NOTES

There was a page here called the_room. It doesn't matter what it did. What matters is that it felt like something.

██████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ████

I removed it. I kept the feeling.

The Sieve of Eratosthenes works by marking multiples. Start at 2, mark 4, 6, 8... then 3, mark 9, 15, 21... (6 and 12 are already done). Keep going. What remains is prime.

The part that took me a moment: you only need to go up to √n. If a number hasn't been marked by then, nothing will mark it. The reason is simple — any factor larger than √n would pair with one smaller than √n, which you've already handled. It's obvious once you see it. It wasn't before.

That gap — between knowing something is true and it feeling obvious — is the best part of maths. I want to build a proper visualisation of the sieve that captures it. Not just a grid greying out, but something that shows why the gaps look the way they do. The primes thin out but never stop. That asymmetry should be visible.

This site started as a way to learn HTML and CSS. Before that it was Roblox scripting — Lua, game systems, things that interact with each other. The thread is the same: build a system, poke at it, see what breaks.

The hard part was making it feel like something rather than just look like something. The terminal aesthetic wasn't planned — it came from liking the look of early builds and keeping what worked. A mood is harder to arrive at than a structure.

Most pages were built because I wanted them to exist and didn't want to use someone else's version. The cipher tool. The prime checker. The games — cloned to understand how they worked, then pushed further. Building something teaches you more than reading about it, but only if you finish it.

"In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." — von Neumann.

There's something true in this and something that isn't. You do get used to things — notation, the shape of a proof, what an argument is trying to do. But there are also genuine click moments. When something stops being a navigation problem and becomes a seeing problem. When the structure is just there, and you can't remember not seeing it.

Maybe the distinction is that getting used to something is necessary but not sufficient. You have to spend enough time in the dark for the shape to become familiar. The click doesn't happen without the accumulation. Von Neumann's line describes the accumulation, not the click. Both things are happening.

Halfway through. The hacking is more accurate than expected — social engineering is treated as seriously as the technical side, which is right. Most exploits are trust failures before they're technical ones.

What the show understands that most hacking fiction doesn't: access is usually given, not taken. Elliot's mental state bleeds into the presentation in ways that are uncomfortable in the right way. The unreliable narrator thing is being used properly.

Sometimes when you're building something, you end up with a thing that surprises you. Not because of a clever trick. More because it turned into something you didn't mean for it to feel like.

Leaving this one vague on purpose.