danbruc

48 ms·

631.
by danbruc 3y ago
Sure, that could potentially be the case. But as said before, I would argue that it does not seem unreasonable to me that you generally can increase BB(n) to twice BB(n) with one or a few additional states by slightly tweaking the machine.
632.
by danbruc 3y ago
It never occurred to me that someone would disagree with that statement, I just wrote this as some kind of reminder and did not think that it was necessary to elaborate. You take money to finance your life instead of working for it, money f
633.
by danbruc 3y ago
I did this in response to the first comment. [1] I did not elaborate on this in my first comment because I did not anticipate that this would be a contentious statement. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38139825
634.
by danbruc 3y ago
What would those circumstances be that prevent people from working to support their life?
635.
by danbruc 3y ago
Sure, but that is for the people that finance the basic subsidence to deside, they decide what they expect in return. If they want to give the money unconditionally, fine, then it would of course not be immoral to take them up on the offer.
636.
by danbruc 3y ago
If the majority of people in your country agrees that wealth redistribution is bad, then just elect a government that will stop doing it.
637.
by danbruc 3y ago
Would the aim of such programs not be to have a working society in those less populated areas instead of just filling it with non-working people completely dependent on others?
638.
by danbruc 3y ago
Taking money from the state for which others worked to finance your life without making an attempt to finance your life yourself.
639.
by danbruc 3y ago
It is also immoral. EDIT: As this is collecting downvotes quite quickly, would any of the downvoters care to explain their stance?
640.
by danbruc 3y ago
We know that asymptotically BB(n) > f(n) for every computable function f. Assume there is a computable upper bound d for the difference so that BB(n) - BB(n - 1) <= d(n). But now note that this gives you BB(n) <= d(1) + d(2) + ...
641.
by danbruc 3y ago
The one that the United States signed but never ratified? Just as China, Egypt, Iran and Israel. And that India, North Korea and Pakistan never signed to begin with? And that will enter into force only after all those countries have signed
642.
by danbruc 3y ago
Already the first fusion bomb had a break even result.
643.
by danbruc 3y ago
First a correction, I got the lower bound for BB(6, 2) wrong, what I quoted is the runtime, the number of ones is only 10^18267 which is tiny compared to the number of permutations of the particles in the observable universe. I think proofi
644.
by danbruc 3y ago
Sure, but BB(n) - BB(n - 1) ≈ BB(n) because the function grows so quickly that BB(n - 1) is essentially zero compared to BB(n). Even for factorials the difference between n! and (n - 1)! is essentially n! [1] and the busy beaver function gr
645.
by danbruc 3y ago
NIF is doing weapons research, what they achieved is essentially irrelevant for electricity production as there is no plausible route towards a power plant. And if you take the overall energy balance, they did not even break even.
646.
by danbruc 3y ago
I would say in computing gather usually appears together with scatter and they are used when one thing gets split up into several things (scatter) and then they get collected back together (gather) into one thing. Breaking up one big task i
647.
by danbruc 3y ago
A commonly quoted number for the number of particles in the observable universe is 10^80 give or take a few orders of magnitude an they have very roughly 10^10^10^2 permutations if you consider all particles distinguishable. The best known
648.
by danbruc 3y ago
I would assume tiny refers to three.
649.
by danbruc 3y ago
If you look at this from that angle, every software can be considered finished and the term becomes pretty meaningless. I can use it and it satisfies my needs, so it is finished. But what really happened here is that the entire system got
650.
by danbruc 3y ago
Depending on what kind of software we are talking about, all kinds of things might change. Hardware and software environments evolve, legal requirements change, it really is an endless list of things that you can not control. Could you have
651.
by danbruc 3y ago
It is more accurately the pipe dream of finished software. In general the environment in which a piece of software is used constantly changes and so the software has to change. Or be abandoned and replaced with something new. And yes, there
652.
by danbruc 3y ago
I wonder if nearest neighbor is actually what you want to begin with. Imagine points distributed in a U-shape, the nearest neighbor might require jumping across the gap but a better match could be a bit further away but somewhere along the
653.
by danbruc 3y ago
That sound pretty much like binary space partitioning [1] which is probably best known for being used in Doom to accelerate the rendering. Also, if you only search the leaf subspace that you query point lies in, then you can in principle be
654.
by danbruc 3y ago
Airplanes fly in the lower stratosphere.
655.
by danbruc 3y ago
Tangent. In my admittedly limited experience, embedded code seems to have a tendency to be some of the worst code you can come across. The stuff is already low level and not the most easy to follow, but then embedded developers seem to desp
656.
by danbruc 3y ago
I am not policing anyone, I am expressing my opinion that this is not a worthwhile use of the justice system.
657.
by danbruc 3y ago
I am not talking about their legal budget but the taxpayer money financing the courts.
658.
by danbruc 3y ago
I completely agree, talking about the macroscopic [1] universe as one thing is at least complicated and unwieldy and maybe even severely limiting. But that does not actually matter, it must be outright wrong to do so. If I can talk about th
659.
by danbruc 3y ago
Close your account and go to another bank that can deal with your name properly if that is so important to you, but do not waste resources of the legal system with stuff like this. That is what we have free markets for.
660.
by danbruc 3y ago
Depends on what you mean with exist here. It exists in the sense that it is part of the universe, the atoms are there [1] and they can interact among each other and with the rest of the universe including the blind person part of the univer

More ›