Define infinite. There are no infinite things in observed reality and there obviously can not be any in a computer game. Infinite simply means that you can always come up with more of whatever object is under consideration. For example no matter how large a natural number you name I can always name a bigger one. In this case it probably means that when you reach a "border" of the world some more "world" is generated. Given that they claim it is procedurally generated.

True, however, their verdicts can have influence over existing laws. If there are laws concerning treatment of disability in the workplace and some responsible body makes up a new disability it sort of is like passing a law.

Yeah R is so different from Python, I mean everything is the same but not quite and I totally have a point and not just bullshitting because like Japanese sushi and beef Argentinian soup, brocolli.

Because when you fork something it instantly becomes unstable and memory corruption bugs appear. Or you could, you know, remove that one bit that you don't like and keep the rest the same.

Any standards, really.

The only "pain of programming" I have experienced was always the result of my own poor design choices. Is there an IDE for that?

"and much more to do with general math/logic" well thank fuck. Anyone can learn to code on their own, not so with general math/logic.

Excellent arguments, I'm convinced.

"How about just talking to the school directors, asking them what they need most, and then giving it to them?"

I don't know for sure but I am pretty certain every government in the world would make doing that impossible.

I suspect that "it's magic" is precisely the conclusion they want to draw to protect their threatened special snowflake status. Otherwise clever people (Roger Penrose, etc) end up looking like total baffoons because they cannot even dare contemplate the notion that their mind is not a transcendent miracle of galactic proportions.

Apparently making grandiose statements about things you have no clue about is how I should have been doing science. Instead of, you know, working hard to justify your conclusions beyond all doubt.

There's a sort of pride among russians in not turning against Russia and it's culture no matter how badly it fucks them. It's like a battered housewife only the size of a country.

There are applications where no overhead is always better than any overhead. Mostly stuff involving the simulation of physical processes. For example in computer sound synthesis and processing no matter how much computational power you throw at me I will use it up. A musician buys a computer twice as fast as the previous one? Great now he can use 10 convolution based reverbs instead of 5 or use that new virtual analog synthesizer plugin that emulates each transistor of some old korg synth perfectly and he will and his computer will choke just as before. Peoples needs are different. Just because you can't think of uses for extra CPU cycles does not mean other people can't and if your program wastes those cycles people will buy from someone else.

In the context of everything else that is available (R, etc), yes.

Why would anyone use Excel for anything?