[HN Gopher] Diode - Build, program, and simulate hardware
___________________________________________________________________
Diode - Build, program, and simulate hardware
Author : rossant
Score : 432 points
Date : 2026-02-20 22:14 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.withdiode.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.withdiode.com)
| dorongrinstein wrote:
| wow. looks amazing
| svennidal wrote:
| Looks great, but pretty difficult to work with. Would be nice to
| be able to switch to top view to see more clearly where you're
| plugging things.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| You can click the background and drag to rotate the view
| lnenad wrote:
| It's still clunky though. It's a great, cool thing that OP
| built but just not very practical.
| svennidal wrote:
| Looks great, but pretty difficult to work with. Would be nice
| to be able to switch to top view to see more clearly where
| you're plugging things.
|
| Edit: Clicking the background and dragging it actually gave me
| the top view I was looking for. Thank you goodcanadian. That
| said, I still think this application is a better skillset demo
| than a practical tool to use.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| lacks exception catching for when webgl is disabled
| zkmon wrote:
| Super cool. Wonder if we can input the circuit as code.
| bandrami wrote:
| There used to be some really good web-based SPICE interpreters
| but I can't find them now. This was before javascript ate
| everything, so you would enter the netlist, click a button, and
| get a GIF or the current at a specified terminal or whatever
| eqvinox wrote:
| Well, SPICE is still around in its zillion forks and
| dialects...
|
| AIUI the best frontend is kicad, though I never really tried
| that, I just wrote the text files by hand.
| eqvinox wrote:
| > Wonder if we can input the circuit as code.
|
| SPICE. You're describing SPICE. :)
| d-us-vb wrote:
| As others have mentioned, SPICE is the traditional answer to
| that question. But SPICE feels more like a macro-assembler for
| circuits.
|
| One project that comes to mind for high-level programming style
| circuits-as-code:
|
| https://github.com/atopile/atopile
|
| Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39263854 More
| recent HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44548449
| numpad0 wrote:
| No one realistically speak SVG. Human consciousness isn't a
| software built on language. Speech center is just a part of a
| human brain.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| the 3D look is cool but makes it harder to put stuff together
| fercircularbuf wrote:
| This is really terrific!!!
| shakna wrote:
| Holy requests, batman.
|
| ... Why so many requests for a static asset?
| lm28469 wrote:
| Because it's yet another slopware of course
| folli wrote:
| Please don't. The project is around since at least 2022.
| dgxyz wrote:
| I appreciated that smoke comes out of the battery if you short it
| :)
|
| Edit: I am ex EE. I will note that it's horrible using this view.
| It is marginally more horrible than using breadboards in reality.
| Schematics exist because reality tends to suck or have
| inconsistencies. For example TO-99 packages come in different pin
| orders, so 2N3904 has the opposite order to a BC547. Also
| breadboards tend not to have full length bus bars depending on
| vendors. At least though in this form it's an ideal
| representation though which doesn't have parasitic capacitors,
| inductors, dodgy contacts and no ground plane all over it.
|
| It is good fun though :)
| buescher wrote:
| Schematics also help explain your circuit because the idioms of
| drawing them communicate intent. Which is one of the things the
| Shenzhen/Ladyada/Sparkfun/SeedStudio crowd don't get with their
| "schematic as data entry for layout" style. Some of them should
| know better.
|
| Breadboards make me wince a little especially in a professional
| setting but I've made my peace with dev boards that come with
| DIP-style pins for them. Decent breadboards are so cheap now
| that every dev board get to live on its own permanent
| breadboard.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| "... _schematic as data entry for layout_ style... "
|
| Maybe you can explain.
|
| Are you saying in these cases often the physical PCB layout
| follows the geometry of the schematic?
| buescher wrote:
| I mean when they put parts down on the schematic and just
| attach net names to them. You know, the pull-up resistors
| in the corner with named nets on them, not shown attached
| to particular pins or buses. Usually with a dotted box
| drawn around them. Frequently horizontal.
|
| Also usually totally implicit power routing. And no one
| that draws schematics that way has ever learned the value
| of drawing IC symbols to fit the circuit as opposed to the
| physical pinning of the device.
