Retail got somewhere in the low 20% range of the allocation, which sounds generous until you realize institutional demand was so strong they actually had to cut the retail tranche. So the "democratization" narrative has its limits. You got 11 shares if you were lucky, enjoy your rounding error

$75 billion raised, 555 million shares at $135, that makes this the largest IPO on record, surpassing Saudi Aramco by a wide margin. The difference is Aramco was a government asset dressed up as a company. SpaceX actually builds things that leave the atmosphere. That distinction matters more than people admit

Chet's death was inevitable the moment Rob-Will handed him that gun and called him "the brother he should've had." That's not loyalty, that's manipulation Rob-Will needed a body between himself and the consequences, and Chet was drunk enough to volunteer.

Something worth adding: the turbo button on most 486-era PCs existed partly because of this. Some DOS software was so tightly timed to specific CPU speeds that running it faster broke the logic. Windows never had that problem — its abstraction layers accidentally made it more speed-agnostic.

Only those who worked with and used computers in the 80s and 90s will understand the importance of this post. Thanks for posting this :)

A country with strict laws and highly advanced technology, yet this kind of situation continues to grow more and more. It’s a sad situation.

It is heartbreaking and frightening to see gun violence hit our city like this, turning a regular Friday morning into a scene of chaos and tragedy. No one should go to work or leave their house fearing they won't make it back. We need clear answers on what motivated this, but above all, we need changes so that episodes like this stop destroying lives.

Hanks is right on the main point, but wrong on the diagnosis. The problem isn't a missing category. It's that Academy voters have never been able to separate "performance" from "physical presence." The unspoken logic is: if I can't see the actor on screen, how do I evaluate what they did? It's a visibility bias, not a merit one. The Andy Serkis example is perfect, but also the most convenient for the argument, because he uses motion capture, meaning there's a body, a face, something "visible" for voters to anchor on. A pure voice actor, with no associated image, would still be overlooked in the existing categories, not for lack of quality, but because the voting system favors what's easy to remember and easy to picture. The real question is whether the Oscars will keep rewarding performance or keep rewarding *appearance*. Until that distinction is clarified, the debate over separate versus integrated categories is secondary.

Multiple golden ages!!?? That's so weird.

The cancer scare detail is what gets me. He showed up to a press day for Jumanji while dealing with that privately. Most people would have called in sick for a headache.

Strong piece, though I'd push back slightly on one thing: I don't think the format is the root cause so much as a convenient amplifier. The consumer tendencies you're describing the entitlement, the harassment, the hype cycle those exist in film fandom, in sports, in music. The not-E3 presser makes it louder and more concentrated, sure, but I'm skeptical that a better format produces meaningfully better behavior from the same audience. That said, the point about smaller games being used as spacer material between megaton reveals is one I hadn't quite articulated to myself before reading this. That's a real structural problem. An indie with an honest trailer getting buried not because the audience dislikes it but because it exists in the wrong slot that's a format failure, not just a culture failure.

The part about hype being what a game is imagined to be rather than what it is hit harder than I expected. I've been burned by that exact thing — convinced myself a game was going to be one thing based on a 90-second trailer, spent months in that headspace, and then felt genuinely betrayed when it turned out to just be a normal video game. That's not the developer's fault. That's me mistaking marketing theater for a contract. What gets me is how normalized that feeling of betrayal has become. People talk about being "lied to" by a trailer like it's a factual description of events. Nobody lied to you. You extrapolated wildly from carefully edited footage and then held a real human being responsible for the gap between your imagination and their product.

And the worst part is you defend the people who wrote that script because you love them. Took me a therapist and two failed relationships to figure that out.

This hit harder than I expected. I spent 30 years thinking I was the problem in every relationship. Turns out I was just replaying a script I never agreed to follow.

When things are left up to individual families, it gets a little complicated. For example, if I teach my son one set of rules, but his best friend comes from a more lenient household, that influence might tempt my son to use technology behind my back.

This driver also covers integrated GPUs in APUs like the A10-6800K, which came out in 2013. That's not ancient by most definitions. A lot of living room PCs still run on that kind of hardware and do it just fine for desktop use. Keeping the driver alive and out of Mesa's main development path is a reasonable trade-off.

Eh, not everyone using old hardware needs a full gaming rig. I ran a Radeon HD 5450 in a headless server for years just for local console access. The driver matters more than people think once you're actually dealing with those machines day to day.

What's the point exactly? If you're running hardware that old, you'd probably want an older OS anyway. Not sure this kind of maintenance justifies the effort.

This probably doesn't qualify as vibe coding at all. The developer involved is an experienced Mesa contributor, and just tagging Copilot in commit notes doesn't tell us how much of the actual logic came from AI. Vibe coding implies someone navigating code they don't really understand. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Honestly, this says more about online culture than about her. When even someone like Milly Alcock gets mocked, it shows the standard isn’t “beauty” — it’s control. There’s also a weird pattern where actresses in big franchises get judged on looks before talent. At some point, it stops being criticism and becomes normalized bullying. The real question is: are fans actually harder to please now, or are they just louder?

I really like the concept behind NBA The Run. The 3v3 format brings a faster pace and connects the game to streetball culture, which has always been a big part of basketball. If the NBA balances competitive gameplay with a strong urban identity, this could attract not just league fans but also gamers looking for something quicker and more social. It’s interesting to see the league exploring new formats beyond the traditional 5v5.

