4 ms·

> (massive paragraphs of text) You just proved the point. I'm going to read what you wrote, but most people will not. The point of my resource was to approach

> (massive paragraphs of text) You just proved the point. I'm going to read what you wrote, but most people will not. The point of my resource was to approachable and consumable within seconds.

VLM 13y ago
I donno if I'd want approachable and consumable within seconds fast food, if you can get free gourmet cooking from wikipedia / mathworld, or even my cruddy attempt at cooking. In a world where escargots de bourgogne is free from a zillion websites, trying to make the best, quickest Big Mac, or insisting escargots de bourgogne is only good if its available in microwave TV dinner format might not be an optimum idea (edited to add, especially on a "foodie" website). None the less, in the spirit of XKCDs "Up Goer Five" I present: The Crying Onion of P probably does not equal NP. Computer innards are layered like onions. Just like an onion, bigger computer innard layers contain all of the smaller less complicated layers inside them. There are lots of layers, some much better understood than others. Everything in one layer is the same as everything else in its layer even if at first glance it looks very different. One possible exception is the most difficult layer of the computer innard onion might be split into two layers P and NP. Smart people have worked very hard for many years but are not sure if the layers are split or not. The onion of P probably does not equal NP is so complicated it makes people cry, just like an onion. And in the proud tradition of the previously mentioned XKCD comic, "Lots of fire comes out here"
jfasi 13y ago
The three substantive paragraphs of the above explanation occupied 488 words. If you consider 488 words massive paragraphs of text, then I don't know what to tell you. Some things aren't consumable in seconds. You either put in the effort to learn something properly, or you don't and content yourself with not knowing.

> (massive paragraphs of text) You just proved the point. I'm going to read what you wrote, but most people will not. The point of my resource was to approachable and consumable within seconds.

VLM 13y ago

I donno if I'd want approachable and consumable within seconds fast food, if you can get free gourmet cooking from wikipedia / mathworld, or even my cruddy attempt at cooking. In a world where escargots de bourgogne is free from a zillion websites, trying to make the best, quickest Big Mac, or insisting escargots de bourgogne is only good if its available in microwave TV dinner format might not be an optimum idea (edited to add, especially on a "foodie" website). None the less, in the spirit of XKCDs "Up Goer Five" I present: The Crying Onion of P probably does not equal NP. Computer innards are layered like onions. Just like an onion, bigger computer innard layers contain all of the smaller less complicated layers inside them. There are lots of layers, some much better understood than others. Everything in one layer is the same as everything else in its layer even if at first glance it looks very different. One possible exception is the most difficult layer of the computer innard onion might be split into two layers P and NP. Smart people have worked very hard for many years but are not sure if the layers are split or not. The onion of P probably does not equal NP is so complicated it makes people cry, just like an onion. And in the proud tradition of the previously mentioned XKCD comic, "Lots of fire comes out here"

jfasi 13y ago

The three substantive paragraphs of the above explanation occupied 488 words. If you consider 488 words massive paragraphs of text, then I don't know what to tell you. Some things aren't consumable in seconds. You either put in the effort to learn something properly, or you don't and content yourself with not knowing.