You cannot close HTML tags that way anyways, <br> and <br/> are the same, as are <div> and <div/>. The spec defines whether an element self-closes, the slash is just ignored.
not only do i think doom in css is possible, but both me and another css person were also planning on actually making it into reality
but it sort of feels demotivating to see js-powered css projects like this hit the frontpage, because if we do eventually make a css-only doom people will think its a repost or nothing special
edit: and to be clear, that demotivation is more of a problem of how the internet, virality, and news cycles work. the actual project here is still pretty cool!
the difference is that knowing 2^8 is generally not useful to people who don't know it
this here is something that's pretty useful to most ssh users, yet seldom spoken of
a better analogy would be comparing it to calling a very good, but not well-known restaurant a secret place - using the word to mean a hidden gem rather than an intentionally hidden secret
Why is the 8086 not equivalent to x86? PCLMULHQHQDQ is from the CLMUL extension, which only began appearing in CPUs in the early 2010s - are CPUs from before then not x86?
x86 is an overarching group. Each processor is backwards compatible, I believe, so a 486 can run 8086 code, but they are not equivalent. If I download an x86 version of a program, I don't expect it to be written only in 8086 instructions
When you download an x86 program you're making a lot of other assumptions too, such as what the target operating system and hardware are. Even 8086 MSDOS software won't directly work in this emulator because it's not emulating DOS nor an IBM compatible, it has it's own addresses for the I/O. It's still x86 though.
I wasn't sure whether to address the disconnect in the FAQ - I wanted it to be short and readable.
The idea is that, since a long time ago, there has always been demos that prove turing completeness and other programmy qualities in CSS, but that which people dismiss as requiring user inputs. The ones around by the time the comment got made were definitely at the "keep on clicking on the same spot on the screen" level - essentially just providing a clock.
And seeing discussion from after Jane Ori's hack, many still claim that even as much as hovering your mouse on a specific part of the screen makes css not a programming language.
"providing a clock" is not something to dismiss though. Arithmetic plus looping will give you a Turing machine, so you do need both or you're just showing the ability to do arithmetic.
And a proper Turing machine doesn't need an extra line of template html for each iteration. It's much easier to forgive finite memory, since a small amount of memory can go for billions of years while an iteration limit runs out fast.
This one passes all the bars, but I do think the bars were overall legitimate.
> many still claim that even as much as hovering your mouse on a specific part of the screen makes css not a programming language.
clock != looping, those examples already loop (dont need a line per iteration), but just dont have a built-in clock
and requiring a clock is imo dismissable, because pretty much all modern technology needs a clock too (either from the power grid, or from a hardware component designed for it)
Sure, we can separate loops from clocking for the most part. But it doesn't really change the analysis. These loop. The stuff from several years ago didn't loop properly.
As a tangent though, the system is already powered, you shouldn't need a secondary power source to make your Turing machine go. Something there still feels incomplete, like it probably passes but with an asterisk. But that distinction doesn't matter for CSS since it can self-clock.
