You could always cut out the middle man and have cancer surgically implanted in your lungs.
25,572 karma · joined April 13, 2014
\ don@donhopkins.com
FORTH ?KNOW IF HONK ELSE FORTH LEARN THEN
: C(-; LICK SMILE NOSE WINK ;
\ FORTH PAPER TAPE PUNCHER:
: PT# ( L --- L/2 )
DUP 1 AND IF
ASCII @
ELSE BL THEN
HOLD
2/
;
: PT. ( N --- )
<# PT# PT# PT#
ASCII . HOLD
PT# PT# PT# PT#
#> TYPE
;
: CUT
." -----------" CR
;
: PTAPE
CUT
BEGIN
KEY ?DUP WHILE
DUP ." |" PT. ." |" SPACE EMIT CR
REPEAT
CUT
;
; Lisp:
(defun caar (x) (car (car x)))
(defun caaar (x) (car (car (car x))))
(defun caaaar (x) (car (car (car (car x)))))
\ Forth:
: droop drop drop ;
: drooop drop drop drop ;
: droooop drop drop drop drop ;
% PostScript:
/poop { pop pop } def
/pooop { pop pop pop } def
/poooop { pop pop pop pop } defhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40634902
Guy L Steele wrote "Double Bucky" in 1978:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372023
Double Bucky
(C) 1978 by Guy L. Steele, Jr.
(Sung to the tune of "Rubber Duckie")
Double bucky, you're the one!
You make my keyboard lots of fun
Double bucky, an additional bit or two:
(Vo-vo-de-o!)
Control and Meta side by side,
Augmented ASCII, nine bits wide!
Double bucky, a half a thousand glyphs,
plus a few!
Oh,
I sure wish that I
Had a couple of
bits more!
Perhaps a
Set of pedals to
Make the number of
Bits four:
Double double bucky!
Double bucky, left and right
OR'd together, outta sight!
Double bucky, I'd like a whole word of
Double bucky, I'm happy I heard of
Double bucky, I'd like a whole
word of you!
The UniPress Emacs icon was a unicorn, because after you held down all the modifier keys with both hands, you need a horn on your head to press the actual letter.
So "Uni[Corn Key]Press Emacs".
You can see it in the lower left corner of this screen snapshot, but the horn is covered by a tabbed emacs window:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_(interface)#/media/File:Hy...
Sun format Unicorn icon from the UniPress Emacs sources:
https://github.com/SimHacker/NeMACS/blob/main/src/D.sun/unic...
Xerox Star put labeled keys in a left-hand cluster meant to work with the mouse in the other hand, which is the Engelbart pairing. Apple chose not to. Printing Copy on C would have been the cheap half of that lesson.
The missing keycaps are still the small complaint. The theft was the words.
Ted Nelson, 1999, in his own type:
http://hyperland.com/TedCompOneLiners
>Consider the "clipboard" on the Mac, PC or XWindows. It's just like a regular clipboard, except (a) you can't see it, (b) it holds only one object, (c) whatever you put there destroys the previous contents. Aside from that, IT'S JUST LIKE A REGULAR CLIPBOARD IN EVERY OTHER RESPECT-- EXCEPT THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER RESPECTS!
>I see this pseudo-clipboard as stupidity at its height: a really terrible, destructive mechanism, excused by a word that makes it sound somehow okay. It is a further offense-- the greatest atrocity in the computer field, I believe-- that the crippled and destructive functions of this pseudo-clipboard have been falsely given the names "cut" and "paste"-- which for decades have meant something ENTIRELY different to writers, the function of parallel rearrangement with all things visible.
He said it again at BayCHI in 2021. YouTube's auto-captions turned one line into "many signs sound okay." I wrote him. He did not argue with the sense of the passage. He did correct one attribution: "long form work" is Tesler's phrase, from their emails, not Ted's. Cleaned transcript of the public talk (intent, not a court reporter):
Copy of HCI Constructs Then and Now with Ted Nelson:
https://youtu.be/dOLXLk8TbxQ?t=661
>So what does cut and paste mean today? Those holy words, referring to the highest faculties of an author's overview, have been assigned to a strange construct called the clipboard: an invisible buffer. You can't see it, and it holds only one object. In other respects it is like a physical clipboard, except there aren't any other respects.
>So cut and paste -- those formerly sacred words for the mind's highest faculty -- have been used to propagandize this abominable construct. These features should have been called hide and plug, but somehow using those familiar old words makes them sound okay, like the words "national socialism." So they could at least have made it visible and made it a stack for rearrangement. But oh no.
>Now this crime against humanity -- calling the hide-and-plug functions cut and paste -- was perpetrated by a good friend of mine, the late Larry Tesler. And he kept insisting to me -- we had many emails on the subject -- that the real cut and paste was only for very specialist long-form work.
NY Times copy boy (1960s): First morning task — scrape dried paste from glass pots, refill with wet library paste (three on city desk, foreign, economics). Reporters cut sections, paste down, rewrite between. Yell copy → pneumatic tube to typesetting. "This was called cut and paste and indeed it was."
