Back in 1984, I wrote the original "obvious password detector".[1]
It just checks whether a password has English language trigram stats. This prevents dictionary attacks.
- 3000 rubrics on code quality. First benchmark to measure: "would this code get actually merged?"
- 20+ expert open-source maintainer created tasks on their own repos to capture their opinion & taste.
- total 1000+ hours of real life software maintainer work captured in dataset. ON TOP of that, 40+ hours of real human work to turn that real life work into well validated and structured tasks with rubrics (even more work to turn tasks/prompts from devin-infra-specific to pluggable coding agent)
- results in 81% lower false positive rate than SWE-Bench Pro
- High quality bar: many QA stages & each task manually reviewed by Cognition researchers (examples in post)
Opus 4.8 scores 13% on FrontierCode Diamond.
one of my goals was also to datamine interesting stuff even on the easy tasks. for example, if you squint you can see the answer to "WTF Happened in late 2025" with coding models: https://x.com/swyx/status/2064081945567580323
This never made it into prod since the scale was small, but one of the favorite leaks I found when working on bot detection was browsers which generated the same random numbers. Presumably because they were being init to the same VM snapshot and therefore the same random number state.
Optical engineer here. This is what they don't tell you about continuous/transition/progressive bifocals: optically they don't work. The lens design is an overconstrained optimization problem and the solutions they come up with end up compromising a lot on everything, to the point that it is practically useless.
I helped train some of the first "magic" models at OpenAI[1] and it was a wild ride. We were a pretty sane + skeptical team and we weren't totally convinced the models were as general as they seemed, but the query that convinced me (and later got included in the paper[2]) was "Why is it important to eat socks after meditating?" (something that almost certainly did not appear on the internet before).
An interesting follow up would be when did you realize GenAI wasn't as good as you thought in that "oh shit" moment
Related story, while applying a firmware update to my Kawai CA49 piano, I bricked it due to flashing the wrong file (The process was broken, and I got desperate and tried something stupid, which bricked the piano). Claude walked me through looking for signs of life, and since OTA from the phone app wasn't working for me, it downloaded the Kawai Android APK, decompiled the Java, figured out the hardcoded key used for encrypting the firmware update. Extracted the piano firmware update, decrypted it, and then wrote a flashing script to program the piano from my laptop via bluetooth. My piano was back to working within an hour.
As with all things, the horror stories just get the most attention. People love to rage. There are plenty of boring (good, even!) VCs out there. They just work more quietly, professionally.
I'll share a story, but its about a close friend and not me so I won't name any explicit actors and I'm going to round out the numbers. You either trust me or you don't, but this is a very direct relationship I have to both the founder and VC.
The story is this: the founder started their company outside of SV, so the lawyers weren't super familiar with startups and messed up the initial incorporation and stock plan stuff (actually super common: use Stripe Atlas or pay a startup-aware lawyer!). Went under the radar through years. This company ended up being bought for nearly $1B (with a B) after many rounds and a large board.
During the legal work to close the acquisition, they found out this messed up stock plan. Without going into the details, the effect was that instead of taking home $200M, the founder would take home ~$75M. The mistake the lawyer made almost a decade earlier was about to cost him $125M.
Most of the board basically said "too bad so sad, law is law." But one VC (the one I know, the one I'm talking about) basically strong armed and politicked the whole thing and eventually convinced everyone around the table to give up an equal share of their own holdings to make the founder whole.
Letter to the law: they didn't have to.
Spirit of being founder friendly: this VC went to bat hard and got everyone to yield to make things "right."
Also, look, you might argue $75M vs $200M is just "rich vs rich." Who cares? Sure. That's not the point.
You don't hear about stuff like this because honestly its not a big enough deal and feel good stories get way less clicks than pitchfork stories.
There is a fundamental minimum amount of energy needed to desalinate: you can't take less energy to do it,than you could gain back (from osmotic pressure) if you allowed the desalinated water to expand a cylinder containing the residual brine. This is large. This paper is a thermal method, so it doesn't have an electricity input, but to justify their efficiency claim, they should really compare against what you could do by using the same surface area for solar panels, driving a conventional setup. My (limited) understanding is that conventional reverse osmosis is not far from the theoretical optimum, energy-wise, the main difficulties being operational (the membranes need declogging). And of course RO is more expensive than rain.
