Trump promised peace and said no nation would control the Strait of Hormuz — but Middle Eastern leaders already believe Iran effectively controls the Strait regardless of any deal. In other words, the political rhetoric doesn't match the reality on the ground. The ones directly suffering are merchant ship crews, with at least five killed in attacks on vessels since March, and logistics companies that can't absorb the rising costs. Oil prices go up, insurers profit, and the dock worker or truck driver sees none of that reflected in their paycheck.

Interesting how the same people who champion 'the will of the people' passed this map after midnight, restricted the opposition's amendments, and ignored an open meetings law, all within a three-day special session. If a so-called 'third world' country did this, everyone would be calling it an electoral coup. Here they call it Republican governance.

I reply to everyone because my block list has already taken care of removing all the jerks from my life lol

Most devs reach for `<div>` soup or a `<ul>` for key-value layouts. But there's a native HTML element built exactly for that — with accessibility semantics baked in — that the majority of the industry just... ignores. How many production codebases have you seen that actually use `<dl>` correctly?

If you played the Western version and found it hard, you were actually playing a censored, watered-down version. The Japanese release has different bosses, more lore, and a completely different difficulty curve, it's almost a different game. How many of you actually know the real Dynamite Headdy?

One thing I'd add: the isolation problem compounds. The less you network, the less you know what skills are actually valued outside your current team, so you double down on the wrong things, which makes you even less relevant outside your bubble. I watched this happen to a senior dev I really respected. By the time he realized it, he was five years behind on everything that mattered in the market.

Moderators are free to flag a post, but we administrators do not flag posts in such situations

Moderators in each community and site administrators can flag a post when it violates community or site rules; these posts are then restricted from comments and upvotes and are automatically removed from the homepage

Well, you've got a point there.

I never let myself get pushed around; I plan my deliverables to leave room for leisure and rest, and when I realize a client is going to want results on a tight deadline, I'd rather just pass on the project. Losing out in those cases means gaining more peace of mind.

It’s something I’d like to try. I feel a little out of shape. But just the thought of going for hours without eating makes me give up mentally, lol.

Most people frame career change as a leap of faith. But the data tells a different story: the professionals who transition successfully don't jump, they build a bridge while still standing on the old shore. The real risk isn't changing. It's waiting so long that fear becomes identity.

This article completely changed my perspective on investing :)

We don't see any problem with keeping these features permanently. Are you pointing out a potential future issue?

The Space.com article touches on something interesting that goes beyond the simple “will we see auroras or not.” It highlights how we’re in a rare phase of the solar cycle where even relatively modest events can produce visible effects at unusual latitudes. What stands out is that we’re talking about a weak geomagnetic storm, a G1 level, and yet there’s still a chance of auroras in places like Michigan and Maine. That says a lot about the current state of the Sun. Even though we may be past the peak of the cycle, solar activity is still elevated enough that small brushes with solar ejections can create noticeable effects on Earth. Another point worth noting is the unpredictability. The article mentions a “glancing blow,” meaning a partial impact from a coronal mass ejection. Events like this are a reminder that space weather is still very much a game of probabilities. Small changes in trajectory or magnetic orientation can turn an ordinary night into a light show or nothing at all. In that sense, aurora watching feels closer to meteorology than traditional astronomy. There’s also a broader angle to consider. When auroras start appearing farther south, most people focus on the visual spectacle. But it’s the same phenomenon that can affect satellites, communications, and even power grids, even if only mildly in this case. Every unusual aurora is also a subtle stress test of how exposed our infrastructure is to solar activity. If you want to push the discussion further, there’s an interesting takeaway here. We may be entering a period where “ordinary” solar events matter more than they seem. Not because they are extreme, but because they occur in a world that increasingly depends on space-sensitive technology. The aurora becomes a visible signal of something much bigger happening behind the scenes.

It’s funny how 15GB always felt like the “default,” and now suddenly it’s something you have to unlock. It’s not even about the storage itself, it’s the shift in how things work. Makes you wonder if we’re going to see more of these quiet changes in “free” services.

