blueplanet200

> actual analysis

Um, I believe I have linked you to "actual analysis" where techniques used are more exotic than boosted decision trees.

Using neural nets for signal background separation was pretty standard in ~2012 when the Higgs discovery was published. Was also pretty standard for CDF + DZero papers that came out before the LHC turned on.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 - The original ATLAS Higgs discovery paper uses neural nets to identify photons. It also uses a neural net b-tagger to improve the H->WW signal to noise ratio.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0763 - used neural nets extra tt+jets noise https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05066 - used neural nets for signal/background separation.

>Thankfully, for folks all in on the Apple ecosystem, it should be pretty decent of an experience.

How many people are for now and forever more all in on the Apple ecosystem. You never have to login on another non Apple device ever?

I don't know, I find:

>AT TIME ZONE 'UTC' converts the data type from timestamptz to timestamp

surprising and a foot gun. Asking for at a timezone stripping the timezone makes no sense to me. Having `AT TIME ZONE 'UTC'` produce a timestamptz at +0:00 seems not insane.

Exactly. OP meant that it has permission to do anything, hence "admin".

And a lot of GPU cycles happen before next token prediction, what's your point?

Reminds me of this article from way back, "A look back: Bram Cohen vs Linus Torvalds"

Of significance here because the resolution strategy from merges was deeply at the disagreement between Bram and Linus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110728005409/http://www.wincen...

I just bought a QNAP. I'm a happy customer.

Thanks for showing up and owning the mistake.

While I'm encouraged by this response, I still feel a sense of fear that this fix is a one off, if you could speak to how this could even happen and how mistakes like these would be prevented in the future I'm sure the community would appreciate it.

> For example, the idea that there are the same number of integers as even integers is a stupid one that in the end does not lead anywhere useful.

Well, there are the same number. So, uh, sorry?

The axiom of choice is debated as a matter of if its inclusion into our mathematics produces useful math.

I don't think it's debated on the ground of if it's true or not.

And I was imprecise with language, but by saying "math is math" I meant that there are things that logically follow from the ZFC axioms. That is hard to debate or be skeptical of. The point I was driving was that it's strange to be skeptical of an axiom. You either accept it or not. Same as the parallel postulate in geometry, where you get flat geometry if you take it, and you get other geometries if you don't, like spherical or hyperbolic ones...

To give what I would consider to be a good counterargument, if one could produce an actual inconsistency with ZFC set theory that would be strong evidence that it is "wrong" to accept it.

All that BT tells me is that when I break up a set (sphere) into multiple sets with no defined measure (how the construction works) I shouldn't expect reassemlbing those sets should have the same original measure as the starting set.

> pi definitely exists in physical reality,

What does it mean to "exist in physical reality"?

If you mean there are objects that have physical characteristics that involve pi to infinite precision I think the truth is we have not a darn clue. Take a circle, that would have to be a perfect circle. Even our most accurate and precise physical theories only measure and predict things to 10s of decimal places. We do not possess the technology to verify that it's a real true circle to infinite precision, and many reason to think that such a measurement would be impossible.

Please say more, I don't see how you can be _skeptical_ of those ideas.

Math is math, if you start with ZFC axioms you get uncountable infinites.

Maybe you don't start with those axioms. But that has nothing to do with truth, it's just a different mathematical setting.

>I'm an enthusiastic Cantor skeptic

A skeptic in what way? He said a lot.

Were the current loan (and grant) guarantees perfectly adequate? Citation needed.

In some investors view they were not.

> "The deal certainly has the appearance of the government clawing back the remaining portion of the previous grant, as the government is getting equity not previously contemplated for dollars already committed," Morgan Stanley analysts "The trade-off, in our view, is that the company will have the flexibility to optimize its own business model without commitment to public service objectives, which may or may not include foundry services at 14A as articulated on the last earnings call

https://www.investopedia.com/intel-stock-keeps-getting-a-boo...

Original riddle the answer is Jane.

From sqlmap

> Usage of sqlmap for attacking targets without prior mutual consent is illegal. It is the end user's responsibility to obey all applicable local, state and federal laws. Developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by this program"

I don't know the legal footing these spyware apps stand on, but this blog post seems like exhibit A if Catwatchful ever decided to sue the author, or press criminal charges. Hacking, even for reasons that seem morally justified, is still illegal.

This issue is the word "instead".

Instead means "this isn't our bug, it's the underlying library."

The libraries you rely on are part of your product. You own the issues that bubble up from them.

A much much better reply for the maintainer would've been: "The root cause looks to be X, I'll submit a ticket and make sure a fix makes it into our build."

Doubt it. Increasing the supply of anything rarely results in the price going up.

Not much on Hacker News has made me cry...

It does not apply to classical bits in the same way. Quantum computers derive their computational power from the qubits being in a single quantum state across the qubits (an entangled one, to use physics jargon.)

This is distinct from classical computers, where you can describe a bit without needing to describe the other bits in the computer. You cannot describe a qubit (in a way that's computationally useful, at least) without describing all of them.

"How Electricity Actually Works" (https://youtu.be/oI_X2cMHNe0?si=L3rc2KgDoxbMpzp6) from Veritasium is related and also a fantastic video.

We need it all. Even if we're carbon neutral the CO2 is still in the air. We need a way to remove it. This is especially obvious given how long it's going to take to even get to carbon neutral.

Can we stop with "we don't need solutions like THIS, we need this other solution." We're going head first into a climate crisis. We need all solutions here.

nit: gluons aren't electrically charged. They carry strong charge.

It's not necessarily a questions of "need". Physicists are just measuring what protons ARE. Whether or not gluons and the strong force are necessary to form an object that looks like a proton is a separate point from what protons actually look like in our universe.

To your point on if such an arrangement would be possible or not ignoring the strong force, it would not. The "net-charge" viewed from the +2 quark would be repulsive, resulting in an unstable arrangement of matter, even if you could construct it in an equilibrium state it would be the unstable kind.

You should watch the video. There is no experiment that has been done that shows the speed of light does not have a preference because every measurement sneaks in the assumption it's symmetric.

This is a convention. It's called the Einstein synchronization convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light . From the article: "Experiments that attempt to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none have succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. However, those experiments cannot directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light since it has been shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus, are equally conventional.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1][5] "

I get what you're saying and I'm well aware that Maxwell's equations are rotation invariant. I'm saying it's more subtle and complicated than you think. For instance, time dilation will have an asymmetry under these assumptions.

Ex-physicist here. This is not true.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k for an explanation. You can have a spatially asymmetric speed of light and be perfectly in line with every experiment to date.

The speed of light appearing constant in every inertial reference frame is experimentally verified and measured. But it's an axiom that the speed of light has no spatial preference. Each measurement of the speed of light sneaks in this axiom in subtle ways.

I think you misinterpreted the parent's point. They weren't saying c being a constant in all reference frames is an axiom. Rather, they were saying that it's convention that c doesn't have a spatial, directional, preference. It's a different claim.

The new data is what we're after ... to make discoveries! It's not just new data for new data's sake.

The LHC in that regard has fell short.

This is not the usual notion of zero-knowledge.