| compumike wrote:
| > Schematics also help explain your circuit because the
| idioms of drawing them communicate intent.
|
| I think this is a key point. One could imagine three layers:
|
| (1) NETLIST: a list of text-only descriptions, like "R1 1 0
| 1k", or even a sentence description "connect a 1k resistor
| between node 1 and node 0"
|
| (2) SCHEMATIC: a 2D drawing with canonical symbols, straight
| lines for wires, and labels/notes
|
| (3) LAYOUT: a 3D (or multi-layer 2D) physical representation
| for PCB, or in this case breadboarding
|
| All three layers are useful. (Obviously you need layout to
| make a PCB, and you need a netlist for simulation.)
|
| But for most humans, where we have 2D visual representations
| baked in, if you're trying to understand or communicate
| what's going on:
|
| - It's really really hard to keep track of a bunch of text
| sentences like a netlist and node numbers/names for all but
| the simplest circuits -- maybe 3-5 elements?
|
| - It's really really hard to follow a 3D layout of PCB tracks
| that leads to pads, and then having to remember pin orders
| etc.
|
| - It's easiest to follow a schematic diagram. It's browsable.
| It contains "idioms", as you say, about signal flow, logical
| block groupings, etc.: purpose and intent and functionality,
| in a way that netlists and physical layouts don't.
|
| FYI, for medium-large digital circuits, I don't think this is
| true: probably just reading VHDL/Verilog, like reading source
| code, makes more sense. This is closer to the "netlist"
| level. I think that's because you'd name modules and
| inputs/outputs in a way similar to how you'd name functions
| and arguments in software, which doesn't really apply to
| "Resistor" or "Capacitor" as primitives.
|
| But for a pretty big practical range of mixed-mode and analog
| things, I'd argue that schematics really are the easiest
| level for our brains.
|
| (Disclosure: I'm one of the founders of CircuitLab
| https://www.circuitlab.com/ (YC W13) where we've been
| building an online circuit simulator & schematic editor for a
| long time. Although I'm mostly on the simulation engine /
| netlist side. My cofounder and other teammates have done most
| of the schematic GUI work.)
|
| IMHO solderless breadboards still have their place for
| prototyping some slow circuits, ballpark maybe < 1 MHz
| signals, if you're aware of the extra capacitance and
| limitations. :)
| buescher wrote:
| You essentially can practice the classical art of memory on
| a 2D representation (think why you can remember who was at
| lunch by thinking about where they sat), and it's useful to
| have them at different levels. Almost any nontrivial
| schematic should have an associated block diagram (by this
| I do not mean it necessarily should be captured at the
| block diagram level in a "hierarchical design"; these can
| be more trouble than they're worth). There are other types
| of diagrams that can be useful, too.
|
| I haven't done much HDL work so I don't have strong
| opinions there, but let's think about graphical
| representations source code and software intent for a
| moment. I like to see some block-level description of
| firmware even if it's just a few rectangles representing
| the main loop and each ISR other other process with text
| indicating what they do. I like to see statecharts. If
| someone has written an implicit flags-and-conditionals
| state machine, I'll draw the statechart and start probing
| for bugs and debugging from there. Tools like Scitools
| Understand are drastically underrated for figuring out
| other people's code, incidentally.
|
| What kills me about the aforementioned style is that it
| eschews the schematic as a tool for thinking and implicitly
| sees schematic capture as a layer of friction you have to
| get through to get to layout. I suspect a lot of designs
| drawn that way were built up point-to-point on a breadboard
| and never sketched or even otherwise mentally visualized.
| jhedwards wrote:
| Ah this reminds me of my first big mistake with PCBs. I have
| recently started down the hardware track, and my first PCB has
| a number of BC547 and BC558 transistors on it.
|
| Once I had a functioning prototype, the next step was to
| convert it into a schematic. After that, you have to convert
| the schematic into a PCB. Now we are at two layers of
| translation, and at this step I made a mistake: I wanted to use
| SMD components to save money, and I found that the BC8xx
| transistors are the SMD equivalent of the BC5xx ones, so I used
| the footprint of the BC8xx transistors in my PCB, with no
| errors from KiCad.
