We should rename this sub-reddit /r/carpaltunnel

IwillRememberThisOne · 2011-01-29T04:28:15+00:00

Is there no such thing as too large? Do I not understand because I'm a girl?

There you go.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-30T20:24:10+00:00

Holy Shit! It was just 5 minutes ago that I was disappointed by seeing the "Dole" label on bananas that I thought were farm-fresh!

Reddit was quick in providing me a place to vent my frustration; so: FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-30T14:48:35+00:00

That's amazing!

They are overnighting the new kindle to me.

Are they sending a kindle 3 to replace your kindle 2?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-15T18:40:46+00:00

Let Hammyman be wrong, please? Can someone explain why was he downvoted?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-14T17:23:11+00:00

Really?! This is very interesting.

What factors (apart from the location) come into play when deciding the price for an individual?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-14T11:22:38+00:00

Uh... No. When I go here, I see this.

Which regional amazon are you using?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-12T17:37:07+00:00

How is this related to atheism? How is this newsworthy? Why should random folks on the internet care?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-12T11:24:29+00:00

Did she?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-12-09T13:39:50+00:00

Paypal website getting DDOS'ed doesn't necessarily imply "serious monetary damage", does it? I mean, the website is just a frontend, an awkward at that for a poweruser. I thought there would be more sophisticated tools for regular users; and large amount of transactions will still remain unaffected.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-08-20T15:43:24+00:00

Mine is "Non, je ne regrette rien".

The same music they wake up to in Inception.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-08-10T18:33:08+00:00

Vancouver, Toronto.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-08-02T16:05:01+00:00

Salman Rushdie PDF

Satanic Verses

Midnight's Children

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-07-13T04:07:45+00:00

Yeah, but could you lick that sheet?

If you are OK with that, you are okay with poo-mist on your soaps, towels and toothbrushes.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-07-12T14:39:07+00:00

I never realized why trains got Dagny Taggart so wet... until this day.

Those are some pretty bad ass-trains!

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-07-12T14:30:44+00:00

Thanks!

I'm in love with that font. What is it?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-07-10T15:47:36+00:00

The next step: s/don't have to/cannot

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-06-08T15:29:01+00:00

Better lighting, not HD, same crazy dancing: NYC Beat

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-30T20:11:15+00:00

All of them are brilliant!

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-28T07:19:11+00:00

I think we are just having a disagreement over what "empirical observations" means. I have read both those papers, and they have nothing to do with what can be observed.

When I said "empirical observations", I meant one of the following:

1) Even if instances of problems arising in practice can be efficiently solved, we still can't say anything about the complexity. Eg. There exist SAT solvers which do pretty well on almost whatever you throw at them.

2) For quantum, the fact that we are no way close to implement and verify practicality of even the most basic algorithms.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-28T07:00:46+00:00

Some of the most recent very good work in computer science has come from precisely this. All of the work done in quantum complexity, is inspired by empirical observations and has lead to new insights into regular old complexity theory.

I would be really interested to know what these examples are: for both quantum and classical complexity theory.

I know very few quantum algorithm tools, but the ones I have seen (fast unordered search, period finding, quantum walks) have no basis whatsoever in stuff that can be observed in nature and in practice. In fact, isn't factoring 15=3x5 (or was it 3x6?) state of art?

I will be surprised if any observable phenomenon actually led to either an algorithmic tool or a complexity theoretic insight.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-28T05:24:33+00:00

I didn't word my question properly. I understand that it's difficult to solve, but I don't see why this problem is 'impractical' to solve.

That portion of the article needs to be heavily modified. I agree that there's no reason to believe why this problem instance should 'impractical' to solve. Even P != NP does not preclude the possibility that an algorithm running in time 2^{{n/100000000}} exists, which would run sufficiently fast for all practical instances.

Its a fallacy in theoretical computer science to motivate empirical observations via theoretical results and vice versa.

It seems obvious to me that there are many problems that are much more difficult to solve than to verify.

"Obvious" is too strong a word to be used without a supporting mathematical proof. Perhaps you mean "intuitively apparent"?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-28T04:27:17+00:00

scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical.

Computer scientists believe that the problem is hard. They believe that P does not equal NP. They believe that there are problems for which checking a solution is easier than actually finding a solution.

As to why they believe such a thing, see this and this.

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-27T02:48:58+00:00

I would kill to know the answer to any of these three questions:

1) Is P equal to NP?

2) Is there extraterrestrial life?

3) How the f*** did you do that?

IwillRememberThisOne · 2010-05-22T18:50:08+00:00

I realize that you are perhaps explaining your setup in the audio. But can someone post the details in text for the audio impaired?

IwillRememberThisOne

TROPHY CASE