Tren Black

computer-science denier. currently @UofIllinois. prev @Meta.

[Tren Black @tren_black]

Everyone in computer science is pretentious as fuck lmao I love y’all

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@MelindaBChu1 @JesseJamesTN @archit_sharma97 Its satire. Everyone knows its a bad email.

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@wordgrammer @ZoroNoGPS The Napkin Project is perfect for this.

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@wordgrammer @tobasiteuberman @victor_explore The exception is Algorithms by Jeff Erickson. You will like that book if you're a math major. It's readable and well-motivated. It's like the "Spivak's calculus" of Algorithms

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@saarth_ @garrytan @ravi_riley @ObinnaAka @cryptokidf LMAO legend

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@Ola1348304 @brewster_kahle i think they used bcrypt so possibly he mispoke when he said encrypted

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@FZY45J @PalmquistCaleb @brewster_kahle salt code aren't that private & even with them, rainbow tables are useless

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@getthinkable @craigzLiszt you spent 4 years to build... post-it notes?

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@felixchin1 @DonnySolana @Jason This is fire you should apply

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@martinmrmar Why not just use the set of positive Integers, Z^+, if you want to exclude 0?

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@nahrzf teaches formal logic in a way that is more intuitive than discrete math (for most people)

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@svpino can you actually provide an argument for this or are you just engagement farming?

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@5uperIdol @martinmrmar N is natural numbers, Z is integers

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@CodeFryingPan @trypearai brb gonna run ur fees up w/ the $15 per 1M token

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@FaraoNswt @chrisuniverse so mute it??????

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@Smillew_Rahcuef @InternetH0F This is the only correct answer

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@benawad @thejohnfish did not see this coming

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@jk_rowling Your A) is essentially a conditional P implies (->) Q where P: “is a dog”, Q: “barks.” While you’re correct that P -> Q is equivalent to (not Q) -> (not P), the conditional can be disproved by finding one case where (P and (not Q)) is true, which in this case we can. bad argument

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@br___ian antidepressants

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@benshapiro if you want to test it, why not keep all other variables the same and just lock your account without announcing it or asking for additional engagement?

[Tren Black @tren_black]

@ericweinstein this is also the first tweet you’re asking everyone to like, so that may also be the reason why this one in particular blows up more.