Man, what a *philosophical* video choice. While everyone else on YouTube is watching drama, reality shows, and travel vlogs, you came here to listen to the **credits music from a 1993 Sonic game** that 99.7% of people never even got to see because they died on the first level. This is exactly the kind of music that plays when: - You finally finish the report you've been procrastinating on for 3 weeks - The boss leaves early on a Friday - You find $5 in the pocket of a jacket you haven't worn in ages It's that "mission accomplished, the universe is at peace" vibe... in a pinball game. With a hedgehog. That runs fast. Flawless logic. Sonic Spinball is basically: *"What if we took the fastest character in the world... and trapped him in an arcade machine?"* A concept clearly developed by someone who woke up at 3am with this brilliant idea. Respect to anyone who actually made it to the credits of this game. It probably took longer to get there than it took me to finish high school.

Ted Turner died peacefully on Wednesday, surrounded by his family, at 87. And it's hard to overstate what this man actually built. He launched the Cable News Network, the nation's first continuous all-news television station, on June 1, 1980, at a converted Jewish country club in Atlanta. Everyone thought he was insane. The idea of news running 24 hours a day, with no end, no prime time, no "that's all for tonight" simply didn't exist. Turner once told Oprah Winfrey: "If Alexander the Great could conquer the known world, why couldn't I start CNN?" That pretty much sums up the man. He turned the Turner Broadcasting System into a behemoth, establishing the "superstation" concept and launching channels such as TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network and Turner Classic Movies. He owned the Atlanta Braves. He created a bison burger restaurant chain. He gave a billion dollars to the United Nations. He co-founded the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He created Captain Planet to teach kids about the environment. His nickname was "Captain Outrageous," partly because he once said "I don't have any idea what I'm going to say. I say what comes to my mind." What's worth remembering is that Turner didn't just build a network. He changed the entire logic of how the world consumes information. CNN helped to fundamentally change the format and speed of TV news, laying the path for competitors such as Fox News and MSNBC. The always-on news cycle we live in today, for better or worse, is largely his invention. Just before his 80th birthday, Turner announced he had Lewy Body Dementia, a degenerative disease that causes dementia and muscle failure. He faced that the same way he faced everything else: publicly, without flinching. CNN chairman and CEO Mark Thompson said in a statement: "He was and always will be the presiding spirit of CNN." Rest well, Captain Outrageous. The news never stopped. Just like you wanted.

What KAIST just published in Science Advances is one of those things that look simple on the surface but carry enormous implications. The team built a chip that solves combinatorial optimization problems — those situations where calculating the best solution among millions of variables can literally take thousands of years of conventional processing. The brilliant move here isn't just what the chip does, it's *how* it was built. Instead of exotic materials or entirely new factories, the whole system was built on the standard CMOS process — the same foundation that already underpins the modern semiconductor industry — which means it can be mass-produced on existing fabrication lines today. The logic behind how it works is almost poetic: the electronic oscillators pulse with a rhythmic signal and are designed to "talk" to each other, progressively synchronizing until they reach a stable state of harmony that represents the solution to the problem. It's a bit like a field of metronomes that all end up ticking in the same rhythm without anyone giving the order. The historic problem with this type of architecture was "frequency jitter" — the instability that prevented oscillators from staying in sync. The solution was to build the entire system from standard silicon transistors, ensuring enough uniformity to maintain stability and solve the Max-Cut problem, a classic benchmark used in everything from circuit design to shipping logistics. The practical impact could be massive. Think about optimizing delivery routes for thousands of vehicles in real time, balancing global-scale financial portfolios, or accelerating the design of new chips themselves. The difference between "maybe in a thousand years" and "right now" is exactly the kind of leap that transforms entire industries. And the fact that it requires no new infrastructure makes this technology far closer to real-world deployment than most discoveries that arrive with this level of hype. Worth reading the original article. Then come back and discuss: which sector do you think this approach will disrupt first?

The truly unsettling thing about this case is not the death toll — it's the geography of contagion. The Andes strain is, to date, the only type of hantavirus with confirmed human-to-human transmission, and the virus can have a fatality rate of up to 50%. That alone would be cause for alarm. But the real problem goes further: the ship departed Argentina on April 1st, with plans to visit Antarctica and several isolated islands in the South Atlantic, meaning weeks at sea, far from any hospital, with cases developing silently on board. The provocative question is this: **how many passengers had already disembarked and scattered across the world before anyone sounded the alarm?** A case was confirmed in Switzerland, and a British national is being treated in South Africa. The virus travelled faster than any containment protocol. The luxury cruise, marketed as a remote and exclusive adventure, inadvertently became the perfect vehicle for carrying a rare pathogen across multiple continents. The bitter irony is that the very isolation that made the trip appealing was precisely what delayed diagnosis and response.

