"our new grad student made progress on the combinatorics problem we posed!"

"oh awesome let's see if he can solve p!=np!"

Yes, too many people here do not understand the distance between the problems the article is discussing (and LLMs have solved) and the big problems in math and CS.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Do you have any good links on SoTA research in the provability of P!=NP?

i'm pretty much a pessimest [sic] when it comes to fighting smallpox. i think it just exploits one of the bugs in our genetic code that evolution didn't shake out.

do you think these are the ones voting?

Definitely. They are the reason republicans spend time trying to make voting difficult

my standard for criminal acts is also whether i don't like the guy.

as a wise guy once said, "a grown man made a wager; he lost."

Hence why we drastically reduced the number of wagers/addictive risk taking because of its cost on society.

The libertarians here will say "oh yay, we've won". Then a few years later they'll cry about your mom losing her house to a gambling scam with no recourse. Then they'll cry again when the voters finally rid themselves of the gambling scourge years later.

some people like gambling. for them, risking money is an efficient way to purchase a thrill. do we not care about them?

People like doing Crack, do we not care for them?

let's outlaw pulp fiction, and daytime teevee, while we're at it.

because submarine piloting is a going-under-water activity, improvements in holding one's breath can lead to faster submersibles.

> All you need to do is to programmatically change bits, and you have compute.

all you need is to rapidly push off one foot and land on the other, and you have running.

to be clear: your claim is that the us military is misinformed because key constituents have played too many board games?

does hearing it back like that make it seem absurd to you as well?

Well, yes (except that Civ isn't a board game). And no, it doesn't make it seem absurd to me.

My argument is that Western strategic thought (with games being a codification thereof, rather than the source of) generally considers countries as mostly atomic actors that can be defeated - the history of European warfare being filled with "gentlemanly" surrenders followed up by peace treaties, with guerrilla warfare being a very rare exception.

On the other side, the reality in the East is that a state's collapse doesn't end the conflict, but just prolongs it. The army doesn't surrender, it goes home with its weapons and reconstitutes as insurgents. I can't actually think of a single proper surrender of an Eastern country ever, except for Japan in 1945.

> Well, yes (except that Civ isn't a board game).

It is actually several physical board games, the oldest of which is older than (and unrelated to) the computer game [0], as well as being a series of computer games that are basically digital board games.

[0] Well, except for the computer game based on it and its expansion, which, because of the other computer game, had the long-winded title "Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilization".

Finland comes to mind.

As an example of an Eastern country? Well touché, I suppose you're historically correct, but what I had in my mind for this distinction is not the line in the middle of Europe (between the First World and Second World), but that between Europe and Asia. Sorry if I miscommunicated.

there is a benefit as well, though, as it makes your threats credible.

either way, you may wish to know: your poor argumentation shores up support for the war.

You may disagree with the idea that militaries are responsible for civilians they kill regardless of intent, but it is not poor argumentation. And the fact that it triggers you to support the war reveals more about you than you may intend.

you've mistaken my comment! i do not support the war.