dataflow

[delayed]

[delayed]

> But most math isn't like this. Most math has very little immediate effect on the real world.

Then isn't it fair to ask why that math deserves to be done right now? Just because a problem can be formulated and piques your interest while leading to more problems that pique your interest, that doesn't mean someone on this planet has to work on it right now.

If you're one of the brightest minds in the world who wants society to credit you for your work (and fund your career!), and are finding that the rest of the world is replacing you with automation, and you're agreeing you don't anticipate your work to even have an effect on the real world in the foreseeable future... why is it unreasonable to expect you to start working on problems for which you can make a clearer case of usefulness in the horizon, at least for the time being?

> Breaking public key cryptosystems would be a better counterexample.

I deliberately avoided giving that example. Calling that a positive contribution to humanity and expecting credit for it feels a bit like calling the atomic bomb a positive contribution to humanity and expecting credit for it. Much of the world would rather stay away from that timeline.

> Most NP-hard optimization problems can be solved in practice.

Hence "a solution that is empirically sufficiently faster than the state of the art" and not merely "a solution".

> understands it thoroughly, and uses it to develop interesting further questions or directions

He phrases it like these criteria are requirements, but they really aren't for every problem. They make sense for those theoretical problems whose solutions' main values lie in their understandability and further development, but not every problem is like that. Some problems' solutions are just revolutionary on their own even if you contribute or understand absolutely nothing else. AI technology itself is an example of this!

To give a trivial hypothetical counterexample: if you came up with a solution for the traveling salesman problem that is both empirically sufficiently faster than the state of the art, that is an immense contribution and you absolutely deserve the credit for it regardless of whether you or anyone else understands how/why it works. It could literally even produce wrong results 50% of the time and still revolutionize humanity if it's efficient enough when it's correct. Denying them credit because they didn't understand the algorithm would be ludicrous - the results stand & speak for themselves.

Statisticians, traditional-AI researchers, etc. had to learn this the hard way when (basically black-box) neural nets became so good that their otherwise-elegant & explainable classical algorithms just stopped being able to compete in more and more applications, and got left behind. Are mathematicians looking to repeat that history?

> My question is, if the judge is using an ai to decide a case, and the judge has outsourced their "judgement" to ai, I, as a lawyer should be able to influence that.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the actual content of the AI output for some reason?

If the judge sent you an AI-generated court order for your execution just because you didn't pay for parking, you think they'd get away with it?

> I’m not a lawyer, but I’m curious if it would also be a fineable offense to ask for this directly. [...] So why is it when you ask it of AI?

It's not illegal to ask someone to send you money. So why is it illegal when I ask their AI to send me money from their bank account?! Nothing in this world makes sense!

> I think cache friendly code also tends to be reason about friendly and debugger friendly.

Not sure what examples you have in mind, but the very first things I think of when I hear cache friendly code are cache-blocking and cache-oblivious algorithms, which are quite the opposite of that. See also B-trees vs. binary search trees, etc.

But how do you even come into possession of the devices to perform said tests and detect counterfeits? Don't the potential counterfeits need to cross the border first, committing the crime before you even have a chance to prevent it? Is every company supposed to set up testing equipment in every country they buy from?

Avoidance, not evasion.

> Abliterated models gave proper responses.

Is that a word now? I thought it was ablated.

> People refused phone calls, refused to watch TV, refused to buy computers, refused to move their workflows to software, refused emails or browing the web, refused online shopping, refused smartphones, refused social media.

You really think this is an apt comparison? I don't think the creators of any of those technologies were warning society that their own creations might wipe out humanity.

Dumb question: How do you verify what you're buying?

Did you reduce in the wrong direction or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

> surprised me

> I was aware of that and mention it

I'm confused.

Yes, thank you, I passed elementary school. Mathematical correctness is not the sole criterion that matters in this world.

> 1/2(-9.8) now equals -4.9 rather than -0.05102040816326530612

That should really be an error.

> Every time they bang into something, there’s a chance of annihilation, but it doesn’t always happen

This goes against everything I've ever been told about antimatter. So a positron and electron can collide and not annihilate each other? How does that work? What happens to them in that case, and why does everybody say otherwise?

> Web browsing: Certain complex web technologies are blocked, which might cause some websites to load more slowly or not operate correctly. In addition, web fonts might not be displayed, and images might be replaced with a missing image icon.

Images being replaced with a missing image icon doesn't seem like a lot according to the description, and it's what you would set by default?

> A good moment to remind everyone: Verification: Code does what it says. Validation: Code does what Specifications say.

Isn't this the exact opposite of what "formal verification" means? First sentence on Wikipedia [1]: "Formal verification is the act of proving or disproving the correctness of a system with respect to a certain formal specification or property."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification

It preys on poor people, yes, but it's neither a tax, nor would it stop preying on them if the ticket prices rose according to income.

I read your second sentence but I don't get it. Isn't generating profit for the state literally the entire point of the lottery? Who is arguing that it doesn't do that in theory or practice?

> If the defendant can force a jury trial for a misdemeanor, which is in fact quite costly for prosecutors, then the response is to raise the stakes with felony charges.

I'm not quite understanding this. What is there to be gained by raising the stakes? Doesn't it make defendants even more determined to seek justice?

Can the DA's past history be used as evidence in future cases to show they're not credible?

> That’s like blaming white hat security researchers that want to be paid for finding vulnerabilities, for all the bugs that have been found.

Last I checked, white hat security researchers weren't making their livings selling superhuman hacking tools to unknown entities as part of ~$1T businesses desperate to offload their shares onto the public before a potential bubble pop.

If you want to argue what they're doing is fine regardless, be my guest, but using this comparison as the justification is a little ridiculous.

Is there a curl command I can use to test if the vulnerability is fully patched on a server (not merely mitigated) without causing any harm?

Note I want it to work with the backports too, not just the latest version.