You're really twisting what happened here. It wasn't so much "yanked" as it was "replaced". I was initially against the idea, but soon got around to it. It was a very risky and daring move by the government, but it was a good one.
How do you even measure it. What's the metric. How do you classify it as good or bad. It was clearly short-sighted and the government even failed to account the size of the new currency notes and the inconvenience caused by it. All that was achieved was dip in the GDP and the loss of lives.
Contrary to the popular belief that BTC purports money laundering, it can actually mitigate the problem of black money and money laundering. The governments all around the world should try to keep up and they should themselves establish a separate think tank/research arm/department for blockchain and cryptocurrency space.
I don't understand this, AFAIK a problem is NP-Hard or NP-Complete (or P) in _general_, that is, over all instances. But not so for a specific instance. Wouldn't these games count as just one specific instance of the problem?
The papers actually say "The rulesets allow the creation of levels which can encode an NP Hard problem". That just means if you know the answer, it's fast to show it, but finding the answer takes a lot of time.
Usually this boils down to creating AND/OR gates using level tiles, and combining them together to form arbitrary computational problems. Usually 3-SAT, because it's straight forward to encode in logic gates.
It depends on whether you regard the game as limited to the pre-defined levels or allow new levels to be constructed using the same rules. The constructions discussed in the article are all about encoding NP-Complete problems in new level layouts, such that the player has to make a series of irrevocable decisions that need to encode a solution to the NP problem in order to solve the level.
NP hardness is not about every instance being hard. It's a worst case notion. The paper provides an infinite family of instances which are hard assuming P is not NP. Any poly time algorithm solving for all instances has to solve those hard instances too, hence the game is hard in general.
If someone wants a more detailed explanation about the gates mentioned in the blog, consider reading the introductory chapter to 'Quantum Computation and Quantum Information' by Neilsen and Chuang.
I don't think the author necessarily means being a CEO is an unworthy line of work. What he wants us to understand from this is that it's futile deriving one's worth from the fact that he's the CEO and that he has the ability to boss other people around, but instead he must seek worthiness from the fact that he has the potential to bring about significant change in this world; more than most people could, because like you said, he is not just some "cog in the wheel", but someone who is in charge of many like-minded people who belive in him.
