It could be that they live in an area with more variable or more unpredictable weather than you. Or that they are much more outdoorsy. Or something else altogether. I'm surprised by your surprise. People live wildly different lifes and have correspondingly wide-ranging needs and preferences.
Some very bright Jetbrains folks were able to solve most of those issues. Check out their MPS IDE [1], its structured/projectional editing experience is in a class of its own.
They must be, I can't imagine they're all on Android. I'm on iOS and didn't know there was an issue with the keyboard. Maybe it's because I've not tried out any competing ones or maybe because I don't type that much on the phone generally.
In case you're wondering why you're being downvoted: the history is much more nuanced. While the Archimedes Palimpsest is a genuine and tragic example of lost text, the broader claim that Christianity engendered a period of scientific erasure is considered outdated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis).
For example, monasteries were the primary centers of literacy and education in Europe during the early middle ages, and they acted as the primary bridge for the survival of Greco-Roman intellectual heritage in the West. Not always intentionally, but they were the only sanctuary for books during those times.
Besides, this is not how history works. Civilizations come and go and times of transition always take a toll. An eye-opening recent book on these questions I can recommend is Tom Holland's "Doninion: The Making of the Modern World".
For anybody interested in the book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52259619-dominion I would highly recommend. Holland (historian, not the actor) makes a great case about why many of our thoughts nowadays are rooted in Christianity.
They are transient only in those rare domains that can be fully formalized/specified. Like chess. Anything that depends on the messy world of human - world interactions will require humans in the loop for translation and verification purposes.
>Anything that depends on the messy world of human - world interactions will require humans in the loop for translation and verification purposes.
I really don't see why that would necessarily be true. Any task that can be done by a human with a keyboard and a telephone is at risk of being done by an AI - and that includes the task of "translation and verification".
Sure, but at the risk of running into completely unforeseen and potentially catastrophic misunderstandings. We humans are wired to use human language to interact with other humans, who share our human experience, which AIs can only imperfectly model.
I have to say I don't feel this huge shared experience with many service industry workers. Especially over the phone. We barely speak the same language!
Mathematics is indeed one of those rare fields where intimate knowledge of human nature is not paramount. But even there, I don't expect LLMs to replace top-level researchers. The same evolutionary "baggage" which makes simulating and automating humans away impossible is also what enables (some of) us to have the deep insight into the most abstract regions of maths. In the end it all relies on the same skills developed through millions of years of tuning into the subtleties of 3D geometry, physics, psychology and so on.
I'm guessing that they were referring to the depth of the decision tree able to be computed in a given amount of time?
In essence, it used to be (I have not stayed current) that the "AI" was limited on how many moves into the future it could use to determine which move was most optimal.
That limit means that it is impossible to determine all the possible moves and which is guaranteed to lead to a win. (The "best" than can be done is to have a Machine Learning algorithm choose the most likely set of moves that a human would take from the current state, and which of that set would most likely lead to a win.
Formulating theories ain't the whole of science, but it's a big part of it.