev/llmehelp which features a tmux tool I built on top of Simon's llm. I use it every day. Really. It's become indispensable)
This one is a ZSH plugin that uses zle to translate your English to shell commands with a keystroke.
https://github.com/day50-dev/Zummoner
It's been life changing for me. Here's one I wrote today:
$ git find out if abcdefg is a descendent of hijklmnop
$ for i in $(seq 1 6); do
printf "%${i}sh${i}\n\n-----\n" | tr " " "#";
done | pv -bqL 30
$ for i in $(seq 1 6); do
printf "(# $i times)\n\n-----\n"
done | pv (30 bps and quietly)
It's also intelligent about inferring leading zeros without needing to be told with options, e.g. {001..995}.
I use fish, but the language change is straightforward https://github.com/viktomas/dotfiles/blob/master/fish/.confi...
I'll use this daily
Looks from the demo like mine's a little less automatic and more iterative that yours.
The conversational context is nice. The ongoing command building is convenient and the # syntax carryover makes a lot of sense!
My next step is recursion and composability. I want to be able to do things contextualized. Stuff like this:
$ echo PUBLIC_KEY=(( get the users public key pertaining to the private key for this repo )) >> .env
Then you can do this through composability like so:
with ((find the variable store for this repo by looking in the .gitignore)) as m:
((write in the format of m))SSH_PUBLICKEY=(( get the users public key pertaining to the private key for this repo ))
((
((
((rsync, rclone, or similar)) with compression
))
$HOME exclude ((find directories with secrets))
((read the backup.md and find the server))
((make sure it goes to the right path))
));
$ llm-compile --format terraform --context my_infra script.llm > some_code.tf
It's basically GCC's RTL but for LLMs.
The point of this approach is your building blocks remain fairly atomic simple dumb things that even a 1b model can reliably handle - kinda like the guarantee of the RTL.
Then if you want to move from terraform to opentofu or whatever, who cares ... your stuff is in the llm metalanguage ... it's just a different compile target.
It's kinda like PHP. You just go along like normal and occasionally break form for the special metalanguage whenever your hit a point of contextual variance.
I think I want a plugin hook that lets plugins take over the display of content by the tool.
Just filed an issue: https://github.com/simonw/llm/issues/1112
Would love to get your feedback on it, I included a few design options but none of them feel 100% right to me yet.
We have cost, latency, context window and model routing but I haven't seen anything semantic yet. Someone's going to do it, might as well be me.
That's why everybody else either rerenders (such as rich) or relies on the whole buffer (such as glow).
I didn't write Streamdown for fun - there are genuinely no suitable tools that did what I needed.
Also various models have various ideas of what markdown should be and coding against CommonMark doesn't get you there.
Then there's other things. You have to check individual character width and the language family type to do proper word wrap. I've seen a number of interesting tmux and alacritty bugs in doing multi language support
The only real break I do is I render h6 (######) as muted grey.
Compare:
for i in $(seq 1 6); do
printf "%${i}sh${i}\n\n-----\n" | tr " " "#";
done | pv -bqL 30 | sd -w 30
Also try sd -b 0.4 or even -b 0.7,0.8,0.8 for a nice blue. It's a bit easier to configure than the usual catalog of themes that requires a compilation after modification like with pygments.
| bat --language=markdown --force-colorization ?
echo "$@" | llm "Provide a brief response to the question, if the question is related to command provide the command and short description" | bat --plain -l md
llmquick "why is the sky blue?"https://github.com/day50-dev/llmehelp/blob/main/Snoopers/wtf
I've thought about redoing it because my needs are things like
$ ls | wtf which endpoints do these things talk to, give me a map and line numbers.
Conceptual grep is what I've wanted my while life
Semantic routing, which I alluded to above, could get this to work progressively so you quickly get adequate results which then pareto their way up as the token count increases.
Really you'd like some tampering, like a coreutils timeout(1) but for simplex optimization.
Lmao. Does it work? I hate that it needs to be repeated (in general). ChatGPT could not care less to follow my instructions, through the API it probably would?
The doc [1] warns about prompt injection, but I think a more likely scenario is self-inflicted harm. For instance, you give a tool access to your brokerage account to automate trading. Even without prompt injection, there's nothing preventing the bot from making stupid trades.