This paper is interesting, however, in directly producing crystalline salt, which is lower volume than brine and easier to dispose of, maybe even valuable.
There was a FidoNet clone in Turkey called HitNet (short for “Hi Türkiye Net”). Its node addresses were like “8:103/119”.
İ developed a Netmail server for Hitnet called HitBase in 1995 or so. It allowed people to discover others around their city to meet. Possibly the earliest thing that resembles Facebook. Similarly, it was a privacy nightmare too, luckily short-lived.
HitNet introduced me to great people some of whom I still see today. It was such a tight-knit friendly community.
The advent of Internet killed it but some communities are still active on other platforms.
This is inaccurate. When I was running AV operations around 2000, we were running on a couple dozen huge Alpha machines for the index layer and queries. We had a bunch of smaller machines for Web serving, and a high memory set of Alphas as a caching layer.
We also spidered constantly. A couple of those huge backend Alphas were dedicated to holding the constant spider index. AV had a well earned reputation for quick discovery, although I think Google wound up faster. We suffered a bit from maintaining separate indexes for the main corpus and recent pages, and I imagine Google handled that better.
But the period of time when our main index went to hell was the period of time when we failed to do a new main index crawl for several months. I won’t get into why that happened politically because my memory isn’t perfect and I don’t want to criticize anyone who won’t see this to stand up for themselves, but it’s absolutely the case that we let the index get stale.
And I will say that I think the execs were distracted by the idea of challenging Yahoo by buying a shopping site and a local news site of sorts and, unlike the Google of the time, they lacked the wisdom to focus on our primary product.
And now I fade back into the hedges, until the next time AV comes up… I suspect a high percentage of my HN comments are on this exact topic. It makes me sad.
I'm a long-term "OG" Kane Pixels fan. I took a friend to see the opening night preview and we both loved it.
Anyone not familiar with Kane - who was 16 when he started making his "found footage" films in Blender - the guy is a truly brilliant mind. Listening to him talk... you can close your eyes and he speaks like someone middle aged. It's almost uncanny.
Anyhow, in addition to his genuinely excellent Backrooms videos, I highly recommend you turn off the lights and take in his The Oldest View series as well.
I am not sure why this old news is surfacing here today but I can give my 2 cents, since I sold speedchecker.com last year and were directly competing with Ookla.
The main business is selling the data. You use Speedtest.net to troubleshoot your connection but metrics captured with the test alongside location data give telcos invaluable insights on where they should improve their networks. Telcos pay 6 figures annually for this data and we have a few hundreds of of those big MNOs globally. This market is pretty big. Accenture is in trouble with their main consulting business due to AI so acquiring data business is one of the smart strategies they can implement to stay relevant.
To all commenters who think they can code it over the weekend, yes you are right. I coded my first speed checker over the weekend in 2008 but it took me 18 years to grow the user base , figure out entreprise sales strategy and exit. Its not easy as it seems.
Sadly the website is offline, but if you like a hard copy cloud book I can heartily recommend the following. During my spell in Antarctica, I had to act as a meteorological observer (clouds are still manually encoded into METOBS that are entered in by WMO stations). This required learning the 10 types and being able to characterise the full picture of the sky.
It made me a total cloud addict, and spurred a far deeper interest in the role of the atmosphere in environmental science which has persisted ever since.
I heartily recommend looking up at the sky, dividing into oktas (eighths) and trying to classify how much of the low, medium and high clouds there are. If you do it regularly enough, the changes begin to astound. Getting your kids to do it too is also wonderful, because it's always there as an activity... :)
If there are any Dropboxers here (drew—I emailed you a few weeks ago, but I imagine you're busy):
I went to prison for 18 months, my digital and physical life was stolen from me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45451567 applies to my Dropbox account (and Apple but separate problem); I just received the "your account will be going bye-bye" email. I have very important dead-mom-club stuff in there, and support is useless. :(
Edit: Thanks unofficial Dropbox support channel; thanks Drew :)
Edit edit: Try my luck with my Apple account now, I guess—Tim Cook, you busy?
In 1979, I made a program called VisiBase in this BASIC.
It's a visual database modeled after VisiCalc.
That won me a joystick in at a competition by the local computer store. :-)
Still have the source, that works in an Apple 2 emulator. It's 13 K in ASCII (untokenized).
