btilly

4 ms·

1.
by btilly 8d ago
One of the things that 3-D printing allows is a fine honeycomb structure. This comes with a somewhat bigger strength reduction, but a dramatic weight reduction. Less materials is cheaper. Also subtractive manufacturing requires paying to me
2.
by btilly 11d ago
When I first learned non-standard analysis, my reaction was that we don't need the axiom of choice to find the derivative of x^2. The formalism is very simple symbolically. But the mathematical machine behind it is very complex.
3.
by btilly 12d ago
That depends on what you mean by stable short-term. 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
4.
by btilly 12d ago
Oh. That makes sense. Yes. The total momentum has to be zero. All of the things in the solution can constantly have momentum.
5.
by btilly 12d ago
The fact that a similar argument can be made does not mean that it is wrong. 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 yo
6.
by btilly 12d ago
The general case always has a solution. At least until the point where two of the three bodies meet (which is a singularity). We can approximate that solution numerically. The problem is that the solutions very strongly tend to be chaotic.
7.
by btilly 12d ago
https://numericaltank.sjtu.edu.cn/three-body/three-body.htm shows that there are three dimensional solutions. We have no observed examples in nature of three body equilibrium. But then again, all places we have looked
8.
by btilly 12d ago
Sorry, but this is a word salad. 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 th
9.
by btilly 16d ago
The other researchers themselves were also using AI. That's why it was potentially available to be plagiarized. There is no human only proof of this.
10.
by btilly 16d ago
Did you miss my last paragraph? 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.
11.
by btilly 16d ago
Yes. See https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison?from... . 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
12.
by btilly 17d ago
My wife lost her Facebook account because Facebook autolinked it to someone else's Instagram (not hers), then shut that one down for abuse. No appeal process. Luckily she didn't use Facebook much.
13.
by btilly 18d ago
Perhaps reading https://www.math.toronto.edu/mccann/199/thurston.pdf will help. The point of mathematics is not to prove results. It is to build conceptual thinking about mathematics. Important problems are import
14.
by btilly 18d ago
The problem that I want to see them tackle is formalizing the classification of finite simple groups. Everyone uses the classification. Nobody has great confidence in the proof. Nobody understands it. There are attempts to reprove it. If it
15.
by btilly 21d ago
The much larger Vancouver, and the one that this is about, is in Canada. There is also Vancouver Island, which is separate from the other two. All are named after Captain George Vancouver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
16.
by btilly 21d ago
As opposed to building a bigger bank account, or paying dividends.
17.
by btilly 22d ago
Amazon didn't make a profit because they were reinvesting money into starting new lines of business. Basically there was a choice between taking the money, and growing. They chose growth.
18.
by btilly 1mo ago
That's the viewpoint of everyone sensible outside of Alzheimer's research. 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
19.
by btilly 2mo ago
Yes. There exist numbers that cannot actually be written down because they are too big. 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 j
20.
by btilly 2mo ago
Bad example. You can do all of this with constructivism. Any constructable Cauchy sequence converges to a constructable member of the space. What you get for the formalism around computable numbers is this. Every mathematical object in the
21.
by btilly 2mo ago
That is not a number in constructivism. 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.
22.
by btilly 3mo ago
That apparent belief is common. People with current access to power, seldom anticipate what might happen in the future if it is turned against them.
23.
by btilly 3mo ago
That is who it was created for.
24.
by btilly 3mo ago
Tor is not for criminals. It's for you and me. 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, M
25.
by btilly 3mo ago
Not just minimize threats, but often to maximize their power. 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 politi
26.
by btilly 3mo ago
Yes, there is always a path to a problem. Even random monkeys on a keyboard can write a security exploit. Random monkeys with guidance from a knowledgeable human will do it much faster. The goal shouldn't be to make problems impossible
27.
by btilly 3mo ago
How does this make the model useless? It finds and fixes the security hole. It can even write a test that verifies that the fix didn't break things. But it deliberately doesn't reveal the fact that it was a security issue that w
28.
by btilly 3mo ago
What I suggested would allow it to fix the issues. Just not write a test that was directly usable as a security exploit. This doesn't stop attackers from being able to leverage the analysis. But it does make the tool more useful for de
29.
by btilly 3mo ago
I don't believe that this is unfixable. Just have an internal verbal loop of, "Is this a security issue?" The thought that it potentially is should trigger both a high priority on getting it right, and an unwillingness to wri
30.
by btilly 4mo ago
This is a take on Elon that I cannot agree with. I get it. I know how much people want to hate him. And how much fuel he has given for that. But he's very talented, and really puts in the work. According to people I personally know who

More ›