dchftcs

Unsurprising he'd be cheered for saying what they wanted to hear.

But perhaps whether or not his stance is correct, the students needed to hear this. They (we) have to believe human brains still have value and find a way out; for otherwise there'd be no point to try anymore.

Someone has to be in the news first, and then you learn about it. To that someone, the change you see in tomorrow's legal news is today, was yesterday. It's more a gamble than you think, you just don't feel it until it bites you.

fireworks hosts Qwen 3.6 Plus, they might also get Qwen 3.7 Plus.

I'd love to go back to the 90s and live it again.

Right, indeed you need to first preserve the origin, but also that is trivially true for a linear map like JL.

If you preserve the l2 distance you preserve the inner product, that's somewhat tautological in an L2 space. Just that the degree you can preserve inner products can be misleading, main problem is that orthogonal vectors may only become near-orthogonal which is sometimes a big deal, though perfect correlations are preserved because the JL transform is linear. Both can be seen looking at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_identity

The division of lemmas and theorems is really a bit artificial for these things. But yeah I think the spirit is that a theorem is an object that you aim to study, while a lemma is something you use to do that. Fermat's last theorem was a target, but the techniques including lemmas used and developed for it are the real prize for a working mathematician. Sculptures are kind of the point, but there's no question the tools used for sculpting are more useful and "worth" more in that sense.

Not even their lawyers believe that for a second. If they did, they wouldn't have had to ask you to reaccept.

This is an embarrassing take. You put money in the bank to save the trouble of keeping it under your mattress, now you go to a branch and they say you need to sign a new contract before you can take back your money. Fair?

Not a lawyer but it can potentially be argued that the T&C were signed under duress and therefore void.

It's the same speculative decoding. The news is that it came out for a popular local model.

A major problem with player-coach is that it makes the manager compete with the IC. If we solve that it'd be more workable, if not it'd erode teams from the inside.

A bad guess still costs cycles, but the penalty is smaller compared to branch mispredict in the current state. But if we have some kind of pipelining, like if we have something that assumed the speculative decode is correct, then it'll be expensive again.

The two cofounders will not be able to work for Meta. Probably it will be complicated to distribute Manus in Hong Kong, possibly Singapore too.

But Manus's IP was already transferred and in any case Meta is not legally doing business in China, so Manus will still live on, possibly get rebranded.

I don't dispute that verification can be a good tool, but many teams exhaust their time budget at the point of figuring out what to verify, making it less necessary to verify certain things (sandboxing, airgapping, lawyering), writing simple test code, refactoring and carefully rewriting some of the prior test code, designing and realising software architecture that's more testable, etc. A certain portion of that work can use some formal verification, but it's down beneath a long list of things that not many teams manage to get through, whether or not for good reason.

A missing specification in the proof of lean-zip, a lean component, is a real problem to the philosophy and practice of software verification.

To illustrate, let's say you want to verify a "Hello world" program. You'd think a verification involves checking that it outputs "Hello, world!".

However, if a contractor or AI hands you a binary, what do you need to verify? You will need to verify that it does exactly print "Hello, world!", no more, no less. It should write to stdout not stderr. It shouldn't somehow hold a lock on a system resource that it can't clean up. It cannot secretly install a root-kit. It cannot try to read your credentials and send it somewhere. So you will need to specify the proof to a sufficient level of detail to capture those potential deviations.

Broadly, with both bugs, you need to ask a question: does this bug actually invalidate my belief that the program is "good"? And here you are pulling up a fact that the bug isn't found in the Lean kernel, which makes an assumption that there's no side-effect that bleeds over the abstraction boundary between the runtime and the kernel that affects the correctness of the proof; that safety guarantee is probably true 99.99% of the time - but if the bug causes a memory corruption, you'd be much less confident in that guarantee.

If you're really serious about verifying an unknown program, you will really think hard "what is missing from my spec"? And the answer will depend on things that are fuzzier than the Lean proof.

Now, pragmatically, there many ways a proof of correctness adds a lot of value. If you have the source code of a program, and you control the compiler, you can check the source code doesn't have weird imports ("why do I need kernel networking headers in this dumb calculator program?"), so the scope of the proof will be smaller, and you can write a small specification to prove it and the proof will be pretty convincing.

All in all, this is a toy problem that tells you : you can't verify what you don't know you should verify, and what you need to verify depends on the prior distribution of what the program is that you need to verify, so that conditional on the proof you have, the probability of correctness is sufficiently close to 1. There's a lesson to learn here, even if we deem Lean is still a good thing to use.

This is analogous to the fundamental problem of better automation in programming - eventually, the complexity and correctness of of the spec takes over, and if we don't manage that well, creating the spec is not that much less work than the programming part. If your program was for the wrong thing, a proof of it is also wrong.

