Pragmata

I never understand this argument.

You aren't required to invest in the stock market. There is nothing stopping you from exclusively investing in CD's, corporate bonds, Government bonds, or even cash for your retirement.

Of course those are less volatile, and therefore provide lower returns, hence you will need to save significantly more and spend significantly less, but that's not you being forced to invest in the stock market. That's just the reality of risk/return trade-offs.

You need to start by making taxes mostly optional, at the discretion of the payer, with the payers having power to choose its spending.

Personally i'm in the camp of:

1 - A minor poll tax on all citizens for basic sovereignty

2 - Local vote based taxes for local things: - Want a hospital? Roads? Any local infrastructure or collective service? A private entity makes an offer to build/manage a hospital for a 20 year period at a X amount per year. Anyone is able to vote for it by choosing which amount they want to contribute then and there or with the ability to impose a lien on their land to secure ongoing yearly payments for a period of time. Have the vote happen and if enough people offer to pay for it, it gets done. If there are more people willing to pay everyone gets a pro-rata discount

>My reading indicates, that "Even X could have prevented this." means that X is able to solve the issue on it's own. Otherwise X would in fact not prevent it.

X on its own would have solved this particular crash, yes.

X + existing setup would solve this crash + all the other crashed the existing setup solves.

i don't see where it says they should use gps alone. In fact it even mentions starlink in addition to gps.

>Even GPS + Starlink + 1 monitor (is that 50k€?) could have prevented this.

My reading on that sentence was that even a simple setup would have been sufficient to prevent this. Not that it should be the only thing.

who said anything about only using gps? I'm saying in addition to their current system!

Yeah and that's fucking ridiculous and a damning indictment of the glaring incompetence of train companies.

If I can have reasonably accurate gps readings of my phone while I'm on the train, there is zero reason for train companies to not have systems that are at least as accurate.

I did. It's propaganda intending to de-legitimize the opposition.

"fake protest"

The people protesting there weren't fake. This is just propaganda.

That's what the money is for.

They agreed to pay some employees in their own shares to be delivered some time later. They recorded that expense then as a liability. The value of the shares increased because the company became more valuable, and therefore that liability needs to be revalued by 72 billion.

It's a nice problem to have and is pretty much an accounting artifact coming from the fact that they are paying in different currencies (USD and shares)

I find that every single time these arguments are flawed, and don't account for a whole host of things.

What's the cost of capital on public providers? And on private providers?

What's the energy mix for each of them?

Are both providers profitable? How profitable are each of them?

Are there subsidies involved? Either directly or indirectly via lower than required fee increases due to political pressure.

Frankly it's tiring to always see the same flawed arguments here.

I've tried both 2bpw and 3bpw quants for QWEN3.8 27b, and while i do notice a difference in terms of higher rates of getting stuck in loops, they are both reasonably usable.

Are they as good as opus 5.5? No.

Are they about on par with opus 4.6? Yes.

The long run tasks i run seem to be about the same level of quality, though there are obvious differences in model styles, token budgets, etc....

I meant quantized. You can get an EXL3 quantized version thats almost the same performance.

Cant you run it on a pair of DGX spark? Sure it's expensive now, but at the initial retail price that was what, 8k in hardware? Not exactly unachievable

The EU does it themselves. Why would they want to restrain their own hand?

It's not that difficult.

If you live anywhere in the developed world, and you are reasonably able bodied, you can certainly save sufficient money for your long term needs.

there is maybe 1% of the population who can't do it, for everyone else it's a choice.

Those are quite a lot of reactions so i have not read all of them. That said, the sample of 30 or so reactions i did read seems to simply confirm my stance.

Fundamentally the main points being made seem to boil down to this excerpt from Tristan Humbert:

>Open AI claimed a proof of the conjecture in full generality this morning and my first impression was sadness to see my favorite problem get “killed” by AI ; it is definitely easier to ignore a problem when it does not affect you directly. Next, I felt stressed because I am currently applying for postdocs and more of my research plan was now obsolete and I spent the whole morning rewriting everything and sending emails to my advisors in panic. Finally, I felt anger after opening the paper and observing that it was mostly unreadable slop.

They're essentially angry at "They did before i could", and "Now i don't have a job" and "I dislike how it is written".

It just reinforces the "scientific priesthood" theme.

These are people who had their livelihoods and status derived from this thing which is now fundamentally obsolete, and they are scared and upset that they will no longer have those things.

That's fine, its a normal human reaction. God knows i'm not sure i will have a job in 5 years because of AI!

