I think this is just the nature of paid work, though. Academics are generally in love with their topic, and very much not in love with the kind of admin busywork that they have to spend much of their working hours doing.
Ah, nice, I'll try that. SICM in particular relies on numerical routines and things for scientific computing that this perhaps doesn't cover. We'll see. Thanks!
The Array Cast https://www.arraycast.com/. This is a podcast on array languages (which more or less means APL-like, for the purposes of the podcast). Even if you don't particularly care about these languages they discuss algorithms and things from an abstract enough perspective that is helpful and illuminating.
The paper [here](https://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/07-HJJuly24-AOT...) makes it clear that these researchers (whose main topic is gravitational waves) have used Bayesian analyses to estimate how likely different counts for holes present in the full calendar ring are. This is cool, but the bit about "techniques developed to analyse the ripples in spacetime" is, well, making reference to Bayesian analysis.
One reason might be that music is (to some extent) translation invariant in a way text is not: you can play the very same music starting from anything from C to B. Those 12 versions will sound different but not that different. Note names might be distracting when you are focusing on that abstract structure?
I don't drive, but I often use walking directions. Once, in Germany, Google sent me to my hotel through a forest that was the quickest route and a pleasant one in broad daylight, but pitch dark at the time Google recommended it. I got lost, of course, and seriously thought I might have to sleep there.
Nobody knows for sure, but there's lots of work on neural mechanisms purportedly mediated by synchronous oscillations. For example, look up the "communication through coherence" hypothesis by Pascal Fries; or Grossberg's "adaptive resonance theory".
Yes, and as the second coin carries no information (because we are focusing now on sets of two different consecutive outcomes) both your and JvN's protocols are equivalent.
AFAICT this has not yet been published in a scientific journal, and has not passed peer review of any sort. Having said that, there's been at least one story on HN this past week where researchers were chastised for going to the press before properly vetting their results.
Intuitionism is not at all chaotic, though. It's a fully cogent way of doing math, it's just not a perfect overlap with traditional mathematics: some things you can prove intuitionistically that you cannot prove otherwise, and vice versa.