Sure, it doesn't prove that you've solved P=NP, but if you can do that (especially for multiple known hard problems), it seems pretty likely that your suggested solution would be heavily evaluated.
I don't think anyone suggested that breaking a single problem proves P=NP, they were just addressing the article, and suggesting a way to convince someone to evaluate your proof..
The whole point was that the jobs would disappear -- if Uber and Lyft back out of smaller cities to be profitable, all of those jobs are gone, which is exactly the point of the person you replied to.
There's no "backing out" if we're talking about individual cities in a country they already operate in (save a few edge cases). That isn't really how Uber/Lyft enter/exit markets. They will just not pay driver incentives for new markets, which is usually the lighter fire for incentivizing new supply (i.e. drivers) to start driving.
There's no job to be "lost." They aren't going to turn you away for a "job" or "fire" you because you literally aren't employed by the company. Think of it as if you are licensing Uber/Lyft software to generate leads for your own business. That is literally how they think about it and what the driver ToS says.
That’s true, there’s no real reason to “leave” a city. But if they need to stop bleeding cash in an expensive city, they’ll need to raise prices during a hurting economy. Doing this at scale is going to severely dent their ability to cover fixed costs long term.
The point isn't that every user will know how to repair their own products, rather that they could if they choose.
Think about your lawnmower. If the engine won't run, maybe you can figure out through a bit of research that it's probably the spark plug. So you can go buy a spark plug and swap it yourself. You don't need the manufacturer to authorize your new spark plug.
However, many people would not know anything about where to begin replacing their spark plug, and don't want the hastle to learn, so they bring it to the manufacturer and pay a premium to have it done for them. But if they someday decided to learn, they could learn themselves. Or even take their lawnmower to a friend who can help them.
To take away those option entirely, only leaving the one option -- paying the manufacturer a premium to do it for you -- is what I have an issue with.
Bonus: the lawnmower manufacturer could include a type of safety lock that does not allow you to work on your lawnmower, to prevent a user from hurting themselves. However, the manufacturer should also give the user the ability to remove that lock, positively asserting that they know what they're doing (like giving the private keys, or allowing a motherboard switch to be toggled which unlocks the system, etc)
We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy, and our goal is longevity of a sustainable relationship between the people and their government.
We have some issues in our country right now, but I have a good feeling we'll get them worked out in the next few years.
Many of our laws and rights are in place not for short term feelings about safety between people and police, but for long term safety of the people from a tyrannical government. And that tyrannical government might take hundreds of years to begin to form in a democracy... But the bill of rights and ability of the people to feel secure without their government's support, keeps the government from getting too power-hungry or separating too far from the will of the people.
> We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy
No, we haven't. In fact, we copied it largely from the UK. (We didn't like the fact that as a colony we didn't get representation in the national legislature or the full range of rights citizens in the UK itself had, but, hey, the US does the same thing. Initially, and still partially, even to it's capital district.
We've got the oldest surviving written Constitution, sure, but that's a different issue.
The US has a very different system in a lot of ways. The UK doesn't have a formal constitution, its executive is subject to the legislature in a way it isn't in the US, one house, etc. The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the US is a republic. Also, the UK wasn't a democracy in any meaningful sense in 1776. The History Of Parliament Online is a very useful resource (https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/constitue...). Out of some 6 million people in 1776 that lived in Britain, approximately 100,000 had the right to vote, most of which were in a small segment (i.e. the ability to vote was highly geographically concentrated).
The UK doesn't have a single written document that lays out the Constitution, but I wouldn't necessarily call the Constitution informal.
> its executive is subject to the legislature in a way it isn't
True.
> one house,
The UK still has a bicameral, not unicameral, legislature, though it now has priority in the lower house (unlike the US, which retains greater power in the undemocratic upper house, a feature it copied from the UK which has since shed it.)
> The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the US is a republic.
The UK is a representative democracy with a ceremonial monarch and the US is a representative democracy without a ceremonial monarch; the absence of a monarch is the sum total of the difference indicated by “republic”.
> Also, the UK wasn't a democracy in any meaningful sense in 1776.
Neither, though, was the US in 1776, or 1789, for much the same reason: the colonies had imported and retained (in some cases added to) the kinds of restrictions on the franchise found in the UK, and kept them past the revolution and Constitution, which left decision of who could vote to the States (and, while not in the federal government, also often had even more stringent property, etc., requirements for office holders.)