Yeah, it really does.
There are so many ways things can go wrong once you start plugging tools into an LLM, especially if those tool calls are authenticated and can take actions on your behalf.
The MCP world is speed-running this right now, see the GitHub MCP story from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44097390
I stuck a big warning in the documentation and I've been careful not to release any initial tool plugins that can cause any damage - hence my QuickJS sandbox one and SQLite plugin being read-only - but it's a dangerous space to be exploring.
(Super fun and fascinating though.)
This is absolutely going to happen at a large scale and then we'll have "cautionary tales" and a lot of "compliance" rules.
Even a year ago I let LLMs execute local commands on my laptop. I think it is somewhat risky, but nothing harmful happened. You also have to consider what you are prompting. So when I prompt 'find out where I am and what weather it is going to be', it is possible that it will execute rm -rf / but very unlikely.
However, speaking of letting an LLMs trade stocks without understanding how the LLM will come to a decision... too risky for my taste ;-)
Letting the LLM run the tool unsupervised is another thing entirely. We do not understand the choices the machines are making. They are unpredictable and you can't root-cause their decisions.
LLM tool use is a new thing we haven't had before, which means tool misuse is a whole new class of FUBAR waiting to happen.
Let's say you are making an AI-controlled radiation therapy machine. You prompt and train and eval the system very carefully, and you are quite sure it won't overdose any patients. Well, that's not really good enough, it can still screw up. But did you do anything wrong? Not really, you followed best practices and didn't make any mistakes. The LLM just sometimes kills people. You didn't intend that at all.
I make this point because this is already how these systems work today. But instead of giving you a lethal dose of radiation, it uses slurs or promotes genocide or something else. The builders of those bots didn't intend that, and in all likelihood tried very hard to prevent it. It's not very fair to blame them.
Whoever made and/or (mis)use the LLMs should be liable for it, regardless of intent.
If I shot someone which I did not intend to, do I get away with it? No, I would not get away with it.
Yes, you had a deontological blindspot that prevented you from asking, "What are some of the high-risk consequences, and what responsibility do I have to these consequences of my actions?"
Deontology's failure case is this ethically naive version that doesn't include a maxim that covers the "Sometimes peoples' reliance on good intentions relieves them of exerting the mental energy of considering the consequences which ultimately cause those consequences to exist"-situation.
One of the assumptions that bears arguing against is that the choice is framed as happening once before the system is deployed. However, this oversimplification has an unfortunate side effect - that we can't know all of the consequences upfront, so sometimes we're surprised by unforeseen results and that we shouldn't hold people to the standard of needing to accurately predict the future.
In real life, though, the choices are rarely final. Even this one, deploying the genocide-promoting LLM is reversible. If you didn't predict that the LLM promotes genocide, and then you find out it does in fact promote genocide, you don't throw up your hands and says, "I hadn't thought of this, but my decision is final." No, armed with the information, you feel a sense of duty to minimize the consequences by shutting it down and fixing it before deploying it again.
Further more, you take a systems level approach and ask, "How could we prevent this type of error in the future?" Which ends with "We will consider the consequences of our actions to a greater degree in the future," or perhaps even, "We don't have enough foresight to be making these decisions and we will stop making medical devices."
The point is that distilling the essence of the situation down to "good intentions absolve responsibility," or "one drop of involvement implies total responsibility," isn't really how people think about these things in real life. It's the spherical cow of ethics - it says more about spheres than it does about cows.
Yeah, I call it bullshit. I accidentally shot someone yet I did not intend to. I am still being liable for it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44073456
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44073413
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44070923
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44070514
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44010921
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43970274
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I am keenly aware this is a major footgun here, but it seems that a terminal tool + llm would be a perfect lightweight solution.
Is there a way to have llm get permission for each tool call the way other "agents" do this? ("llm would like to call `rm -rf ./*` press Y to confirm...")
Would be a decent way to prevent letting an llm run wild on my terminal and still provide some measure of protection.
Huh, I've been wondering why a terminal was advertising everywhere and sponsoring random projects. I didn't realize it's not a completely free thing.
