> a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8
The woke/cancel culture crowd (none of whom knew him personally) went after him with a vengeance in 2014, but there were LGBT and LGBT-allied co-workers of his at the time who were aghast at the outrage. Here are three examples I could find online just now [0][1][2]
I think this ought to be the goal with any important (but well-defined & bounded) venture in life: own it so thoroughly that it becomes routine, uninteresting, assumed, and boring.
When it has become boring, it no longer consumes brainspace, freeing you to pursue further goals. It effectively has become part of the platform upon which you implement the specifics of your life.
No modern hypervisors emulate a Voodoo 3D card. The upcoming 86Box release will probably have Riva 128 and ATI Rage 128 emulation as well.
Using an accurate emulation of such a device means you can use the drivers that existed back then that games back then were QA'd on.
Most modern hypervisors aren't built with Windows 98 in mind, either - it's not really what they're for, and a modern Mac can't run an x86 hypervisor anyway.
> CPU timing, chipset behaviour, ISA and PCI buses, graphics chipsets, sound devices, and disk controllers all matter to getting period software to behave properly.
On the onboarding thing, Oracle Cloud didn't offer Solaris as an OS option last time I checked. And, of course, they never offered SPARC because abandoning it was one of the first moves. IIRC, IBM Cloud also doesn't offer Linux on POWER (but they do offer AIX and IBMi, as well as z/OS - and Linux - on s390x). Not that long ago I tried to convince VMSI to make a deal with cloud providers and allow OpenVMS to be as easy as any other OS on amd64.
I'm confused - could you explain how the board/flag animation relates to Bend's compile time checking? Is it actually a direct demonstration of Bend running a check?
The check is happening in between the animations. When the AI edits the code, Bend will check if all laws still hold, mathematically so. If not, the AI repeats, until that's the case. So, the animations just show what happens to the app with and without Bend's involvement.
This is really great work, but I think a lot of folks on HN don't look kindly on the CSS Zen Garden or that era of CSS. They think the markup/stylesheet separation of concerns was a terrible idea, an idea that Tailwind exists to fix. (I think they're wrong, that separation of concerns is good, Tailwind is a hack, and get off my lawn while you're at it.)
The point is - now the modern vanilla web platform really can support first-class CSS-styled app components, from design systems, in production. This is really cool!
HTML and CSS were originally designed as document-oriented languages for digital document display; think MS Word or PDF with cross-document hyperlinks, and not an app SDK. The idea was simply "style your web site's titles, headings, paragraphs, footers, etc. in just one place; change it there and the whole site will update". That's the dream that CSS Zen Garden was meant to showcase. Interactivity and web apps came later, and CSS has taken a very long time to catch up.
But catch up it has, and I'll be glad when frontend web development sheds Tailwind and React in favor of the updated vanilla web platform; and I won't complain if we use super light web component libraries like Lit[0]).
I agree completely. Personally, Tailwind never really resonated with me, though I've used it several times, and we did even briefly consider it for this project. I always felt that it was an approach created by people who never understood the paradigm of CSS, and didn't want to. Since my career started with CSS, I've always been more of a purist.
I think a collection of basic utility classes (w-100, m-2-t) and layout components (<Flex dir="row" gap="2">, etc.) are equivalent ideas, and they are nice for quickly setting up a one-off layout that's very readable. But Tailwind turns this practical idea into a religion that locks projects in to using it and harms readability.
Human readability is a very useful proxy for good modularity and separation of concerns (and modularity increases scalability and reusability). Since LLMs take the whole thing in at once, they are terrible at module boundaries. (They also suck at theory of mind, and their comments reflect it, but I digress.)
That's what's glaringly missing. Nicotine. It's extremely mind-altering, and it's been u-bi-qui-tous in the Americas for millennia - and for centuries in Europe and the world.
Makes you wonder what kind of selective pressures it exerted on the evolution of modern man. Select for chill and veg out types? For believers in cure-all panaceas (and snake oil)? For people who enjoy sucking on things? Or for something more sinister. It is the most fascinating evolutionary pressure.
Because in March of this year 2026 Nature published research that revealed that nicotine and its agonist buddies that stimulate niconitic acetylcholine receptors in the brain majorly screw with the reward system in the effort department.
The Nature March 2026 research showed that nicotine receptors make meaningless behavior meaningful as if you expend effort on it and vice versa makes meaningful effortful behavior meaningless. That displaces ambition and is very insidious cumulatively in all sorts of overt and sneaky ways. It's not even zombification, it's fundamentally creating bees that not only enjoy being worker bees but have zero ambition for anything else. I mean, we can talk about how profound this is and has been, but tobacco lobby will stifle any serious conversation before they even commence.
> nicotine receptors make meaningless behavior meaningful as if you expend effort on it
*nicotinic receptors, which are activated by acetylcholine. But I only saw nicotine mentioned once in the paper, and in the titles of two citations.
To me, it seems like a big stretch to say that nicotine "makes meaningless behavior meaningful" - could you explain how that's supported by the paper's data?
It's clear that nicotine binds to those receptors, but exactly how that plays out is far more complex in practice, depending on a whole host of variables.
- Presence or absence of other nicotinic agonists, inverse agonists, and antagonists, and relative concentrations of each
- Effects vary wildly with nicotine concentration levels in plasma/interstitial fluid, as if it's an entirely different drug depending on how much is present
- etc.
You're drawing a direct line from one agonist the paper only mentions once to a psychological effect that the paper doesn't even describe. You may or may not be right, but this paper is at best a citation for a separate study to test your hypothesis.
Please state your conflicts of interest before you diminish the impact of that research some more. Can you make yourself argue for the positive effect that article has even a tiny bit? That we are a happy peoples who are discovering just how profound of an effect nACHR agonists like nicotine can have? Focus on the positives.
The woke/cancel culture crowd (none of whom knew him personally) went after him with a vengeance in 2014, but there were LGBT and LGBT-allied co-workers of his at the time who were aghast at the outrage. Here are three examples I could find online just now [0][1][2]
[0] https://subfictional.com/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150202162458/http://words.tofu...
[2] https://medium.com/@__davidflanagan/for-the-record-7645a4bf8...
reply