User23

Actually you can do this in the USA.

You can just ask the IRS for your "tax transcripts" and do the data entry. People don't do this because it leaves tons of money on the table.

Now you might say that a tax game that rewards skilled play is bad. But are you sure about that? Because everyone with influence over the system (who all happen to be skilled players) happens to be quite fond of the game, observably speaking.

Voting on this is ridiculous. Obviously we should have AI decide which AI challenges have been met.

That wasn't a proximal cause.

Monetarily Nvidia isn’t creating any money at all.

That reminds me of how I had had to cross compile a Linux kernel with a special USB patch to install a system on my Bondi Blue iMac.

I had a dream as a kid that my parents had finally bought a Color Macintosh. Imagine how heartbroken I was when I woke up. That MacUser issue for the Mac II was basically torture.

Imagine you find yourself making TC $1M+ a year owning some beloved piece of software.

Do you A) tell your management hey it's absolutely perfect as is, let's just chill, leave it alone and let the money roll in. Or B) tell management about the need for whatever new hotness and you're going to get it implemented ahead of schedule and under budget. And then you do! Oh but the software is objectively worse because it was already perfect.

It's pretty clear what the overwhelmingly popular answer is to that question.

I'm really pleased how wildly all the other commenters are misunderstanding this.

I was counting on this concept as competitive advantage.

But since the algorithm isn't going to surface me anyhow, for giggles I'll say I'm leaning more toward darcs than git.

You should read a little book called Games People Play. Focus particular attention on the section on the game "Indigent."

This isn't a resource allocation problem, or rather, it isn't a resource allocation problem the way you seem to think it is.

This postulates that policy is set by consensus.

Now I haven't done any scientific polling, but my informal anecdotal experience is so overwhelmingly to the contrary that I'm comfortable believing that consensus isn't determining policy here.

> To build a theorem prover you need to take away some capability (namely, the ability to do general recursion - the base language must be total and can't be Turing complete), not add new capabilities. In Haskell everything can be "undefined" which means that you can prove everything (even things that are supposed to be false).

Despite what the fanatical constructivists (as opposed to the ones who simply think it's pragmatically nice) seem to want us to think, it turns out that you can prove interesting things with LEM (AKA call/cc) and classical logic.

This is all of them, properly speaking.

Incidentally, this is pretty much what Algol 60 was designed for and why to this day many academic papers use it or a closely related pseudocode.

How much of Mythos’s internals will researchers be able to recover from the flood of patches?

I've felt for a long time that the field relies rather a bit too hard on absence of evidence being evidence of absence.