Really? Wtf kind of incompetents were arguing that it couldn't be done?
I'm not arguing that it was or should have been easy, of course. It sounds like a fascinating challenge. And I'm also not claiming that any computer scientist, even a good one, could have solved it. But any vaguely competent computer scientist should have been able to say, "that's a cool problem, and you need to talk to a graph drawing expert."
Of course, this could have been a case of the source saying "they said it was hard" and the writer mangling that into "they said it couldn't be done". But still.
I think it is more likely they said "It isn't a well-defined problem."
Perhaps they really answered "as the problem is stated, it can't be done, without compromises."
Then again, I tend to give computer scientists and statisticians the benefit of the doubt (and not so much the writer).
I might even have left the latter sentence out, since it's clearly implicit. Maybe whoever they found left it out or maybe they didn't even consider it, but the artist could have made the addition too. I suspect the first few people just weren't interested.
It's possible that any academic asked might have concluded that there wasn't a general publishable result to be had from this work and therefore that it wasn't worth doing. Just because something is interesting doesn't necessarily mean it is of any interest from a research perspective.
[NB I left academic research in CS for pretty much these reasons - I like interesting stuff].
Then somebody actually talked to him and took the time to realize he didn't need the optimal solution.
Isn't that a tautology? Because if it wasn't doable then it wouldn't be practical.
Edit: Any chance of explanation for the down voting to -1? I mean, I assume it's for thinking my question moronic, but would like to actually hear why that might be...
And a website to explore the names and some of the stories and links between them:
As for finding peoples' names, there's a strong symbolism it making it hard. To search for a name is to honor the efforts of the recovery workers who searched for remains.
At any rate, let's hope there's no more need for memorials like this one.
Presumably this will offer something similar.
yet another example of a need for a sarcasm punctuation mark.
If this kind of writing bothers you, you definitely don't want to subscribe to the New Yorker.
In my mind it doesn't. With so many other things in life vying for my time I'm loathe to read and digest such fluff. It reminds me of what I used to do in school to boost my word count on papers. I'm sure professional writers labor under similar circumstances at times.
Each requires the coöperation... even others coördinating a response
Perhaps I'm over-sensitive, but this seems rather elitist.
Now, combine this with the citation of "A same-sex couple and their three-year-old son..., certainly, belonged together." Why mention their genders? Either the writer has an unhealthy fixation on other people's sexual preferences, or, worse, thinks that the fact that they're gay entitles them to special consideration. Not good either way.
I don't think I like their style.
Contrary to popular belief, the English language has no official single governing body. Either are considered to be "correct".
Nor did I claim that it did; linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. It describes the way people use the language. I've never seen English with umlauts, outside of a few heavy metal bands . The link you provided would seem to agree with me, showing the non-accented spelling outnumbering this one by some 500:1.
Anyway, I thought you chose an overly verbose way of saying "tl;dr".
His is a valid position, he explains his reason for holding it even. Please disagree, but recognise that his view is worthwhile and well presented given the context.
and i would have loved that job. if anyone has anything similar, contact me :o) (i can't believe people said "it can't be done")