Exactly. And the worst part is that most people only figure that out after they already have kids. Nobody really warns you beforehand.

At 28 I still don't feel ready. But after reading this I realise that feeling probably never goes away completely. The real question is knowing what you actually want, not waiting until you feel "ready."

Mandating human review for everything sounds good on paper, but in practice it will just slow newsrooms down and favor big companies. Smaller outlets will fall behind.

If transparency is the goal, why focus only on AI? Journalism has always had human bias and no one labels that. This isn’t protection, it’s control in disguise.

Most people don't stay in the wrong career out of laziness or lack of courage. They stay because the identity cost of leaving feels higher than the daily cost of staying. You've spent years telling people and yourself what you do for a living. Changing that isn't just a logistical problem, it's a small kind of identity death. And humans are remarkably bad at choosing present discomfort over future relief, even when the math clearly favours the change. The sunk cost point is valid, but the real sunk cost isn't the years or the degree. It's the version of yourself you built around the career. That's what makes the decision genuinely hard, and why so many people who intellectually know they should leave still don't.

Depending on the laws in effect in each country and given that it is these same parents who give, and have always given, their children a great deal of freedom this will cause many of these systems to fail

It gets even harder when our decisions depend on a group, especially family members. I actually missed out on a job opportunity today that could have been really good for me, all because I ended up being influenced by what other people thought was best.

Jason Snell's piece touches on something that most people who work with online content eventually feel but rarely articulate clearly: the RSS inbox model is a productivity metaphor applied to a leisure activity, and that friction is real. The core tension he identifies is not technical, it is psychological. Terry Godier's essay "Phantom Obligation" describes the pressure that turns reading from a pleasure into a chore, and that concept has a measurable basis. Research on what behavioral economists call "completion bias" shows that humans feel disproportionate discomfort when a list is unfinished, regardless of whether the items on it actually matter. RSS readers exploited this pattern perfectly, with unread counts functioning more like a guilt engine than an information tool. Snell eventually realized that he opens his RSS reader once a day, reads what interests him from the past 48 hours, and then closes the app. That is actually a remarkably disciplined workflow, and it is worth noting that it mirrors exactly how people consumed print newspapers for a century: a single daily bundle, curated by editors, discarded after reading. The irony is that the internet gave us the tools to receive everything in real time, and a significant portion of thoughtful readers have spent fifteen years building systems to recreate the old newspaper model. The newsletter angle is particularly interesting from a structural standpoint. Snell considers whether subscribing to more newsletters and dropping the equivalent RSS feeds might actually be better, using the San Francisco Chronicle as a specific example of a source that offers daily newsletters but no RSS. This is not just a personal workflow preference, it reflects a broader shift in how publishers think about audience retention. Newsletters put content inside an inbox the reader controls, while RSS requires the reader to proactively go somewhere. Publishers figured this out around 2015 and have been deprioritizing RSS ever since. The Substack boom from 2020 onward only accelerated that dynamic. Snell's most honest observation is the realization that what he actually wants is not to "read RSS" but to "read what he wants" using an app that makes that easy, and he acknowledges he does not yet know what that app is or what it should be called. That gap is significant. It suggests the category is genuinely unsolved, not because the technology is missing but because no one has designed around the actual reading behavior rather than the content delivery mechanism. The subtext worth noting here, especially for anyone building platforms around content consumption, is that the format through which content arrives increasingly shapes whether it gets read at all. Snell is not questioning what to read. He is questioning the container, and that is the question publishers and platform builders should be asking more often.

The anniversary collection features a translucent "OG Green" design inspired by the original Xbox, and here is the point worth reflecting on: this is calculated nostalgia, not a bet on the future. The original Xbox launched in November 2001, entered the market as a third player (Sony dominated with the PS2, Nintendo with the GameCube), and never actually won that generation in terms of sales. Celebrating 25 years of that console is, therefore, a way of rewriting the narrative, transforming the underdog into a cultural icon. The controller's bumpers pay homage to the black and white buttons of the "Duke," the original Xbox controller that became infamous for its enormous size and was replaced just months after launch. Including that reference is a self-aware gesture the community will appreciate, but it also exposes the irony: they are celebrating a design mistake as a historical artifact. From a strategic standpoint, launching this product in November 2026 makes complete sense. Sony launched the PS5 Pro in November 2024 at $699, and the current generation is already entering its maturity phase. Anniversary limited editions serve two measurable purposes: they reactivate buyers who already own the base console (pushing them toward an upgrade for emotional rather than technical reasons) and they function as collectibles that sustain brand value in end-of-generation cycles. The article reveals no price or preorder window, and that says a lot. Microsoft has been under pressure to justify hardware value in a context where Game Pass is increasingly the core product. A limited edition with no price announced at reveal suggests they are still calibrating their positioning against Sony and the collector market. The most telling detail is this: it is the first time Microsoft has brought a translucent design to the Xbox Series X. Nintendo did something similar with the N64 and the Game Boy Color in the 1990s, and that aesthetic made a massive comeback in the gaming market in recent years. Microsoft is, in a sense, riding a visual trend it did not create, but it makes sense to leverage it at an anniversary moment. At the end of the day, this product is less about hardware and more about brand identity. In a market where Xbox has lost significant share to PlayStation across two generations, celebrating 25 years is also a way of saying: we are still here, and we have history. It is high-precision emotional marketing.