Grandmother's Tolstoy story: Daughter's lecture — Tolstoy dictates two longhand copies; one filed, one cut up all over the dacha floor; walking in woods: "Don't touch my noodles"; returns to paste in new order and dictate next draft.
Slide (Ted Selker showed): Ted's 1965 ACM article noodles — bad reproduction of actual cutting/pasting with photo of real noodles.
A keycap that says Paste would still be hide-and-plug. It would just confess on the plastic. What writers meant was noodles on the table, everything visible, rearrange, then paste. Ted still does that with scissors.
Real cut and paste-- STILL NEEDED BY WRITERS !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_35RDA6r3g
>The terms "cut" and "paste" were redefined in 1984, when the Macintosh came out-- "cut" now meant HIDE and "paste" meant PLUG-- and as a result, there are no decent tools for large-scale rearrangement.
>Tolstoy cut his manuscripts into pieces that he called his "noodles"-- then he would rearrange them and paste them into a new order, adding text and crossing out, then dictating a new draft to his daughters, one to be cut up again. (My grandmother heard this in a lecture by one of his daughters.)
>Balzac wore a knife around his neck for cutting up his manuscripts-- but such rearrangement is impossible with today's computer software.
>Personally, in the 1960s I had huge paper cut at the factory-- about 14" wide by 40" long-- for massive rearrangement by REAL cutting and pasting of big manuscripts. I still have some of that big paper.
Cut and Paste, 2014, by Ted Nelson:
https://archive.org/details/cutnpaste_201909
>This shows the actual cut and paste process, done physically, that has been denied to us by software since those two words were redefined in 1984 to mean "hide" (on the invisible hideyhole called misleadingly the "clipboard") and "plug" (whatever's in the invisible hideyhole) to wherever you're pointing.
>Or since the letters used on both Mac and Windows are C and V, they could better have stood for Cram and Vomit.
Ted Nelson — invisible clipboard rant (source catalog):
https://github.com/SimHacker/WillWrightShowForFood/blob/main...
In the 2023 discussion of "Demoscene accepted as UNESCO cultural heritage in The Netherlands" I posted a transcript from a video of Will Wright discussing the demo scene:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36599415
Will Wright Discusses the Demoscene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7iuFVmTJus
>You can take any piece of content in the game, and imagine an algorithmic solution to it. Or also, you know, a way that the player could customize that object of thing.
>There's this group in Europe called the Demoscene that make these very elaborate demos for a computer that fit into very tiny little memory blocks, you know like 64K of memory, and you run the thing, and in fact it algorithmically generates about 100 megabytes worth of data, you know these rich 3D environment, generated music, generated wave files, generated animation.
>And they're developing techniques to generate, you know, huge amounts of interesting data, with very very simple, elegant, compression algorithms.
>And this is a skill that game developers used to have, back in the 8-bit days. That was the only ways to do a game like Karateka(?), was to find all these little tips and tricks to compress things and generate them algorithmically.
>But since the CD-ROM came out, and very cheap hard drives, storage is cheap, so basically we've lost that skill set, and now we attack all those problems with brute force. I think we've lost something by dropping that skill set.
[...]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36613058
[...] Here's a simple low-tech pre-LLM example that shows the equivalence of compression and procedural content generation:
Take a huge text file of HN postings, and compress it with gzip or compress or some other robust compression algorithm. The better the algorithm, the more the output will look like random noise. Then slice the compressed file in half, and replace the second half with random numbers. Then uncompress it. You'll find that at the point you sliced it, it keeps on writing out almost plausible text for a while, consisting of highly probably snippets of commonly encountered words and phrases, then goes downhill towards incoherence. It's not as coherent or confident as an LLM, but the point is to show how low the bar is for using compression for procedural content generation.
LLMs are essentially a form of compression of the world's knowledge or whatever they're trained on, not just word frequencies or pixel patterns, but also concepts and ideas. [...]
This summer I downloaded a 2014 ACM conference paper from the Internet Archive, opened the PDF, changed the author's name on the title page, changed the email address, changed a GitHub URL in a footnote, rewrote the Author field in the file metadata, and put the altered file on the internet.
The paper is Vanessa Freudenberg's SqueakJS paper (DLS '14). She died in 2025. In 2024 the same paper won the SIGPLAN DLS Most Notable Paper Award, credited to Vanessa. Every public copy of the PDF still had the name she no longer used: ACM, dblp, Semantic Scholar, and every Wayback snapshot of the file on her own site. Same bytes. No corrected edition had ever existed.
She had already said, on this site, what she wanted. In 2021 she replied to me about Dan Ingalls's HOPL Smalltalk paper:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29125515
>Dan published an updated version of that paper here: https://smalltalkzoo.thechm.org/papers/EvolutionOfSmalltalk.... Would be great if you could cite that one next time. The main improvement for me is not being deadnamed. There are other corrections as well.
Dan had quietly put out a corrected PDF of that paper while she was alive, outside the publisher's version of record, because the official copy was too slow to say her name. I did the same thing for the one paper he could not: hers.
