hyperhello

No, I’m not saying you would know in advance that it was possible, but sometimes you visit the crystal cave and the diamond is just sitting there, so why not work out the odds?

I learned from poking around that checking the invertibility of a system in C is a much, much harder problem than I thought. Nonetheless if that were no object, let’s say coefficients from -16 to 15 (5 bits) times eight terms times choosing up to cubes (64) times three equations is searchable, especially since you have only the final combination of coefficients in the determinant. It’s not impossible to generate the equations like this Fizzbuzz style.

Edit: no. 2048 possible monomials, to the 24th power, not times 24. Fine, can’t brute force it.

I shouldn’t, but:

F1 = x^3y^3z + 3x^2y^4 + 3x^2y^2z + 7xy^3 + 3xyz + 4y^2 + z

F2 = 3x^3y^2z + 9x^2y^3 + 6x^2yz + 12xy^2 + 3xz + y

F3 = -x^3z - 3x^2y + 2x

That’s the counterexample. Low integer coefficients, power 7 in three variables. If someone said it was there, couldn’t we all have written a pretty simple brute force solution for the search space, especially with the constraints that the symbolic determinant had to cancel to a constant?

To be fair I don’t think there were too many people really trying to. Symbolically, one could make a parameterization of the Jacobian determinant and then brute force a solution, if one had known such a polynomial existed in only three dimensions.

It will make mistakes if you tell it to, so I assume it will make no mistakes if you tell it not to.

He’s famous, but I don’t believe he is a celebrity, as he is not famous for his persona.

Okay. So what does this overturn, intuitively? Can we no longer assume that functions are differentiable at certain points, or something?

Sometimes you have to prove you’re #1 Dad.

Amusing. The thing is that real English conveys a lot of meaning and undertone as well as precision, and that’s why real English had to be used to explain what you did and why.

I think you can respectfully disobey that for a demo.

The GUI app does run the fan very hard and heat the laptop for something supposedly running on the cloud. If it is using my computer to cache things and assist with tasks, okay, but if it’s just revving the motor I don’t want it to.

Jacobian conjecture [...] states that if a polynomial function from an n-dimensional space to itself has a Jacobian determinant which is a non-zero constant, then the function has a polynomial inverse.

((1+xy)^3 z + y^2 (1+xy) (4+3xy), y + 3 x (1+xy)^2 z + 3 x y^2 (4+3xy), 2 x - 3 x^2 y - x^3 z): \C^3\to \C^3, has jacobian determinant -2, and sends (0, 0, -1/4), (1, -3/2, 13/2), and (-1, 3/2, 13/2) to (-1/4, 0, 0)

But 1 != -1 and -3/2 != 3/2 . So it's not its own inverse. Is the conjecture that it is its own inverse or that is has an inverse?

Edit: it was worded a bit strangely, but it is saying that [ (0, 0, -1/4), (1, -3/2, 13/2), and (-1, 3/2, 13/2) ].map(F) all produce (-1/4, 0, 0). Thus it has no inverse and indeed disproves the Jacobian conjecture.

Real question. Did you have any contact with organized crime? Some of the 'territory' of nothing-type technologies like vending are said to be 'owned' by certain groups.

It's just as easy to do the second one as the first one.

I meant write access. Being 'doxxed' doesn't really apply if the information is public, I mean you could always walk up to the particular house and knock.

I understand there’s a balance between anonymity and privacy and ensuring transactions are real. For example when you buy a house you’re going to get on a public registry and titles and documents are going to identify you, and it’s an acceptable tradeoff to prevent fraud as long as no one can actually walk down to Records and start manipulating deeds.

This…this I don’t understand. If someone is driving with a fake drivers license, yeah, scary but the danger is limited and policies already have uninsured driver protection. This seems like the feds, who have not shown themselves as trustworthy, let alone their active involvement in fraud, demanding some foot in the door they’ll use later.

How does it know HAPPY HUMAN translates to SORRY ROBOT? Is there a cycle in there or something?

I got to use a real Magic Cap, one of the examples of alternative metaphors, in the article, a black and white view of a room with a desk full of old office oddities. It was the worst user interface that may have ever been designed, like an Alice In Wonderland nightmare. Click an envelope on a desk or a clock, and it starts some other metaphor like an image of a spreadsheet in a dialog, or something, which might appeal to some kind of “grand adventure” logic, but in today’s context…I’ll avoid ending with a negative comment.

That's a typo.

My first reaction is WTF. My second reaction isn't here yet.

"Kid/Grandma, someone is trying that scam where they pretend to be you on a call!"

"Oh my gosh Dad/Son! You know we have a password for that!"

"Yes -- actually, use it now so WE BOTH KNOW YOU'RE NOT A SCAM!"

"Sure, Dad/Son! It's DOUBLE CHEESEBURGER!"

"Thanks!"

So they trick the kid out of the password first by calling them and pretending to be the parent.

I knew about history.replace but I had no idea you could cross sites. Suppose a site, for example, leaves a trail of Amazon Shopping, and curious, you go to it to recall what you did, but it’s Amaz0n instead.

In what way does +4C kill all animals exactly?

I just tested it on both iPhone and Android and it does indeed remove itself from history and replaces with a link to a weather domain. That’s incredible that it is allowed and I can trivially think of a way to get someone to get to a fake banking site right now, or for that matter, fill the history with a series of visits to domestic violence sites or even worse!

Well, it’s right there in the headline that the website wipes itself from history, so I don’t need any realignment of my ability to discern what I’ve read from what I’ve imagined. If all the site is doing is renaming itself New Tab then that sure isn’t newsworthy. Maybe a domestic violence reporting site should just name itself something innocuous in general without the quick escape? But nonetheless, a web site replacing its own history entry with something from another domain sure doesn’t sound secure.

A website can wipe itself from history? That seems like a major security issue.

You seem pretty cool and in it for the fun. May I make one feature request that would cause me to try it? A big reassuring READ ONLY mode that sandboxes file writes to zero. Of course that would constrain some of the product from working, that’s okay.

You can do things with your hands (fingers) This gives many people an enormously satisfying feeling.

Being outside of the approved development loop has rough edges. How do you keep the app from putting up that permission to access documents folder all the time while you rebuild it?

The thing is that it’s always used in “annoy” or “frustrate” because they mistake the response as sympathetic annoyance or empathic frustration when it’s really just their misuse of language. I don’t want them to be responsible for their miscommunication in the future!