btilly
I don't mean this in a trite way. The character portrayed is supposed to be awkward and anxious. Feeling awkward and anxious in real life, left him in the right frame of mind when he walked on set. He looked awkward and anxious, because he actually was.
Actually feeling what the character is supposed to be feeling, is the heart of method acting. The upside of method acting is that it creates very powerful performances. The downside of method acting is that you have to experience all of the feelings of the depicted drama.
I enjoyed answering algorithm questions. Unfortunately, every so often, people who weren't into algorithms would show up. And somehow summoned each other. To close good questions.
It was clear that they didn't understand the topic. They couldn't recognize what a good question, or a good answer, was. I wound up going away, coming back every few years, go until my next bad experience, and leave again.
Each time, the population answering those questions was smaller.
I believe that a lot of good people left like I did. Then just didn't come back.
What they did is tried to prove that the conventional fuzzer won't find crashes. Where they found counterexamples, they fixed the bug and tried again.
In essence, a fuzzer takes random samples out of a space of possible inputs that could crash. They proved that nothing in the space of possible inputs could crash.
This is a strictly more powerful result than a fuzzer could give you.
Lincoln's actual beliefs can be seen in his own words. Let's take, for instance, the first of his seven debates with Stephen Douglas.
https://home.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate1.htm
In this debate, Lincoln made it clear that he morally opposes slavery. He therefore opposed allowing it to spread. But he pointed out simply trying to suddenly eliminate it would create even worse problems. He therefore did not support abolitionism. He even supported returning slaves to slavery if they escaped to a free state. He only supported containing the practice, and hoped for a better solution over time.
This balancing act is made clear in all of his speeches before he was President. It is even visible in the Emancipation Proclamation. It was only after years of war that he came to support the hard-line stance represented in the 13th Amendment. It is extremely unlikely that he would have gotten there without having been hardened by the Civil War.
There really was no immediate threat to slavery. It was only a long-term, potential threat.
Here is an exact passage from his speech laying all this out.
"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
"When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."
Opposition to that act was, "We're not going to create new states with slavery." It wasn't, "We're getting rid of slavery in places that already have it." Which meant that it was not a direct threat to existing slave states. (Though there was a prospect that maybe, some day...)
Lincoln didn't like slavery. But he wasn't trying to ban it. It wasn't until the war had been going on for nearly two years that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Which basically said, "If you're still in rebellion a couple of months ago, we're going to free your slaves." It didn't eliminate slavery for any slave state that was part of the Union. It was an incentive to surrender. It was 2 years after that until the 13th amendment was passed.
It is very unlikely that slavery would have been banned during Lincoln's time in office, if the Civil War hadn't happened.
Was there a long-term prospect of a threat? Obviously. But there was no immediate threat. And so the fight wound up with protecting slavery on the one side, and asserting the indivisibility of the nation on the other side.
This is exactly parallel to the Mexico-Texan issue. Slavery was not being banned in the rebelling states.
Each side had a list of grievances. A big one on one side, was the preservation of slavery in perpetuity. The other side wanted to preserve the unity of the nation as a whole.
You are right that Mexico was not fighting to ban slavery. But it was clear that eliminating slaver was still in their roadmap. Texas had only gotten an extension.
Similarly the election of Lincoln wasn't an immediate threat to slavery in the Confederacy. But the Confederacy still was motivated to head off the long-term threat to their economic system.
So the fact that Mexico wasn't fighting to end slavery, doesn't contradict the fact that Texans were fighting to preserve it.
It's not just that courts generally decline. It's now also against US law for them to enforce the judgment without assessing the Constitutional issues. And the burden of proof is on those trying to enforce the judgment.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/how-leaders-texas-r...
When we remember history, what we remember tends to be white-washed.
Instead you just raised, admittedly with some more detail, the same issues that I did in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50137231. While ignoring that every one of these failure modes also exists with paper.
In the long run, there are huge deposits of calcium carbonate on the ocean floor. Even if we burn all of the fossil fuels, the ocean eventually comes back to a neutral ph.
The problem is the short run. We're turning CO2 into carbonic acid at a rate that far exceeds what surface waters can handle. This is creating conditions where shellfish of all kinds are working overtime form proper shells. If they can at all. It even affects many kinds of plankton. This stress is causing large dieoffs. When we wipe out things at the base of the food chain, it has ripple effects through the rest of the ecosystem.
That said, paper leaves a trail that people can understand in a very straightforward way.
A paper trail is not a guarantee of electoral integrity. There is always a rough spot when your ideal election system meets the messy real world.
But when I pick up a random sci-fi/fantasy book for my own entertainment, I guarantee that taking notes is not a normal use case. Carrying it in my jacket, and reading it wherever I happen to be sitting down, is.
https://moversguide.usps.com/mgo/move-combined-mobile will let you do it online.
It's a pain that you have to do this because of their incompetence. But it will save you the embarrassment.
They are big, and bulky. They don't fit into a backpack. And you can't simply hold them in one hand and read, anywhere you sit. Like a bench in a garden. You need a space dedicated to reading them.
In terms of utility, hardcovers are strictly worse.
In the process of formalizing, you find bugs, you find gaps, you find ways to fill those in. Maybe you rewrite part of the proof. Maybe you didn't quite wind up with the same result. Perhaps your theorem has some new conditions or something.
Was the original paper true? Maybe. But that isn't what you verified. What you verified is almost surely true though. So you take the win, and move on.
My son has severe ADHD. The sleep deprivation is why he can only use medication for special events like tests. He can't sustain it for any long-term period.
This was essentially money-laundering at scale.
Don't focus on the streaming revenue angle. Focus on the fact that this was a giant money-laundering exercise, allowing him to turn stolen debit cards into real money.
It's worthy of note that most humans, do not find most mathematicians understandable. As is frequently demonstrated in Calculus classes. Therefore it is arguable that even human produced results are not generally human understandable.
The bubonic plague is easily treated with modern antibiotics.
It is also stoppable with contact tracing. As happened with, for example, SARS. Which is why something like 200 people have been tested.
Plague itself shows up fairly often. Particularly in the Congo. Something like 1000 cases a year.
The only interesting thing about this one is that it might have been weaponized in some way. But, even so, it's not going to be a big deal.
/duck
Supporting a group of elite mathematicians is not enough. There needs to be a path to becoming an elite mathematician.
Which either means that it becomes an unpaid hobby. Or there is some wider source of support for the profession.
While there may be no sane system, the legacy of "first come, first serve" and ",use it or lose it" is particularly insane.
You are simply giving a different argument than the one I'm giving a counter to. Yes, of course, if including human understanding results in strictly better results than AI, then there is an argument for the value supplied by human mathematicians.
But that's an argument that human understanding is on the path to better outcomes. It's not an argument that the intrinsic worth of human understanding is a reason to support mathematicians.
The idea that "someone rich will take care of it", reminds me of a passage from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action. It talks about "the exploitation of the large, by the small". Where a public good (in this case mathematics) is provisioned by a large entity that finds it worthwhile for their own reasons, and the remaining players who value it, feel no need to contribute anything themselves.