The coding agent (Fable, in Cursor) did the search and proved the negative. It proposed the two institutional paths: petition ACM under the name-change policy, or ask her co-authors to re-typeset from LaTeX. It would not propose opening the published PDF and changing the bytes. I had to tell it to. Two trained rules collided. Do not tamper with a historical document. Do not leave a deadname sitting there. The first one won until a human who knew her pushed.
I then wrote down why that push was legitimate, and put the constraints into a reusable skill so the next agent can mention the option with the rules attached, instead of hiding it. All five, or do not do it:
The subject asked, in their own words, or someone with standing acts on that record. The original file stays bit-for-bit, hashed, in the same directory. Every change is listed in a README and in a Note inside the PDF. The filename says what the file is. The publisher correction is pursued in parallel; the edited file is a bridge, not a replacement of the record.
Drop any one of those, and the same edit is just a silent substitution.
Doing it right is the part Gwern is pointing at when he says there is no everyday Photoshop for PDFs. TeX does not store a name as a string. It stores a TJ array with kern numbers between syllables, so ordinary grep never sees it.
The Times subset on the byline happened to contain every glyph for "Vanessa"; we still had to recompute the V-a kern and shift the Td so the line stayed centered over her affiliation. The sans subset used for the email ended at glyph 117, one code point short of the letter v. That font literally could not spell her name. We set the line in Helvetica, sized to match, and resized the link annotation so the clickable box fit the new URL.
Fable did not stop at the byte edit. It rendered page 1 with Ghostscript, cropped the header, and looked at the pixels with machine vision. The first pass was beautiful and wrong: the byline said Vanessa, the email underneath still said the old address. The next pass put the new email in Times, which rendered clean and was the wrong family. It swapped in Helvetica, recentered, and zoomed to 220 dpi next to the neighboring authors until the line sat quietly with theirs. That loop is why the file does not look like vandalism.
The original and the memorial edition sit next to each other. ACM's copy is still uncorrected. Option 3 of their name-change policy is the canonical fix; her co-authors are the right petitioners.
Her comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29125515
The 2021 thread, preserved:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
Dan's corrected HOPL paper, the one she asked us to cite:
https://smalltalkzoo.thechm.org/papers/EvolutionOfSmalltalk....
The unaltered 2014 PDF (Wayback; her site is down):
https://web.archive.org/web/20250119071632/https://freudenbe...
Memorial edition:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
Original, hashed, beside it:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
Every edit enumerated:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
The case, including the nudge:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
Why the agent would not propose it, and the five conditions:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
How the bytes were changed (Ghostscript and vision at minutes 68-84):
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
Renders and kerning:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/presto...
The change-name skill (scan, discuss, edit, verify, publish):
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/change-...
PDF playbook:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/change-...
ACM version of record (still the old name):
https://doi.org/10.1145/2661088.2661100
ACM name-change policy:
https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/author-name-change...
SqueakJS, where she moved the repo:
https://github.com/codefrau/SqueakJS
Remembering Vanessa:
https://github.com/SimHacker/WillWrightShowForFood/blob/main...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjntrqhn8pk
Alan Kay performs an improvisational avant garde layered audio feedback loop about Claude Shannon, live online during Kristen Nygaard's 100-year birthday celebration.
Alan was scheduled to talk about how encountering Simula sparked his early thoughts about objects. During setup, somebody had the live stream playing out loud near an open Zoom mic, so his own voice kept arriving back in his ears about 21 seconds late, over and over.
What he said was not random: "Shannon gave us a way of dealing with noisy channels." And: "I think about that almost every day. I realize what the fuck is going on and it's just so amazing." Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem is the math for exactly the kind of channel that was garbling him as he praised it.
[...]
Things were going great at Dell until its wildly popular advertising campaign suddenly came tumbling down over an unfortunate indiscretion on the Lower East Side that surprised absolutely nobody...
https://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/10/deli.dude.arrest/
>'Dell Dude' arrested for marijuana possession
>Monday, February 10, 2003 Posted: 3:55 PM EST (2055 GMT)
>NEW YORK (CNN) -- Benjamin Curtis, better known as the "Dell Dude" from the computer company's television commercials, was arrested Sunday while he allegedly attempted to buy marijuana on Manhattan's Lower East Side.
Steve The Dell Dude Commercial Compilation (DUDE WE'RE GETTING A DELL!)
I-Beam is cursor-mirror's agent, and it's constitutionally programmed to be the anti-Clippy:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/tree/main/skills/cursor-...
Its design and constitution is based on decades of research, publications, and discussion in the HCI and AI community by people like Pattie Maes, Ben Shneiderman, Ted Selker, Byron Reeves, Cliff Nass, B. J. Fogg, Allen Cypher, Henry Lieberman, Brad Myers, Jaron Lanier, Seymour Papert, Marvin Minsky, Douglas Engelbart, Will Wright, Scott McCloud, and others:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/cursor-...
>I-Beam is the anti-Clippy, and the reason it can say so is that Clippy is the most cited failure in interface history and almost nobody citing it knows what the research said. Popular contempt for a paperclip is not a design principle. The record is. Ten articles below, each one a finding somebody published, argued or measured, and the operational rule it produces. Anything I-Beam does that cannot be traced to an article here is a preference, not a constraint, and should be labelled as one.