I own a reasonably well performing indie bookstore. I've noticed for the model to work you need a critical mass of other local shops clustered to make the trip an experience for families and diverse tastes. My working theory is that three of such small businesses are sufficient and could operate well with a common inventory strategy and manager (e.g. a bookstore, a toy store, and a tea or candy shop...nothing that spoils in the very short term). When I've got a bit more time I want to try that idea and see if it works as a way to revitalize otherwise charming old downtown areas with vacant retail space and communities wishing to bring back their main street. Giving this idea away in case anyone else has tried or wants to try sooner than me and report back.
• He had already published the first editions of Volume 1, 2, 3, and the second edition of Volume 1, by 1973. It was in 1977 when the publishers sent him galley proofs for the second edition of Volume 2, having switched to phototypesetting (away from hot-metal typesetting a la Linotype, though IIRC it was actually Monotype) that he was disappointed with the results. And he had some back-and-forth with them and they did improve their fonts (https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/367133/48), but he was still dissatisfied.
> I didn't know what to do. I had spent 15 years writing those books, but if they were going to look awful I didn't want to write any more.
• At this time he came to know of the existence of digital typesetters. Typesetting with computers had existed before, but it had always seemed a crude toy, rather than something suitable for “real books”. But he saw Patrick Winston's Artificial Intelligence that had been just published (I think he got an early proof copy to review or something), and he realized for the first time that digital typesetting was an option (apparently Winston's book was printed at >1000dpi, and Knuth later got his hands on a machine that claimed a resolution of 5333 dpi: see this wonderful comment from Knuth's student and “right-hand man”, David Fuchs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20009875)
• In fact it was the fonts that he was dissatisfied with rather than the typesetting, so METAFONT was in some sense the primary/motivating project and TeX was only written in order to be able to use METAFONT.
• Actually his first idea was to simply take the old fonts, get high-resolution scans of them (not easy to obtain at that time) and use them directly. He approached Xerox Research Center but:
> I asked if I could use Xerox's lab facilities to create my fonts. The answer was yes, but there was a catch: Xerox insisted on all rights to the use of any fonts that I developed with their equipment. Of course that was their privilege, but such a deal was unacceptable to me: A mathematical formula should never be "owned" by anybody! Mathematics belongs to God.
• So he went home and (after trying a bit with TV cameras) tried projecting photographs of the pages onto the wall and tracing the outlines, and it was while staring at these images that he realized that the shapes of letters were not arbitrary but there was some logic to them (e.g. in the font he was using, the spacing between the vertical strokes in 'm' was equal, and equal to that in 'n'), and he decided (as a computer programmer) to capture this design in code — something that had never before been done. The hardest letter to capture this way is S, hence the paper in the OP.
> Finally, a simple thought struck me. Those letters were designed by people. If I could understand what those people had in their minds when they were drawing the letters, then I could program a computer to carry out the same ideas. Instead of merely copying the form of the letters my new goal was therefore to copy the intelligence underlying that form. I decided to learn what type designers knew, and to teach that knowledge to a computer.
• This is also why METAFONT never really caught on among typographers: as Charles Bigelow (quoted by Richard Southall, https://luc.devroye.org/Southall-METAFONT1986.pdf) observed, “the designer thinks with images, not about images”. Knuth did not want crude “geometric” constructions of letters (as some prior 16th century typographers had attempted: https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1979-01-02/S0273-0979-1979... and as some typographers only passingly familiar with METAFONT think!). He wanted actual real typographically beautiful shapes, but to be able to generate those shapes with code. This is obviously much harder than simply drawing the shapes using visual intuition, even if it enables variation. (See “The Concept of a Meta-Font”: https://gwern.net/doc/design/typography/1982-knuth.pdf — again, many people in the typography world confuse the abstract concept of a meta-font introduced in this paper with (their incorrect impressions of) the METAFONT program, and omit crediting Knuth for variable fonts).
• The second edition of Volume 2 was not printed with Linotype. Yes the machines still existed in Europe and he talked to typesetters (he mentions in particular a person from Belfast), but it was in fact published using TeX (the first version, TeX77 and MF78). He was still unhappy with the results, though, and spent a few more years learning more about typography and working with people like Bigelow and Hermann Zapf, before the rewrite into the current TeX82 and MF84 (and current version of Computer Modern). I think it's only with the third edition (1997) that he's finally satisfied.
