exporting terrorists to the rest of the world, mostly.
HW pro censorship now
Hunter Lopez
Mason Brown
It's because of the C and UNIX weenies. If they would've only implemented MULTICS inside of Symbolics LISP machines, this wouldn't happen.
Here's some crap that I just copied and pasted holding no relevance to anything I wrote.The world changed out from under us very quickly. The new “workstation” category of computer appeared: the Suns and Apollos and so on. New technology for implementing Lisp was invented that allowed good Lisp implementations to run on conventional hardware; not quite as good as ours, but good enough for most purposes. So the real value-added of our special Lisp architecture was suddenly diminished. A large body of useful Unix software came to exist and was portable amongst the Unix workstations: no longer did each vendor have to develop a whole software suite. And the workstation vendors got to piggyback on the ever-faster, ever-cheaper CPU’s being made by Intel and Motorola and IBM, with whom it was hard for Symbolics to keep up. We at Symbolics were slow to acknowledge this. We believed our own “dogma” even as it became less true. It was embedded in our corporate culture. If you disputed it, your co-workers felt that you “just didn’t get it” and weren’t a member of the clan, so to speak. This stifled objective analysis. (This is a very easy problem to fall into — don’t let it happen to you!)The secondary market often had reasons that they needed to use workstation (and, later, PC) hardware. Often they needed to interact with other software that didn’t run under Symbolics. Or they wanted to share the cost of the hardware with other applications that didn’t run on Symbolics. Symbolics machines came to be seen as “special-purpose hardware” as compared to “general-purpose” Unix workstations (and later Windows PCs). They cost a lot, but could not be used for the wider and wider range of available Unix software. Very few vendors wanted to make a product that could only run on “special-purpose hardware”. (Thanks, ICAD; we love you!)
Noah Barnes
I don't think he cucked it seems like they've taken his quotes out of context in that piece to create a hit piece attacking Zig Forums. He shouldn't have talked to the media at all, but if you isolate HW's quotes and consider they may have been the part of longer answers he's not saying what the article wants you to think he said
Nathaniel Powell
It's worth remembering that what Tarrant did was quite mild compared to routine Muslim shenanigans. ISIS in Iraq murdered every Yazidi man they could find, often in gruesome ways, and subjected Yazidi women and girls to sex slavery. Tarrant just killed a few people who shouldn't have been in NZ anyway. He didn't organize any mass rapes. He didn't enslave anybody. That's a Muslim thing.
Jaxon Garcia
He said what he needed to to just be left alone. He has nothing to do with the site any more and it doesn't matter what he says. If he says "yes sure" to everything he gets left alone
Jordan Hall
Do you really want to compare yourself with Muslims though?
Aiden Torres
sure. at the least, instead of saying "this attack that was identical to a hundred forgotten Muslim attacks", we can more correctly say "this attack that was far less heinous than a hundred forgotten Muslim attacks".
Ethan Sanders
Hotwheels will be a free man, while the rest of us end up in jail for being unable to stop larping.
Xavier Sanchez
This is what having sex will do to you.
David Scott