> I don't think it's even been settled that quantum mechanics are truly, for sure probabilistic.
Since you can never prove or disprove the existence of "God" or some other hidden global variable deterministically moving the universe, yes, nothing can ever be settled. Scientists don't find that line of reasoning particularly interesting or compelling to dwell on.
You're right, I didn't mean to add so much emphasis on 'knowing'. I meant settled in the sense of 'settled science', or being as reasonably sure as we can--barring any flying spaghetti monsters. Far from being uninteresting to scientists, I'd argue that this question of whether quantum mechanics is truly probabilistic or hides deeper deterministic mechanisms is one of the most profound topics in physics
For me, because of the algorithm and implementation, plus they have clients for different platforms with open-source code. Plus you can explore other cellular automatas.
I think this explains why apps shuffle the UI around every now and then. I build muscle memory to access particular functionality fast, then update comes, I click the wrong thing, and that technically speaking is measured as more engagement.
I disagree because you're only considering the "get code to make the test pass". Refactoring, refining, and simplifying is critical and I've yet to see this applied well. (I've also yet to see the former applied usably well either despite "write tests generate code" being an early direction.)
Since you can never prove or disprove the existence of "God" or some other hidden global variable deterministically moving the universe, yes, nothing can ever be settled. Scientists don't find that line of reasoning particularly interesting or compelling to dwell on.
reply