[knicholes]

Are you a bot? Look in the title. Papers with code.

[camdenreslink]

To be fair PwC is a very well established initialism. It would be like saying HTTP but actually referring to something other than the well understood meaning of that thing.

[minimaxir]

The context of the PwC acronym is extremely unambigious in the comment.

[stronglikedan]

> To be fair PwC is a very well established initialism.

If that were the case, I'd expect to be able to learn what it stands for in the first page of google results, but alas...

And you know what is on the front page? PricewaterhouseCoopers

[camdenreslink]

I think you agree with me? It is unambiguously associated with PricewaterhouseCoopers.

[throawayonthe]

what's the well established initialism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWC is it one of these?

[clickety_clack]

Its not even just commonly used. I’d say if papers with code tried to refer to themselves as PwC they’d get a cease and desist.

[peterfirefly]

No, but I hate TLA overuse. Don't you?

"Are you a bot" is an obvious slur when it's easy to see for yourself that I'm not.

[knicholes]

I just don't see how you could have read the title (and comments) and not figured out that PwC was Papers With Code as a human, especially as it's mentioned in the comment with that acronym.

[wahnfrieden]

It’s not overuse when first use in context is spelled out.

[digitalPhonix]

I still don't see where HF is explained?