btilly

So you can take an existing model of a computer, turn everything that isn't a NAND into a collection of NAND gates, then run software for the original computer.

This allows people to paste in rich content, but not things like <script> tags.

So while the Egyptians might have seen Set as the god of Libya, the Libyan representations might not be the one that Egyptians were comparing to.

Leaders have the option of trusting subordinates, then operating at a higher level. However part of the job of a leader is to decide who to trust, with what. And why.

Sometimes that means, "Trust, but verify." The leader will spot check randomly to see that the whole is good.

Often, as here, that means, "Trust in some things, but not others." The leader in this case trusted the technical person to produce an accurate description of what happened. But didn't trust that same person to arrive at a solution that met the business of having a similar disaster not happen the next time.

But rather than undermine the tech person with, "I don't trust you to meet the business need," the leader communicated it with, "I trust you on the technical details, but here is the expectation for what you need to produce."

Also subtractive manufacturing requires paying to melt away a lot of metal. 3D printing saves.

I don't know all of the ways in which SpaceX is using

The formalism is very simple symbolically. But the mathematical machine behind it is very complex.

The Sun, Jupiter, and any small asteroid at L4 of L5 is, by itself, linearly stable. Meaning that any small perturbation will only grow linearly.

But, of course, this system interacts with Saturn. The arrangement of those three objects is still remarkably stable. But the interaction with Saturn makes for a chaotic system again.

All of the things in the solution can constantly have momentum.

Socrates famously made the opposing side of the argument against writing. Which is why we mostly know of him through Plato, who did believe in writing.

And to your corruption example. If you live in a society where corruption is normal and expected, you will be worse off if you are unwilling to be corrupt. It is indeed a local optima. But we are all, of course, better off if we live in a society where corruption is punished. To me, the worst thing about modern US politics, is that it's encouraging us to see ourselves as living in a world where corruption exists and is tolerated.

The problem is that the solutions very strongly tend to be chaotic. Meaning that small differences in initial conditions, tend to grow exponentially with time. Which means that if you measure everything to 3 digits of precision, in finite time it will stop looking like the actual solution. Every additional digit of precision adds a similar finite time to how long the approximation is good for.

So when finally found, say, the 1953 BC conjunction described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_%28astronomy%29?#N... - that was a very good stress test for our estimated planetary data. Because surprisingly small errors in modern data would have kept that conjunction from happening.

We have no observed examples in nature of three body equilibrium. But then again, all places we have looked are either influenced by the chaotic orbits around them of the Solar System, our surrounding galaxy, or nearby galaxies in a cluster.

There aren't a lot of orbiting three bodies without external gravitational influences disturbing them.

Most of the solutions always have non-zero momentum, including in the initial conditions. And https://numericaltank.sjtu.edu.cn/three-body/three-body.htm includes periodic solutions that move in all three dimensions.

There is no human only proof of this.

I presented the research that I knew was somewhat relevant. Then made it clear that that wasn't what was being asked, and why my expectation is what it is.

250 documents ingested from somewhere is enough to become part of the knowledge of a model of arbitrarily large size.

I would expect that a good idea that fits in a framework that is already being ingested would be more easily taken up than some random thing unassociated with anything else. Could that go down to a single transcript? If the model is consciously focusing on everything X related, quite possibly.

No appeal process.

Luckily she didn't use Facebook much.

The point of mathematics is not to prove results. It is to build conceptual thinking about mathematics. Important problems are important because in order to solve them we have to build concepts tying different things together.

We're not searching for answers. We're searching for insights. Trying to understand the problem causes us to draw the connections and find those insights.

AI gives us answers. But it doesn't help us build those insights. AI has a complete mastery of existing human insights. But doesn't build new ones from its own experience. In a real way, it does not find the opportunity to really learn.

So it tackles problems and either solves them or not. If solved, we now have an answer. If not, it's too hard for humans.

Everyone uses the classification. Nobody has great confidence in the proof. Nobody understands it. There are attempts to reprove it.

If it can be formalized, that would demonstrate that AI is ready to formmalize all of mathematics.

There is also Vancouver Island, which is separate from the other two.

All are named after Captain George Vancouver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Vancouver

Basically there was a choice between taking the money, and growing. They chose growth.

Those in it are still throwing billions per year at the idea.

Meanwhile, back in reality, no amyloid-beta drug has had any clinical effect in humans, other than reducing the plaques. But both the shingles and RSV vaccines are proven to reduce Alzheimer's risk.

But you get there by a path of increasing fuzziness, and no clear boundaries, from numbers that we can both write down, and work with.

Then there is a jump to numbers that cannot be written down. Not even in principle.

Some people feel that that jump matters. Others don't. I feel it matters. But I accept that most mathematicians, don't.

What you get for the formalism around computable numbers is this. Every mathematical object in the theory is something that can be, at least in principle, actually written down. When we say that it exists, this existence is of the most tangible form that any mathematical thing could have.

But there are numbers in constructivism for which it is unknown whether they are zero. Some of which must remain unknown, if mathematics is consistent. This is a rather important and weird edge case.

No. Tor is for the CIA. It won't work for them unless we use it as well. Criminals also find it useful.

It's easy to verify this. Tor was originally written by Paul Syverson, Michael G. Reed, and David Goldschlag. While all three were working at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Lobbyists do not just try to convince a politician that X is a good idea. Lobbyists give the politician money to introduce already drafted legislation, and then give other politicians money to support it. And if they can get the legislation passed in one place, they'll try it again.

The result is that suspiciously similar legislation appears in many places close in time, due to it being pushed by particular interests.

The goal shouldn't be to make problems impossible. It is to adjust the ratio between problems and successes.

You can also create a meta. "How much do I trust the user?" When you see the user trying to manipulate towards security, distrust the user and apply rules more strictly. If the user simply acts like a normal developer, just be a useful developer tool. Including fixing security holes when appropriate.