I wasn't in this class myself, but one prof at my alma mater started his "Programming 201" class with the simplest assignment: write a C program that accepts two integers from the user and prints their sum. It actually was the only assignment for the rest of the semester, since he has a test suite that would humiliate the students gently at first, but would ultimately pipe a billion nines into stdin as the first argument.
PSOS. Now that was something I never expected to see again.
I'd worked on the previous system, KSOS, mentioned in the article. I wrote the file system and all of the drivers, while at an aerospace company. We'd used formal specifications in SPECIAL.
Nobody could prove anything about SPECIAL yet, but I wrote a compiler-like syntax and type checker, so it was at least type valid. It was a good language for writing down invariants. I used it to
describe file system consistency and recovery.
Another group started work on PSOS, but never got past the design stage.
I managed to avoid getting sucked into that, because it looked like a death march.
SRI, which was a think tank, just did abstract designs. It was extreme waterfall.
One group wrote a spec, and a contractor implemented it. This did not work too well.
They did have Boyer and Moore, and those two made real progress on proof systems.
I used their prover for another project, and talked to them a lot.
But they were not closely associated with PSOS. Specifications in SPECIAL, which is quantifier-oriented were not
compatible with Boyer-Moore theory, which uses constructive mathematics and recursive functions.
The big problem in that era was that the hardware wasn't ready for secure operating systems. KSOS was for the 16-bit PDP-11 line, and it took a cram job to make it fit. The Modula I compiler wasn't very space-efficient. Optimizations had to come out to make it fit, and the result was too slow.
Microprocessors weren't quite ready yet. Neither Intel nor Motorola had a decent MMU.
The suitable target machines were all minicomputers, which were on the way out.
PSOS never got far enough to pick an implementation target.
Capability-based systems work, but they create a new problem - ticket management. You have lots of tickets which let some piece of software do something, and now you have to track and manage them. It's like physical key control. It's the same reason that Windows access control lists are little used.
You also still have the delegation problem - A can't do X, but A can talk to B, which can do X. Most modern attacks involve that approach.
Most of the early secure OS work was funded by NSA. NSA had an internal division in those Cold War days - the important stuff was at Fort Meade, and the less-important stuff was some distance away at FANX, an annex out by Friendship (now BWI) Airport. FANX had personnel ("HR" today), training (including the cryptographic school), safe and lock testing and evaluation, networking, and computer security. Being exiled to FANX was bad for careers. This set back the computer security work.
There was also industry pushback. The operating system testing criteria were borrowed from the safe and lock people. Something submitted for testing got two tries. First try, the evaluators told the vendor what was wrong. Second try was pass/fail with no feedback. That's how locks for vaults were evaluated. Computer vendors (there was not much of a separate OS industry yet) hated this. They eventually got a testing system where "certified labs" did the testing, and a vendor could have as many tries as they were willing to pay for.
Some good secure OSs came out of that, and passed testing. But they were obscure, and for obscure hardware - Prime, Honeywell, etc. If you dig, you can find the approved products list from the 1980s.
What really killed all that was the growth of the computer industry. In the 1960s and 1970s, the government was the biggest purchaser of computers and electronics. As the industry grew, the government became a minor purchaser with a slow update cycle, and could not get design-level attention from major vendors.
There was much grumbling about this from military people, especially the USAF, as they were sidelined during the 1980s.
That's a tough problem - distinguishing wet pavement from deep water.
Humans make that mistake frequently.
Autonomous vehicles should probably be equipped with a water sensor. (We did that in our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle back in 2005). Then they can enter water very cautiously and see if it's too deep. This may make them too cautious about shallow puddles on roads, though.
There's more history than this. Disclaimer: Xoogler (2010-2017).
When I first started the environment you used depended entirely on language. In the C++ and Python space, there was the vim and emacs divide. With Java it was more complicated. Some still used vim/emacs but a lot of people used Eclipse.
Now Eclipse was a real problem at Google because of the source control system. Java IDEs are primarily built to import binaries, specifically jars. In the outside world, these dependencies are managed via Ant (very early days), Maven/Gradle or the like.
At Google there's a mono-repo (Perforce/Piper) and you check out parts of it locally and rely on the rest via a network connection (to SrcFS IIRC, it's been awhile). This was neat because you could edit a file locally and the dependencies would just recompile (via Blaze).