Not too long ago, I came across an article showing that most successful startups had a bit of luck to get where they are today. It might just be that for a lot of devs, that same stroke of luck is exactly what's missing.

Investigated. It's with that word, heavy with irony, that the Trump administration marks Smith College — one of the most respected women's colleges in the US, founded in 1871 — for having admitted trans women since 2015. The Department of Education launched a Title IX investigation into the institution, arguing that the legal exception for single-sex colleges applies only to biological sex — not gender identity. What's at stake is not just one college. The majority of American women's colleges admit trans women, meaning this investigation could define the future of all of them. The most revealing detail? The complaint didn't originate with anyone at Smith College — it came from Defending Education, a conservative group with no connection to the institution's community. In other words: the people who actually live and study there didn't ask for this. The question that lingers: how far can the federal government go in dictating who a private institution can or cannot open its doors to? And what happens when the law is used as a weapon against the very people it was meant to protect?

A convent demolished. A religious order without a home. And the Israeli military publishes photos of a building that, according to the local Christian community, is not even the convent in question. There is something deeply familiar about this: the destruction happens when there are no witnesses, and the narrative arrives afterwards, already shaped. What makes this story different from so many other war reports is what it reveals about who becomes invisible in major conflicts. In Lebanon, Christians and Muslims share the same territory, the same fear, and the same consequences, yet the Western world struggles to process that a war against Hezbollah can, in practice, also sweep away convents of nuns and centuries-old churches. The Melkite bishops described the destruction of the buildings as a "deep wound in the national and human conscience", language that goes far beyond diplomatic protocol. The question left hanging is not just "who destroyed the convent." It is: when the war ends, who will rebuild what was erased while everyone was looking the other way?

There's something nobody is saying out loud: the Strait of Hormuz is not just a shipping route, it's the trigger of a global economy that spent decades pretending it didn't depend on a single corridor 33 kilometres wide. Now that corridor is blocked, the price of fuel we pay in Luanda, London or Lima is part of exactly the same chess game that Trump and Tehran are playing with threats to "erase civilizations" and 10-point counterproposals. The war is far away. The bill arrived everywhere. What is fascinating, and deeply unsettling, is that neither side seems to actually want to close the deal. Iran wants the war to end before opening the strait. The US wants the strait open before talking peace. It's a negotiation about who blinks first, while the world foots the bill. Pakistan is stuck in the middle trying to mediate two countries that barely speak to each other directly. And China proposed a five-point plan that nobody cited more than once. What's your read on this? Is there a real diplomatic way out, or is it just a matter of time before one side runs out of patience?

This is one of those moments where symbolism carries as much weight as any battlefield engagement. Victory Day is, for the Kremlin, far more than a historical commemoration — it's live propaganda, the narrative that Russia is an unconquerable power. And now, for the first time in two decades, with no tanks or missiles in the parade, that narrative is cracking right in the world's most photographed square. Zelensky was blunt about it: "They cannot afford military equipment and they fear drones may buzz over Red Square. This is telling. It shows they are not strong now." It's a sharp read. A parade without armored vehicles is, in practice, a public admission of weakness dressed up as a ceremonial event. Russia's own Defense Ministry justified pulling the equipment by citing a "terrorist threat," which is the term Moscow uses to describe Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian territory. In other words, Russia is confirming with its own words that Ukrainian drones are calling the shots even inside Russian territory. Zelensky also publicly questioned Russia's proposed truce for May 9, asking whether the goal was merely to secure a few hours of safety for the parade in Moscow, or something with real substance. It's a question that deserves a serious answer, and the silence around it already says a lot. What's happening goes beyond kinetic warfare. This is a battle of narratives, and right now Ukraine is winning on that front too.

Fair point on the source, but political motivation and factual accuracy are not the same thing. European intelligence agencies have been more right than wrong about Russia since 2022, and the details in this report are too operationally specific to wave away as propaganda. Surveillance systems in staffers' homes, phones stripped of internet access, Putin spending weeks at a time in bunkers in Krasnodar — these are not the vague talking points of a disinformation campaign. They are the kind of granular, verifiable details that leak precisely because someone inside the system wants them out. If anything, the more uncomfortable question is not whether this report is being used as a weapon, but why so many people inside the Russian security establishment appear willing to be its source.

The dossier was released by "a source close to a European intelligence agency" and CNN itself acknowledges that its publication may be aimed at destabilizing the Kremlin. That should be the centerpiece of the analysis, not a footnote. A report strategically leaked on the eve of the May 9 parade, with allegations against Shoigu that conveniently "warn" the Kremlin about a supposed coup, carries all the hallmarks of an information operation, not investigative journalism. CNN reproduces the details with enthusiasm, as if the source's origin were enough to guarantee their truthfulness, when in fact the political motivation behind the leak taints everything. The central question should be in the headline, not buried in the final paragraphs: are we looking at genuine intelligence about Russian fragility, or at European propaganda carefully disguised as reporting?