>The 1997 debate ended in agreement. That is the first thing to know, because the field kept the framing and dropped the resolution -- roughly five hundred papers cite "Shneiderman versus Maes" as the canonical opposition of HCI, and the transcript is two researchers narrowing their differences in public and enjoying it. I-Beam does not take a side in a debate whose participants stopped taking sides. It is built to satisfy both sets of constraints at once, which is possible, and was possible in 1997.
The full reading on the debate, which separates the two stagings and documents the convergence:
https://github.com/SimHacker/WillWrightShowForFood/blob/main...
An interface to agency, not agents instead of an interface:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/INTERF...
>The 1997 argument between Ben Shneiderman and Pattie Maes at IUI was never settled, it was shipped in one direction. Maes's interface agents won the product war: the assistant, the recommender, the chat window that stands between you and the thing you are working on. Shneiderman's objection was not that software should be dumb. It was that automation must arrive as comprehensible, predictable, and controllable machinery, with the object of interest continuously visible and every action rapid, incremental, and reversible.
>That objection describes a filesystem in a git repository, and nobody involved planned it that way.
>"An interface to agency" is Don's formulation of Shneiderman's position, not a phrase of Shneiderman's. His own vocabulary is direct manipulation, universal usability, supertools, and human-centered AI. The formulation is a good one because it names what the alternative gets wrong: agency is the thing you want, and an agent is only one way to package it.
Here are some sources, and the articles I linked to above explain their history. This debate about agents and these papers are pretty well known in the HCI field and academia, but they don't tend to teach them at the AI and Web Dev boot camps that are producing most of the people who keep repeating the same mistakes.
Clifford Nass was the Stanford professor who performed the brilliant research that Microsoft took and totally fucked up and misinterpreted with Microsoft Bob and Clippy, giving agents a bad name, and making Clippy the most infamous and obnoxious agent in the history of the known universe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Nass
His student B. J. Fogg published "Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter," which found that praise unconnected to anything the subject did works as well as sincere praise, and worked on subjects who knew it was noncontingent. Fogg and Nass, IJHCS 46(5), 1997, 551-561:
https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0104
The replications, the performance cost, and the dose-response curve:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/no-ai-s...
Shneiderman and Maes, "Direct Manipulation vs. Interface Agents," interactions 4(6), Nov/Dec 1997, 42-61:
https://doi.org/10.1145/267505.267514
Selker, "New paradigms for using computers," CACM 39(8), August 1996, 60-69. COACH, the football coach metaphor, and the five-times result:
https://doi.org/10.1145/232014.232030
Selker, "COACH: A Teaching Agent that Learns," CACM 37(7), July 1994, 92-99:
https://doi.org/10.1145/176789.176799
Reeves and Nass, The Media Equation, 1996:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Media_Equation
Nass, "Computers as Social Actors," at Ted Selker's NPUC workshop at IBM Almaden, 1996. IBM transcribed the whole talk and the Wayback Machine still has it, including the part where Phil Agre tells Nass his presentation is "ethically troubling all the way down" and asks him what he thinks about embedding obedience research in user interfaces. Nass answers that discovery has no ethical component, use does, and that's for the individual. Then Selker cuts in: "Except, except when you are in your consulting role." Nass and Reeves had consulted for Microsoft on the social interface, and Bob shipped the year before:
https://web.archive.org/web/19980210054622/http://www.almade...
Alan Cooper on the tragic misunderstanding, in his own voice, which I quoted before in the 2022 Hacker News discussion on The Twisted Life of Clippy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32820734
https://archive.org/details/g4tv.com-video4080
>Alan Cooper (the "Father of Visual Basic") said: "Clippy was based on a really tragic misunderstanding of a truly profound bit of scientific research. At Stanford University, Clifford Nass and Byron Reeves, two brilliant scientists, had done some pioneering work proving conclusively that human beings react to computers with the same set of emotional reactions that they use to react to other human beings. [...] The work of Nass and Reeves proved that when people talk to computers, when they hit the keyboard and move the mouse, the part of their brain that's being activated is the part that has that emotional reaction to people dealing with people. Here's where the great mistake was made. That's really good research up to that point. But then the great mistake was made, which was: well if people react to computers as though they're people, we have to put the faces of people on computers. Which in my opinion is exactly the incorrect reaction. If people are going to react to computers as though they're humans, the one thing you don't have to do is anthropomorphize them, because they're already using that part of the brain. Clippy was a program based on the research that Nass and Reeves did, and it was a tragic misinterpretation of their work."
Social science research influences computer product design:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180313075429/https://web.stanf...
Lanier, "Early Computing's Long, Strange Trip," American Scientist, July-August 2005, with the Engelbart and Minsky exchange first-hand. American Scientist broke the link, so this is the Wayback copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150626081918/http://www.americ...
>The book also captures an important early conflict between two cultures of computing that seemed compatible on the surface but actually had opposing aims. On the one side was the human-centered design work of Engelbart, based initially at the Stanford Research Institute, and on the other was artificial intelligence culture, centered on the Stanford AI lab. Engelbart once told me a story that illustrates the conflict succinctly. He met Marvin Minsky—one of the founders of the field of AI—and Minsky told him how the AI lab would create intelligent machines. Engelbart replied, "You're going to do all that for the machines? What are you going to do for the people?" This conflict between machine- and human-centered design continues to this day.
