I used to like websites. I had my own—several, in fact—that accompanied a zine I sent out weekly. I had websites inside of websites, like Neopets, where I spent hours and hours perfecting my Starry Shoyru's pet page: custom graphics created in a bootleg version of PhotoShop, sparkly icons I animated myself, all tied together with the HTML I learned from other websites and pet pages. Most websites are awful now. (Not this one.) The website I  used to work for freezes my browser almost instantly because of its invasive ads. Forget trying to read any website on my phone; if the page loads, I can hardly even see text. Looking at social media is a nightmare for too many different reasons.

It's rare to discover a new website that isn't filled with horrors. DogOnline.net is one of the few! I had not heard of Dog Online until I read a Kotaku story by writer Amelia Zollner. I had a feeling I would like Dog Online after Zollner described it as "bringing back 2000s internet culture." It's perfect.

Dog Online is a virtual pet browser game, like Neopets, that’s been in open beta for a few months. Everything is charmingly drawn as if it was done in MS Paint, and the explore page, where the map is, is reminiscent of my beloved Neopets map. There is a bank, a farm, a dog pound, and a Dog Online version of Hot Topic: Hot Dog Topic.

I adopted a dog, a scruffy grey one, and called her Bruin. It is Pumpkin Week, which is a monthly event (lol) in which pumpkin baskets are handed out. Bruin found one, and is now wearing the adorable pumpkin costume that was inside. There are different biomes to explore, little ponds to fish in, and a fairly deep turn-based roleplaying game called the Lonely Tower. I have a toy box in which I can decorate the screen; currently I have a rainbow sparkle trail followed by a vintage cursor, and a tennis ball I can bounce around at the bottom of the browser window.

And, of course, you can make your own website for your dog. I haven't played around with this yet, but I am charmed by the people who have. What does the website say? I don't know! I can't read it over the busy rainbow ghost background. And it's just the way I like it.

I've spent just a little bit of time each day on Dog Online most days this week. Pop in, check on Bruin, and plod through the shops. Try to set a new record for bounces in keep-it-up with the browser tennis ball. Plot out what sorts of items I want to try to collect. It's just the way I like it, a simpler version of the dailies I used to do daily in Neopets.

One of the developers behind Dog Online told Kotaku the website was launched into public beta on April 1, but the game's had a bit of an increase in traffic in October, and now there are more than 10,000 users. I'm eager to see what Dog Online becomes as the developers continue to work on it and players continue to sign up. 

Neopets, as you probably know, is not what it once was. For a long time, Adobe's Flash shutdown left Neopets almost entirely broken. Neopia Central looks familiar, but the insidious nature of the modern internet has not just creeped in, but flooded in. Everywhere Neopets is trying to sell stuff: Neopia Central now highlights, with two big ol' moving strobe lights, the real money marketplace. I opened Neopets this morning, the first time in a bit, and the first pop-up was reminding me to click the ad button in the top-left corner to watch an ad for "free" Neopoints. A real bummer!

Dog Online feels like what I remember of playing Neopets as a kid. Back to the good internet!

As parents helping our kids learn advanced math at home through online platforms, we frequently run into an issue with the grade they receive for that week’s section. On the one hand, the grade is helpful because it shows how much of the material they understood. On the other hand, the grade doesn’t show how they approached the questions, where they got stuck, or what they learned.

For example, a few weeks ago, one of our kids got a problem wrong and asked for my help. After a few minutes, I got exactly the same answer they had. We tried solving it together a different way and still got their original answer. Confused, we switched activities to give our brains a break and came back later in the day, only to find that we had written down the initial problem wrong! The score for that problem didn’t show the mathematical work our kid and I did on a different question, including trying other approaches and comparing answers.

A few years ago, one of our kids spent an entire forty-minute math session on a single problem and didn’t finish it. During that time, they tried a whole bunch of different approaches and looked for similar examples in the course textbook. They ended up leaving the answer box blank when they submitted the homework for the week, as they weren’t able to solve it. The blank answer box didn’t show the investigation, the various attempts, or the use of a textbook, all of which happened without producing a solution.

