jibalt
jibalt on Hacker News
Names, appearance, gender-related behavior is generally more fluid for females in America currently.
I was a programmer back in the day. That statement is simply misinformed.
"The days of the very thing happening here are gone."
Uh, no.
This isn't at all true, as proven especially by Zig.
Not to take anything away from his acting, but Patrick Stewart was not the author of his dialogue in TNG.
P.S. Slippery slope is a fallacy.
w TAB in a properly configured emacs
`destroy_world() if $angry;` is Perl syntax. And Python has `destroy_word() if angry else live_long_and_prosper()`.
(But it's not remotely like come-from.)
P.S. in re the other response, "unless" is "if not". "until" is "while not".
`unless` came from Perl, Ruby adopted it, and so of course did Crystal.
I think the headline is nonsense.
I was going to mention the MAD language by Bernard Galler et. al. that used whenever/otherwise, which I encountered in a book in the local library back in the days when everyone was coming up with "structured" programming languages, but then I scrolled to the bottom of the article ...
Sigh. The SET of commenters is not the SET of users.
> Are you trying to claim that the NYT site is getting brigaded by anti-AI advocates?
No, I made very clear what I was claiming: Commenters are statistically biased toward complaints. People without complaints are less likely to comment.
> Is the App Store publishing bogus complaints too?
Too? I said nothing about bogus complaints.
I don't want to insult you so I won't respond further.
P.S.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50242500
OMG
It told you exactly what to do.
> By the early 1960s, programmers with interactive computers could use a “line editor” to type their code on teletypes
That's quite a condition ... very few of us had access to interactive computers -- punch cards still ruled for another decade.
> what kind of spider Spider Man's web comes from
Look it up ... there isn't one.
No, they didn't make anything sound remotely like that.
Comments aren't users. Commenters are statistically biased toward complaints.
Disabling the feature means disabling it for everyone.
If you don't want to use it, just don't use it.
> I would be different is this was yet another free, race-to-the-bottom, corner-cutting web site.
> But this is New York Times Cooking. It's a subscription product that people pay hundreds of dollars for.
Which is why this opt-in feature isn't a problem.
> If they want yet-another-AI-cooking web site, there are thousands launching each day. They pay the Times because they want something better.
Which they get ... that hasn't changed at all.
> It's like finding out that the high-end meal you paid for at a sit-down restaurant was just DoorDashed in from a ghost kitchen down the block.
It's nothing like that.
The reason people are pushing back is that they aren't very bright.
> I don't want an AI to give it's best guess at what a recipe should be
Then don't use this feature.
Category mistake -- it's not a fact claim so there's no burden of proof.
mancerayder did attack the argument, not any individual.
That is not how/why this came about.
I think that statement is too strong -- if ETH was a core belief then its implication P≠NP must also have been a core belief ... but I don't think that those who assumed ETH held it that strongly. As you say, it was commonly thought to be true ... as was P≠NP ... and the latter still is. But is not a "core belief" -- I think virtually everyone believes that they could be wrong, whichever side they're on.
But even if every problem in NP is sub-exponential (which, as tfpgh notes, this result doesn't prove), how does that make it "more likely" that every such problem is solvable in a
polynomial # of steps? I feel like it's a bit like claiming that, because Alex Honnold has shown that a human can free solo El Capitan in less than 4 hours, that makes it "more likely" that I could. To me, his success does not budge the latter probability at all.
It seems to me that the logic only goes the other way ... if ETH had been proven then it would follow that P != NP. With !ETH we really don't know any more about P ?= NP then we did before. Reasoning that P = NP is "more likely" strikes me as a form of a fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The question was
> does this update your priors significantly in the direction of P=NP?
My answer is no ... and Aaronson's answer would also be no ... clearly he doesn't view a change from 3% to 5% to be significant ... his response downplayed the significance of !ETH in re NP?=P. So apparently you downvoted me for simply stating my own opinion while you completely misunderstood what it was an opinion of.
Either P=NP or not. Hoping one way or the other changes nothing. Nor does it change how efficient computing is, nor does it have any effect on cryptography. Discovering a vastly more efficient means of factoring primes--perhaps via quantum computing--would do that. But just learning that P=NP does nothing to further such a discovery. Almost certainly, if P=NP, the exponents and/or constants in a polynomial factoring algorithm would be galactic. (FWIW, Knuth believes that P=NP and that it has no practical consequences.)