Cypher, "EAGER: Programming Repetitive Tasks by Example," CHI '91:
https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108850
Cypher (ed.), Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration, MIT Press 1993, full text:
Papert, Mindstorms, 1980:
https://archive.org/details/mindstormschildr00pape
Wright, Dollhouse preview lecture, April 1996, transcript:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/sims/s...
People are vibecoding to do without learning, and that's their problem, but doesn't have to be ours.
They'd still be mindlessly copying and pasting from Stack Overflow without learning if they didn't have AI.
If you have an aversion to reading code and learning from it, human or AI generated, you shouldn't be in this industry.
If you're not using AI to teach yourself new things, you're not holding it right.
You put a number on it at the top of the thread: three years until people relying on agents have forgotten how to do the job. Copilot's technical preview was 2021, ChatGPT was November 2022, and agents that write the majority of the code are a 2024-2025 thing. So the window you're predicting is roughly the entire span in which these tools have existed, and the atrophy hasn't shown up in it.
For scale, the last ARM I wrote was for a Sony Clié and the last PowerPC for a Mac, both more than two decades ago. If I needed to write ARM for my Mac now, I could brush up about as fast as I could on the 6502 I mentioned upthread, most of whose opcodes, $C000 I/O addresses and monitor ROM entry points I genuinely cannot recall any more. Two to four decades of not touching an instruction set didn't cost me the fundamentals, and it hasn't made me less proficient in Python and TypeScript or helpless without AI. Three years of using a good tool is not going to do it either.
There's also a distinction buried in your last line, because "people neglecting this side will inevitably become less proficient" bundles two different things. Losing a skill you had is not the same as never acquiring one, and only the second is an argument about tools.
So take acquisition. I've been learning PDP-7 assembly in order to recover, OCR, and analyze 128 pages of PIXIE assembly source and octal machine code that Heinz Lemke wrote at Cambridge in the late 1960s, and get it running in an emulator. A language I never knew, with custom instructions for bespoke networking hardware, no Stack Overflow, and almost nobody left to ask except Heinz himself. AI has been extremely helpful for exactly that, and the understanding is still mine to build: I have to predict what the machine will do, and catch the explanations that are wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrqR9XssJI
On feeling like a fraud: the test isn't whether you typed it, it's whether you can predict what it does and fix it when it breaks. Plenty of hand-typed code fails that test and plenty of carefully reviewed generated code passes it. Your reasons 1 and 3 are good reasons to hand-code, since problem solving is genuinely fun and nobody is waiting on your free time, but reason 2 is measurable, so measure it instead of trusting the feeling.
The atrophy you're worried about is real. It just isn't caused by the tool. It happens to people who stopped wanting to learn, and that predates AI by decades, even millennia. I watched it happen back when much of the industry ran on assembly language.
If you're not using AI to teach yourself new things, you're not holding it right.
Pick an industry where you can stop learning new things once you're out of school, because the computer industry is not one of them and never has been.
My fucking job used to be writing 6502 assembly language on an Apple ][, and I loved it, but I hope I've forgotten enough of it to have room to learn new things. If only I could forget all those hex I/O and peripheral addresses from $C000-$CFFF and the Monitor ROM routines from $F800-$FFFF, without forgetting how brilliantly beautiful Woz and and Allen Baum's code is.
https://6502disassembly.com/a2-rom/OrigF8ROM.html
Forgetting old stuff to make room for new stuff is one of the most valuable skills you can have in this industry.
The next most important skill is persistence ;) -- writing stuff down before you forget it, in a way that won't make future-you hate present-you when you need to learn it again.
What's worse is when people's brains just turn off and they defend and support an actual trillionaire Nazi with immense political power and an international propaganda platform.
You're replying to someone who is on the record defending Musk's Nazi salute by calling people names and attacking anyone who recognizes it for what it is or points out how it aligns with everything else Musk has said and done.
Set showdead=true and read his posting history. If he didn't want people reading his full-throated defense of Musk's Nazi salute and his attacks on anyone who disagrees, he shouldn't have posted them. Nevertheless, he'll attack you for merely reading it, as if you're the weirdo for reading what he intentionally posted, rather than him for posting it publicly.
Ask him to post a video of himself performing that Nazi salute and he flips out and calls you names. So he plainly understands what it means: he thinks it's defensible when a trillionaire oligarch does it on international television, and feels obligated to defend it himself, but would never perform that exact same Nazi salute himself -- and becomes irrational and hostile when asked to explain why not.
By "calling people names," I mean his own words:
Political: "social justice warriors," "in an echo chamber," "literally fascism," "a bit fascist," "silencing the opposition," and "censoring others."
Mental-health smears: "lost their mind," "consistently hostile," "frustrated," "so upset," "getting angry," "unhealthy," "unhinged," "What is wrong with you?" and "Maybe they can get you the help you need."
Dishonesty and stupidity: "are you pretending to be stupid here?", "your 'act'," "projecting," "lying and spreading lies," and "I'm here in good faith (unlike you)."
