The main "value" in the domain of sorting problems is the number of elements in your collection.
A subproblem also considers the elements to be integers, then they become another "value" domain. (But in general, sorting problems only need their elements to be comparable, not necessarily integers.)
Sure, but in such a world asymptotic complexity has little meaning. For practical purposes it's useful to make simplifying assumptions that are done in complexity theory.
> Not only it not constant time, it's not even it's polynomial
You understand that this is part of the joke, right?
If we really want to get down to the details and kill the joke, then you don't actually need to wait real time. Computational complexity is concerned with steps in a computational model, not how much time passes on a clock. Sleep sort uses OS scheduler properties and in a virtual time environment, time advances to the next scheduled event. That's what brings you back to actual polynomial complexity, if you assume this kind of thing as your computational model.
> - it's psuedo-polynomial.
If you lecture people then please at least get your spelling right.
A wet dream for the ubiquitous data collecting ad industry. Obviously such a service would live in the cloud and it would be "free" and that much personal data about everybody would be too good to pass as an opportunity. Forget FB or Google harvesting whatever little data they can pick up about you indirectly. This would be the holy grail.
Call me cynic but in a sense I'm glad we don't have this kind of thing.
> Something I never really noticed before is that we only use our calendars to look forward in time, never to reflect on things that happened in the past.
This is called a "diary" and is as old as humankind.
I use a calendar to track workout sessions. All in the past.
It seems like I might be better off picking the winning lottery numbers directly instead of relying on the random serendipity of guessing them and most of the time being wrong.
Number theory had no applications for centuries. Now, cryptography is based on it and the modern internet would be unthinkable without.
Foundational research does often not provide immediate applications. Still, if we don't do it, out understanding of the world is lacking and it hurts us later down the road.
And this attitude, my friends, is the reason why so much software out there is so bad.
We need more of a math mindset when developing software. What can we be sure about, what are the invariants, what can we prove? There is so much crap out there that somebody lacking understanding just tried to wing, and I'm constantly ashamed of it.
They wrote that it "appears flat". I tried to contradict that.
> However from inside this bubble there is a sort of tech dilatation where everything appears normal and flat and it is only the future that has exponential growth.
Flat? I don't think so. I'm at a coffee shop and looking around me, this is very different from just 20 years ago. People with laptops and smaetphones around me. Just 20 years ago, that same place saw a few CS major nerds with their laptops, everybody else sat with a book or some paper to write on or reading a paper newspaper. Still with a latte, but tech has changed everybody's life dramatically in 20 years. 20 years from now I'm again expecting at least as big a change.
I don't get the drama. To me this looks like a normal process in an industry that discovered a groundbreaking technology. A new technology pops up, everybody rushes to innovate, lots of actors do nonsense, some do the right thing, but for many of them you don't know beforehand which is which. So you throw money at all of them. The rush creates some really good ideas and innovations. And a lot of BS and wrong decisions. Within a few years, the successes emerge, everybody else is flushed out of the market.
Today fiber is the network tech. Except for the last mile, everything is fiber. We're at 400G per port, soon 800G, and the market keeps growing and 1.6T is the obvious next step. Normal growth process.
So, I don't really see the takeaway here. What to learn from it? Not to invest in hypes? That's not really how we grow.
Society needs a general a priori agreement about what's ok and what's not. If people get to make up the rules on the spot then obviously you will just get into this kind of conflict. (This includes "you hurt my feelings".)
I'm all for banning threats and other speech that's illegal. But once a line is drawn it's in everybody's interest to defend it in either direction. Remember that everything you demand to be banned can be used against your cause at a later point. Similar with every accusation you want to be able to utter.
Given the tweets and the article, it's fair to assume that this is not the first time the person has exhibited such behavior and this was just the last drip overflowing the bucket.