In both cases, the report score didn't tell the whole story. Judging a math session by its recorded result can make it seem as though they had not spent their time well. When we talked about math at home, using the word “problem” made it feel like math was something to be solved, and if we didn’t solve it correctly, we had failed.

We’ve observed that it can be incredibly demoralizing to get a question wrong and not be able to change the score once you’ve figured it out. Our kids’ understanding can change while the recorded score remains the same.

This is why I like the word “exercise” when we learn math. We’ve realized that thinking of answering math questions as “math exercises” rather than “math problems” makes math time more enjoyable and relaxed.

Of course, we care that they can reach and understand the correct solution. It’s just that viewing their math time through the lens of right or wrong answers leaves little room for the other kinds of progress that happen when they try to solve a math question.

Treating each math block as a training session lets us slow down, notice what’s useful, and treat every math question as a chance to improve. It can also help us be more patient and understanding while our kids learn. If we treat answering math questions as a workout full of exercises, we leave more room for mistakes, for celebrating small wins, for do-overs, and for recognizing when they need an explanation, a simpler question, or a different approach.

Ultimately, we want our kids to value the work they put into answering math questions and feel comfortable working on a question they don’t yet know how to answer. Sometimes math questions take minutes, days, months, or even years to solve. And some math questions haven’t been solved (yet!).

That’s all for today :) For more Kids Who Love Math treats, check out our archives.

Stay Mathy!

Talk soon,
Sebastian

Security personnel around the world are on high alert Tuesday following the discovery of eight TLS certificates with private keys so weak they could allow anyone to mint trusted browser and app credentials for any site on the Internet.

As of late morning Tuesday, browser makers and some major apps and programming languages had blocked all eight of the intermediate certificates. There are no reports of certificate transparency logs, which track the issuance of all browser-trusted certificates, showing the compromised keys being used maliciously. The threat remains far from over, however, because it will be hard and time-consuming to update other key parts of the Internet, such as Linux distributions and embedded and Internet of Things devices.

One word: bonkers

The eight intermediate certificates belong to India-based certificate authority eMudhra Limited. An informal advisory published to emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com over on Tuesday posted the message “We have a problem here - Wayne.” The words were digitally signed using the private key of one of the eMudhra certificates. With proof that the reporting party had control of the key, defenders scrambled because the same key could be used to sign unauthorized certificates that would be trusted by millions of servers worldwide.

Read full article

Comments

At the very top of the Wikipedia article “List of artificial objects on the Moon” is a short disclaimer: Though the list includes more than a hundred objects, it is far from complete. Not included are the “lesser” items littering the lunar surface—­the pins, statues, golf balls, plaques, hammers, and memorials that moonwalkers have left behind. Among them is an object called the Lunar Library. It is a kind of ark, designed to preserve an everlasting cultural memory of human civilization. Etched onto a sheet of nickel, in a nano-­font so minuscule it can be read only through a microscope, are the complete texts of thousands of great written works from across the ages. Near the top of this final testament of our species is an English-­language edition of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anybody can edit.

Unlike the paper Bible left behind by NASA moonwalker David R. Scott in 1971, the Lunar Library’s form is impervious to gamma radiation and expected to last billions of years. For Wikipedia, being engraved into eternity represented a triumph long delayed. In 2007, it had become the largest encyclopedia ever to exist, ending the reign of the imperial Chinese Yongle encyclopedia after six hundred years. Some called it the first digital wonder of the world, yet it had reached this milestone to meager fanfare. Tributes were muted, and the lone statue monumentalizing its achievement little known, as it stood, for some reason, in the Polish border town of Słubice (pop. 16,000).