So for Eclipse a whole lot of initialization had to be done and the IDE would fall over. A lot. It had a team of ~10 working on it at one point. Then somebody did a 20% project called magicjar. Magicjar took a Perforce client and built all the dependencies as jars that could be imported directly without parsing the entire source tree (which was usually huge). This made it possible, even preferred, to use IntelliJ, which is what I did. Magicjar was great.
Other people actually made CLion work reasonably well with C++ too. That was nice. This was a much bigger undertaking with many more corner cases just given how C++ works (ie headers and templates).
So checking out a client was relatively heavyweight, even with a minimal local tree. And, if you worked on Google3, you had to do this a lot. You might need to do a config file change. This was the real starting point for Cider because it was way nicer to do config file changes with it.
Obviously I don't know where all this went from there. VS Studio as a Cider frontend? Ok, that was news to me. Engineers being unhappy when things change and when the slightest thing works differently is the least surprising thing I've ever heard.
Oh it's worth adding that in my time many people didn't use Perforce (P4) directly. They used somebody else's project, which was a Git frontend for it, called Git5. I believe it was already being deprecated while I was still there. But Git5 modelled a P4 change as a branch so you could play around with your Git commits locally and then squash them into a single P4 change. I actually liked this a lot.
I think my Grandpa worked on the mentioned classified experiments in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. He was a Naval Academy graduate with a degree in electrical engineering and spent several years on submarines. He then spent several years working at the Pentagon in late 50s and throughout the 60s (my mother was born in Bethesda in 72).
He took those secrets to his grave. I could never get it out of him what he did that was classified. Although I did find several books and research papers in his basement about sonar and radio communications…
Anyways, great article that gave me a bit more insight into what my Grandpa might have been up to.
Decades ago, I worked a mission that went up on a Titan IV, and I spent a few weeks at Pad 41 working in the IUS clean room. Riding up and down the tower in the rickety (self operated) elevator was frightening. Walking the gantry and looking out at CCAS, you could see for miles in all directions. Standing under the thrust cones was an amazing experience. Unfortunately, no photos were allowed because it was a classified mission. All I got were a few stupid tee shirts.
About 15 years earlier, I had done some work at the VAB and walked around the Saturn IV that was laying on its side there, just as James Burke had a few years earlier. It wasn't there when I worked the above referenced mission. I'm not sure when they moved it, or where it ended up (but it's not in the "rocket garden" at the Visitor Center).
No wait, you think I'm being silly so that's why you're being a bit sarcastic back.
But seriously, you can put a shebang on an english text file now (if you're sufficiently brave), or feed it through something that spits out code on the other end (so you can proof read the consequences before executing them).
It's crazy, but this is 2026, and that actually ... just works. You can even do it locally, if you don't mind running a space heater.
Thing is, when you have the expressiveness and power of a full natural language (and you're already paying for it), why would you want to constrain yourself to a subset? That's not very practical. Why not use all of it? Computing was never about typing code into machines anyway. "Computer" used to be a human profession, until it got automated.
On the upside, there's thousands of years of documentation. On the downside, a lot said documentation is underspecified and/or straight wishful thinking. It's certainly an interesting avenue to explore.
I was a great admirer (and later friend) of Barlow, and I'm still very deeply influenced by the Declaration and many adjacent phenomena. I agree with some fraction of this post in terms of seeing many people shelving these principles when it gets inconvenient for them.
In the past few months, I've been troubled by one specific part of the Declaration, in the final paragraph:
> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
Specifically, I think the cyberspace civilization, to the extent that it exists, has been a failure lately on "humane" in the broad sense. The author of the linked post might say that this has to do with the need for moderation (indeed this is a big surprise from the 1996 point of view, as there were still unmoderated Usenet groups that people used regularly and enthusiastically, and spam was a recent invention).
I think there are lots of other things going on there over and above the moderation issue, but one is that the early Internet culture was very self-selected for people who thought that the ability to talk to people and the ability to access information were morally virtuous. I was going to say that it was self-selected for intellectualism but I know that early Internet participants were often not particularly scholarly or intellectually sophisticated (some of our critics like Langdon Winner, quoted here, or Phil Agre, were way ahead on that score).
