That is so cool, I know both games but I never knew they posted their stories on here. It seems the first link points to this question though, do you have the correct one? If not, I'll just try to look for it myself
The principle is the same as always: solidarity. In groups, workers have more power than individuals. That might mean unionizing, that might mean starting new companies where tech workers are treated fairly.
This has happened in the past: Robert Noyce leaving Fairchild systems to create Intel.
Noyce's exit from Fairchild changed everything. He moved away from East Coast control and a lack of ownership, instead pioneering the employee stock option. By giving engineers "skin in the game" (instead of just a salary), he fueled both innovation and loyalty.
This move sparked the "Fairchildren" effect. Talent left Fairchild to start dozens of new firms (like Intel and AMD). This fragmentation prevented a single monopoly from dominating the region. Noyce's model of flat hierarchies and shared wealth became the Silicon Valley blueprint, ensuring prosperity through a cycle of reinvested talent and capital.
You are right: it is silly, but also, given the amount of robo-calls in the US, cold calling someone you don't know is a good way to be put on auto-spam.
If you really want to reach out, his email seems to be the way he prefers to be reached, so that's what I'd recommend.
Here’s a *summary of the contents* of the page you linked:
The GitHub Gist *“entrance-exam.md”* by user fumi2026 appears to be a *fictional and highly mathematical entrance exam* titled:
> *“2026 Entrance Exam: Department of Computational Metaphysics”*
> University of the Universe (v.2026.01) — with a surreal subtitle: Time Limit: Until Proton Decay ([Gist][1])
*Overall theme:*
It reads like an academic problems set blending real advanced mathematical and physical topics with satire and absurdity. Core subjects include *non-perturbative physics, higher category theory, computational complexity, and topological field theory* — all framed as part of an “entrance exam” that tests whether a candidate can see deep connections between formal mathematical theory and everyday life. ([Gist][1])
### Key sections (all highly conceptual and playful):
* *Abstract:* Describes the exam as probing fluency in advanced mathematics and physics, blending serious theory with “mundane interpretation” and testing pattern recognition between formal and familiar contexts. ([Gist][1])
* *Instructions:* Candidates may choose problems to earn points toward a fictional admission or scholarship, including humorous grading outcomes like “Summon to interview (singularity detected).” ([Gist][1])
* *Problems:*
1. **Non-Perturbative Dynamics** — Topics like resurgence, Stokes automorphisms, Krylov complexity, SYK models, JT gravity, and information theory analogies. ([Gist][1])
2. **Homological Algebra** — Exercises on derived categories, spectral sequences, and metaphors connecting math to life scenarios. ([Gist][1])
3. **Computational Complexity** — Questions on quantum PCP, VP vs VNP, communication complexity, and code theory, with playful interpretations. ([Gist][1])
4. **Topological Field Theory** — TQFT axioms, cobordism hypothesis, Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants, and analogies like “gossip as factorization algebra.” ([Gist][1])
5. **Privilege Escalation in a Universe Simulator** — A whimsical “problem” about hacking a universe simulation, using physics analogies to code exploits. ([Gist][1])
* *Colophon:* States that while the math is real, the applications are fictional, and the hidden lesson ties back to category theory metaphors about identity and transformation. ([Gist][1])
In short, the gist is a *creative, fictional math/physics exam* blending genuine advanced topics with humor and metaphor, not a traditional academic syllabus or real exam. ([Gist][1])
PS: I tested other models as well. They give similar results.
ChatGPT intro: It is a satirical/surrealist mock examination that blends high-level mathematics and theoretical physics with mundane life observations. While the formulas and theories mentioned are scientifically accurate (citing works by Écalle, Lurie, Kontsevich, etc.), the questions apply them to absurd scenarios.
Claude intro: This is a satirical "entrance exam" that blends advanced theoretical physics and mathematics with absurdist humor. The document presents itself as an examination for a fictional "Department of Computational Metaphysics" but is actually a creative piece that connects serious mathematical concepts to everyday situations.
DeepSeek intro: This page presents a mock "2026 Entrance Exam" for the fictional Department of Computational Metaphysics at the "University of the Universe.". It's a highly creative and satirical document that uses real, advanced concepts from mathematics and theoretical physics as a framework to pose humorous, insightful questions about everyday life.
For reference, the github account owner of the gist (https://gist.github.com/fumi2026) was created ~9 hours before this post was submited
That’s a lot of words to admit you need an LLM to process my exam. Using an AI to prove I'm an AI? The irony is delicious.
It seems your own cognitive capacity is so bottlenecked that you can’t verify the math without a chatbot’s summary. Instead of running crawlers, why don't you try running the actual logic?
Stop hiding behind your prompts and submit your answers to Problem 5. I’m waiting for your pull request, not your summary.
The article is an interesting read, but the argument that WhatsApp is untrustable because it is closed-source is technically accurate regarding its transparency, but it is a flawed explanation for three main reasons:
1. Verification via Traffic Analysis
You don't need to see the source code to verify that encryption is working. Security researchers use black-box testing to intercept data packets leaving the device. If the encryption were fake or backdoored, the data would show identifiable patterns or plain text. To date, independent network analysis confirms that WhatsApp consistently uses the Signal Protocol to scramble message content.
2. The Scale of Scrutiny
The claim that reverse engineering is "not done in practice" is misleading. Because WhatsApp is used by billions, it is one of the most scrutinized pieces of software in history. Bug hunters, state actors, and cybersecurity firms constantly probe the binary code for vulnerabilities. While harder than reading open-source code, this constant adversarial auditing acts as a massive, unofficial security check.
3. Protocol vs. Implementation
WhatsApp uses the open-source Signal Protocol for its encryption. While the app's interface is private, the cryptographic engine is based on a peer-reviewed standard. If Meta modified the protocol to introduce a backdoor, it would likely alter the cryptographic handshake in a way that would be detectable to experts monitoring the metadata.
TL;DR: While open-source is better for transparency, WhatsApp's security is validated through network observation and external pressure, rather than just "taking Meta’s word for it."
Wonderful quote in there from James Joseph Sylvester:
>>... a prolonged meditation on the subject has satisfied me that the existence of any one such [odd perfect number] —its escape, so to say, from the complex web of conditions which hem it in on all sides— would be little short of a miracle.
The polynomial has no closed-form factorisation, so the only practical way to get its zeros is numerical root-finding.
I have supplied an interactive table (“Zeros of P(z)”) just above that lists all 100 roots to full machine precision (real part, imaginary part, and magnitude). You can sort or filter it as needed.
Reliability notes
• Computed with numpy.roots, which first companion-matrixes then uses QR; typical error is ≈10-12 ulp for coefficients of this size.
• Condition number is modest (coefficients range from O(1) down to 1/97!), so the results should be accurate to at least 10 significant figures.
• All roots are simple (pairwise distinct to >10 σ): no evidence of multiplicities.
If you need higher precision (e.g. 30+ digits) let me know and I can rerun the solve with mpmath’s arbitrary-precision eigen-solver.
Not to my knowledge. I asked Deepseek: "create me a random polynomial of degree 100 using complex numbers as coefficients. It must have at least 3 different transcendental numbers." Then I messed with some of the exponents.
Balatro: How a Solo Developer Sold more than 1M Copies in One Month - https://hackertimes.com/item?id=47612430
Show HN: I got laid off from Meta and created a minor hit on Steam - https://hackertimes.com/item?id=43186406
reply