So when in 2018 a private moon lander named Beresheet ferried the Lunar Library into orbit, it was an elevated honor in an unusually literal sense. The craft’s languid two-­month flight path ended above the moon on April 11, 2019, where it took only a few seconds for seven years of planning to come undone. Beresheet lost contact with its faraway pilots and then dropped through the thin atmosphere, crashing with such force that a glittering nickel disk was flung far across the face of the Sea of Tranquility. The Lunar Library had, in the words of its creator, been turned into a “30 million page Frisbee.” It has never been seen since.

Wikipedia is sui generis, one of the strangest and most outlandish successes of its time, quite unlike what came before it or anything set to succeed it.

At first this bungled tribute seemed another letdown for Wikipedia. But it was, in its way, perfect. The Lunar Library’s unscheduled final flight was a sympathetic homage: unpredictable, chaotic, impervious to control, and more far-­reaching than anyone expected. Wikipedia is sui generis, one of the strangest and most outlandish successes of its time, quite unlike what came before it or anything set to succeed it. Since its birth twenty-­five years ago, it has become part of the fabric of everyday life, quietly indivisible from the experience of seeking information, a default with no obvious precedent or competitor. For most of its lifespan, it has enjoyed a unique supremacy—­not only an encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia, a reference work to end all others.

Though Wikipedia has been consulted trillions of times and read by billions of people, very few of those billions know how it works or where it came from. One of Wikipedia’s many perplexing qualities is the lack of curiosity it provokes. Even those broadly enthusiastic about the encyclopedia sometimes donate money to “pay for the fact checkers,” unaware that it doesn’t have any, or at least not any who are paid. Its public image is intertwined with Wikipedia’s figurehead, Jimmy Wales, in part because pictures of his plaintive face so often accompany appeals for those donations. The face is assuring, kindly, bearded. Wales once compared reading Wikipedia to eating a sausage: “you might like the taste of it, but you don’t necessarily want to see how it’s made.”

Here is part of the paradox that made Wikipedia possible. Its vast scale and reach sprang from an experiment that was radical and even shocking when it was first attempted. Rather than restricting the creation of knowledge to luminaries and experts, it entrusted anyone who wanted to participate, and then let them work how they wanted to. Its status as “the people’s encyclopedia” violated the hierarchy of expertise that preceded it, and still, a quarter-­century on, Wikipedia has never quite shaken that first flush of the ridiculous. “Everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it,” a cynic once remarked, a reality that held for years. A natural countertendency has formed, especially among its fans, to insist the project be taken more seriously. But that ridiculousness should be appreciated. It had a valuable protective function: Had anyone predicted Wikipedia’s true value during its formative phase, it would never have survived.

This lack of curiosity might explain the scarcity of nonacademic books about Wikipedia. Some of this is prejudice, too. For a time, many writers and journalists disdained Wikipedia as a way of burnishing their own credentials as professionals. They feared—­rightly—­what might happen if it failed, and when it did work, they fretted that it was working too well. Gather the titles about Amazon, Google, and the other phenomena that define the online world, and together they can cram a bookshop. Wikipedia can barely fill a shelf, and its early period as a “startup” is even less represented. As the lone nonprofit enterprise among its peers, Wikipedia’s story doesn’t belong in the business section. There are no financial numbers to set the stakes, and its cast of characters, with rare exceptions, includes neither executives nor employees. Though a habit of mind places it next to the titans of Silicon Valley, it stands awkwardly apart (this is apt; it didn’t come from Silicon Valley either). It shares the narrative arc of a comedy instead, one of those 1980s comedies where the nerds and misfits beat the rich kids in the big game, although in this big game, the “rich kids” were nerds and misfits too.

Reflect further, and Wikipedia may not belong in the “tech” section either. It is not a technological miracle, at least not in the way a smartphone is. The software that makes it run is well regarded without being revolutionary. Its most important breakthroughs were cultural breakthroughs. Look again at the Lunar Library, and you can see that Wikipedia is an uncanny object. It is vast and tiny at the same time. Its entirety, both text and images, can fit onto a $5 thumb drive. Look it up in Jack Lynch’s history of reference works (called You Could Look It Up: The Reference Shelf from Ancient Babylon to Wikipedia), and Wikipedia’s page count is listed as “zero,” and its size and weight are marked as “none.” Wikipedia has non-­Newtonian properties. It is monumental while having almost no distinctive physical presence at all, a confounding effect that makes it hard to appraise. It is both too big to understand and somehow too ephemeral to bother trying.

