I think Foley and van Dam's work in 3D rendering really laid a solid foundation, but you're right, their book did come out a few years after Artwick's flight simulator. Still, their influence has been significant in later game engines.

Yes, even our most revered heroes have restless, perpetually unfinished souls. Twain, in the public eye, is a legend of humor and satire, yet privately he was always troubled. Perhaps it’s this inner dissonance that makes his work so timeless able to touch readers even today. In a world full of “packaged biographies” and flattened images, reading such an honest and nuanced portrait of Twain feels like a rare treasure. I can almost imagine the coffee on my desk sharing in that quiet appreciation.

For a long time, schools assumed that if a student turned in a written essay, it meant they had learned something. But now AI can write those essays too ,so that assumption doesn’t hold up anymore.

The real question is: if writing alone doesn’t prove learning, then what does?

Maybe we’ll see a return to oral exams or live discussions. Not because they’re perfect, but because they’re harder to fake.

In a way, AI didn’t ruin education it just exposed problems that were already there.

It’s no longer about catching attention—it’s about earning trust. Distribution didn’t vanish, it moved to where trust lives.

How do you earn trust without people getting to the content in the first place?

On HN, it’s not about going viral. It’s about whether someone really gets what you’re saying. You don’t need thousands—just real resonance. Trust starts there. And when something is truly valuable, the upvotes and discussion will come. That kind of discussion always leads to meaningful insight.

With the informal web of. If you post your thing here on HN and people like it, more people will click it.

Whether AI is a “good programmer” really depends on what you mean by programming. If it means being fluent in syntax, quickly generating prototypes, and recalling large amounts of code patterns, then yes, it's surprisingly strong. But if being a programmer includes debugging intuition, tracking context over multiple sessions, and knowing when not to write code, it's still not there yet.

The deeper you break things down, the dumber they seem. But maybe that dumbness is just an illusion of the observer's perspective.

Consciousness isn’t in the neurons themselves—it's in the invisible coordination and tension between them.

“Smart people don’t need organizations anymore.” I get it—going solo is more appealing now than ever. But I can’t help thinking: some things really only happen in a kind of shared magnetic field. Not because you can’t do it alone, but because that moment when another smart person lights you up— that doesn’t happen in solo mode.

Yeah I completely agree. I see it more like the benefits of going solo have eclipsed the benefits of a team in an organization.

I don't think it's a strictly better environment but in many dimensions going solo is now better than any company. I do often long for that shared magnetic field though.

Eh. AI can empower the solo worker more than anyone else.

She wrote, “seeing someone is like noticing their internal structure” — that line made me pause for a while. As a kid, I used to think everyone could pick up on those tiny things in people — like the hesitation behind a sentence, or the way someone's eyes seem like they’re trying to escape. Turns out, not everyone “sees” like that. Watching people is more like passive resonance. Sometimes you’re just passing by, but your body has already picked up the entire vibe of that person. No words, just a quiet read.