|
| As it turns out, the BC8xx footprint is not compatible with a
| BC5xx schematic! The pinout is different: the base is pin 1
| instead of pin 2, so the components in my PCB that use
| transistors (crucially, the voltage controlled amplifier)
| didn't work. Unlike a bug, that mistake cost me $200 and weeks
| of development time, but after 10+ years of writing software
| I'm still happy to be making things that people can touch.
| dgxyz wrote:
| We've all done that sort of stuff!
|
| Mine was assuming that the stripe on tantalum SMD capacitors
| was the negative side. First prototype board came back from
| the fab and pick and place department (we had it in house).
| Immediately caught fire when I powered it up :)
|
| Second lesson, start with current limit on your bench supply,
| not throw 10A into it :)
| estimator7292 wrote:
| I've been an EE for a decade and I made this exact mistake
| last week. It's inevitable lol
| buescher wrote:
| You can catch it with a footprint review. List all your new
| footprints or old footprints assigned to new parts, and
| have someone else check them against the datasheets. Or if
| you ever have the good fortune to work with a very good
| layout designer, they will check things like that for you
| just to catch you out.
| quinnjh wrote:
| I haven't managed to design a pcb without finding an issue
| in the first run.
|
| Shoutout to OSHpark's prototype service. Something like 5
| bucks an inch and you only have to toss out 3 if you find a
| fault.
| dgxyz wrote:
| Write a list of everything that you fuck up every time,
| check the next one against it and eventually you get a
| good one first hit. I had three in a row that worked out
| of the box in the end!
|
| Printing the board outline and layers combined as well.
| And checking you used the correct footprints against
| actual parts helps.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| I'be been reading schematics for over 30 years, sometimes i
| need to draw one just to understand an idea that I have. These
| "real" drawings (like fritzing) hurt my head. They might be
| useful for the casual tinkerer but anyone who finds electronics
| interesting should learn the basic symbols.
| bandrami wrote:
| OK the smoke was really funny
| seanthemon wrote:
| A more mature version of this is "CRUMB" found on steam, it costs
| money but it's got a lot of great features.
| WalterGR wrote:
| https://www.crumbsim.com/
|
| Steam: 78% positive reviews out of 675. $8.99. Windows-only,
| though the website says "CRUMB is available for iOS and Android
| along side its desktop counterparts on Windows and MacOS."
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/2198800/CRUMB_Circuit_Sim...
|
| No affiliation.
| superxpro12 wrote:
| interesting. how does this compare with more "industrial"
| sims like "proteus" https://www.labcenter.com/simulation/ ?
|
| No affiliation with any. I'm a Comp.E in consumer electronics
| who likes to keep a pulse on these things.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Not a fan. The standard schematic abstraction is great and
| actually helps us parse circuits.
|
| Don't add unnecessary complexity just because AIs are good at
| vibecoding threejs demos (edit: even if this particular demo
| seems to predate vibecoding and was likely used for training
| instead of being the product of inference).
| globular-toast wrote:
| Got to agree. This is kind of pointless. Breadboards exist to
| make it easier to build physical circuits. I would also argue
| there is paedagogical value in actually playing with a physical
| breadboard. Having to physically orient things in 3D space is a
| small price you pay for building a physical prototype. This is
| all the downsides with none of the upsides.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| The upsides are the measurement tools built in.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| You have those in all simulations.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Sure. It's an upside to breadboarding in the real world
| though.
| icedrift wrote:
| On the contrary, when I was in high school we had one class
| dedicated to digital electronics and it revolved around
| breadboard circuitry. You only had 30 minutes/day to tinker
| with the physical hardware then it had to be disassembled for
| the next class. Simulations like this are more approachable
| then schematics and would have been great for tinkering outside
| of class.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| When I was a small child it was cool to play with circuitry
| (dad did some electronics) but as soon as I encountered
| components of different shape (a capacitor that looks like a
| resistor) it stopped making sense to me. thinking in
| schematics early is key
| colesantiago wrote:
| This is actually very cool and predates vibe coding, please
| stop gatekeeping.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| I'll grant you the vibecoding comment. That was uncalled for
| and unjustified.
