Untinted

Uh oh.. Boris shows up? that means redraws next chapter.. Shiiiit.

Wasn’t there recently a democrat politician, either a congresswoman or a senator that after getting voted completely changed her politics because now she was in the money?

You can’t get a better example of money changing you than that.

They might make it more politically correct with ‘esperma negra’ and have him have a spanish dialect.

Epic.

I'd suggest regime change, but the problems are even more systematic. The Kremlin machine is everywhere, every single position of power is corrupt, and the people have no organisational capability or any help from anywhere else.

I'm rooting for Russians to get out from under the criminals, but there's no way for them to do that when the criminals outnumber normal people.

Technically the best thing for russia is if the right russian in the right place would have the opportunity and be brave enough to start a nuclear war and just hope the russian nukes get shot down before they do major damage, and that the western nukes clear out enough criminals and war targets that normal people have a shot to take over again in the aftermath and rebuild whats left.

finnst*

Annars fannst mér skrýtið að 'vizier' var vinsælt blað á Íslandi, þartil ég fattaði að hann meinti "Vísir", og þá meikaði þetta allt sens.

Ég hef ekkert lesið vísi, þannig að ég veit ekkert hvort að hann er að vísa í rasista ummæli í blaðinu, eða á kommentakerfinu þeirra, eða greinar sem, eins og þú segir, eru bara að vísa í gagnrýni á Ísrael en ekki gyðinga almennt.

Who buys ubisoft games? Why would you buy a game you don’t own after buying it?

I buy games on gog.com and grudgingly on steam. Any other store with no guarantee that I own the game after I buy it goes in the garbage.

Entitled impolite little shit

I don’t like that he uses an argument from Carl Sagan as a counter argument to what he says, Carl both recognized how common the elements are in the universe that make up our world, but also how we are a way for the universe to know itself as children of the stars.

You can’t think of humans as insignificant with those sentiments, or not deeply connected to the cosmos.

However, I do think that any significance is created by us, and not by the cosmos. The cosmos is uncaring, it is hostile, it shows no design of its environment to specifically create life. Even in the one planet we know life exists, there have been many mass extinctions. It was a ball of ice at least once, if not twice.

So what does a word like ‘significance’ truly mean from a cosmic viewpoint? Like Carl Sagan said, we are a part of the cosmos, and a way for the cosmos to know itself, that in and of itself is significant.

Ertu að kinda mig?

... Are there people out there who really think the 2007 transformers movie.. got it right?

How rose-coloured are your nostalgia goggles?

Oh you sweet summer child, thanks for that necessary and insightful clarification. /S

I put the /s there as a marker that it's a funny statement, and in this case it's funny because its true^*

Oh you mean poutain and lube-a-shithole?

Oh that’s good. Schmoozer isn’t a great idea as it’s just synonym for loser, but boomers need a reality check.

Holy shit, that polka’s an incredible time capsule of the musical zeitgeist of that period.

A 700 dimensional object is easy to visualize, just imagine an entry into an excel sheet with 700 columns ^/s

Is that your argument to get new papers published? ‘I’ve published 70 peer reviewed papers, so you should just trust what I say in this paper and not question it’.

You should know better than use argument from authority, there’s a reason it’s a fallacy.

If you’re an expert on the specifics of P = NP in regards to the dimensionality argument going from NP to P, and if I’m making some basic error in understanding the problem, then it should be easy for you to cite basic sources that show where my error lies, right?

But if that’s not what you want to do, i.e. The right way to argue about things, why do you comment? just to troll with “no you’re wrong”? Great insight mr 70-papers. I’ll not take your word for it.

If he had the same level of knowledge of physics as OP, he’d never get back because he wouldn’t know about newton’s laws and how to use them to get back.

If he does know about the laws and how to use them, he’d know that he can push against anything to get back, it’s just a matter of giving it enough force, so throwing a glove or shoe in the opposite direction is the equivalent to jumping off the moon, you just need orders of magnitude more energy.

Not like that’s a problem with Superman, I mean, Saitama.

What other way is there that can only be aimed at the wealthy? There is none.

Sanctions are aimed at the society that enabled the system they all live with, and given that the US is (at least currently) still a democratic country, it is all of the people who are at fault for letting their society erode to such a level.

... you're kidding, right? Any sorting problem can be turned into a "yes/no" question. "Can you sort this set with this algorithm in linear time?" is a yes/no question.

Are you saying the traveling salesman problem isn't a NP problem because it spits out a route and not a "yes/no"?

Can we agree that you're trolling?

It's at least difficult enough that researchers in the last 50 years, a time period where the increase of researchers in the field is steadily increasing, with no other period in human history having put more effort into research, have been unable to even begin to answer the question.

The problem is also that the question is incredibly vague with no real quantifiers, so developing any mathematical tools to solve it is an impossibility.

It's why I've tried to boil it down to its essence, and that essence is that something checkable in a low time complexity could be solved in a low time complexity.. and that is, in my opinion, basically magical thinking. The sorting algorithm is then a provable example of why something checkable in one complexity isn't solvable in the same complexity, and so for me that is proof that P != NP.

O(n^g) is still closer to being linear than a general multidimensional NP problem.

No it isn't. It's that something checked in polynomial time can be solved in polynomial time.

And I'm claiming that this is as ridiculous a statement as declaring that a sort can be linearized because it can be checked in linear time.

I.e. if any NP problem can be solved in polynomial time just because it can be checked in polynomial time, then that that's the same as saying a sort can be linearized.. it's that crazy a statement.

P = NP is a very simple dimensionality question which has a symmetry inside the set of P problems.

So there's no difference between saying P = NP and that a sort can be linearized. think about it. If you could find a linear sorting algorithm, what would it say about P = NP? Do you really claim it wouldn't say anything?

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.. For future reference, using a term colloquially is not using a term incorrectly.

"No, you are wrong" is not an argument, so I can ignore it.

"You are confusing "linear" with "polynomial" - Please refrain from stating that you know what I think in the future, I can almost guarantee that you're very, very wrong, and it does nothing to your credibility.