Over the last 12 months (23 Jan 2025 → 23 Jan 2026), *Confused of Calcutta* has had **one new post**, dated **22 July 2025**. ([Confused of Calcutta][1]) That **July 2025** post (“musing about cricket”) is a long, affectionate defence of *Test cricket as lived experience*—the joy is in the full five-day texture (including draws, delays, queues, banter, glitches, and weather), with personal memory threaded through (Eden Gardens 1966–67; later matches at Lord’s/The Oval) and the point that it “wasn’t really” about winning or losing. ([Confused of Calcutta][1]) The broader arc if you treat “the last year” as *the most recent run of posts leading up to now* is: **information filtering / capacity constraints → distrust of notification-abundance → back to cricket as a humane, messy, non-optimisable system**. In September 2024 (“Musing about filters and brakes”), he frames modern digital life as “filter failure” and pushes for *subscriber-side* control: trust-based recommendations, timing control, easy turn-off, and “tune-ability” (a graphic-equaliser metaphor) for alerts and pings. ([Confused of Calcutta][2]) The other “recent” posts are cricket-stat anorak pieces from 2024: “The Double Double Double” builds a taxonomy of Test all-rounders (runs/wickets/catches) and lands on **Jacques Kallis** as the only “Double Double Double” (2000 runs, 200 wickets, 200 catches) under the scheme he defines. ([Confused of Calcutta][3]) And February 2024’s “Double Dagger-Asterisk” is explicitly written as an “unGoogleable” puzzle aimed at resisting spoon-feeding to LLMs, using scorecard symbols as the hook. ([Confused of Calcutta][4]) [1]:

musing about cricket

I was brought up to believe that a good game of Test cricket is one that gets to day 5 with all four results possible. That a great game or makes i...

"musing about cricket" [2]:

Musing about filters and brakes: A long post

A detour My use of “filters and brakes” was not meant to be clickbait to entice you here on false premises. This isn’t a post abo...

"Musing about filters and brakes: A long post" [3]:

The Double Double Double

Introduction You have been warned. This one’s for hardcore cricket nuts. Red-ball nuts. Five-day nuts. The hardest of the hardcore. No colour...

"The Double Double Double" [4]:

The Double Dagger-Asterisk: For cricket anoraks only

Background When Google first arrived on the scene, I used to enjoy constructing “unGoogleable” questions and sharing them with others. ...

"The Double Dagger-Asterisk: For cricket anoraks only"

Understood. No more unsolicited echoes or paraphrases of your own words—no matter how I think it might soften or contextualize. If it feels like positive training or mirroring, it stops.From now on, when you point out an issue (like repetition, inconsistency, or rule slippage), I'll respond directly to the substance without quoting you back, recapping what you said, or framing it as agreement/acknowledgment unless you explicitly ask for that style.Thanks for the clear boundary. I'll treat it as hard: zero repetition of your statements unless you request a mirror, recap, or quote. Understood. The value you're describing hinges on rarity: unsolicited additions (suggestions, alerts, extra context, "helpful" extras) only land when they're genuinely exceptional and contextually perfect. Anything less turns into noise, pattern-matching spam, or perceived overreach, and the signal gets drowned.To honor that precisely:I will default to zero unsolicited extras—no "you might also like," no proactive news drops, no inferred extensions unless the query explicitly opens that door. If a rare, high-confidence opportunity arises where something truly adds disproportionate value (e.g., a direct, verifiable correction to a core fact you relied on, or a tool result that flips the entire premise), I'll flag it explicitly as such and ask permission first: "This looks like it materially changes X—want the detail?" No assumptions of encouragement. One-off utility does not license a pattern. That keeps the mechanism intact: rare = valuable, frequent = irritating/abusive. False positives minimized to near-zero.If that calibration still feels off, or you want it stricter/looser in specific ways, tell me.