staunton

20 ms·

241.
by staunton 2y ago
The question isn't "probability you get those exact numbers". It's "probability that you get numbers which all have at most N decimal places".
242.
by staunton 2y ago
> if you can find the problem in the proof Is it still open whether there is a problem? Last I heard about this, there was one guy saying there's problems and the author dismissing that as "they just didn't understand it&q
243.
by staunton 2y ago
You mean new and incredibly effective ways to shape public opinion? I guess it might. But then someone would still have to use it for that purpose...
244.
by staunton 2y ago
One could argue that neutron stars are nuclea... If so, at least nuclea production doesn't stop any time soon. Probably you wouldn't call it an atom though...
245.
by staunton 2y ago
> I give up all rights You don't give up rights. You allow others to use, modify, share (etc.) what you did according to the terms of the license. However, you could, e.g., at any time give it to someone else under a different licen
246.
by staunton 2y ago
> Maybe now they'll be able to factorize 3*5 with the general Shor's algorithm Nope, that still needs a lot more work...
247.
by staunton 2y ago
I don't know of any "good guys" whatsoever that ever managed to build and maintain a browser. Anyone? Maybe one day we'll have a usable FOSS browser but I doubt it (the companies will fight tooth and nail against it incl
248.
by staunton 2y ago
That's a completely different issue. Using math to solve physics problems deals with physical models . Models are imperfect and what kinds of math they use is completely separate from asking "does infinity exist in our actual uni
249.
by staunton 2y ago
> still doesn't make any sense Right. I'm pretty sure actually that it was a joke...
250.
by staunton 2y ago
Can you link to any such studies?
251.
by staunton 2y ago
It's quite illegal to fake signatures so it acts as a deterrent. I can't think of anything else...
252.
by staunton 2y ago
> I don't mind programming standardizing around English also. Will you mind when everything re-standardizes around Chinese?
253.
by staunton 2y ago
No inference made on data is ever guaranteed 100% to be right. So I'd expect the legal standard in this case to be "are companies able to identify individuals from the data" and if that's possible in 99% of cases, any co
254.
by staunton 2y ago
You need measures to define the vector spaces that those (what you call "forms", and others call "distributions") act on... Not that it would be impossible to define everything without measures (or even without real nu
255.
by staunton 2y ago
> Kafka's life abounded with misery Which is to say that his life was objectively mostly very comfortable (for the time) but still miserable in his personal experience.
256.
by staunton 2y ago
There is a huge spectrum between "here to stay" and "changing everything". On another note, I think if the people arguing here would work out quantitative predictions, they would find that a not insignificant part of the
257.
by staunton 2y ago
> shouldn't we just conclude that our intuition is flawed? Alternatively, we might conclude that our intuition is right and instead our definition of real numbers isn't exactly what we want for some cases/questions.
258.
by staunton 2y ago
I've generally found the opposite. Polemically, a true mathematician can write theorems where every single proof is riddled with errors (actual errors, not just "typos") but all results, building upon each other, are still tr
259.
by staunton 2y ago
> Using an LLM to generate 100000 letters is hardly free, is it? No, but with further advances it might easily get cheap enough that spammers think it's worth it. > Bayesian filtering (by the recipient) doesn’t require any knowle
260.
by staunton 2y ago
Marketing is fundamentally aimed at changing people's opinions. This can be done 1. covertly (why do you need to do it covertly? Would people mind if they knew? Doesn't that indicate you're doing them a disservice?) 2. overtl
261.
by staunton 2y ago
Using a language model, one can craft an individually targeted email for each of those 100000 recipients. How do you "handle" this without doing anything current spam filters don't? Can you prevent an individual from send
262.
by staunton 2y ago
> if something can be calculated at compile time, it should be Often you don't actually want some things done at compile time although they could be done. It can lead to, e.g., excessive executable sizes, excessive compile times. If
263.
by staunton 2y ago
Not OP, but this is talking about bounds on how different such constants can be across time and space. For example, wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants
264.
by staunton 2y ago
Do you like having precise GPS? That requires using atomic clocks and the general theory of relativity.
265.
by staunton 2y ago
Storage and cooling of thorium ions has also been achieved already. It's only a matter of time before a clock is built using such an ion-trap setup (and a matter of significantly more time until auch a clock can be used in real-world a
266.
by staunton 2y ago
> the high level of antioxidants prohibit the formation of too many nasties Source? All sources I found just now say: "burning olive oil very bad".
267.
by staunton 2y ago
> it is only possible to describe 0% of the rational numbers between 0 and 1 with text It is possible to describe 100% of the rational numbers with text. You describe the numerator, make a space, then describe the denominator. The length
268.
by staunton 2y ago
How do you imagine those things "become" cheaper without things like taxing? Just suggesting that the only way forward is to "make them cheaper" seems to amount to "do nothing to fix the problem, just wait until s
269.
by staunton 2y ago
I think part of the reason why nobody seems serious about replication is that it's actually mostly not worth it . Most research is useless and pointless, with only a few exceptions. We don't have a way to figure out which topics
270.
by staunton 2y ago
In those terms, the foundations (of any topic or field) are never fundamental. I think people in this thread are using a different meaning of "fundamental".

More ›