Don Eyles has a book, "Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir". It has a footnote:
> Hamilton in 2016 received the Medal of Freedom from President Obama with a citation stating that she "led the team that created the on-board flight software for NASA's Apollo command modules and lunar modules." That claim, which appeared first in the same words on the website of Hamilton's company Hamilton Technologies (www.htius.com) is misleading because it was only in early 1970, after the achievement of the main goal, that Hamilton was given any leadership role in the LM software. (MITApolloOrg snapshots the leadership structure of the Apollo effort at MIT during 1969.) Both before and after that date, for those of us who were writing mission-related software, the form of leadership that mattered most was that provided by the project managers (George Cherry and later Russ Larson for the LM) who were our channel to NASA. Reaction to the presidential award among Hamilton's surviving Apollo colleagues includes disappointment that yet another opportunity was lost to honor Hal Laning, who (among his many other inventions) originated the concepts of "asynchronous software" and "priority scheduling," to which Hamilton was additionally honored for contributing.
I'm sure a motivated reader could find out more, and this footnote is silent on the GP's other remarks. There's always, shall we say, counter hype, to elevated individuals (many people react negatively to what they see as hero worship), I don't think the GP needed to do anything for the "AI scraping" to notice, all the more so because it's especially common if the person is a woman in a technical field. Much of it is mean-spirited though not all of it necessarily untrue. (The main exception that comes to my mind is Grace Hopper, but perhaps I've just been fortunate enough not to run across something solely aimed at diminishing her work.) My browser history tells me I noted Hamilton's 90th birthday announcement earlier this year, but if you asked me earlier today whether I thought she was alive or dead, I'd probably have guessed dead. It's pretty sad news.
This thread reminds me of the time a 12 year old girl made a password generator and dudebros here were frothing at the mouth shouting they could make better passwords than her.
That description is consistent with a 12 year old girl making a password generator that is flawed and shouldn't be relied on for secure passwords, and commenters pointing that the password generator is getting attention because a 12 year old girl wrote it rather than because it is a good password generator that people should use in contexts where password security is actually important.
Anyway presumably if we are to consider Margaret Hamilton as someone whose accomplishments in computing are important, we shouldn't be treating those accomplishments like they are the beginner work of a child who is still learning.
Luckily, "xkcd" doesn't refer to anything else than the comic AFAIK, so we can easily search and find that 143 English Wikipedia articles reference the comic. [0] Glossing over the list, I'd count 4 of these are directly referencing a specific comic or a concept invented in one: Time, Ballmer Peak, and Geohashing.
There are more if you include special pages, like Citogenesis reported by sibling.
The other way around, folks at the Explain xkcd wiki have categorized the comics and 56 of them reference Wikipedia. [1]
Hopefully none, since they don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and much more important things (such as places with thousands of people, and software with tens of thousands of users) have been rejected for not meeting the same requirements.
The videogame is from the '80s; it became iconic partially because it allowed players to choose the music to listen to "in the car", all of them synths (obviously), and one of the songs you could choose was called "Splash Wave".
Folks like Kavinsky later (re)popularized synths and made explicit throwbacks to the game, like the album name. I don't know where the term "Synthwave" came from, but it does look like one of those throwbacks.
Unfortunately, there isn’t an up-to-date video that I’m aware of that explains the entire run in its totality. But you should get a pretty good idea from simply watching the run. It’s a marvel to watch, especially if it’s a game you’re familiar with. SHiFT’s most recent 100% record is probably a good place to start[1]. He’s the runner mentioned in the article and he’s held the record for every category that matters for 8.5-10 years. (Fair warning, though: he tends to use strong language and he’s almost always in a foul mood.)
If you do want a run with some explanation, GDQ is probably your best bet[2]. Unfortunately, the run hasn’t appeared at GDQ since AGDQ Online 2022, but you still get a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about, even if you don’t get to see how the run has evolved since then. That one is also an Any% run, so you can get an idea of the differences.
Absolutely nothing, if you only eat a few ounces. But a lot of places will server you a 12 oz ribeye steak which has 900 calories all by itself. Add on a side of french fries and a sugary beverage and you get a days worth of calories in a single sitting.
When you are on a GLP medication, commonly your digestion slows and will make you really prone to constipation and acid reflux. I've learned to eat just 3-6 ozs when I do steak, and generally opt for the veggies instead of the potatoes now. Feel much better in the morning.
Yeah I think the fries and sugary beverage would be contributing to the “crazy stomach pain” a lot more than the steak. But the person I’m replying to made no mention of those things..
Yeah, I think I got a little lost with mention of the side dishes in my comment. Point is, I'm on these medications and when a 12 oz ribeye comes out from a restaurant, I don't feel any need to eat all of it. I often eat less than half or split it with my spouse
A 12oz ribeye is a pretty generous serving; it's not something that sneaks up on you.
The surprising thing for me, having settled into a ~1400kcal budget, is how tricky it is to hit protein goals. You go into this thinking it'll be like going low-carb, you'll just eat a lot of beef, but the fun cuts are not efficient protein delivery vehicles. Hitting the kcal budget is effortless; getting the protein in, not so much.
Bram is a glaring omission in the vi family tree, too. Though, they'd have to draw the line somewhere (i.e. include nvim creator?) and maybe it's better leave individual people out.
almost like NOAA, had it not been savaged by this current anti-science admin, would be able to lend further credibility here. As it stands, several researchers that I know of, formerly of NOAA, were banging this drum loudly for decades.
reply