It's crazy to have 2100 distinct municipalities? The site isn't showing "here are 2100 different email hosts that municipalities in Switzerland use," but rather "here are the 2100 municipalities in Switzerland, and if you click you can see what host each one uses."

There's plenty of overlap, just from a cursory look.

I remember asking about this on StackExchange some years ago [3], which pointed me to Wojciech Izykowski's site[4], on which "best known" base sets are tracked. For example, instead of considering the four bases {2,3,5,7} to cover all 32-bit integers, it would suffice to consider the three integers {4230279247111683200, 14694767155120705706, 16641139526367750375}.

This becomes more interesting the higher the bound you seek --- for example, instead of checking the first 11 prime bases for 64-bit integers, you only need to check the seven bases: 2, 325, 9375, 28178, 450775, 9780504, 1795265022.

[1]: https://oeis.org/A014233

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Rabin_primality...

[3]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1004807/

[4]: https://miller-rabin.appspot.com or https://web.archive.org/web/20260225175716/https://miller-ra... if hugged to death

From another view, Adelson-Velsky and Landis called their tree algorithm "an algorithm for the organization of information" (or, rather, they did so in Russian --- that's the English translation). RSA was called "a method" by Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman. Methods/algorithms/numbers/theorems/etc. generally are not given overly specific names in research papers, in part for practical reasons: researchers will develop many algorithms or theorems, but a very small proportion of these are actually relevant or interesting. Naming all of them would be a waste of time, so the names tend to be attached well after publication.

To name something after oneself requires a degree of hubris that is looked down upon in the general academic community; the reason for this is that there is at least a facade (if not an actual belief) that one's involvement in the sciences should be for the pursuit of truth, not for the pursuit of fame. Naming something after yourself is, intrinsically, an action taken in the seeking of fame.

Recently, after they added AI-generated search responses (which seem to be wrong a considerable percentage of the time, at least for things I search for), and the inlining of ads to the search results page, I've found I have to scroll at least a full screen height to actually get to the search results a significant portion of the time.

The level of blindness to user experience at Google that has allowed the state of search to get to this level is staggering.

A lot of the discourse around LLM tooling right now boils down to "it's ok to be a bit wrong if you're wrong quickly" ... and then what follows is an ever-further bounds-pushing on how big "a bit" can be.

The promise of AI is "human-level (or greater)" --- we should only be using AI when it's as accurate (or more accurate) as human-generated docs, but the tech simply isn't there yet.

Breadth-first Search: Priority is order of discovery of edges (that is, no priority queue/just a regular queue)

Dijkstra: Priority is distance so far + next edge distance

A*: Priority is distance so far + next edge distance + estimate of distance to target node.

This also helps me remember whether the estimate must over- or under-estimate: Since Dijkstra is making the estimate "0", clearly the "admissible heuristic" criteria must be an under-estimation.

HN certainly has a side that loves open-source data, but it also has a privacy-loving side. Focusing on the privacy aspects, has TomTom given any consideration to how it respects the privacy of its users/does it allow for opt-out of storing and analyzing its users' GPS traces?

So, I guess the answer to your question of "why can't I" is "good news! you can" :)