twnettytwo

Oh sorry, yeah - I wasn't fully awake yet when I wrote it. As a sibling comment mentioned, I was talking about the total momentum. Anyway, it was in response to GP's assertion that GGP may be correct if "we're centered on the CG", which doesn't make sense because the CG can't move.

One of the necessary conditions here is that the three objects return to their exact initial position, and so does the centre of mass. Initial conditions with non-zero momentum must trivially be ruled out. But this doesn't stop them from having velocities perpendicular to the initial plane that cancel out perfectly, so this doesn't refute the assertion that the planes keep changing.

IMO this isn't necessarily bad (it's one way to get data), but the numbers are meaningless without a control. Unfortunately, I think we missed that bus by ~20 years. Had the same study been conducted every few years over the last two decades, I think it would have been valuable. Maybe it is still valuable to do this once every few years? (I think that everyone in 2026 is maximally addicted to mobile phones, but maybe I'm wrong and it can get worse).

Just as more successful machine learning fields distanced themselves from the term during the AI winter, I suppose we will (and perhaps are?) be seeing them adopt it again, now that we are in an "AI summer".

Not a biologist but IIRC, male ants develop from unfertilized eggs (and are 'haploid'), and the sperm has no role in the production of male ants. Any fertilized egg produces a female ant. This would proably mean that the queen has means to produce two kinds of eggs, which is quite interesting.

This is likely just Journalism, but the title (that of the original article) is slightly misleading. This appears to be a programming language for modelling soft materials... although I am not sure (having looked only at the Github repo and RTD) I understand what kind of research this targets... the roadmap and API makes it seem fairly general purpose - IMO it would be nice to see some (atleast potential) usecases directly in the repository.

Was it perhaps 'A course on Group Theory' by John S. Rose?

> I forgot it at home

As a non-native speaker, I find the sentence equally disconcerting, but it leaves me wondering what one would use to say something to that effect.

If they aren't distinct, you wouldn't have 4 clean buttons, but just 3 - in which case we also know the repeating digit repeats exactly once and we get 12x3 (36) possible combinations. With two clean buttons, it's 6 (if both repeat) + 4 (if only one repeats) = 10 and if there's 1 that's just one, and a terrible password.

Then the liar isn't lying, as the statement is true.