The UK did and still does have a written constitution, it's just not entirely written, and what's written is spread across multiple documents--the Magna Carta being one of the obvious ones. The US is not that different. Much of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was copied verbatim from the written parts of the English constitution. And even conservative American jurists who reject Substantive Due Process regularly recognize unwritten constitutional rules and norms, especially those deriving from English constitutional norms.
Aside from federalism (where states maintained some sovereignty), the most fundamental constitutional differences between the US and the UK relate to judicial review and parliamentary supremacy. But it didn't become clear until 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that the US would follow a different path. If Congress was the final arbiter of legislative constitutionality (as many believed in 1789, and some conservatives argue to this day), there would be little if any functional difference between the US and UK constitutional systems. Indeed, now that US Senators are directly elected, but for Marbury v Madison even federalism would be little different than UK's so-called devolution. Japan nominally has judicial review, but their supreme court has zero inclination to strike down legislation so in practice the Japanese legislature has similar constitutional powers as the UK parliament.
> Also, the UK wasn't a democracy in any meaningful sense in 1776.
One could argue that UK is still not a democracy now. House of lords, Queen's hard and soft power, traditions, no legally binding referendum that can be done without government or parliament.
When the US Constitution was adopted the UK monarch still had enough power that it couldn't reasonably be considered a democracy. The exact point when the UK became a modern democracy is open to debate as power gradually devolved from the monarch to Parliament, but US democracy has absolutely been around longer. There's no legitimate historical debate on that.
And very little of the US governmental system was copied from the UK. A parliamentary system is just totally different from what we have.
Yeah, Madison researched every form of government in history, including native American government systems, as the backdrop for his constitutional work. To say we just copied the UK is not a true assessment in any sense.
We have 2 eyes and stereo vision... No matter what you put on a screen, it'll be 1-dimensional in the body's ability to discern distance and actual spatial awareness.
Pretty sure they aren't -- on my PS4 for example, YouTube shows ads just like on PC/mobile, but they're totally unclickable. There's no button for "see more on this ad" or anything.
I know this because it has shown an ad for something that I was interested in buying, and I tried everything to get to the ad and couldn't. Ended up having to Google it on my phone!
> Because Apple is using a completely different market, which they have a strong presence on, to increase the value of Apple Music and consequently devaluing any other competing music streaming services.
This is the core issue. Apple using their dominant market position in the hardware/operating system markets to push anticompetitive practices for their product in a different market (Apple Music).
I don't see how this is much different than IE. Maybe even worse in some ways. But regardless, it is very clearly manipulating the market artificially in Apple's favor.
For those who have significant sums invested in the App Store, they are effectively dominant as there is no way to switch app licenses to a different app store.
Sure, but the rules are _reasonably_ unambiguous and unchanging. The 30% cut has been in place since day one. If Spotify didn't like it, they had the choice to focus their attentions exclusively on other platforms. That wasn't the case with Windows+IE, when effectively there were no other platforms of any size.
And worth noting that Spotify grows by millions of paying subscribers every quarter without the app store. They're currently choosing to focus exclusively on other channels rather than try to pay the 30% and… doing better than Apple Music…
> Apple using their dominant market position in the hardware/operating system markets to push anticompetitive practices for their product in a different market (Apple Music).
Allegedly anticompetitive.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook all engage in similar behavior by giving preferential treatment of their products/features/services.
To your second point, I'm a fairly young engineer with 1.5 years experience, and I'm not leaving my secure job for a shot at being a good 'cultural fit' for some other company.
Financial security is important, and I would put up with a lot of shit from my company before I'd consider taking a chance on another one like that.
Although I know some companies (my current one included) have a 3 month "probationary period" where they've only ever let 1 person go at the end out of approximately 150 since I've been there. It's just to make sure you're not a complete goon.
Problem is, it could be really hard to tell apart a company that has a "probationary period" like mine, or a real time that they judge you at the end.
Not exactly -- more like no matter how much RAM you have, it makes sense for your software to use it all rather than disk.
It means that however much you have, your system should use as much of it as possible. Otherwise it's just sitting there doing nothing. Contrary to popular belief, the more RAM you're using, the faster your system will be (assuming it's using the RAM efficiently)
I don't think anyone suggested that breaking a single problem proves P=NP, they were just addressing the article, and suggesting a way to convince someone to evaluate your proof..