|
| From an EE perspective I still see limited value in having a
| 3D breadboard. Having a standardized schematic language is
| really nice. Everybody knows how resistors, capacitors and
| transistors look like in a schematic, whereas they are all
| just little cuboids with varying number of pads in their smd
| packages. I recommend multisim blue for learning btw.
|
| Nevertheless, a cool project and I should be more positive
| when commenting.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Is there a good free circuit simulator (that use a
| schematic as interface, I assume)?
|
| I somewhat agree with you in general though--if the web UX
| is a breadboard... maybe just get a breadboard? At the same
| time, while physical parts are generally cheap enough,
| power supplies, multimeters, an oscilloscope... that part
| of the hobby can add up.
|
| Sometimes too I am waiting a week or two for a part to
| arrive from Mouser, it is nice to be able to mock up a
| circuit online.
| asynchronous13 wrote:
| There are tons of free sim tools. 'Spice' (Simulation
| Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis) was a very
| early commercial sim. So many of the free ones use some
| variant of spice in their name. LTSpice, Qspice, etc.
|
| Kicad is an excellent free schematic capture and
| simulation software.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Thanks. (And KiCad I am very familiar with already. I
| love that app.)
| buescher wrote:
| There are many. What's your (computing) platform and what
| are you trying to simulate? The more professional tools
| (beginning with freebies like LTspice) are oriented
| around letting you probe waveforms from simulated inputs
| and are not as oriented towards interactive probing "does
| this LED light when I press that button?" as a hobbyist
| might want.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Thanks. I prefer Mac (maybe preferring online these days
| though). I do a lot of analog stuff with op-amps lately
| (analog computing).
|
| I'm breadboarding with physical breadboards but they get
| messy/cluttered fast, ha ha.
| buescher wrote:
| I thought so. I'm a fan of Glider.
|
| I personally reach for LTspice from Analog Devices first
| even if I have better available - it is quick, easy
| enough to use, and someone has ported the model you need
| to it already. There is a Mac version on their web site
| but I have never used it.
|
| Micro-Cap is free-as-in-free-beer but windows-native and
| will do stability analysis (gain margin/phase margin).
|
| Qucs-S + the backend simulator of your choice is probably
| your best bet for free software on Mac. Original Qucs is
| still developed (checkins last month on their github, if
| you want to try building from source) but hasn't had a
| release in almost ten years. QucsStudio is now uSimmics
| and is closed-source and Windows-native. They all have
| their peculiar uses. I haven't used any of them much.
|
| Online you can use PartsQuest Explore for free for public
| designs and short simulation runs. I have not used the
| online version much but it is basically the very powerful
| Siemens (Mentor) VHDL-AMS simulator that has gone by a
| number of names (Mentor never commits to names) on the
| backend. I have used that: it came with PADS Standard
| Plus. It surprisingly does just about everything at least
| usably well. It can use spice models or VHDL-A(MS)
| models. It can use RF s-parameter models. It can use
| control-theory laplace-transform block models. It will do
| stability analysis and monte carlo analysis. It can run
| VHDL models. You can model just about anything you can
| write the ODEs for in VHDL-AMS: try viewing source on
| their motor model for example. You won't get the filter
| synthesis or analysis tools you'll find in a dedicated RF
| simulator like Keysight Pathwave. You won't get the
| controls design and analysis tools in the Matlab/Simulink
| toolkits. But it does a whole heck of a lot.
| peterus wrote:
| I've found a combination of circuitjs and a spice
| simulator to be quick for prototyping custom analog
| circuits (made mainly from discretes). Circuitjs
| https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html allows you
| to edit components live unlike spice simulators, but with
| the tradeoff of convergence issues for more complex
| circuits, so I use circuitjs as a playground then use
| LTspice as a rigorous simulator.
|
| If it's a circuit made by composing multiple integrated
| circuits based on their application notes and not a
| custom analog design, I just use LTspice alone since you
| can just import the manufacturers spice behavioral model
| (assuming they didn't encrypt them...)
| asystole wrote:
| So we're just using "vibe coded" as a generic insult now for
| project we don't like?