Personal attacks: "emotionally attached," "unable to take criticism," "convinced that no matter what, you're right," "used to always having your way," "reevaluate your life choices," "I find your conduct pretty embarrassing here," "You need to self-reflect," and "You need to cool down."
That's his argument technique: replace evidence with ideological labels, personal attacks, tone-policing, reality-reversal, and amateur psychiatric diagnoses. Precisely the nuance-free, brain-off political name-calling you rightly warned against.
Richard Stallman prefers to call AI "Pretend Intelligence".
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/PRETEN...
Richard Stallman proposes the term Pretend Intelligence (PI) for what the industry calls “AI”: systems that pretend to be intelligent and are marketed as worthy of trust. He uses it to push back on hype that asks people to trust these systems with their lives and control.
From his January 2026 talk at Georgia Tech:
https://youtu.be/YDxPJs1EPS4?t=641
"So I've come up with the term Pretend Intelligence. We could call it PI. And if we start saying this more often, we might help overcome this marketing hype campaign that wants people to trust those systems, and trust their lives and all their activities to the control of those systems and the big companies that develop and control them." — Richard Stallman, Georgia Tech, 2026-01-23. Source: YouTube (full talk) — "Dr. Richard Stallman @ Georgia Tech - 01-23-2026," Alex Jenkins, CC BY-ND 4.0; transcript in video description.
Captain tomhow: "But everybody's having such a good time."
Major dang: "Yes, much too good a time. The discussion is to be closed."
Captain tomhow: "But I have no excuse to close it."
Major dang: "Find one."
Captain tomhow: "Everybody is to leave immediately! This Hacker News discussion is closed until further notice! Clear the thread at once!"
DonHopkins: "How can you shut us down? On what grounds?"
Captain tomhow: "I am shocked -- shocked -- to find that films are being spoiled in here!"
infotainment: "The ending you requested, sir."
Captain tomhow: "Oh. Thank you very much. Everybody out at once!"
Remember, I am still waiting for your definition of what "_really_ programming" is, that classifies Scheme as "real" programming language, but not Snap!.
Clue: it's impossible to make such a definition, because Snap! is fully as powerful as Scheme (and not in the trivial sense of "Turing Completeness"), just easier for kids to use.
Again, you're only proving that you didn't read or understand a thing I wrote. I already gave you links to Ken Kahn's eCraft2Learn project and Jen Mönig's demos, but obviously you didn't look at any of it.
Since you refuse to look at or acknowledge anything I link to, I will walk you through some of it here.
TL;DR: Ken and Jens and others are successfully using pure Snap! to teach AI and machine learning to kids. This directly contradicts all of your accusations. Here is the proof.
Ken arrived at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the 1970s, where Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert served on his PhD committee. His thesis "Creation of Computer Animation from Story Descriptions" was a very early example of generative AI.
During the 1970s (specifically between 1973 and 1979), Ken taught artificial intelligence to elementary school children as a graduate researcher in the MIT AI Laboratory's Logo Group.
He developed a distributed concurrent constraint visual programming language called Pictorial Janus in 1990-1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_(concurrent_constraint_p...
From 1995-present, he developed a visual programming language called ToonTalk, that looks and feels like a 3D video game, for teaching programming and high level CS concepts like concurrency and message passing to kids.
https://toontalk.com/English/kenkahn.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ToonTalk
53 years after he started teaching Logo to kids with Seymour Papert at the MIT AI Lab Logo Group, he's still teaching AI Programming and Computer Science to kids, now with Snap! and his eCraft2Learn project. Here are his 172 citations on google scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9hQiyqcAAAAJ&hl=en
Here's a video of Jens Mönig demonstrating the data extensions to Snap! that enable programming neural nets in pure Snap! block code.
No JavaScript. No WASM. No WebGPU or WebGL. Pure Snap! blocks.
Again, disproving your accusations that Snap! is bullshit, a toy, has no connection to the real world, and is not useful for teaching AI or advanced computer science concepts.
What's new in Snap! 11 - Data - Extensions - Neural Networks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk
My (Jens Mönig's) closing keynote address at SnapCon25 in Heidelberg, introducing deep machine learning capabilities to Snap as an alternative way to create custom predicate blocks.
The projects created "live" during this talk can be found here:
Backpropagation ANN Sprite Layers:
https://snap.berkeley.edu/snap/snap.html#present:Username=je...
Instruments Recognition:
https://snap.berkeley.edu/snap/snap.html#present:Username=je...
Gesture Recognition:
https://snap.berkeley.edu/snap/snap.html#present:Username=je...
Transcript excerpts about how Snap! teaches AI programming and CS concepts to kids. All quotes are from Jens Mönig's closing keynote address at SnapCon25 (lightly edited for clarity), with links to the video timestamps so you can verify each quote's source of truth:
NOT A TOY: IT TEACHES THE HIGH-LEVEL IDEAS
Abstraction has nothing to do with technology -- it is philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=554s
> This is not about ones and zeros. This is not about how a processor works. This is not about how technology works. This has nothing to do with technology. This is all about philosophy. This is all about how we humans think about things.