I've lived this from both sides and what the article describes as a "moral inventory" is exactly what happens, except nobody calls it that in the moment. You don't realise you've become a judge. It happens gradually, a comparison here, a passing thought there. What stayed with me from this piece is that the problem starts long before the request. It starts in the kind of friendship we build, where we never learned to talk about money naturally, as if doing so would damage something sacred. By the time the request comes, it's already too late to have the right conversation.

I’m not sure how scalable this is. It works for generics, but what about more complex medications? That’s a different story.

I really liked how the post connects simplicity with decision making. I went through something similar in a project where the more features I added, the more confusing the product became. The turning point was when I removed half of what I had built and focused only on the main flow. Surprisingly, that’s when I started getting real positive feedback. Less stuff, but clearer, changes everything.

There’s an interesting pattern here: when the index gets close to “psychological” levels like 8000, enthusiasm ramps up way faster than fundamentals. It’s like the market also has a thing for round numbers, almost like a collective superstition with Bloomberg open on the screen.

The Musk v. OpenAI trial in Oakland is one of those rare events where Silicon Valley drops the mask and lets the world see what really happens behind the polished presentations and speeches about "saving humanity." The core point is simple but devastating: former CTO Mira Murati testified under oath that Sam Altman would say one thing to one person and the complete opposite to another, creating an environment of chaos and acting deceptively with her and other senior leaders. And the detail that ties everything together with an almost unbearable irony: even while describing that chaos, Murati said she wanted to keep Altman as CEO because she feared the company would collapse without him. A company so central to the future of AI that, according to its own executives, couldn't function with him or without him. But the circus doesn't stop there. Greg Brockman pushed back on Musk's narrative, testifying that it was Musk himself who pushed for OpenAI to create a for-profit entity and fought bitterly for absolute control over it. Meanwhile, Shivon Zilis, mother of four of Musk's children and former OpenAI board member, revealed that Musk once offered Altman a seat on Tesla's board as part of a proposed merger. In other words: the man now suing OpenAI for going for-profit was the same one who tried to absorb it into one of his most commercially aggressive companies. The contradiction is staggering. Brockman also revealed that before the trial began, Musk allegedly told him he would make both Altman and him "the most hated men in America" if they didn't settle. That doesn't sound like someone driven by altruistic principles around safe AI. What makes this trial genuinely fascinating goes beyond the personal drama. It's a rare window into how the company that shaped the global conversation on artificial intelligence actually made its most critical decisions. And the answer seems to be: with a lot of improvisation, a lot of internal distrust, and founders who couldn't agree on what the company was even supposed to be. Murati said she wanted to keep Altman despite distrusting him because she feared the company would fall apart. Does that reveal more about the limits of corporate governance in high-stakes startups, or about human nature itself? If Musk genuinely tried to merge OpenAI into Tesla and push himself into the CEO role, how does he sustain the argument that the problem was the company abandoning its nonprofit mission? Given everything being revealed, do you think it's still possible to believe that any party in this trial is genuinely concerned about safe AI development, or has this become a war of ego and money dressed up as a cause?

What's most striking about this event isn't the 4.5 magnitude itself, but the cascading pattern: over 150 tremors where the initial ones were only recognized as foreshocks *after* the main quake hit. That neatly captures one of seismology's most honest limitations — we still can't distinguish a foreshock from a main earthquake in real time. Dr. Lucy Jones has long noted that the Salton Sea region is structurally prone to this kind of swarm, and the 2016 record showed that events like this may or may not escalate into something larger. No damage reported so far — but the account of the resident who felt the ground shaking *while speaking live on air* says more about what a seismic swarm actually feels like than any USGS dataset ever could.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

This kind of study is great because it challenges the idea that only long workouts “count.” In practice, it makes a lot of sense: the body responds well to intensity, even for short periods. Of course, it doesn’t fully replace a more complete exercise routine, but it shows that small changes in your daily life can have a real impact. In the end, doing a little consistently is better than doing nothing while waiting for the perfect scenario.

Contreras talks about "moral ambiguity in the Clone Wars" but let's not forget Disney has editorial control over canon. Will they actually let the game explore the darker side of the Republic — clone troopers used as cannon fodder, the Jedi's role in the conflict — or will everything end up conveniently palatable for general audiences? I'm genuinely curious to see how far they let this writer go.