dingdongditchme

>I’m not convinced that most apps will adapt well to the Duo

seems like the crux of the matter right there.

radioactive molecules were probably born in a star... a big hunk of dirt hurling through space hardly creates any energy when compared to a star. We CONSUME...

What do you mean it doesnt scale as well?? It scales much better! It's super complex to extract mechanical work out of exploding pistons, if i need more energy with solar I just make bigger panels (or wait for some more efficiency gains).

hell yea! As a text only internet aficionado this thought makes me happy :-)

thank you for the clarification! Turns out I still have a few things to learn.

For some reason I doubt Max Planck wrote or said this after his death (1947). The person i meant (maybe it was Kuhn). Either way I think it is too harsh, and many of the scientists I know strive to minimize bias as much as possible.... but I admit it being very hard to break out of conventional thinking and even more so as I age.

I am not a computer scientist so my understanding is "incomplete". I thought it stood for polynomial and non-polynomial time. But i do mix them up here and there. What i have read time and time again is that: If P≠NP would mean some problems really are harder to solve than to check (which feels intuitive given working encryption exists and all the mathematical functions that I know and understand). For example checking the roots of polynomials is easier than finding them in the first place.

thanks for the quote. Reading through it is clear that my understanding of P=NP is not complete enough. I would have thought n*M is precisely not polynomial but exponential time.

yea thats the name that was evading me, methinks.

From my experience in research this was already the case 15 years ago (and from older peers, way before). Science has always has "in-groups". I forget the name of some philosopher in the 50's who was the opinion science is just a bunch of fads and it takes the old generation to die before a new idea can really be accepted.

I believe this stems from an incomplete understanding of the problem space on my part (excuse the multiple puns); but, I am skeptical Knuth really said P=NP. There are so many mathemtical examples of equations that clearly show P≠NP. Computing in itself was originally formed from using iterative methods to solve hard problems. Least-squares methods, sin() cos(), traveling salesman, so many to list? To say P=NP for all problems seems like a fools errand to me.

Leopold Aschenbrenner tried this and got eaten by the wolves as far as I can tell...

I have tried it in a French restaurant and it was delicious. Just don't think about how cute it would have been to cuddle instead. :-(

How is that an example of burying the lead? (I presume lede is the correct spelling, but burying lead for others to find in their drinking water amuses me.)

EDIT: saw the picture and yes. That certainly was catchy, but I the hn title is missing the subtitle: "until the black death made them commonplace".