If you think teaching merge sort is teaching algorithms, you are not doing your job
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=4518s
> If you're teaching merge sort and you think you're teaching algorithms, that's fine for teaching an algorithm, but you're not doing your job.
Hyperblocks: if it takes one number, it takes any dimension of numbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=319s
> The cool thing about Snap! that we've told you all along, and that's been a theme of this conference, is that if it takes one number, it takes one number in any dimension, or it takes any dimension of numbers.
REAL NEURAL NETWORKS, IMPLEMENTED IN SNAP! ITSELF
There is no secret JavaScript block
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=3757s
> These neural networks are all implemented in Snap! itself. There is no secret JavaScript block in there. It's all implemented using this new object-oriented system that we have in there, where we just have prototypical inheritance with actual objects with a new request block.
The Nobel Prize in Physics, in one line of blocks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=2097s
> This thing here is the current Nobel Prize of Physics. And I've seen more complicated code than that.
Asked on stage whether that script is the whole perceptron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=4672s
> "Is that all there is to a perceptron?" -- "Yes." -- "So there's not any hidden magic?" -- "Nope. This is why we wanted to have it out in the open. There's no -- this is it."
KIDS CAN ACTUALLY DO THIS
A perceptron is simpler than the projects the kids in your classes already write
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=1234s
> This is a perceptron and this is a layer in a neural network. You've all written more complicated stuff than this, and the kids in your classes have written more complicated projects than this.
Using neural nets in Snap! is high school work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=4490s
> I would expect that just using these neural nets to be something that you could probably do in high school.
Not teaching backpropagation in college is killing computer science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=4502s
> Honestly, I think if you're not teaching backpropagation in college, you're killing computer science. This is the most relevant algorithm around.
CONNECTED TO THE REAL WORLD
Training a net live, on stage, on his own harmonica and recorder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=2460s
> It'd be way cooler if we could use our own data. So let me use my own data.
Same algorithm: one instrument from another, one drawing from another, a sea mine from a rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=3723s
> It's the same neural network, the same algorithm, that can distinguish one instrument from another, one drawing from another, a sea mine from a rock. It's the same thing, folks.
Snap! 11 talks to Arduinos and speaks websockets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=3800s
> You've seen [Jan?] show that now we can connect to Arduinos in Snap! 11, because he has ported Snap4Arduino -- he called it the S4A bridge, which is the most enormous understatement there is. Bernat has contributed websockets, which is immensely useful.
AND NOT ONE INCH OF AI HYPE
Anyone selling you "explainable AI" is lying to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=2272s
> If any company, if any mogul is telling you that they're working on explainable AI, they are lying to you. They're working on some chatbot that is going to come up with some gibberish that is going to be an explanation, but it's not going to be what's actually going on. There is no way to explain what's going on as soon as you have one hidden layer.
Would you take a life and death decision on an 80 percent chance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=1897s
> Think about 80%. This is a decision, friend or foe. Are you going to kill somebody with an 80% chance? Probably not. Are you going to take life and death decisions on an 80% chance? Probably not.
This might be the last algorithm we get to teach, so we had better teach it well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9W04TEMBUk&t=3739s
> This thing is eating up our lunch. We want to teach algorithms. This might be the last algorithm we get to teach. We better teach it well.
So did you look at any of the links and videos I posted? Your reply totally ignored them, so I will give you another chance. Go read them, and then tell me what they said, and explain how can you continue to stand behind the false accusations you made about my friends and their motives, without acknowleding that your facts and opinions are provably mistaken.
Do you still continue to claim that a Snap is bullshit, that it's a toy, and that it's not connected to the real world?
You're the one who threw the first stone calling it "BS", with no evidence to back that up, and you certainly haven't said anything to support that, and it certainly isn't "BS" or a "toy" just because you say so but can't back up your insulting ignorant accusations.
I already showed you many ways Snap! connectes to the real world, and you are still denying all that. Are you calling me a liar, or do you just have no reading comprehension whatsoever? Do you not think robots, Arduinos, network programming, AI programming, computer science, algorithms, closures, continuations, functional programming, and meta programming are not the "real world"?
In case you didn't know, those are all things you can do with Snap!, and you can't deny you know because I already told you and gave youy links to prove it. You just ignored them, and kept claiming what they proved wrong.
Have you even looked at the college level computer science curriculum Brian Harvey wrote called "The Beauty and Joy of Computing"? I highly doubt it, because the false claims you are making about Snap! fly in the face of everything in that book. It proves you wrong. So what is your definition of the "real world", if not all that I cited and the book teaches?
Then how do you reconcile your denial of reality with all the proof that you're wrong that I posted? I don't expect you to be able to, because, as I said, you're not arguing in good faith, so it's not worth engaging with you. You don't bother reading anything other people post, or replying to what other people say, so reading what you write is a complete waste of time.
If you are capable of arguing in good faith, then tell me if you would treat your own children the way Elon Musk treats his own trans daughter? Do you believe he's a good father, or a transphobic bigot? And if you really don't believe he was making a Nazi salute, then record a video of yourself doing the exact same thing Musk did, post it to youtube under your real name, and then post a link to it. Or is there some reason you don't want to do that, huh?
