contravariant

Maybe I'm reading a bit too much into it but knowing it is NP (i.e. can be verified in polynomial time by a Turing machine) means it can be solved in polynomial time by a nondeterministic turing machine and there's at worst 2^N branches in it. Sort of. Giving a naive expectation of 2^N runtime times some polynomial. Which is exponential.

General unrest, as well as stress testing critical infrastructure, and perhaps most importantly shifting the window for what counts as acts of aggression that don't trigger retaliation.

It's always a bit unclear to me to what extent you're bound by a copyright when you're not distributing a work.

If someone sends me a copy while fully adhering to the license, what right does someone have to tell me what I can do with it? If I buy a book do I not have a right to read it? Lend it to people?

It's probably a good thing libraries already existed pre modern copyright.

I think that graph is saying that 0.8% of the total electricity was lost on batteries. You don't want that number to be higher.

If you want to see the batteries at work look at an hourly graph and you can see it charging and discharging during the day.

When it comes to bookstores you can safely assume they do not have high profit margins.

In the Netherlands competing with discount is actually illegal, interestingly enough. The selling price is fixed. Which is a boon for smaller bookshops, but annoying for publishers if the production prices aren't stable.

I typically tell them I don't have an Apple or Google play store. That typically confuses them enough that I can avoid explaining more than just telling them that that is indeed possible.

What kind of KYC involves controlling what software people are allowed to use?

I still believe that quality of software matters in the long term.

The issue with that belief is that it's basically impossible to falsify.

It would have been an ever better idea if I could figure out what it's for before copying :)

> "there exists a K such that, for sufficiently large n, K*n is always larger".

For what it's worth you can leave out the 'sufficiently large n' part, assuming we're talking about positive integers (or continuous functions on the nonnegative reals). I like to leave it in though because it makes the jump to defining both o, O and Theta in terms of lim sup f/g a little easier.

> o(2n+1) > o(2n) > o(n)

I don't think any of those are right. The latter two are trivially equivalent, the former also is since it differs by a factor of at most 3 for all n >= 1.

I still think the simplest definition for o(f) is 'g in o(g) iff O(g) is a proper subset of O(f)'. Or you can just say g is dominated by f in the sense that lim sup g/f = 0.

I'm fairly sure those two are equivalent, but it's a good little exercise.

Global average temperature has risen about a degree over the last century. That's a truly terrifying amount of energy. Habitats are shifting, forests are burning away in places where their current composition has become unsustainable, regions are becoming arid, permafrost is becoming less permanent.

Technically most of everything else is weather, not climate, do you want a list of bad weather events?

Somehow the anarchists never seem to expect people to use their newfound freedom to erect a new government in place of the old.

It is kind of horrifying to figure out what happens if an LLM first successfully builds a self-replicating hive mind.

I mean it used to be utterly impossible, but now? Hard to tell.

In that case you maybe shouldn't put them online protected by nothing but 30 year old security.

That used to be his response, he just doesn't agree with the way OpenAI is doing it.

I'm not sure this article is a good way to figure out his stance on the issue, I'd recommend reading his blog posts or mastodon threads.

Ideas are contagious and AI is our most powerful vector yet.

I suppose we would see some interaction with AI in that sense, but it'll take place over the course of learn cycles and when AI starts ingesting its own ideas it typically goes wrong somewhere down the line.

The problem with that is that it implicitly assumes things will progress in the way we're used to.

AI written software doing the exact thing it was supposed to but breaking apart on any further improvements or changes matches what I've seen from AI generated output. The code is often bloated and fragile.

> To get any PR merged in Bitwarden, you are forced to sign a CLA that reassigns copyright to Bitwarden Inc so they can relicense as they wish.

Ah I see, yes that would explain it. That makes this a bit more concerning I suppose.

I'm a bit confused what they're actually doing. Their code is now covered by two different licenses with each file licensed under one of the two and they claim the resulting application is using the commercial Bitwarden license and not the GPL license?

How on earth does that work? Is that something the GPL license even allows?

This sounds like they're just taking a GPL licensed application and using it for themselves to make money.

I think quite a few mathematicians would be interested in using AI to figure out the answer.

But providing the answer in gibberish along with a certificate is not that, it's at best a cruel way to do it, but I'm leaning towards the idea that it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to do math and what it means to communicate a result.

If you think sending an answer in gibberish is acceptable just because it's true then SSdtIG5vdCBzdXJlIHdoYXQgdG8gdGVsbCB5b3UsIGJ1dCB3ZSBkaXNhZ3JlZSBvbiB0aGF0.

You can set the content of the mail, whether it accepts html is up to the email clients I think.

I think it's quite clear the mathematics panel didn't read most of the papers with the scrutiny it would take to publish it, if only because the lean certificates and the informal proofs are not 100% the same.

And if it's hard to understand (which seems to be the most common reaction) it's not exactly devoid of noise either

There was an opportunity for people to work with the AI to produce a proof, now it almost feels they're working against it.

Maybe this is too late to ask, but what even is a harness?

I mean at least you got some relevant links. It's becoming increasingly common, especially with some types of subjects, that all of the links are regurgitated AI slop that or indistinguishable from it.

Give me a search engine that never returns anything like that and I'd be incredibly pleased. Actually, give how PageRank is supposed to work, who is directing people to all these obviously fake pages? Or is that just what following random links does to you nowadays, I wouldn't even be surprised.

Time for a search engine that is grounded in trustworthy webpages I suppose.

If you're not doing so already then you seem to have already agreed to let Google do quite a lot of things with your data.

Or a very informative one, depends on your outlook on AI use really.

I won't cry false analogy but I just have no clue what point you're trying to make.

Are you saying widget makers are sloppy in their craft and only in it for their money?

> If the garbage men started dumping the contents of garbage bags in public places I bet they will not be given a free pass.

I mean, they wouldn't have to, they just need to stop cleaning it up. Such an action likely will be given a free pass, anything other than that is strikebreaking which is either illegal or heavily discouraged depending on jurisdiction.

As far as sabotage goes doing it in a way that is disruptive but causes no permanent damage is a bit odd. As a protest, however, it makes perfect sense.