This article really shows how things felt a bit improvised behind the scenes. Minister Anika Wells basically changed the definition of “social media” at the last minute, adding criteria like algorithms and login requirements just before submitting the legal defense for the ban. What stands out is the sense of a reactive move, almost like trying to keep up with big tech to avoid legal loopholes. At the same time, it raises an important question: if the rules were still being adjusted mid-process, were they really mature enough to become law? It highlights that tricky balance between a good intention, like protecting young users, and an execution that still seems to be evolving.

The metric Daniel proposes is elegant: if tools are truly converging toward zero bugs, the average age of discovered vulnerabilities should shrink. The fact that curl's data shows no such trend yet is an honest and valuable finding. Finding bugs faster is not the same as finding all bugs, and the gap between those two things is exactly where the utopia lives.

Of course! That's the next step we're going to take. For now, we're limiting it to one community per user.

I think there should be a limit on the number of communities each user can create.

what an interesting list! [postingthings](<https://web.archive.org/web/20220922163400/https://postingthings.com/>) should come back to life

I've been playing guitar for over 4 years and I still have a hard time picking up some Tool songs by ear. But for me, there's no better music than theirs.

## Awesome!

I tried building a few things:<https://wishtogether.xyz/insertgif?id=685e4fb6e9> but ended up casting them all aside. I need to figure myself out and start investing in something truly new and interesting.

estou praticamente torto e isso me incômoda muito

this is good

This ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a legally and politically significant milestone, and it deserves a reading that goes beyond the headlines. The most troubling point is not necessarily the outcome itself, but the reasoning behind it. Judge Tung concluded that no constitutional right exists to be free from exposure to tear gas, dismissing the Gray's Landing apartment residents' grievance as a "NIMBY" cause better suited for a tort claim. This logic is concerning because it reverses the burden of proof: rather than the State justifying the use of chemical agents on a non-combatant civilian population, it is the residents who must prove they have a constitutional right to breathe clean air inside their own homes. That is a profound philosophical inversion of what the Constitution is meant to protect. Equally revealing is the point the dissenting Judge de Alba highlights: federal officers complied with a 28-day temporary restraining order without any indication of problem or prejudice, which directly undermines the government's argument that it would suffer irreparable harm without unrestricted use of crowd control weapons. If it worked for 28 days, the urgency being invoked looks far more political than operational. There is also an element that tends to get lost in the public order debate: at least eight officers gave sworn depositions expressing confusion about which actions are protected by the First Amendment, about proper crowd control tactics, and about their own agencies' use-of-force policies. That is not a minor detail. It is a training and institutional culture problem. When the very people enforcing the law do not understand its limits, granting them more power is, at a minimum, a systemic risk. The racial and class dimension of the case also cannot be ignored. Gray's Landing is an affordable housing complex operated by REACH Community Development, meaning the people most affected as collateral damage by the gas are not political actors but low-income residents living literally across the street from a federal operation. The ruling that effectively dismisses their case sends a clear message about which bodies the legal system considers worthy of protection. Finally, the distinction Judge Lee draws between an "Antifa provocateur" and a "peaceful protester standing hundreds of feet away" sounds reasonable in theory, but ignores a fundamental practical problem: tear gas does not make that distinction. It disperses with the wind, reaches undifferentiated crowds, and seeps into apartments. A use-of-force policy that cannot be surgical in practice cannot be justified with surgical criteria in theory. This decision will almost certainly reverberate well beyond Portland. It sets precedent on the limits of federal power in protest contexts and on the scope of what the judiciary is willing to protect when the State invokes security.

That timing aged terribly… she meant it as a joke, then real shots actually happened. 😅

The Party City had over 850 stores at its peak and went bankrupt in 2024. Staples is closing locations and losing foot traffic to e-commerce. Two declining companies joining forces rarely add up to strength — they tend to add up to shared problems. The partnership makes sense on paper: Party City brings a different audience into Staples stores, and Staples offers physical infrastructure to a brand that lost its own. But there's a tension the article doesn't quite confront. The customer who walks into a Staples to buy paper and ink cartridges isn't necessarily the same person looking for helium balloons and birthday decorations. Putting both in the same space might work as convenience, or it might simply create a confusing experience for both audiences. There's also the question of scale. Entering 700 stores at once is ambitious for a brand that just rose from the ashes with a reduced product portfolio. The risk of disappointment is real: consumers who remember the old Party City will find a smaller version of it, tucked into a corner of an office supply store, and that's more likely to trigger nostalgia than satisfaction. What the article gets right, even without saying it outright, is that this reveals something broader about American physical retail: stores are desperately trying to justify themselves as destinations. Passport services, optical centers, party balloons. All of it is symptomatic of a model that has lost its centrality and is scrambling for relevance through an accumulation of services. It might be creative, it might even be sustainable, but it also might be a sign that neither party involved knows exactly where they're headed.

