Mikhail_K

It had one option left. It built two nuclear devices and levelled Toulouse.

Of course it did, its designer worked for Tony Blair institute.

Thanks. Why the shen language was selected for writing specifications?

But, for scientists, I find that these tools address the problem of the exploding complexity barrier in the frontier.

They do the opposite by locking the results the produce within the slop presentation that needs more AI to comprehend.

Thank you, interesting work. Please, clarify what is possibly a naive question - your README states that the constraints imposed by your tool are weaker than the formal verification guarantees. Why not implement the backpressure as the full formal verification barrier? Too complex to implement?

"But scientific understanding is not extraneous to experience; it is entirely about experience."

Let us hear about your experience of a wavefunction, Carlo.

the bulk of changes that resulted in behavioral modernity

surely occurred in Africa

"Surely" without examining the actual evidence is almost surely wrong.

you realize they've been written for pre-systemd Linux

So still retaining some kind of sanity and good engineering practices?

From the article:

We finally observed signals of selection for combinations of alleles that today are associated with three correlated behavioural traits: scores on intelligence tests (increasing 0.74±0.12), household income (increasing 1.12±0.12) and years of schooling (increasing 0.63±0.13). These signals are all highly polygenic, and we have to drop 449–1,056 loci for the signals to become non-significant(Extended Data Fig.10). The signals are largely driven by selection before approximately 2,000 years , after which tends towards zero.

That's the part that the speech police is afraid of.

That's valuable, detailed explanation, thanks.

However NASA also believed the o-rings could still take the abuse, because

although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint,

Why would they be "shoved deeper," when the problem is that the joint opens wider under load?

The sealant and O-rings did not succeed in keeping the hot gasses inside (evidence: Challenger). They were not adequate

No. The whole assembly --joint, sealant and O-rings, -- failed.

"They were not adequate" - yet, after the redesign, they kept those same O-rings and declared that boosters are safe to fly, in manifest contradiction to your assertion. So your reasoning is clearly flawed.

If the sealant and O-Rings were adequate, the joint would not have failed.

That assertion requires some reasoning and evidence to back it.

Challenger: no gasses were supposed to make it past the o-rings no matter what,

but when it became clear that gasses were escaping and the o-rings were being

damaged, there was a push to suggest that it's an acceptable level.

Interestingly, the article<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz...> by heat shield expert and Shuttle astronaut Charles Camarda, the former Director of Engineering at Johnson Space Center, asserts that it was *not* the O-rings:

"The Challenger accident was not caused by O-rings or temperature on the day of launch; it was caused by a deviant joint design which opened instead of closed when loaded. It was caused by mistaking analytical adequacy of a simplified test for physical understanding of the system. The solution, post Challenger, was the structural redesign of the SRB field joint and the use of the exact same O-rings."

I find that highly surprising, because "it was the O-rings" explanation seems universally believed and sanctified by no lesser authority than the Nobel prize laureate Richard Feynman.

I usually use the method "shout Banzai! and charge straight like a kamikaze"

Is that the Mikado method?

their UI feels dated

A big selling point for me. Needless reworking of familiar interfaces plagues MS Windows ecosystem and I'm glad LibreOffice is displaying healthy conservatism by not fixing what isn't broken.

I still can't figure out quite what motivates these "AI evangelist" types

I'd hazard a guess and say "money"

It’s beautiful, I love it.

When computers become disposable, their programmers soon become disposable as well. Maybe, you shouldn't love it.

What, sugars and gum, but no sandwich wrappers?

In the release 1.12 they finally implemented the ability to create compact executables, so I would say the answer to your question is "yes".

If the USA and Europe decide to got this way, they will be (as in many other ways today) followers, rather than the leaders. China already does large-scale net censorship.

The belief that it is useful.

Words "Python" and "fast" do not belong in the same sentence.

There must be something wrong with your reading skills, because it's literally the same point slightly rephrased.

It doesn't, it hurts you by limiting the number of platforms Git is available on.

The wikipedia article you reference confirms my point:

"Gauss wanted to interpolate the orbits from sample observations; his method was very similar to the one that would be published in 1965 by James Cooley and John Tukey, who are generally credited for the invention of the modern generic FFT algorithm."

Freaking out about naming and attribution isn't really very informative.

It matters who gets the credit for an original idea. Cooley and Tukey are lionized as pioneers, but they are not.

Fast Fourier transform was not invented by Cooley-Tukey, it was used by Gauss to compute trigonometric interpolation of orbits from observations.

How about: because it's overhyped, but ultimately useless stock bubble prop?

"Ratinalists" are basically libertarians that are coy about it.

"Rationalists," the "objectivists" rebranded?

SBMC has to get some prize for being the least funny comic strip ever