But we should not be taking it with any more seriousness than we would take a ludite gripping about the mechanization of cloth manufacturing.

The truth is, the value produced by their job just fell off a cliff. They need to find something else that provides value to replace it. That's it. Being upset about it isn't going to be productive.

Perhaps the value they can make is to rewrite the AI proofs to a more understandable format. Perhaps it is to go flip burgers at McDonalds. That's up to them, but i would suspect that calling releasing valuable information as "bad for science" is not very value accretive.

I don't disagree that having comprehensible papers is useful. There is undoubtedly value in having well written, easy to understand documents that make it easier for third parties to validate the work presented.

The thing is, that is a "nice to have", not a condition to make science.

If people believe that such things are useful, then the appropriate response is to reproduce, simplify and otherwise make the proofs provided into more easily digestible pieces.

The scientific process is fundamentally indifferent to whatever shibollets and cultural hangups that its presumed participants may have. An alien with fundamentally different norms from us, who experiments to determine the boiling temperature of water is doing science just as much as a human, even if he never submits a paper to a journal.

The issue you're having is that you're under the mistaken belief that the scientific process is the "community" and "norms" that happen to have developed over the past few centuries by this "scientific" priesthood.

It is not. It has never been. It will never be.

This "scientific" priesthood has simply used their power and reputation to enforce their own self-aggrandizing norms, much like the religious priesthood they replaced. They should not be taken seriously, and to go along with these norms when they are unnecessary is frankly ridiculous and shameful for anyone who actually prizes results.

I would urge you to reconsider your stance, and in particular to put deep thought into why you believe these norms are so important.

No, you're just straight up wrong.

OpenAI is doing science the right way. Making the information available as widely as possible so that anyone can check and verify it.

That is the scientific process working exactly as it should.

If that "damages the mathematics community" then all it means is the mathematics community is not doing science and should be ignored.

I cannot stress this enough. If you are complaining about "how they released it" or calling this stuff "slop cannons", you're an unscientific hack that's dragging down humanity.

Engage with the actual claims. Prove them or disprove them. Nothing else matters here.

>That law has nothing to do with incriminating yourself (it's more about safety), but even if the law was specifically "so someone can see into your window and identify you if you do something bad", that's still not self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is requiring someone to testify against themselves.

You are requiring someone to take action that will assist in their own prosecution. That is the goal as per your own statements, and is the obvious primary purpose of these laws.

If that is not compelling someone to self-incriminate, what is?

>Basically you're saying that any law is invalid if it makes or ensures that any kind of wrongdoing visible to witnesses. That's absurd.

No, i'm saying that if you make a law whose primary purpose is to assist in the prosection of those who are compelled to follow it, that law is invalid. If you make a law that incidentally requires someone to assist in their own prosecution, then the law may be valid, but the usage of that information in prosecution or investigations is invalid and falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

I see no difference between it and compelling people in court to testify against themselves, because the only difference is where the self-incrimination is happening.

>the first thing the police ask is "did you get a good look at the driver" followed closely by "did you see the make/model/plates" and "what state was it registered in?"

If your argument for this law is that it forces people to incriminate themselves, that's really an argument that the whole thing should be thrown out.

Under no circumstances should you be able to be compelled to assist in your own prosecution, either directly or indirectly.

The purpose of these laws is to give the state the option to crack down on anyone they feel like at any time. They are not meant to be obeyed, and that is obvious to anyone with eyes.

Are the accusations untrue? The evidence that i have seen seems pretty compelling.

Yes, and it still has more available water than a literal desert.

roofs aren't as good at preventing evaporation as pipes, so if that is the point why roof it?

Theres a very narrow balance where canals covered in solar panels make sense.

It needs to have enough evaporation that its a problem, but not enough where it justifies piping it.

That's a very narrow market, and so unlikely to be scalable or prevalent.

Personally i don't think this makes much sense, it's not like there is no room to place solar panels, and the added costs of putting it over water makes it not as efficient. I suppose the main benefit is easy access to water for cleaning (which can then be dumped back into the canal).

it probablz does, it just has a lot more water and less sun and heat so its not as noticeable

If forcing others to conform to your own morals is not evil, then what is?

Ad hominem? I didnt attack him personally, i attacked his argument that he had a right to tell me what i needed.

He doesnt, and so forcing me to obey him is evil.

Whats wrong with landfills?

There is no problem here other than your eco-neuroticism. Stop doing evil things.

>First of all, it addresses the issue of people in the EU importing things we really do not need.

What right do you have to tell me what i do or do not need?

What an absolutely evil stance to have.