I put a lot of effort into it - it integrates with `llm` command line tool and with your desktop, via a tray icon and nice chat window.
I recently released 3.0.0 with packages for all three major desktop operating systems.
The Unix shell is good at being the glue between programs. We've increased the dimensionality with LLMs.
Some kind of ports based system like named pipes with consumers and producers.
Maybe something like gRPC or NATS (https://github.com/nats-io). MQTT might also work. Network transparent would be great.
Since you released version 0.26 alpha, I’ve been trying to create a plugin to interact with a some MCP server, but it’s a bit too challenging for me. So far, I’ve managed to connect and dynamically retrieve and use tools, but I’m not yet able to pass parameters.
I'm a heavy user of the llm tool, so as soon as I saw your post, I started tinkering with MCP.
I’ve just published an alpha version that works with stdio-based MCP servers (tested with @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem) - https://github.com/Virtuslab/llm-tools-mcp. Very early stage, so please make sure to use with --ta option (Manually approve every tool execution).
The code is still messy and there are a couple of TODOs in the README.md, but I plan to work on it full-time until the end of the week.
Some questions:
Where do you think mcp.json should be stored? Also, it might be a bit inconvenient to specify tools one by one with -T. Do you think adding a --all-tools flag or supporting glob patterns like -T name-prefix* in llm would be a good idea?
You're using function-based tools at the moment, hence why you have to register each one individually.
The alternative to doing that is to use what I call a "toolbox", described here: https://llm.datasette.io/en/stable/python-api.html#python-ap...
Those get you two things you need:
1. A single class can have multiple tool methods in it, you just have to specify it once 2. Toolboxes can take configuration
With a Toolbox, your plugin could work like this:
llm -T 'MCP("path/to/mcp.json")' ...
There's one catch: currently you would have to dynamically create the class with methods for each tool, which is possible in Python but a bit messy. I have an open issue to make that better here: https://github.com/simonw/llm/issues/1111
Ah, I saw "llm.Toolbox" but I thought it's just for plugin developer convenience.
I'll take a look at the issue you posted (#1111). Maybe I can contribute somehow :).
Fortunately this gets me 90% of the way there:
llm -f README.md -f llm.plugin.zsh -f completions/_llm -f https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/27/llm-tools/ "implement tab completions for the new tool plugins feature"
My repo is here:
https://github.com/eliyastein/llm-zsh-plugin
And again, it's a bit of a mess, because I'm trying to get as many options and their flags as I can. I wouldn't mind if anyone has any feedback for me.
It's like if you use english everyday, but don't bother to learn the language because you have google translate (and now AI).
I've wondered how exactly, say, Claude Code knows about and uses tools. Obviously, an LLM can be "told" about tools and how to use them, and the harness can kind of manage that. But I assumed Claude Code has a very specific expectation around the tool call "API" that the harness uses, probably reinforced very heavily by some post-training / fine tuning.
Do you think your 3rd party tool-calling framework using Claude is at any disadvantage to Anthropic's own framework because of this?
Separately, on that other HN post about the GitHub MCP "attack", I made the point that LLMs can be tricked into using up to the full potential of the credential. GitHub has fine-grained auth credentials, and my own company does as well. I would love for someone to take a stab at a credential protocol that the harness can use to generate fine-grained credentials to hand to the LLM. I'm envisioning something where the application (e.g. your `llm` CLI tool) is given a more powerful credential, and the underlying LLM is taught how to "ask for permission" for certain actions/resources, which the user can grant. When that happens the framework gets the scoped credential from the service, which the LLM can then use in tool calls.
> We evaluate 12 popular LLMs that claim to support contexts of at least 128K tokens. While they perform well in short contexts (<1K), performance degrades significantly as context length increases. At 32K, for instance, 10 models drop below 50% of their strong short-length baselines. Even GPT-4o, one of the top-performing exceptions, experiences a reduction from an almost-perfect baseline of 99.3% to 69.7%.
The key elements I had to write:
- The system prompt
- Tools to pull external data
- Tools to do some calculations
Your library made the core functionality very easy.
