31–40 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an invasion of privacy. Imagine that a post appears under your name with a date/time where you are supposed to be working. If you are paid by somebody else, this may get you into trouble, or even fired.
In fairness in such an extreme situation it seems likely there would be a conversation where you'd have the opportunity to explain. If there weren't, well, probably you're better off?
I get that this is really interesting and I surely enjoyed the read... But has it really any practical implications? I mean, in a sense, there are so many mathematical riddles... Anyways, I'm fine to ignore this question. Very nice!
Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases, and they generously aren't holding back until they make a bigger dent, but it just intuitively feels like the true value has got to be way, way smaller. (On a side note, I am so often stunned by the quality of articles on Quanta Mag…
Do i get this right? This discovery let you calculate the minimun amount of grafana dashboards you need to monitor a kubernetes cluster or the minimun amount of dasboards behind you in a linkedin photo to look cool enough?
Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases, and they generously aren't holding back until they make a bigger dent, but it just intuitively feels like the true value has got to be way, way smaller. (On a side note, I am so often stunned by the quality of articles on Quanta Mag…
I think you are possibly missing the possibility that going from 4^k to 3.993^k might involve learning something new about the problem. Frequently learning something new is more important than the absolute magnitude of the improvement.
I think that's almost literally what sfink said though:
> > they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases
Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases, and they generously aren't holding back until they make a bigger dent, but it just intuitively feels like the true value has got to be way, way smaller. (On a side note, I am so often stunned by the quality of articles on Quanta Mag…
It is working because its funded by Hedge fund founder billionaire/mathematician and they are not looking for subscription revenues (yet).
Do i get this right? This discovery let you calculate the minimun amount of grafana dashboards you need to monitor a kubernetes cluster or the minimun amount of dasboards behind you in a linkedin photo to look cool enough?
Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases, and they generously aren't holding back until they make a bigger dent, but it just intuitively feels like the true value has got to be way, way smaller. (On a side note, I am so often stunned by the quality of articles on Quanta Mag…
> I sorta thought this type of quality writing was dead and gone from the freely accessible web It is working because its funded by Hedge fund founder billionaire/mathematician and they are not looking for subscription revenues (yet).
Do i get this right? This discovery let you calculate the minimun amount of grafana dashboards you need to monitor a kubernetes cluster or the minimun amount of dasboards behind you in a linkedin photo to look cool enough?
It also how the EKS (Entropy Khaos Service) returns a timestamp representing the end of the universe.