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.

I agree the Wings played well, but I'm not hitting the panic button after one game. The Fever lost by 3 points, on the road, in the season opener, that's not a collapse, that's an adjustment game. Clark coming back from injury, new additions like Raven Johnson still finding their footing... give it some time. What actually worries me is the defensive consistency that fell apart in the final minutes. If Indiana tightens that up, the Clark-Boston-Mitchell trio is going to be unstoppable. Anyone else think it's way too early to draw conclusions?

Dallas winning 107-104 right out of the gate says a lot about what this season is going to look like. Everyone showed up to watch the Clark vs. Bueckers matchup, but it was the Wings' collective effort that won the game. New coach, new offensive philosophy — Fernandez came in meaning business. Does anyone else think Dallas is going to surprise a lot more people this year than anyone expected?

The hardest part wasn't the decision. It was realizing that how you handle the exit says more about your leadership than how you handled the growth.

The thought took me back to a time in my life when I would give anything to experience that one more time.

Who would have thought that Apple, the company that spent years humiliating Intel with those "Get a Mac" campaigns and then ditched them entirely in 2020 to build its own chips, would come knocking again. But this time the game is different: Apple doesn't want Intel's designs, it wants the factory. And that changes everything. Trump personally advocated for the move, and the U.S. government, which holds a 10% stake in Intel, actively worked to bring Apple to the negotiating table. So this isn't just a tech deal, it's industrial policy dressed up as a press release. What really intrigues me is the timing. Intel's 18A node is still described by analysts as "a little rough," and Apple's serious bet is likely on the 18A-P, which only scales next year. Apple is reserving a spot in a factory that isn't at its best yet. It's a long-term play to never again be fully dependent on Taiwan, and that says a lot about the state of the world right now. The question I'll leave you with: if Intel manages to prove it's a viable second supplier for Apple, how many other giants will follow to reduce their exposure to TSMC?

I really like using social media when I'm not in a position to run a campaign on Google Ads or Facebook Ads. I don't use Discord, so I can't tell you if it's a good way to promote your service. SEO could also be a big help for you. To break the ice, I'm bringing [this post here](<https://chat-to.dev/post?id=NDZycjBiZEZESkgxUU1BUFBsK2xaQT09>) which I think might be useful in some way for those cases.

The ceasefire exists on paper, but the Strait of Hormuz is still a battlefield. Trump calls it a "love tap" while Iran calls it a violation of the agreement, as Tehran promises victory and Washington promises "glows." Two sides negotiating with one hand extended and the other clenched behind their backs. The nuclear question remains unresolved, and the American proposal demands exactly what Iran declared non-negotiable. When both sides simultaneously claim victory, either one of them is wrong — or both are setting up the next round.

This case is interesting because it mixes a few things at once: internet culture, the search for attention, and a very thin line between creating content to go viral and crossing into criminal behavior. What stands out most is not just what allegedly happened, but the context around it. The person is not simply recording something unusual, they are operating within a logic of audience and performance. That raises an important question: to what extent does the social media environment push people toward more extreme actions just to stay relevant? Another key point is how the word “allegedly” shapes perception. Many people see a video and assume everything is already proven, while journalism uses that term because the legal process is still ongoing. It seems small, but it completely changes how the public interprets the situation. There is also the uncomfortable layer of online subcultures like looksmaxxing, where individuals can become symbols of extreme behavior. Some see it as entertainment, others as real harmful influence. The boundary between persona and real life starts to blur. At the end, the case opens a bigger discussion. Is the internet rewarding increasingly extreme behavior because it gets attention, or are these individuals already inclined toward it and simply finding a stage online?

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