The Ctrl +/- zooming? It's not smooth, it's limited, it's just font resizing, not zooming back from a plane as you'd get in 3D, where the center would remain constant. Scrolling still required for navigating (if I zoom out at the top and want to zoom in to the bottom, I still have to scroll down to it), and still limited to one file at a time.
Likely not technically feasible at the moment (without sacrificing font quality and too many other features of code editing)
Not sure this actually tells us anything useful as it's all based on an inherently simplified simulation. You get what you simulate for. You could just as easily replace "luck" with nepotism and fraud and conclude those factors must be very important.
May depend on the kids' ages and what sort of viewer they are. As a young kid (like around age 6 and below) watching a movie episodically would've been fine for me. Time was different; I had no sense of a story arc spanning more than an hour.
At least in some contexts, I never really agreed with calling it "uncertainty"; a frequency cannot exist in less time than the time needed to measure it. You're not really uncertain about it, it does not exist at all. Like looking at a single pixel's color and saying you're uncertain about the picture.
> "Figuring out whether a single given program halts is decidable"
What does "decidable" mean in this context? Simply running the program may not be sufficient to know whether or not it halts. One could have a program that loops infinitely but never repeats the same state. So it will never halt, nor will its looping be obvious. So does it count as "decidable" if we cannot yet prove whether or not it's looping?
Not knowing the configuration of a TM at time t without running it (or similarly involved computation) doesn't mean that we cannot divide the space of TMs into classes.
One class has to each TM an associated mathematical function mapping inputs to nonnegative integers that tells you the exact integral time at which the TM transitions to the halting state. This is the class of decidable TMs.
The other class contains every TM not in the first class. For this class, any choice of such a function is provably wrong for some input. This is the class of undecicdable TMs.
Both classes are nonempty, and their existence is just about as well-defined as many other common mathematical objects. It is just not possible to provide a "nice" alternative characterization which TMs fall under which class.
I confess I mostly just read cliffsnotes and sparksnotes. Felt a little guilty about it at first, but it helped me ace the tests, and saved a ton of time.
Not sure I would call it "genius" or the emergence of latent "talent", terms which suggest a positive judgment of the work produced... Rather it seems like obsession. It is a very curious phenomenon, and I wonder if it can tell us anything useful about the psychology of motivation and interest. Calling it "sudden genius" feels clickbaity.
