It is likely that most of the teslas you saw around Amsterdam were part of the Schiphol airport taxi fleet. They went all in on tesla about a decade ago.
To make meaningful statements about P and NP problems, you probably need to be able to model your problem as a computational one.
If for example, you model it as a graph, with a peg represented by a node, and a bounce direction to another peg with a directed edge. Assign probabilities to all the edges. Then you cqn simply flood search outwards to the end of the graph, accumulating probabilities by multiplication. Any node on the boundary with probability higher than zero can be reached, given enough balls. This job is clearly in P.
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "P" for physical problems without a computational model, but I'm not a complexity theorist
They haven't made slotted ram or storage on their macbooks since 2012 (retina macbooks removed the slotted ram afaik). It might save on thickness, but I'm not buying the slim chasses argument being the only reason, since they happily made their devices thicker for the M series cpus.
>- A megacorp that pays 0% in income taxes still pays a ton of sales tax on things it buys
Not familiar with the US, is this actually true? In europe, as a company, you're allowed to subtract VAT on products bought from VAT owed from sales. That would contradict most of what you're saying.
Theres a lot of value in the ecosystem through the asset store, that allows yoi to get up and running much more quickly than if you had to built subsystems from scratch (i.e. You can buy a good water package for <100 usd, whereas implementing state of the art would probably take you at least two months of dev time).
Additionally, from theres lots of educational resources, that might be harder to find for smaller engines
On the other hand, unity has a habit of shooting itself in the foot with incredibly messy and poor documentation, fragmented and duplicated functionality across multiple implementations (theres a common refrain in the unity community that every system in unity is either in beta or deprecated), so an engine that can provide an easier onboarding / dev experience could definitely compete there.
> More languages should have a single, mandatory way to format code, without any ways to opt out.
Strongly disagree. Maybe if you're in a very domain constrained environment, i vould see this being valuable. But i write graphics and simulation code all day, which involves a lot of translating math expressions. A compiler insisting on me using PascalCase (like for example .net uses) leads to very unreadable translations of formulas. And I'm not of the opinion that a system making me rewrite variable names to "meaningful names" helps understanding of the underlying math much, if you need to do symbol manipulation, or read backgrounds papers anyway.
Trust your users. Give them the tools to enforce safety barriers for themselves. Give them sensible defaults, sure. But give them ways to opt-out if they know that they need to break the conventions.
Non-USA here (which might affect things): Isn't the point of paying with e.g. a Netflix gift card that they auto-cancel/pause your subscription to Netflix after the gift card runs out of funds? How would that incur a debt?
Currently have to use sqlalchemy on an existing project, and while I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on ORMs or performance, just wanted to add that chatgpt has been able to reduce my time fighting with their documentation by what I estimate of 90+%. To be fair, if I would have written pure sql, I might not have needed chatgpt at all, but i also would have to learn pythons database connector calls for the umpteenth time.
Forgive my ignorance: I thought it was the other way around, and you needed some relatively high amount of compression on a vinyl master, since otherwise the grooves would swing too wildly, and the needle would have a higher chance of "skipping". Is this an incorrect understanding of mine?
I have heard this type of reply to this remark (from my side) a few times now. It has made me curious: Are you a type of person that often checks the sources on Wikipedia?
Anecdotally: I know that Wikipedia is not always correct. But I feel like I can build an intuition and reason on what pages I can reasonably trust on Wikipedia, since in my experience, the inaccurate bits I have encountered tend to be in certain categories. However it's much harder to feel confident about my intuition about ChatGPTs' correctness, since my exposure has led me to believe that the hallucinations are fairly random, and not concentrated in particular topics. This makes the tool much less attractive for me, as I feel like I need to double check every written word.