That way I also can easily write a very powerful build environment:

#include <stdlib.h>
 
int main()
{
  return system("make");
}

I leave obvious improvements to the reader. ;-)

Th ultimate programming model: Inactive programming. You do nothing, but still get a working program.

But if there turns out to be an error in the simplified proof, how do you know whether it's an error in the original proof, or an error of the simplification?

So how long will it take to check if you give it to 1000 people and let each one check 6500 pages?

Actually it contains the step "then a miracle occurs."

So you would more readily accept a big while loop as AI? ;-)

Don't worry, when we have quantum computers on our desks, we will use qubits. Almost the same as cubits, isn't it? ;-)

So you say the real reason why they cannot check the proof is that they would violate the DMCA by doing so?

Who says it must be checked by a single human? In the extreme, each single step could be verified by a different human. And that even in parallel.

And even if it takes a century for humans to check that proof, it doesn't mean it's impossible. Unless we have a conclusive proof that humanity will not last that long.

ITYM: Oops ...

SCNR

No, it isn't.

It's midnight here (well two minutes after midnight).

See you in a week.

Well, I'd say tokiko must figure it out. ;-)

Of course you can learn coding in a year. You'll not become a stellar coder. You might not even get recursion or pointers in that time frame. But you'll learn the fundamentals, and find out if you like it (in which case you'll continue to learn and get better by your own motivation) or don't (in which case you'll probably never achieve anything non-trivial in that field anyway and can safely omit learning more about it).

I don't think it's possible to make a site unsupported by advertisements.

Well, Wikipedia manages to do it, so it is clearly not impossible. Now of course that is no proof that it also will work for a Slashdot-like site.