Thanks for that I was mistaken about how the vouch process worked. I thought vouching could work for flagged as well since fagged can lead to removal.
1,167 karma · joined April 6, 2017
I'm curious what books others go back to over time.
(quick edit) And anyone who doesn't believe me go to Bluesky right now and look.
"RSL is an open, decentralized protocol, based on the widely adopted RSS (Really Simple Syndication) standard, that scales to millions of websites and can be applied to any digital content, including web pages, books, videos, and datasets."
[0] https://rslcollective.org/ [1] https://rslstandard.org/press/rsl-standard
[0]https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst... - page iv
"This is the first random number generator service to use quantum nonlocality as a source of its numbers, and the most transparent source of random numbers to date."
One source - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-documents-governmen...
It only seems to operate off the solar power, no additional power. So the light keeps shining, the drone keeps flying.
"The facets distinguishing successful entrepreneurs include a preference for variety, novelty and starting new things (openness to adventure), like being the center of attention (lower levels of modesty) and being exuberant (high activity levels)."
And a little further down:
'"Our findings clearly show there's not one ideal 'founder-type' personality," says Associate Professor Margaret (Peggy) Kern, senior author of the study from the University of Melbourne. "Instead, the Big Five personality traits of successful start-up founders, which we can break down further across 30 dimensions, reveal six distinct types: fighters, operators, accomplishers, leaders, engineers and developers."'
Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9
But the abstract of the pre-print (https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10255) covers some of what you are asking:
"Despite the well developed mathematical description of non-Abelian anyons and numerous theoretical proposals, the experimental observation of their exchange statistics has remained elusive for decades. Controllable many-body quantum states generated on quantum processors offer another path for exploring these fundamental phenomena. While efforts on conventional solid-state platforms typically involve Hamiltonian dynamics of quasi-particles, superconducting quantum processors allow for directly manipulating the many-body wavefunction via unitary gates."
They created a collection of quasi-particles that has different statistical properties that we don't see in 3D (the Non-abelian anyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon). So simulated or created becomes a tricky word here, the quantum processor is putting these qubits into a state that acts as a quasi-particle so they can study it directly. So no a classical computer would not be able to do this in the same way it would have to use classical bits to simulate the quasi-particle.
Edit: and here is a commentary piece on Nature from the lead author: https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/why-voters-who-value...
https://arstechnica.com/culture/2023/05/this-is-catfishing-o...
"We did not examine systemic claims of bias, such as the tenure schedule that imposes inflexible time-career paths or structural societal norms that burden women with greater responsibilities outside of their academic jobs or that penalize women for negotiating forcefully for wage increases or seeking outside offers. Other scholars have identified a myriad of such systemic barriers. "
part is important, it specifically is saying there has been a lot of work showing systemic barriers but they are not researching that part. This isn't a critique of their research but of the summary articles headline and what some people seem to be taking away from that headline. Even in the HigherEd piece it says there are concerns and this research is to help identify where there has been progress and where we need to focus.
"Before we summarize our findings below, we reiterate a caveat noted throughout this article: The failure to support specific claims of bias does not deny the possibility that broader, systemic barriers against women in the academy exist and/or that significant bias existed before 2000. We did not examine systemic claims of bias, such as the tenure schedule that imposes inflexible time-career paths or structural societal norms that burden women with greater responsibilities outside of their academic jobs or that penalize women for negotiating forcefully for wage increases or seeking outside offers. Other scholars have identified a myriad of such systemic barriers. But when it comes to specific claims about biased grant reviewers, search committee members, journal editors, and letter writers, the claims of antifemale bias were not supported, and in one case (tenure-track hiring), the data actually supported the opposite conclusion—that of pro-female hiring bias. This pro-female hiring advantage has continued after the closing of our inclusionary period, 2020 (Henningsen et al, 2021; Solga et al., 2023)."
I think APA considering it a colloquialism would count here as a psychological term.
"The previous paper has been resubmitted to Nature with new data that validates the earlier work, Dias says. The new data was collected outside the lab, at the Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories in front of an audience of scientists who saw the superconducting transition live. A similar approach has been taken with the new paper. "
[0] https://phys.org/news/2023-03-viable-superconducting-materia...