Most of the effort for the demo was to get the plumbing working (a nice-looking web UI for the chatbot that would persist the conversation, update nicely if the user refreshed their browser due to a connection issue, and allow the user to start a new chat session).
I didn't know about `after_call=print`. So I'm glad I read this blog post!
I'll switch to o4-mini when I'm writing code, but otherwise 4.1-mini usually does a great job.
Fun example from earlier today:
llm -f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BenjaminAster/CSS-Minecraft/refs/heads/main/main.css \
-s 'explain all the tricks used by this CSS'
The code is clearly written but entirely uncommented: https://github.com/BenjaminAster/CSS-Minecraft/blob/main/mai...
GPT-4.1 mini's explanation is genuinely excellent: https://gist.github.com/simonw/cafd612b3982e3ad463788dd50287... - it correctly identifies "This CSS uses modern CSS features at an expert level to create a 3D interactive voxel-style UI while minimizing or eliminating JavaScript" and explains a bunch of tricks I hadn't figured out.
And it used 3,813 input tokens and 1,291 output tokens - https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=3813&ot=1291&ic=0.4&oc=1.6 - that's 0.3591 cents (around a third of a cent).
Are you aware of any user interfaces that expose some limited ChatGPT functionality using a UI, that internally uses llm. This is for my non-techie wife.
I've been meaning to put together a web UI for ages, I think that's the next big project now that tools is out.
It's not using LLM, but right now one of the best UI options out there is https://openwebui.com/ - it works really well with Ollama (and any other OpenAI-compatible endpoint).
How come it doesn't know for sure?
Though it's worth noting that CSS Minecraft was first released three years ago, so there's a chance it has hints about it in the training data already. This is not a meticulous experiment.
(I've had a search around though and the most detailed explanation I could find of how that code works is the one I posted on my blog yesterday - my hunch is that it figured it out from the code alone.)
At this point I would have expected something mcp or openapi based but probably is simpler and more flexible this way. Implementing it as plugin shouldn't be hard, I think.
I have an idea to fix that by writing a 'plugins.txt' file somewhere with all of your installed plugins and then re-installing any that go missing - issue for that is here: https://github.com/simonw/llm/issues/575
llm install -U llm
instead of
uv tool upgrade llm
(the latter of which is recommended by simonw in the original post)
I would love to only have to use llm, but with the amount of functionality that Claude code provides, it seems unlikely that llm would ever support all of its features. Also, I have realized that llm is narrower in scoop, which is something I like about the tool.
I think it's not impossible that LLM might one day be able to handle the same kind of processes with the right collection of tool plugins and a really sophisticated system prompt but it's not something I'm shooting for right now - Claude Code is a very complicated system!
We've seen problems in the past where plugins with expensive imports (like torch) slow everything down a lot: https://github.com/simonw/llm/issues/949
I'm interested in tracking down the worst offenders and encouraging them to move to lazy imports instead.
sudo uvx py-spy record -o /tmp/profile.svg -- llm --helpIt's been a very useful tool to test out and prototype using various LLM features like multimodal, schema output and now tools as well! I specifically like that I can just write a python function with type annotations and plug it to the LLM.
... OK, I got the second one working!
brew install llama.cpp
llama-server --jinja -hf unsloth/gemma-3-4b-it-GGUF:Q4_K_XL
llm install llm-llama-server
llm -m llama-server-tools -T llm_time 'what time is it?' --td
Is there a blog post / article that addresses this?
If you're interested in what I recommend generally that changes a lot, but my most recent piece about that is here: https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/15/building-on-llms/
EDIT: I think I just found what I want. There is no need for the plugin, extra-openai-models.yaml just needs "supports_tools: true" and "can_stream: false".
