Pi is computable. What is computable, can be represented in finite information (the algorithm used to compute the number). Almost all real numbers are not computable.
Now tie this with computability theory. Almost all real numbers are uncomputable. It's obvious that they don't "exist" in any sense if by "exist" we mean "computable". Now consider that entropy, is information, is the measure of randomness, or uncomputability, is time. What is uncomputable, coming into existence, is the passage of time.
So Airbnb has tried to unsuccessfully pivot to a payments infra company for several years now. Notable acquisitions for this effort include acqui-hiring ChangeTip, a bitcoin micropayments platform, and Tilt, a social payments platform. But Square and CashApp are way ahead of the curve. I suspect there's internal political problems.
Y'all are gonna call me a crackpot, but consider P, PSPACE and IP. PSPACE is (probably) much more powerful than P. Also PSPACE=IP (interactive proofs). Learn interactively. Treat your compiler as the prover, you as the verifier. Don't try to understand everything by simply reading the manual -- that's only utilizing P, not PSPACE.
please stop spreading the myth that ChromeOS is somehow immune to malware. nothing stops a dev from uploading malware to the Chrome web store, and there are many such cases that happened. the only meaningful metric of how safe a piece of software is, is the size and investment in the team responsible for the security of the product. And MS is leading in this aspect.
the best way to ramp up on a codebase is to simply follow the critical path and draw an execution diagram of the entire critical path. tools like these are gimmicks.
this reeks of internal political problems. this isn't good for google nor for google's partners. the only reason they would autocannibalize is if there are too many engineers sitting around doing almost nothing so they start inventing problems to solve.
the economy of literature, marc shell. it gives you a semiotics of money, a way of understanding money qualitatively. it has been 100x more valuable than any economics textbook.
Think about it. Soft AI that assists the driver (automatic turning, cruise control, automatic brakes) is now mainstream. Why is it that full self-driving cars are categorically different? Because it requires full faith in the machine. When assistive technology goes wrong, the driver can correct it and -- get this -- the reason the driver can correct it fast enough is precisely because the driver doesn't fully trust the technology. the driver is on alert, always, because they know the technology is not meant to be trusted fully. now a full self-driving car asks the driver to trust it fully. so the "driver" can take a nap, read a book, whatever. if the driver needs to be on alert, it's by definition not a fully self-driving car. and i dont think we will get there, ever.
it's entirely possible that the Berkeley CS professors, who are obviously geniuses but also kind of dolts, knew nothing about these bureaucratic intricacies and took the most obvious way out.