ithinkso

As the comment above stated - so that the numbers don't grow too large

Our testers (China and India) know that when they see KURWA or DUPA in logs that to send it straight to the polish site, we are considering adding a hook to check for those

i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint

I did horse riding for a bit, that is not true. There is a lot of speed ranges you can choose from

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

This is actually a harmful definition, both (1,1) and (0,2) tensors can be written as a matrix but they are very different. It's like calling vector an array but vectors require vector space and arrays are just arrays. It doesn't help that std::vector is very common in CS but 'pushing back' to a mathematical vector just doesn't make any sense

Although not exactly what you 're looking for I also have similar itch - youtube channel 'New Mind' have some nice videos in this area, check it out, maybe it will be something you find interesting

Although I do agree with your overall sentiment

the problem is "just" gaining traction and having a good plan for moderating The Stuff People On Internet Will Upload. See GitTorrent for another (unrelated) example of a good idea that never gained traction.

maybe there is a reason why github gained traction

I found that the sooner you ditch 'human intuition' in learning maths/physiscs the better you will be at it

I'm switching to Wayland on the New Year's Eve of the year of Linux desktop

Finding a cycle is hard!

I mean, it is easy in the size of the graph, you constructed implicitly an exponentially large graph, I don't think it's in the spirit of GP point where the hamiltonian cycle is exponentially (in the size of the graph) hard to find

The most unique thing about 4-dimensional space imho is that some simple manifolds like e.g R4 have uncountably many differential structures possible, in lower dimensions there is only one, in higher - finitelly many.

When push comes to shove I'm not sure we have enough experimental physicists...

Optical media has a lifespan too. We have paper from hundreds of years ago that is in decent condition.

All the optical media from hundreds of years ago degraded? What a shame

The only thing worse than moderation is the lack of moderation

Your 'duh's escalated quite quickly, I had a Euclid postulates feelings when reading it - first four are 'duh' and then the fifth one comes swinging.

(by the way I think you have your Newton's law order wrong, that's the second one you're referering to)

One just assumes Occam's razor and you're good to go in a vast majority of cases

Coffee or tea will taste better to you if you put a lot of work into it.

This is very true but, tangentially, this is the opposite when you make drink/food for others. I found that you get the best effect when you spend a lot of effort to cook and perfect the dish but when asked, you have to pretend you basically winged it and it wasn't a hassle

the same unfunny xkcds over and over to an endlessly delighted audience.

I guess you are just not one of the lucky 10000

https://xkcd.com/1053/

I forgot shorts exist, there are ublock origin filters that work beautifully. I haven't blocked the upcoming ones because there are very rare in my feed and I just unsubscribed from the few notorious offenders

we were not able to find anything larger except the occasional electric train

Not sure what occasional means in this contex, hard to find a train that doesn't use the grid

Tangential but a thing about defaults - when I was at uni, in a lot of labs we were doing data analysis and plotting in something called Origin. I absolutely loved the defaults there, to this day I can recognize if it was plotted using origin and I had visceral reaction if I'd see something done in Excel. Sane defaults are very important and I'm not sure why they are often afterthoughts

If you want the equation

x + 1 = 0

to have a solution, you need to invent negative numbers, now if you want the equation

x^2 + 1 = 0

to have a solution, you need to invent complex numbers and 'i'. (Also, complex numbers, turns out, are enough for higher powers as well)

The line and plane are just convenient representations of R and C but there is nothing inherently profound about them, in my opinion

If you have a hammer and a bunch of screws...

Or they can bury the gold and refuse to tell where...

(The arrow functions iconically: there is an informal logical path from A to B. It does not denote formal implication.)

In other words, how far has one to analyse a claim of the form 'from property A, B follows' before assenting to it depends on the agent.

Or just prove the implication instead of inventing 'informal logical paths'

None of what you said is true except for

Mathematical proof is really just for convincing other mathematicians

which is precisely the point of a proof, but 'convince' means something different than you seem to think it means (in the field of mathematics)

Moreover, mathematicians rarely prove anything from axioms, they start from other statements which are considered more trivial.

Not more trivial but from the ones already proved and those closer to the thing you are proving. There is no need to go back to the axioms if you know, and can reference, proof of step N-1, just go from there.

There is also this 'misconception' that mathematical theorems follow from the axioms. They do, of course, but the axioms were choosen just right to make things that were working to still work, with some weird consequences like axiom of choice

Also, it turns out that this area was already well understood. There are no free lunches with entropy.

If I ever go mad and I breach the 'crankpot line' this will be it. There is something in entropy that I just can't fully grasp even though I understand (or I can convince myself that I do) Shannon, Kolmogorov etc.

But it will be gamed and abused by people that care about fake internet points. Those are very different people from those who want to extract as much money by any means available

And then we have 'nanny' computers of 737 MAX that caused crashes (more than one) against the pilots actions to save it

Approximately 0 percent of a code needs optimization.

But very often approximately 0 percent of a code is 90+% of a runtime