Austin, TX
Joined July 2016
Im not convinced people actually know what the P=NP problem is. Lets break it down. Before the 1960s, computers were getting faster every year, so engineers just assumed that if a problem was too hard for a computer to solve then, all had to do was just wait a few years for a faster computer, boom, problemo solved. But then, they ran into a wall with a specific group of problems. No matter how powerful the computers got, they would freeze up, overheat, or take billions of years to solve them. So these were super hard theoretical physics or black hole topography, right? Nope, they were everyday things like designing a high school schedule where a teacher is never in two places at the same time, or like, draw a trace on a circuit board that's as short as possible without overlapping other traces. Heres the kicker, once the problem was solved, the computer could VERY quickly go back over and be like "Yup, no scheduling conflicts!". Once the problem was solved, verifying the solution was easy. It would be like you walking up to a lock someone left on a door and trying to figure out the code, and then someone else coming up behind you "Hey, the code is 26-42-36-10. Pop in the code and boom! Problem solved, solution verified. Computer scientists grouped all of these problems into a category called "NP". Aww now if makes sense. And you know what ALLLLLLL of these problems have in common? They were exponential. Meaning if you only had 5 classes, your computer could solve thay in a MILISECOND. But if your schedule had like 100 classes, the possible combinations went insane like, more atoms than in the known universe numbers. So by putting these problems into this "NP category", scientists were basically telling software developers "Stop wasting billions of dollars on trying to get your computers to solve these problems" and do something heuristic like, draw a line first, then verify it sux and iterate on it quickly until its good enough and move on. So then they realized something terrifying. If you could figure out a trick to solving ANY of these problems, you could solve ALL of them, no matter what it was as long as it was an NP problem. Ok so whats the big deal then!?! What do people mean why they say "If AI solves P=NP, thats the end game!". They are essentially saying that if its easy to verify a solution to a problem that was solved, then there must be a hidden trick to solve it as easily from scratch and if you could find that trick, all the hard problems could be solved instantly. Some of this is good like medicine or cosmology, some of it bad like cryptography which rides on assumptions that these problems are extremely difficult to solve from scratch. Thats the entire breakdown on the P=NP or P≠NP debate you see floating around X these days. Thanks for reading.
170
464
59
5,855
405,718
I went from "this is silly but cool" to "this could be really important"
UI and math time! UI = f(props) is the most famous line in React. But that f is JavaScript, not math. Inspired by @_chenglou’s Handwired project, I compiled a <Dashboard/> component into a real math function, and asked what becomes possible. calculus-of-interfaces.verce…
85
This person is livetweeting their first playthrough of ocarina of time and it's very entertaining
1
113
So did the flood of CVEs pause, or did we just stop talking about them?
2
5
172
All the AI specifics aside, this points at a really interesting psychological distinction and the way it plays out in an organization
From an ex-Anthropic employee:
1
3
232
How I look at Claude when it takes some extra steps I didn't ask for but I can't be mad about
19
380
It's funny how the two ways to read this are "See?? AI is about to take all the jobs!" and "See?? The AI bubble is about to burst!" We'll find out I guess
BREAKING: Microsoft, $MSFT, is offering buyouts to 60,000 workers as part of the company’s efforts to cut costs amid AI adoption, per Bloomberg. Personnel on select teams in the US, Canada, India, and the UK at a vice president level and below will be eligible. This reflects ~27% of Microsoft's total workforce.
4
210
Good Morning.
43
998
104
9,138
185,676
There are some people who mutually bring out the worst in each other, and they are actually both the bad guy, but only with each other
12
279
Statement I'm mulling over: "Software is only useful insomuch as we (or someone we trust) can understand its behavior" With the caveat that the implementation may be more complex than the behavior we need to understand. But if we can't understand it at all then it's just noise
2
4
317
And if we can only understand it partially then it's only partially useful
56
Anxieties about the world aside, I think the ego death from agentic coding is probably good for me
2
14
354
I used to over-index on what things I could externalize and reduce to a tool Now virtually anything can be externalized, and that's less and less of a special ability for a person to have So what's left are the things I *internalize*. Tidying up the inside of the house
3
53
Christmas is a season of darkness and hope. The darkness is part of the hope
4
12
444
(yes I'm already thinking about christmas, what of it)
2
35
It's live! 🙂 (link in reply)
Sat down with this again and it's being reviewed for the app store. About 8 hours total work between two sessions (Claude was also a massive help auto-generating screenshots, a public website, and even using the App Store Connect API to assemble and submit the listing)
1
2
82
I voted today, and the machine was digital but completely offline. You put in your ballot paper, and it physically prints the selections in a format that can be easily read by another machine Maybe that's how everything important will work some day
1
8
271
Maybe AI breaks most of the internet and maybe that ends up being Good, actually
1
1
49
A quieter world. Paper and physicality come back. The world's nervous system re-settles
2
39