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Well, it somehow gives off vibecoded vibes, even though it's
| not. Make of that what you want, but that's expressed in
| quite a few comments here.
|
| Maybe it's just the extremely clean and generic presentation
| on the website without any links to the author / team /
| twitter.
| dwringer wrote:
| For me there seems to be a listing of configurable settings
| or something but it only pops up for a single frame after I
| right-click-drag a component - this seems like a broken
| mouse interaction.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I don't think the vibecoding jab is warranted, but I agree this
| is a pretty terrible UI for electronic circuits. Schematic
| capture exists for a reason! It's not even difficult for
| beginners to understand if you have a decent UX (which for some
| reason seems to elude 90% of PCB software).
| fileyfood500 wrote:
| Interesting if there could be automated circuit designs through
| it
| wasmainiac wrote:
| This was done before, years ago, but in 2D. I forget what it was
| called. It was like an LT Spice clone with better UX.
| unglaublich wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzing
| wasmainiac wrote:
| That's it, but I was also thinking about
| https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html
| fra wrote:
| This was my first thought: this seems like a web + 3d port of
| Fritzing. Perhaps they even reuse some of the code?
| 1e1a wrote:
| I feel like the fade-in animation when starting/stopping the
| simulation takes too long. Also, I think it would be helpful if
| the currently connected row was highlighted when dragging a pin.
| sschueller wrote:
| Lol, it simulates magic smoke as well.
| 00zer00 wrote:
| Nice, reminds me of https://wokwi.com/ .
| thinking_cactus wrote:
| Also the amazing https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html
| krupan wrote:
| Nice! You can play Electroboom without actually getting shocked.
| If you do want the real world experience you can get bags full of
| components on Amazon for pretty cheap
| myself248 wrote:
| The simulation needs an "Amazon factor" slider, which randomly
| makes:
|
| * All breadboard wires have some resistance
|
| * Some breadboard wires have very high resistance
|
| * Some breadboard wires have intermittent contact, recalculated
| every time components are added/removed from the breadboard
|
| * Some fraction of polarized capacitors are backwards
|
| * All capacitors are overrated for voltage and explode at
| 70-99% of their rating
|
| * Some LEDs smoke at 10% of their rated forward current
|
| * Brightness variation between LEDs that should be identical
|
| * Semiconductors may randomly be another semiconductor in the
| same class (e.g. a "2n2222" may in fact be any other NPN BJT in
| the simulation, or the parameters may be entirely random)
|
| * Inductors have 80% variation in core saturation specs, but
| other parameters are spot-on
|
| * Any component with writable flash (eg USB vid/pid strings)
| may randomly not actually have writable flash but instead fixed
| strings and the writes fake success but the values do not
| change
| buescher wrote:
| Better simulators can do parameter sweeps and monte carlo
| simulations so you can explore tolerance stackup issues. But
| most of the failure modes you've listed there are just why
| you shouldn't build your circuits for one on breadboards and
| for another with dodgy parts sourced outside of distribution
| channels.
| hippich wrote:
| Are there similar solutions without 3d view? I want to get a
| simulator that can show me what is going in the circuit, ideally
| slowed down a lot. For example I was making a dongle with
| resistor and capacitor which was delivering a pulse-short (i.e.
| removing power for a short period of time instead of delivering
| an impulse) and while I was able to confirm overall idea with
| some online simulator, dialing in capacitance and resistance
| required physically switching components. Ideally I want to be
| able simulate such transient effects and arrive at specific
| numbers ready to be soldered.
|
| And I want it to be free/open-sourse ideally :)
| buescher wrote:
| Some people like Everycircuit and Falstad for that.
| pedro_caetano wrote:
| Sounds like you are looking for a SPICE like simulator, there
| are quite a few free/open:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_electronics_circu...
| a-dub wrote:
| orcad is the commercial classic for doing schematics with a
| spice backend. (spice is an oss engine out of berkeley for
| simulating circuits on computers. for dc it just solves the
| classic nodal analysis and for ac you can feed in things from a
| fantasy signal generator and capture things at various nodes in
| the circuit) there's also some pretty cool looking commercial
| web thing now that also will maintain netlists with real-time
| prices and will let you swap parts out and set minimum
| quantities etc.