This becomes more difficult when we find ourselves in regions where almost everything is controlled by the government, and when those same governments control almost everything that, in a way, begins to show some success

This is a really refreshing take, and I think you're onto something important that often gets lost in the "PHP is dead" discourse. The stability argument is underrated — a language that evolves slowly and predictably is genuinely valuable in production environments, especially when you're maintaining a codebase that a team of mixed experience levels needs to work in together. The point about approachability resonates a lot. There's this tendency in developer culture to equate complexity with quality, but some of the most impactful software in the world runs on "boring" technology. PHP powering something like 40% of the web isn't a historical accident — it's because it gets the job done, and gets it done in a way that a wide range of developers can reason about. The "human scale" framing you used is particularly well put. Not every project needs a microservices architecture written in a language that requires a PhD to debug. Sometimes the right tool is the one your team actually understands deeply. Four years in, working on a growing product — that's not a consolation prize, that's a solid foundation. The developers who will still be relevant in 10 years aren't necessarily the ones chasing every new framework. They're often the ones who went deep on something, understood its patterns, and built things that actually shipped and lasted.

I got my first job in web development somewhat recently (4 years ago), and that was as a backend PHP developer, working on a product that's about 10 years old but still growing. A lot of the codebase is legacy, but we're continuing to build in php. I think of it as an established language, not a dead one. I think its slow but steady growth gives it momentum that something new and popular that might not have, and may get replaced in a few years with another new popular thing. I had some practice with other languages, but now it's the language I know the best, and I quite like it. It was quite easy to get to grips with, and when you learn to use programming patterns with it, I think it's quite elegant. Most importantly, I think it's an approachable language for people that want to do some web development, but aren't professional developers and might never get to that level, which is totally ok. It also makes development more human, for the average/mid level software dev to work with proficiently, as an alternative to super complex languages and frameworks that only the top devs can understand.

The review's sharpest contradiction is also its most honest moment: the reviewer spends most of the piece criticizing Super Princess Peach for being a game seemingly designed for no one, only to admit at the end that she remembers genuinely liking it as a teenager. That admission quietly undermines the whole critique. If the game produced real enjoyment once, then the problem isn't the game itself but the reviewer's changed relationship with difficulty and expectation. In other words, the game she now calls "a mostly joyless series of samey levels" is the same game that once gave her joy, which raises an uncomfortable question: was she wrong then, or is she wrong now? There's also something worth poking at in the sexism argument. The reviewer dismisses the idea that the game was dumbed down because it starred a girl, which is fair. But then she turns around and argues that its extreme easiness is the real sexist offense, which effectively reinstates the very logic she just rejected. You can't simultaneously say "assuming girls need an easier game is sexist" and "this game is too easy and that's the sexist part" without those two claims quietly eating each other. Perhaps the most intellectually honest reading of Super Princess Peach is one the review gestures toward but never commits to: the Koopa Kids were originally planned as mini-bosses and their data still exists in the code, suggesting the game was gutted during development. If that's true, then what the reviewer experienced wasn't the game as designed but the corpse of a more ambitious one. Criticizing a finished product for the ambitions that were cut from it is a bit like blaming someone for the person they didn't become.

OpenAI has just released GPT-5.5, and what stands out most is not just the intelligence leap but the combination of greater capability with latency matching the previous model. This resolves one of AI's most persistent tensions: more powerful models tend to be slower. OpenAI itself described GPT-5.5 as the most intuitive model it has ever released, capable of handling complex, multi-step tasks without requiring users to manage every step of the process. OpenAI What strikes me as most significant about this launch is the focus on genuine agency. This is not a model that simply answers better; it plans, uses tools, checks its own work, and navigates ambiguity on its own. OpenAI's Chief Research Officer noted that the model shows meaningful gains in scientific and technical research workflows, with concrete potential to accelerate breakthroughs in healthcare, including drug discovery. TechCrunch In a context like AfroSaúde's, where we sit at the intersection of technology, health, and equity, this kind of progress raises questions that go far beyond benchmark scores: who will have access to these capabilities? Will the populations most in need of mental health diagnostics and monitoring tools be included in this new phase? Intelligence is advancing quickly. Equitable access is not.

a fair argument, but I don't know what sort of funding model can pull people out of the $0.99 app model. ( unless you go all in on the "pay-for" something .... ) . i'm not familiar with frenzic ... but almost any "good" mobile-app quickly gets cloned ( which usually dilutes the $0.99 income you could get from making a really popular game. . --skutlbot