But in shell, 0 is true, not false. The program called true returns 0.

"True has 0 errors" is the straightforward part.

"False pretends to have an error" is where it gets weird. It's not that they got booleans backwards, it's that they're stretching a tenuous analogy a bit too far.

I think you are confusing variable fonts with proportional fonts.

I do whenever I want two websites displayed next to each other or when I want to have them in separate workspaces, which is pretty often.

But it now takes 3 times as long because you constantly have to cross roads.

I’d disagree with that. For example, in many sentences, the most load-bearing (heh) word is “not”, which is also one of the most common words.

Disagree because it's one bit of information and in practice you can often guess the correct direction even if you're not sure if "not" was or wasn't said.

IIUC, someone can brick your phone by sending you an SMS. That sounds pretty serious.

Even if all NP problems could be solved in sub-exponential time, it would not imply that NP ≠ EXP. It seems that many people here are confused about what EXP means – it’s the set of all problems that can be solved in at most exponential time, including those in P.

This is not a proof of NP ≠ EXP. NP ≠ EXP would mean that there is a problem that can be solved in exponential time, but not in non-deterministic polynomial time. That’s completely different from what they have shown.

For now. They’re going to remove that option after everyone gets used to the new normal.