Things now come in full circle :D
The ability to pipe files and other program outputs into an LLM is wildly useful. A few examples:
llm -f code.py -s 'Add type hints' > code_typed.py
git diff | llm -s 'write a commit message'
llm -f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BenjaminAster/CSS-Minecraft/refs/heads/main/main.css \
-s 'explain all the tricks used by this CSS'
llm 'describe this photo' -a path/to/photo.jpg
llm install llm-cmd
llm cmd ffmpeg convert video.mov to mp4
I'm getting a whole lot of coding done with LLM now too. Here's how I wrote one of my recent plugins:
llm -m openai/o3 \
-f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/llm-hacker-news/refs/heads/main/llm_hacker_news.py \
-f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/tools/refs/heads/main/github-issue-to-markdown.html \
-s 'Write a new fragments plugin in Python that registers issue:org/repo/123 which fetches that issue
number from the specified github repo and uses the same markdown logic as the HTML page to turn that into a fragment'
LLM was also used recently in that "How I used o3 to find CVE-2025-37899, a remote zeroday vulnerability in the Linux kernel’s SMB implementation" story - to help automate running 100s of prompts: https://sean.heelan.io/2025/05/22/how-i-used-o3-to-find-cve-...
- The official docs: https://llm.datasette.io/
- The workshop I gave at PyCon a few weeks ago: https://building-with-llms-pycon-2025.readthedocs.io/
- The "New releases of LLM" series on my blog: https://simonwillison.net/series/llm-releases/
- My "llm" tag, which has 195 posts now! https://simonwillison.net/tags/llm/
``` # AI cli (unstable.python3.withPackages ( ps: with ps; [ llm llm-gemini llm-cmd ] )) ```
looks like most of the plugins are models and most of the functionality you demo'd in the parent comment is baked into the tool itself.
Yea a live document might be cool -- part of the interesting bit was seeing "real" type of use cases you use it for .
Anyways will give it a spin.
> had I used o3 to find and fix the original vulnerability I would have, in theory [...]
they ran a scenario that they thought could have lead to finding it, which is pretty much not what you said. We don't know how much their foreshadowing crept into their LLM context, and even the article says it was also sort of chance. Please be more precise and don't give into these false beliefs of productivity. Not yet at least.
Most recently I wanted a script that could produce word lists from a dictionary of 180k words given a query, like "is this an animal?" The script breaks the dictionary up into chunks of size N (asking "which of these words is an animal? respond with just the list of words that match, or NONE if none, and nothing else"), makes M parallel "think" queries, and aggregates the results in an output text file.
I had Claude Code do it, and even though I'm _already_ talking to an LLM, it's not a task that I trust an LLM to do without breaking the word list up into much smaller chunks and making loads of requests.
Overall, I found tool use extremely hit-and-miss, to the point where I'm sure I'm doing something wrong (I'm using the OpenAI Agents SDK, FWIW).
Anthropic's system prompt just for their "web_search" tool is over 6,000 tokens long! https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/25/claude-4-system-prompt...
And, this is why I'm very excited about this addition to the llm tool, because it feels like it moves the tool closer to the user and reduces the likelihood of the problem I'm describing.
See also my multi-year obsession with prompt injection and LLM security, which still isn't close to being a solved problem: https://simonwillison.net/tags/prompt-injection/
Yet somehow I can't tear myself away from them. The fact that we can use computers to mostly understand human language (and vision problems as well) is irresistible to me.
I agree that'd be amazing if they do that, but they most certainly do not. I think this is the core my disagreement here that you believe this and let this guide you. They don't understand anything and are matching and synthesizing patterns. I can see how that's enthralling like watching a rube goldberg machine go through its paces, but there is no there there. The idea that there is an emergent something there is at best an unproven theory, is documented as being an illusion, and at worst has become an unfounded messianic belief.
I know they're just statistical models, and that having conversations with them is like having a conversation with a stack of dice.
But if the simulation is good enough to be useful, the fact that they don't genuinely "understand" doesn't really matter to me.
I've had tens of thousands of "conversations" with these things now (I know because I log them all). Whether or not they understand anything they're still providing a ton of value back to me.
Can we stop already? stop following webdevs practices
This post has an unusually large number of code blocks without syntax highlighting since they're copy-pasted outputs from the debug tool which isn't in any formal syntax.
https://simonwillison.net/tags/anthropic/
https://simonwillison.net/tags/gemini/
This is just a new fad like agile, where the process and tool obsessed developers blog and preach endlessly without delivering any results.
For them "it works". The rest of us can either join the latest madness or avoid places that use LLMs, which of course includes all open source projects that do actual work that is not measured in GitHub kLOCs and marketing speak.