I think it's mainly in relation to the constraints of the game engine, and also that the game engine being flexible enough to enable the gimmicks. I haven't played DDLC and probably never will, but from what I've read about it, like games with similar core themes (not dating sim) it has some gimmicks that tend to stretch the capabilities of a closed-down game engine, sometimes requiring patches to the engine itself. In this case the game engine Renpy offers an extensive DSL that makes it easy to add story scenes, media and dialogues, but allows you to fall back to python to do some tricky things.

Your pack falls behind, and has nothing to eat during food supply shocks like the one that's almost certainly coming.

It may be surprising to you, but I don't drive (I don't live in the US, but even when I did I didn't really have to), and there was a period of time I resorted to not even taking taxis because a crash in those times would have been much messier than just myself dying. But my own private life aside, driving, to many people, is a necessity, sometimes even for survival, while lending a hand to a stranger, however nobel that may be, is not.

I don't think denying a ride to a stranger in a sketchy situation counts as being nasty. If it's not false accusations, it could be a knife at your throat or whatever (your example about male rape definitely doesn't help your case here).

Let's have a thought experiment.

If we take the prevalence of false accusations be several thousands a year (the lower end of the estimate), it would be between 1 to 2 incidents per 100k population in the US. For your UK statistics, I can't find a citation either - in terms of prosecuted cases you're perhaps right, again the buck doesn't just start with prosecution. Reported rape incidents can be up to 70k and prosecuted incidents is less than a tenth of that, and it's probably similar for false accusations - what I can find is an estimated prevalence of 3%, so in the UK it would be up to 2.1k among reported (not necessarily prosecuted) cases.

Incidentally, 1 to 2 per 100k is in the ballpark of rape statistics in low-crime areas, such as Hong Kong, Japan or Singapore. So the risk of rape in those areas is similar to the risk of false accusations in the US.

With this in mind, if a woman denies a ride to a strange man in Hong Kong in the middle of the night, does that mean she was nasty to the man? If you say yes, it's probably not the prevailing sentiment in those areas; if you say no, perhaps that can point to some cognitive bias.

For unions, sure let me know when you're able to set them up. Similarly, you can tell women in Hong Kong or Singapore to not worry about rape because you're going to do something to make the world better for them. But another important nuance is that unions won't help as much as you think they would. In the case of false accusations of pretty much anything, a lot of the damage is social, for people who are not already powerful; rape is an especially touchy topic that you would find fellow union members, especially female members, and sometimes spouses, to be less than sympathetic.

This. First, the employer has to worry about the returns from which they draw some money to pay you. And for you to even get paid for doing a job, the company has to fear that you won't do it if you don't get paid - in most cases, it's not from the good of heart, but an implicit or explicit threat made by you or on your behalf by other people.

They don't, and as a result most don't get much if any.

For them to survive, they have to have got returns from somewhere - maybe welfare, inheritance, a day job. Someone has to have worried about the returns so they can be free from thinking about it.

And if you don't worry about returns, you will let someone extract it ruthlessly from you, that you contribute millions of value to a company that gives you nothing back. This may be fine to you at some level, but many of the people who you allow to exploit you use the resources they gain as leverage to further their selfish ends, like a certain richest man in the world who helped a certain politician buy an election at the most powerful country in the world.

>one almost verbatim same radius which pissed off apple

So this is what they decided to do? Use so many different rounded radius variations that competitors don't know which one to copy?

5x improvement of energy efficiency in just GPUs translates to more like 50% reduction of power usage, with is significant but doesn't warrant a 80% reduction in pricing. Especially since Nvidia will charge more for the same card - they have been pricing things pretty aggressively.

The impact of false accusations don't start just with prosecution. People lose jobs and friends with it before that stage. I've personally seen people fired for a mere police investigation into something much milder that was eventually dropped.

Also, I did some checking and I can't find sources supporting "100 cases per year".

Various sources say unfounded allegations are estimated to be 5-20% in different research, while there are hundreds of thousands of sexual assault cases in the US alone. This gives an estimate of multiple thousands to tens of thousands of cases per year.

I'm also not sure why you think worrying about false conviction /allegations in DUI and drugs should preclude us from worrying about something less prevalent. Can't people take precautions on all these things that threaten one's reputation and livlihood? There are many things that could have killed you with a 0.01% chance if people didn't bother to fix them, such as battery explosions, and letting them pile up because there are other things to worry about is not the way safety engineering works.

You need to develop some empathy and learn that false accusations can destroy lives and families. You have no right to force someone accept even a 1% chance that something like that happens, even if it's less prevalent than assaults.

you still can think hard but you can offload some parts to LLM when you're stuck. Then you can leave space for more hard-won inspiration. When you're faced with a high-stakes decision, evaluating all sorts of possibilities, it's really easy to maximize the utilization of your brain, so in those cases you have plenty of chance to think hard.

I think what you say would have be fair if Elon's and his fanboys' stance was "we need more data" rather than "we will be able to scale self-driving cars very quickly, very soon".

There's a somewhat niche game publisher that had very gamer-friendly practices. At some point they released older games for free, and for new popular ones they were relatively friendly to mods. Now they only operate a lootbox game. The sad reality of commerce.