Why try now? The remedial answer would be to say that we should know how it works and where it came from and that this has now become urgent: Thanks to artificial intelligence, more people are using Wikipedia unknowingly than ever before. Delve further, and we strike a more unexpected question. What is Wikipedia? Not everyone agrees it is an encyclopedia, and it is so distinct from everything else called an encyclopedia that it deserves a new name. It could, with justification, be called a hyperpedia, or a massively multi-­editor online encyclopedia. But there is no need for new jargon: the word “wikipedia” is itself a coinage, a portmanteau of “wiki” and “encyclopedia.” The word marries two inventions, one from the eighteenth century and one from the twentieth. A modern encyclopedia compiles summaries of knowledge; a wiki is a page on the internet that can be edited by anyone. Each is much more powerful than it first appears. Combining them turned out to be one of the twenty-­first century’s most consequential ideas, and one that is still not fully understood or appreciated.

Wikipedia is not only the largest encyclopedia written by humans. It is also the last encyclopedia humans will ever write.

Wikipedia is also an event, a phenomenon in time. It is an act of collective cultural creation—­the largest act of this kind in history—that was tightly concentrated between 2001 and 2008, when the present-­day form of the project took shape. The conclusion of this period can be identified—­it is the moment Wikipedia’s growth rate, once exponential, became linear. We still tend to use the term “digital era” in a hazy, ballpark sort of way, a vague gesture to the number of computers around the place, although the true shift is much sharper. Sometime in 2002, the quantity of digital information in existence overtook the quantity of analog information in existence. It is not a coincidence that the birth of Wikipedia sits at the very center of this process, one of a new breed of informational behemoths.

It is just this critical period where the contemporary coverage of Wikipedia is thinnest. Because it was considered unimportant when it started, crucial moments had little media interest or were neglected outright. Controversies remain unresolved, key figures forgotten, and central strands of its origin story underestimated or ignored. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is also a written work and remains deeply underappreciated as a landmark in the history of writing, reading, and editing. Once seen as a literary production of enormous size, it also turns out to have a hidden pedigree in the humanities.

It might sound pretentious to call Wikipedians heirs to Voltaire, Diderot, and Leibniz (especially if they were listening to Insane Clown Posse at the time), but this turns out to be true in a profound way. Not only do philosophy, literature, and history play a part in this story, but so do less expected influences like architecture and poetry. At a time when the humanities are in eclipse, these legacies are more precious still. They are also responsible for one of Wikipedia’s most unheralded qualities—­its beauty. Out of the crooked timber of Wikipedia’s imperfections, wonder has been made. The same distortions that seem squalid or irritating can also make grandeur; Annie Rauwerda, who runs the popular social media account Depths of Wikipedia, compared this sensation of appreciation to stumbling on “abandoned cathedrals.”

Already it is the beauty of something fragile. Younger people only know the encyclopedic form at all because Wikipedia has sustained it. Loss defines the digital age just as much as abundance: Of all the data created in 2020 (a very large proportion of the data that has ever been created), less than 2 percent was saved and retained into 2021. In 2014, the BBC reported that online history was disappearing with breakneck speed, creating what it called “a black hole for future historians.” Reach out to corroborate something from only a few years ago, and often it turns out to be deleted, or corrupted, or trapped on a lost disk in a half-­forgotten format. Recent history can feel more remote than the paperbound past that preceded it. Meanwhile, the memories of the people who made Wikipedia, though fading, can still be accessed.