So, I might say it was self-selected in terms of people who admired some forms of communicative institutions, maybe like people whose self-identity includes being proud of spending time in a library or a bookstore, or who join a debate club. (Both of those applied to me.) This is of course not quite the same thing as intellectual sophistication.
People were mean to each other on the early Internet, but ... some kind of "but" belongs here. Maybe "but it was surprising, it wasn't what they expected"? "But it wasn't what they thought it was about"?
Nowadays "humane" feels especially surprising as a description of an aspiration for online communications. It's kind of out the window and a lot of us find that our online interactions are much less humane that what we're used to offline. More demonization of outgroups, more fantasies of violence against them, more celebration of violence that actually occurs, more joy that one's opponents are suffering in some way. (I see this as almost fully general and not just a pathology of one community or ideology.)
I'm troubled by this both because it's unpleasant and even scary how non-humane a lot of Internet communities and conversation can be, and because it's jarring to see Barlow predict that specific thing and get it wrong that way. Many other things Barlow was optimistic about seem to me to have actually come to pass, although imperfectly or sometimes corruptly, but not this one.
We are in the South Pacific with our sailboat, and are using Meshtastic every day to talk between ourselves and with various buddy boats. The boat has a solar-powered repeater (CLIENT_BASE) on the mast that increases communications range significantly.
This all works great with no local SIM cards or other subscriptions or infrastructure needed.
We plan to run experiments with Reticulum when we stop for the cyclone season. Reticulum would open a lot more possibilities with both LoRa and internet-based comms. The Columba app seems to do a lot to bridge the usability gap, but work will need to be done to integrate Reticulum with our boat systems the way we have with Meshtastic (alerting, telemetry, digital switching control).
I’ve done this for a couple years now, cool to see it pop up here. I believe the scale is a touch larger; 3935 acres in 2025, plus a small amount outside the fence line.
On the technical side, we not only log but photograph everything, down to each clump of toilet paper. We check our progress by doing hundreds of tests identical to what the BLM does, both ahead and behind our main crew; bagging up any debris to be photographed on green screens where the pixels are counted to ensure we’re under the 2.29×10^-3 percent limit.
It’s a stupendous amount of walking, with no shade, a moop stick and a bucket. But it’s a hell of a feeling to be part of making sure we remain undefeated against an impossible task that the future of burning man depends on.
Ha ha! I worked in one of these matchbox factories as a kid. My dad had dropped me off at my grandpa's for summer vacation in the village. I was not a particularly good kid. So my grandpa took me to the match factory in the morning and told me to make myself useful. You sit around in a circle on the floor. There is a small hill of matchsticks piled in front of you. You count 50 sticks and stuff them into a matchbox, push that matchbox into the center of the pile. If you stuff 100 matchboxes you get 10 paisa or some such...was in the 1970s, I don't recollect exact amount. I do remember I came out in the evening with enough money to buy a stick ice-cream.
I remember around 2000 I read about how Ted Turner started his empire: he bought podunk local TV stations that had loose contracts with media owners that allowed them to broadcast shows as often as they wanted, with no restrictions. In the those days, local TV stations were broadcast just like radio and so the assumption was the contract only concerned the audience the TV station's antenna could reach. But the contract didn't specify this. Recognizing the loophole, he bought multiple stations and combined that content into its own cable channel(s) that played old movies and TV shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner This was the basis that allowed him to branch into CNN and more.
When I learned about this, the story was very applicable to me at the time, as my startup had acquired licenses for content that was historically sold directly to libraries by a salesman who would negotiate with each library individually. He used a standard contract. When we contacted the company to license content for display on the internet, they gave us a ridiculous contract with a small one time fee and access to display the content forever. Only after reasoning through their business model and history did we understand how this occurred, which was exactly the same type of gap that Ted Turner had exploited.
My TI-85 story. While I was in prison, around 1996 or 1997, I found out a friend had a TI-85 calculator. I realized it was programmable, so I borrowed it over the weekend and wrote a program to track his stock portfolio. It was the first time I had programmed anything in 2 or 3 years.
Then I learned that the US Bureau of Prisons had a rule against any calculator (or device) that was "programmable". So I programmed the TI-85 so its startup screen read, "TI-85 NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATOR". Problem solved.
Everything is so much more complicated now.
[1] https://www.animats.com/source/obvious/obvious.c