And I have personally had good results with ChatGPT. I use it maybe 2 hours a month, on tasks that it is perfect for. The tasks would have taken 6 to 8 hours without ChatGPT. I don't find it at all useful in my normal programming activities.
The hate: "LLM's can't do anything without hand holding"
I think both of these takes a disingenuous.
> not productive in the sense of solving real world computing problems.
Solving problems is a pretty vague term.
> The fact that you can hack things that do cool stuff
Lots of times this is how problems actually get solved. I would argue most of the time this is how problems get solved. More so if your working with other peoples software because your not reinventing CUPS, Dashboards, VPN's, Marketing Tools, Mail clients, Chat Clients and so on... I would argue that LOTS of good software is propped up directly and indirectly by this sort of hacking.
I use the “llm” tool every single day. You may not know it, and that’s okay, but Simon’s tools are an immense help to tons of developers using LLMs.
I know it’s fun and trendy to hate on LLMs, but if you’re not productive with them at this point, you’re either:
1. Working on a novel problem or in some obscure language, or
2. Have a skill issue related to how to utilize LLMs.
There is none. All they do is steal from real software developers and blog about the half finished garbage they produce and that no one uses.
I don’t get where you get the idea that people aren’t actually using this stuff and being productive.
Can you please review those and please not post like this?
That's right in the site docs linked above which you should check out.
When I try to bring up this reality, the entire argument is triangulated "people find the insults funny," "maybe you should learn the history of roasting people," "my friend at the other large corp is insult maxing and it is the future, maybe the insults will get less devastating..." I look at people like Ed Zitron, who point out that even if they were five nines accurate how corrosive that would be, and I guess I see my rhetoric here as tame. It was literally from that context, so it did feel entirely appropriate, and honestly still does. And anyone who has asked the models deep questions that they know the deep answers can attest to, these are insult machines.
It really does feel like an invasion of the body snatchers for a lot of people, and I do believe this is completely invisible to non-practitioners, managers, junior people and others in many spaces. I've been trying to give voice to this, as have others on here in even starker (but perhaps more cordial as to be unnoticed) terms. I have a lot of theories about this, like there are just so many overloaded terms between the different groups of people in technology. A model that has doubled its accuracy is still very far away from even the most basic of traditional systems, like say a 555 timer is something that seems to be a missed idea in many places.
I'm writing this with hopefully a more business tone, but this language sure does seem to understate the extent of the problem, and the triangulation of the discourse now does like you say maybe doesn't have room for honest expression. I also feel the need to be almost insultingly verbose because it also seems like my sentiments should be obvious, because in other circles they are boring and not new.
My own non-productive quagmire is the constant exploration of all of these vendors and these techniques and seeing them make errors that are so hard to find as to be antagonistic, and vendors who think they are in control but can only push hidden bias. There's also a rhetorical problem with complex issues you start to look and sound like the crazy wall meme from It's Always Sunny, so, I understand there is a limit to effectiveness of describing the problems, I guess I think of Ed Zitron being hard to parse by most anyone... or I think of Jeff Goldblum's character in The Lost World being frustrated that he uses plain simple language but yet the danger does not seem to be communicated.
Bless you if you even half skimmed this, and thank you for your time.
Edit: Sorry, specifically with Simon's posts, I believe Simon to be genuinely curious but he's very happy to appropriate this situation on the side of the shovel seller and allude to these problems, but the audience for these posts are directly inspiring people to think of these tools as appropriate in contexts where we already know they fail, and so, I see this posts what like at least once a week now on here? And it always brings the most people triangulating the arguments like stated above, and I've had an ongoing feedback to Simon and it is puzzling, like his most latest post where he first said they were understanding things, and then when I said they don't, he said, essentially yeah I know but believing that is why I like them and I just don't know what to do with that kind of disingenuousness, unless people are literally talking about faith then I think people should talk about the pseudo religious things going on and stop describing those things as rational.
Nothing of the sort happened, though? Why even make this gigantically escalatory analogy? You don't have to like the work presented and you still have the option of non-yelly critique or saying nothing. You're acting like you've done the work of persuasion for your position and everyone is or should be as incensed as you are. And that's clearly not the case.