gus_massa

Some interesting remark in your previous post:

> On this project each enemy have a "brain", which is a never trained neural network. The training process comes from the genetic algorithm: at the end of each round the GA calculate the fitness score for each individual, the higher the fitness The more likely to reproduce. The fitness score is based on a lot of things: total of shots fired, number of times it hits the player, number of times it hurt itself... I also punish the one who doesn't do nothing and the ones who shoots it's allies, so they have less chance to reproduce next round. As a request, I'm giving the player 15% of their health back at the end of each round.

The old code was handwritten. Now you integrated some LLM code?

Do you have an official English tranlation?

IIRC it was a "leaked" video after the event, not a live coverage.

Nice! Did you find any weird/funny case while training the model? [I remember autotranlation/readers inventing stuff a few years ago.]

> Drive a real mechanical pen

> I think it would be fun to hook the output of this model up to a real pen. I'm not sure of the use case, but maybe you're an artist and have some ideas?

If you get someone to make a few samples and photos, it would be very nice.

1) What does this do?

2) Please don't use "plz".

Is this about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_(standard) ?

Recent related discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50004284 (flagged | 31 points | 1 day ago | 30 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49981449 (flagged | 129 points | 3 days ago | 78 comments)

I think the problem is that they mixed problems that some solutions in Lean (and I consider they solved, assuming someone checked the formalization of the statement) with some solution in English.

I expect most of the solutions in English to be correct or mostly correct, but we all have made and read mistakes mixed with the bla bla bla. In the Mythbuster scale I'd classify them as "plausible" instead of "confirmed".

I think it's a good idea to rank the images. Anyway, I expect repeated cases to be easier for people and skew the results.

Do you have a technical blog post about "mobile and affordable medical imaging device" at the ELI25 level? Bonus imaginary points if it has a few nice graphics and photos.

It may be a nice submission for HN. (But wait a week or so before posting it.)

[Hi from Buenos Aires!]

I took a look at your links. You switched from "Computer images processing" to "Oncology"? Are you applying your thesis to real patients? It looks like you already took a few courses in medicine before graduating.

(I think it's an unusual path, but it looks legit.)

> I don't really know the etiquette of any other social site so I figured I would reach out here first since it felt familiar.

I think your etiquete is fine, but asking for money always raise suspicion.

For the world record, it would be nice to have the same daily challenge for everyone, but I actually like to lay a few games the same day.

I played like 3 games and I already saw a few repeated images (in different games).

There was a very old post in HN about "Cats as placeholder images" and one trick they used was to crop it to the correct size using the eye as the center, to ensure the part of the image was "interesting". Eyes make images interesting.

I only can beat Grok :(

How do you know humans are not deterministics?

Add "anthropomorphic climate change", otherwise the peace in the middle east is easy to solve burning all the oil.

And there is another trade-off in Anti-aging pill vs cancer.

Interesting. I expect LLM to soleve it soon, but let's take that win for now.

Does each person get the same photos?

[spoiler alert]

1: a cat. Fine.

2: a black dog. I didn't understand the art of the dog and place it very wrong.

3: A photo with multiple white dogs. I thought it was only one dog and matched the wrong one. I counting it a win for me.

4: Another cat. Almost exact match.

5: A butterfly. I got confused and and place it very wrong too.

Misiles are too strong and no local. In all the other attacks it's necessary to aim Bogdan and also there is a risk. Missiles just cause destruction in every direction. Perhaps make the misiles weaker.

Some destructible objects may be a nice unnecessary addition :) I hit that benches on purpose a few time.

Also, spiders that does not chase Bogdam, just wait somewhere in case I'm not paying attention.

> My assumption is that they checked the proofs vigorously,

Perhaps with AI.

A manual human check of each one would take a few month at least. In peer review, there are horror stories in math about more than 1 year before the journal accept the paper. So 3 reviewers x 700 pdf = 2000 mathematicians, that is 10%-20% of the community according to an unreliable count printed by Gemini after scrapping r/math.

Also, in most cases the only people that can understand the proof in a so short time (let's say a few months!) is the small group of people working in similar problems, i.e. the same group of 20-100 guys/gals that you meet in every conference.

It's the reverse order. First you pick how many unit squares you want to fit. Then you try to fit them in the smallest container square possible.

For example for 3 unit squares, the smallest size of the container square is 2x2. (But in a 2x2 container square you obviously can also put 4 unit squares.)

URL?

Why are you worried? They have been studied for decades and cause no problem https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2017/05/24/d-and-l-su...

Well, some of them can not be absorbed by your guts, so the bacterias in your guts make a huge party and you feel bad, but they don't create scary versions of the bacterias.

The immune system attacks everything that is weird, it does not check that it is currently not misbehaving.

Do you have a photo of the sweater?

Sorry for the delay. Now I had some time to skim the proof, but obviously not time to verify all the results. Some assorted remarks:

* I totally forgot the second log in sum(1/primes) ~= log(log(N)). It's nice to see numerical experiments, but now I realize I had to agree that it's difficult to get a huge number even in the well known case that is infinite.

* The article says that the result of the version with the binary prefix is finite but version with the ternary prefix is infinite. Do you have some numerical experiments? I'd love to see a graphic with the correct amount of logs in both axes to show the difference of behaviour.

* IIUC, the result of the version with quaternary prefix is infinite too, but the result should be comparable to the result of the binary prefix. At least quaternary(N)>binary(N). [I'm not sure if ¿ternary(N)>binary(N)?. Looks difficult.] So it's totally posible (and perhaps obvious) that quaternary(N) is unbounded in spite binary(N) is bounded. It's not very intuitive, but I think I saw something very slightly similar in the past and I got surprised too.

* I'm still not sure why it uses the RH, but it looks like you really thought about it (importing lemma 2.1 and remark 7.1), so I guess I will not be able to remove the RH skimming the paper.

The URL may be logged by the ISP, university/company or whoever is providing the connection, antivirus, windows recall, browser history... But IIRC passwords are send using cryptography if the site uses https.

Do you have an official English translation?

URL?

> without any lag

How is that possible? I expect the online version to be slower than the native version.

Big related discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49963895

It's easier to dump all the excess heat in Iceland than in space.

Wrong URL?

I'm not freelancing, so I don't know the market. Anyway:

> People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole!

If “AI can do it” then they don't have to call you. If they call you is because AI can't do it for now, or they can't prompt the AI correctly. So I guess there is a market for now.