luc4

I'm a mathematician and for me math is art :)

I mean the result that k-SAT cannot be solved in 2^{o(n)} clearly would imply P!=NP, but how does ETH imply NP = EXP? And how does \neg ETH imply NP != EXP?

Congrats, you just solved P=NP.

We just used the standard ordering < to define the set, it has nothing to do with the candidate well-ordering. If that's confusing, consider the set { 10^-x | x \in N } instead. It also has no minimum element in the standard ordering.

Since the query compilation needs exponential time, I wonder how large the queries can be before jsongrep becomes slower than all the other tools. In that regard, I think the library could benefit from some functionality for query compilation at compile-time.

To give a different opinion, the math topics are actually what I like most. When I'm looking for something on Wikipedia, I want to get a precise definition and related concepts. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to teach me the material, there's other resources for that.

It seems like the article is missing the central point -- namely that the currency was depreciating monthly, providing an incentive to spend it as quickly as possible.

One could argue that infinite subsets of the natural numbers are not really interesting unless one can succinctly describe which elements are contained in them. And of course there is only a countable number of such sets.

YouTube has a de facto monopoly on long-form video content.

At the risk of stating the obvious, you can criticise the government without personally insulting public officals. In fact, in Germany, you can be prosecuted for insulting anyone; there is nothing special about public officials.

First, these studies merely suggest that microplastics have these effects in humans, yet you state them as fact. However, I don't want to argue that microplastics are harmless or that pollution is not an issue. Neither do I want to defend the point that doubling the population doubles the "speed of discovery". But even if all of your points are accurate, you would still have to show that these negative effects outweigh the benefit of a priori doubling productivity. In fact, you make the even stronger claim that doubling the population will actually cut the "speed of discovery" in half. None of this is substantiated by your argument.

It's ironic that your responses come off as much more rude and condescending than the comment in question.

CICO is fundamentally true, but the point is that "calories-out" depends on so many factors (including "calories-in") that it becomes meaningless.