I'll just chime in with congrats on the new book. I was a huge fan of the Network Programming book that I first read in 2013, and which I still consider as having the best balance of approachability and rigor. Looking forward to checking the new one out. :)
"In logic and computer science, the Boolean satisfiability problem (sometimes called propositional satisfiability problem and abbreviated SATISFIABILITY, SAT or B-SAT) is the problem of determining if there exists an interpretation that satisfies a given Boolean formula. In other words, it asks whether the variables of a given Boolean formula can be consistently replaced by the values TRUE or FALSE in such a way that the formula evaluates to TRUE... For example, the formula "a AND NOT b" is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = FALSE, which make (a AND NOT b) = TRUE. In contrast, "a AND NOT a" is unsatisfiable.
SAT is the first problem that was proven to be NP-complete... This means that all problems in the complexity class NP, which includes a wide range of natural decision and optimization problems, are at most as difficult to solve as SAT. There is no known algorithm that efficiently solves each SAT problem, and it is generally believed that no such algorithm exists; yet this belief has not been proven mathematically, and resolving the question of whether SAT has a polynomial-time algorithm is equivalent to the P versus NP problem..."
The NP encapsulation diagram is so interesting. From someone who took a few theory classes, but not a ton, it's very interesting and mystifying. One day, I hope there can be some sort of proof for P vs NP, one way or the other. Mostly because it's a problem that is relatively understandable, but crazy to think we don't have an answer. The idea that P=NP would be an incredible proof to see (or watch someone dissect) because (from what I remember from my algo class) that means that all NP problems can be traced to some root problem that can be used to solve it. That root problem would be an incredible thing to see.
If it wasn't obvious, I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic.
> Perhaps Google is doing a decent job eliminating crap from their search results (debatable), but that’s not an outcome of a naive application of PageRank.
Is this actually the case? We don't have a good way to test it, but I believe that you wouldn't see the crappy articles I referred in the first N results even with vanilla PageRank (and for a very large N at that).
Keep in mind that my definition of fake news is pretty narrow here: it's "Pope Francis endorses Trump" rather than "Fox dismisses COVID-19 threat" or spin of that sort, which is probably what you meant by crap.
There will certainly be blind spots like the ones above, but my goal is to eliminate the most egregious miscreants and the method outlined will achieve that (well, we'll test it and see how it goes).
Hey smiljo, thanks for the question! You are right, it might be cool to be able to edit code as well from this interface, not only inspect it.
We are still pretty early so at this moment it's hard to say how would this exactly work. But I believe we could also make it a part of the git and CI workflow. E.g. changes would get applied to the .wasp files and committed and the new revision would get deployed.
Thanks for the feedback! Yes, the threshold is too sensitive, but we didn't catch it when testing on my device. My colleague is fixing it and we'll have another version out very soon.