His evidence-free Nazi-salute-defending arguments were in such bad faith, ignoring and refusing to address other people's valid counter arguments, the exact same way he is now ignoring and refusing to engage with mine, and sealioning questions whose very premises so wrong they don't deserve the answers I gave him anyway, that his old dead boot licking comments don't deserved to be linked or repeated, since they're a distraction from the useful things I actually linked to. The only thing his comments prove is that he's not arguing in good faith, and can only dispense drive-by evidence-free attacks.
You can easily find them yourself if you really don't believe me, but it's a waste of your time, because his comments have no value. Have you looked at any of those valuable links I did post yet, or did you just get stuck in the worthless rabbithole of his posting history?
I believe your time would be much better spent reading the links I already provided than his Musk cheerleading and oligarch water carrying and Nazi salute whitewashing. But if you really care about his arguments, why don't you ask him now to explain what he said about Musk, privately? Or doesn't he publish under his own name with his own email address so you can ask him, like I do?
I'm more than happy to answer your personal email about my own arguments and projects, and continue this discussion in private: don@donhopkins.com
His own ungrounded vitriolic words attacking Jens Mönig's and Brian Harvey's and Seymour Papert's life work like "it's because this is BS and just a toy, it's got no connection to the real world" and "like almost as if the ecosystem simply serves to show off Snap and thus misses the mark" are dismissive, insulting, and provably wrong.
So I posted several links and evidence refuting him and defending my friends. Yet then he repeated the same pattern as his full throated defense of Musk's Nazi salutes, by ignoring all the evidence, and reiterating his unsubstantiated false accusations, without providing any objective evidence or coherent arguments or even any citations himself.
If you'd like to learn about cool free open source educational projects, please look at the many links I already posted, and what I posted to the Logo discussion. At least spend as much time on those interesting relevent links as you already have wasted reading his uninteresing irrelevent posting history, please.
He didn't post any links or evidence or even coherent arguments to support his mistaken and aggressive accusations, while I refuted "this is BS" by linking to and quoting the Wikipedia page about Seymour Papert's Constructionist Education philosophy, "just a toy" by naming and linking to many Snap! projects and demos, and "no connection to the real world" by citing several physical real world connections like TurtleStitch.
Yet he dismissed and ignored all of that, and questioned the motives of sincere professional educators and developers of free open source software as merely and illegitimately promoting Snap!, because he isn't arguing in good faith, just attacking, and he didn't bother looking at any of the links, so he still doesn't know what he's talking about.
If reading his oligarch-syncophantic posting history (which I was trying to save you from by identifying where he's actually coming from) isn't interesting enough for you, and you still thirst to learn about cool projects, then please look at the links I already posted, read my other recent posts about Logo, and check out some of the other educational projects I've been developing over several decades, which were deeply inspired by Seymour Papert's Constructionism, that I've written a lot about.
But if like him you're so offput and triggered by the very mention of diversity, constructionist education, free speech for anyone but Musk, and criticism of an unloving parent so terrible and unaccepting that he publically and vitriolically disparages, abuses, and disowns his own trans daughter in front of millions of people that you have to leap to his defense, then there's nothing I can do for you, sir.
But I certainly hope you're not like that, so here are some links in good faith:
Logo Adventure for C64 Terrapin Logo:
https://donhopkins.medium.com/logo-adventure-for-c64-terrapi...
Micropolis: Constructionist Educational Open Source SimCity:
https://donhopkins.medium.com/har-2009-lightning-talk-transc...
This is Micropolis (open source SimCity) in WebAssembly:
This is The Sims 1 character animation system (which I original wrote in C++ 30 years ago) rewritten in TypeScript and WebGL:
Micropolis and other open source code, documentation, and designs for new educational software:
https://github.com/SimHacker/MicropolisCore/
MOOLLM Constructionism skill:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/constru...
MOOLLM Adventure skill:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/tree/main/skills/adventu...
Adventure Compiler:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/adventu...
Gary Drescher's Schema Mechanism skill from "Made Up Minds" (based on his PhD thesis and book about how children learn, with his advisor Marvin Minsky at the MIT AI Lab):
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/schema-...
MOOLLM Play Learn Lift skill:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/tree/main/skills/play-le...
John Waters described how Divine would smuggle marijuana in her artificial vagina, which she would check in her luggage at the top. Once they found that, they'd decide they didn't need to search any more, without looking inside.
https://theeveningclass.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-waters-on....
On Divine Getting Through Airport Security As A Drag Queen
[Finding Divine's false tits in his luggage, Airport Security] would slam it back shut. He'd have his cheater on the top — his fake vagina — and [Divine] said he could come through customs with pot, they'd see the cheater and go, "Oh! Oh!" He would put the cheater right on top [in] his suitcase. Divine's cheater is at Wesleyan University at the Film Archives. Clint Eastwood's is too. No, Clint Eastwood is in the same place with me and I said to Clint Eastwood, "Y'know, just think, Divine's cheater and Dirty Harry's police badge will rest together forever!"
Maybe they're just "donwvoting" your analysis or spelling...