Also, tabbed browsing was still a couple years off for most people, although some browsers got there earlier than others:

> In 1994, BookLink Technologies featured tabbed windows in its InternetWorks browser.[citation needed] That same year, the text editor UltraEdit also appeared with a modern multi-row tabbed interface. The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997. These were followed by several others like IBrowse in 1999, and Opera in 2000 (with the release of version 4 - although an MDI interface was supported before then), MultiViews October 2000, which changed its name into MultiZilla on April 1st, 2001 (an extension for the Mozilla Application Suite[11]), Galeon in early 2001, Mozilla 0.9.5 in October 2001, Phoenix 0.1 (now Mozilla Firefox) in October 2002, Konqueror 3.1 in January 2003, and Safari in 2003. With the release of Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, all major web browsers featured a tabbed interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_%28interface%29

Also, Opera had a Multiple-Document Interface from the start, so 1995 or so. That's not "tabs" per se but multiple mini-windows inside the main window; much the same "Hey, I can have multiple things open!" deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_brows...

My point is, you think more about clicking a link when it'll monopolize your whole UI and you can't just stash it in a background tab or mini-window.

I just opened multiple copies of the browser; I'd have 5 or 10 running most of the time on my 98se box. It's where I got my habit which I still use today, of opening outlinks as I read the page, so they can load in the background, then once I finish the content of this page, I'll go skim those to fill in context.

It meant I cared _less_ about page load time, even on dialup, because they were happening in other windows. I could happily tolerate a 2-minute load time as long as the first page took more than 2 minutes to read.

Yes, the TCP/IP protocol stack beat the OSI protocol stack comprehensively, even down to four layers beating out seven unless you're so wedded to the Magic Number of Seven that you see Session as distinct from Application in the modern world, like how Newton was so wedded to seeing Seven Shades of Light in a spectrum he was sure to note indigo as distinct from violet in the rainbow.

(Presentation and Session are currently taught in terms of CSS and cookies in HTML and HTTP, respectively. When the web stack became Officially Part of the Officiously Official Network Stack is quite beyond me, and rather implies that you must confound the Web and the Internet in order to get the Correct Layering.)

https://computer.rip/2021-03-27-the-actual-osi-model.html - The Actual OSI Model

> I have said before that I believe that teaching modern students the OSI model as an approach to networking is a fundamental mistake that makes the concepts less clear rather than more. The major reason for this is simple: the OSI model was prescriptive of a specific network stack designed alongside it, and that network stack is not the one we use today. In fact, the TCP/IP stack we use today was intentionally designed differently from the OSI model for practical reasons.

> The OSI model is not some "ideal" model of networking, it is not a "gold standard" or even a "useful reference." It's the architecture of a specific network stack that failed to gain significant real-world adoption.

Plus, having to change email addresses when you physically move, in addition to when you change providers, would be immensely annoying.

I wonder how robust they are against people sending them fake data.

> Similar to the "code should be self documenting - ergo: We don't write any comments, ever"

My counterpoint: Code can be self-documenting, reality isn't. You can have a perfectly clear method that does something nobody will ever understand unless you have plenty of documentation about why that specific thing needs to be done, and why it can't be simpler. Like having special-casing for DST in Arizona, which no other state seems to need:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_United_States

This isn't a counterpoint, it's just additional (and barely relevant) information.

It's a counterpoint to the maxim, not the post I'm replying to.

Documenting it in a way that ensures it satisfies the example case would be preferred. You know, like with a test.

"Why is this person testing that Arizona does such bizarre things with time? Surely no actual state is like that! Such complexity! Take it out!"

Since the article doesn't mention: I've read that ICBMs used celestial navigation. Is this similar to what contemporary missiles used? Do we even know at this point?

Also, just to be clear: This links to a PDF, for some reason.

PDF, because it isn't marked.

It's not 1998 any more. All browsers read PDFs now.

Do you think your comment adds anything?

Yes.

It made me drink myself Venetian blind.

Your comments read like they're AI generated. Using "spend" as a noun, for example.