The Linux Kernel Module Programming Guide (#LKMPG) got 5000+ stars on GitHub. Thank all the contributors and promoters. We are moving forward to Linux v6.x support. Rust LKM examples will appear later.
https://t.co/n8PKgCYxiO
1995: PHP is dead, learn ColdFusion
2002: PHP is dead, learn ASP.net
2003: PHP is dead, learn Django
2004: PHP is dead, learn Ruby on Rails
2010: PHP is dead, learn Flask
2011: PHP is dead, learn AngularJS
2016: PHP is dead, learn Next.js
2022: PHP is dead, learn Solidity
2026: The NSA is advising that you turn off PHP
I just solved "Robotics Engineering" education with Opus 5.5 + /colorfigures skill
no need to spend $1000+ on a starter kit to learn what a resistor does, just visit my interactive site:
• 13 real boards: Arduino Uno, L298N, Raspberry Pi 5...
• build part by part: pick & place, reflow, solder, plug in
• break them on purpose: reversed caps pop, chips smoke, LEDs burn out
send the skill to your Claude:
> https://t.co/1879rauiu7
try it free, no sign-up ↓
In 1994, software was dead. People told me programming was for nerds and that I should become a doctor or a lawyer instead.
In 2004, software was dead. People told me that someone from India would take my job for $5/hour.
In 2014, software was dead. People told me that no-code was going to kill every job and doom my career.
In 2024, software was dead with Devin, Windsurf, Copilot, and OpenAI o1.
We kill software every 10 years, and yet the demand for good Software Engineers has never been higher.
The operational risk isn't "nobody reads it" — it's "nobody can verify it." Once the corpus exceeds what a human can load into working memory, correctness has to shift from review to verification: formal specs, property-based tests, fuzzing, model checkers. The lever that keeps safety intact while code scales past human readability is the verification toolchain (KLEE, CBMC, Frama-C, liquid types, TLA+). The teams that ship unreadable code without burning down production aren't the ones with bigger teams — they're the ones that replaced "a human read this diff" with a proof or a failing property. Everything else is just hoping the blind spot didn't overlap the edge case.
Leslie Lamport is one of the greatest computer scientists alive.
In the 1980s, he wanted to write a book about concurrency, needed better macros for TeX, and spent several months developing LaTeX which mathematicians, physicists, and researchers around the world still use today.
The book never got written.
Then he continued his groundbreaking work in distributed systems theory (Paxos, logical clocks, Byzantine fault tolerance).
Some people's side projects become entire industries.
Rust compiler: "I cannot allow you to compile this because reference x might outlive borrowed scope y on line 42."
C compiler: "You want to cast an integer to a function pointer and jump straight into uninitialized heap memory? Hell yeah brother, here's your binary."
The Singularity:
1950: Real programmers wire their own circuits.
1985: Real programmers write their own assembly.
2010: Real programmers write their own C.
2026: Real programmers write their own Python.
2027: Real programmers write their own prompts.
One constant rules continuous change: the same e that compounds interest without bound also equals its own derivative and sums to itself via factorials.
e = lim (1 + 1/n)^n as n→∞
e = ∑_{n=0}^∞ 1/n!
d/dx e^x = e^x
∫_1^e (1/t) dt = 1
From population models and radioactive decay to neural nets and option pricing, continuous growth always traces back to this single base. Nature’s compounding engine is written in e.
The computer that landed Apollo 11 on the Moon computed sine with a polynomial of just three terms.
sin(πx/2) ≈ 2((C₅x² + C₃)x² + C₁)x, used only for |x| ≤ 1.
The constants are not Taylor coefficients. Taylor's C₃ would be −0.3229820, the AGC stored −0.3216147, nudged so the error wiggles across the interval instead of piling up at the end.
Result: max error 1.1×10⁻⁴ versus 4.5×10⁻³ for Taylor, about 40 times better at the same cost.
Good engineering often means choosing better constants.
Back to basics! Let's copy a string in C and then see how it's done in assembly language!
// How to copy a string in C and assembly:
In C:
while ((*dst++ = *src++))
;
// In PDP-11 assembly, a single instruction in a loop does it, because it has pre- and post-increment operations built into the instruction itself.
; R0 = src, R1 = dst
10$: MOVB (R0)+,(R1)+
BNE 10$
// In X86 assembly, REP MOVSB would do it if you knew the length, but you don't, so:
; RSI = src, RDI = dst, direction flag clear
copy:
lodsb ; AL = *src++
stosb ; *dst++ = AL
test al, al
jnz copy