I think that statement is too strong -- if ETH was a core belief then its implication P≠NP must also have been a core belief ... but I don't think that those who assumed ETH held it that strongly. As you say, it was commonly thought to be true ... as was P≠NP ... and the latter still is. But is not a "core belief" -- I think virtually everyone believes that they could be wrong, whichever side they're on.
this stuff might be cargo cult, but there's also an interaction/engagement signal because you have to expand the comments so the post itself might be higher ranked when they do this
No it's 100% placed in comments to try and circumvent Meta's down-ranking of posts with links. Posting in comments doesn't work any more however. Remembering the promise of the early internet, I really can't despise the gatekeepers any more than I do.
Is Teams actually worse than Slack? Slack can't even reliably deliver messages.
I've had instances on all tiers of Slack plans on all clients where messages just disappear for days at a time and then come back to gaslight you.
ed: I tried to see if this is fixed and it doesn't look like it. Your IT team might have to write "help" articles like this one. Note that I've had this experience on other platforms.
other than the fact that the headline is misleading (this isn't what anybody would think of as a font), the concept misses the point of emphasis.
adding emphasis to words in unformatted text draws the reader's attention in ways that are not implied by the text itself.
you cannot figure out which word to highlight with the raw text "I didn't say he stole the money", but the semantics are completely different depending on if/where they exist.
you already have a mental model of surprise. adding visual noise to destroy what is already part of reading just makes things bad. the reason why syntax highlighting is successful is that the semantics are rigid. natural language is explicitly not that.
> In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law
47/50 states also provide for this right in their constitutions. the remaining three don't have it in their constitution but still have legislation or rules supporting it
sure, this proof itself doesn't settle the P/NP problem, but we've lost one of our core beliefs.
reply