|
| kicad is the oss orcad, but i never got good at it. (to be
| fair, orcad was weird to learn as well)
| asynchronous13 wrote:
| I think altium has taken over as the top tier commercial
| offering in this space.
|
| I always disliked Orcad. Especially because cadence had
| excellent software that predated OrCAD, and for reasons that
| I cannot fathom chose to promote OrCAD after they acquired it
| instead of the better software.
|
| Here's a specific example in the interface. If you wanted to
| draw a wire, the keyboard shortcut of the old software was
| 'w' but orcad required you to type 'ctrl + w'. Why are you
| forcing me to use control when w doesn't do anything on its
| own? It was filled with similar tiny annoyances that just
| slowed things down. (Admittedly, it's been years since that
| was my primary work, and free stuff is good enough for what I
| do now.) I sincerely hope that orcad has continued to improve
| over the years.
| buescher wrote:
| Altium has taken over a lot of small to medium sized shops.
| Mostly because the price is right for its capability. It
| also has a history of being the least bad compromise
| between the odd mixtures of excellence and user-hostility
| Cadence and Mentor tend to come up with, going back to the
| Protel days, and they've done a good job in the last
| decade+ of marketing it to those shops. Cadence and Siemens
| nee Mentor (and maybe Zuken? I've never seen Zuken in the
| wild, but it always makes these lists) have been neglecting
| the entry level and smaller organizations and aggressively
| trying to move their customers to their higher tier
| offerings during that time. But while it's Altium's
| flagship product, it is not top tier. It is really entry-
| level for a professional PCB-level design package, like
| PADS and OrCAD as opposed to Xpedition and Allegro.
| Helcal_pup wrote:
| Not foss but tinkercad circuits
| (https://www.tinkercad.com/circuits) comes to mind.
| hulitu wrote:
| Ltspice. Ng-spice
| antimony51 wrote:
| I could not sign up, because "email rate limit exceeded" but i
| was wondering if it had a feature to probe the voltage at a
| certain node.
| paulgb wrote:
| I remember following this at the time! FYI it was "shut down"
| (kept online but no further development) two years ago
| (https://x.com/KennethCassel/status/1620500575183073280)
|
| > Decided to shutdown Diode. (For now the site is live, I'll
| likely open-source the code in case anyone wants to take the
| baton and run)
|
| Kenneth is now working on RMFG (https://www.rmfg.com/)
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Black screen with "Application error: a client-side exception has
| occurred (see the browser console for more information)."
| samuelbeek wrote:
| I'm working on a similar project, it's called schematik.io and
| you can use it to generate hardware projects (schematics,
| components lists, code, everything). Love the 3d viewer they've
| done here.
| ge96 wrote:
| Damn the 3D graphics look great
|
| This would be useful for opensource hardware projects (aimed at
| beginners) to literally see how things are wired together. I'm
| still not at the schematic phase myself. But I use MS Paint
| wiring diagrams.
|
| OMG the wires flex, damn
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| Give KiCad a try for drawing schematics. It is FOSS.
| ge96 wrote:
| Yeah that is still on my list to learn eg. designing my own
| circuit board. My stuff is still basic eg. wiring together an
| Arduino/RPi to break out sensor boards.
| luispa wrote:
| this is dope
| agcat wrote:
| This is so damn cool. I remember 10-12 years ago i used to teach
| kids to do these things manually. This is a great product for
| kids to experiment and then run it real life on their kits.
| lasgawe wrote:
| Years ago, around 10-12 years back, our Windows XP PC had
| software similar to this. Dont remember the name. I used to spend
| hours experimenting with it. haha Nostalgia.
| tamimio wrote:
| I want an AI that I throw the simulation and it design the PCB
| and all verification.
| hulitu wrote:
| ROTFL.
| Groxx wrote:
| - click simulate in the default "push button to turn on LED" demo
|
| - clock advances
|
| - voltage around the LED slowly rises to infinity for some reason
|
| er.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-24 23:00 UTC)