Wikipedia is not only the largest encyclopedia written by humans. It is also the last encyclopedia humans will ever write. Thanks to artificial intelligence, we must apply the new description “human-­authored” to Wikipedia, and the circumstances that created it have foreclosed. It is an escapee from a parallel universe, a refugee of the internet as it should have been, instead of the internet as it is. We associate size with strength, but it can introduce weakness as well. Wikipedia could yet drown in a tidal wave of AI slop or be overshadowed by computer-­composed encyclopedias of even more unfeasible size. Experiments are already trying to bring such monstrosities to life. Less dramatic ends await Wikipedia too—­being broken up into parts or withering through neglect as audiences encounter it in places where it can be read, but not edited. After years of noncombatant status in the culture wars (occupying the no-­man’s-­land between “trust the experts” and “do your own research”), it has attracted new attention from dangerous political enemies, foreign and domestic.

Digital empires, once fallen, leave few ruins. Wikipedia might not be glittering or extraterrestrial, but this is my attempt at preservation. A means to say: we saw it made, and it was good.

_______________________________

Excerpted from The Last Best Place on the Internet: A Human History of Wikipedia by Richard Cooke. Copyright © 2026 by Richard Cooke. Used with permission of the publisher, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

There is virtually no way I could have resisted Sylvie McNamara’s dispatch from her journey to a disreputable McDonald’s in Stafford, Virginia. I’ve listened to my share of the Doughboys podcast, and regularly debate burger rankings with my son. What’s more, I went to high school just two miles down the road from this particular location, whose aggregated Google reviews won it dubious distinction in a nation of interchangeable fast-food franchises. Thankfully, McNamara’s lighthearted investigation, which invites readers to consider Robert Caro and teenage commitments to the social contract, will satisfy you no matter your relationship with the Golden Arches. It reminded me of tongue-in-cheek alt-weekly features, a few pleasurable Paris Review web essays, and that episode of Mystery Show where Starlee Kine goes deep with a Ticketmaster employee. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba, I loved it.

I asked the employee for an explanation. “I think I can give you real insight,” he said. “It be the certain workers we got.” He himself is a high schooler, but he said that “we’re starting to get more younger managers. As soon as they turn 18, they’re getting a manager spot. I think my general manager’s 20. It’s a lot of kids getting these manager titles and positions, but they’re not really managers.”

I told him that to be honest, that environment sounded kind of fun.

WHEREAS, a grading policy should help us focus our energy—yours and mine—in the direction of your learning;

WHEREAS, we can both be grown-ups here and admit that students are using AI all the time to complete their homework;

WHEREAS, student AI use results in greater homework completion but lower assessment scores a/k/a less learning;

WHEREAS, students understand all of this, with a majority of them quite aware that their AI use harms their learning;

WHEREAS, students are in a prisoner’s dilemma with one another, each one competing for finite college admissions, finite grades on a curve, finite jobs, each student debating the pros and cons of either turning in their own work and learning more (at the risk of a lower grade) or turning in AI output and getting a higher grade (at the risk of an academic integrity sanction);

WHEREAS, this relationship between teachers and students is really quite poisonous, with both sides locked in an arms race—teachers working to detect AI in ever more sophisticated ways (keystroke logs!) and students responding with ever more sophisticated evasions (keystroke simulators!);

BE IT RESOLVED, exams will count for 80% of your final grade. These will be taken in-class and without the assistance of AI;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, homework is worth 20% of your final grade and will be graded on a complete / incomplete basis only. Any submission that meets the minimum requirement will receive a complete score;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, you may use AI in any capacity on homework. If you copy and paste the assignment into an LLM and turn in the result, you will receive a score of “complete,” no questions asked;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, you will tell me if and where you want my feedback. Neither of us benefit when I give your LLM feedback. Both of us benefit when you help me invest my energy in the places where you have invested your developing knowledge, skill, and taste. Point me towards those places. If you primarily or entirely used AI to complete your homework, consider attaching your LLM prompts. They are a useful indication of your learning and I will be happy to try to develop them through my feedback. I’m certain I will learn a lot from them as well.

If you have any questions or feedback on this grading policy, please leave them in the comments below.