pfortuny

Courts exist, among other things, to specify the rules in ambiguous cases. Rules will be ambiguous always.

Colima is in Mexico.

Kolyma is in Russia.

As long as you can get an exogenous reaction from it, which is not guaranteed at all.

The self-replication assumes also that there is enough energy stored in each planet (or coming from a Sun) to do the work... That is pretty much unlikely.

Unbelievable: I read the title and the only thought I got was that households get 3h free energy in Australia.

OK, and the median?

Also "neuron" should be at least italized.

Well, that is what markets do: behave. Rationally or not.

The 1929 panic was also irrational but it happened. There is no way to solve that.

Panics happen and bubbles too, and in the meantime, very long term investments tend to grow (in average), as long as the economy works as expected (improving in average, long-term).

Of course, catastrophes are not impossible (the Black Death, the French Revolution, World Wars...).

That summurizes it pretty well. The Commission is essentially omnipotent, and there is no relevat judiciary to stop it.

This is farcical.

Yes, from a PURELY MONETARY viewpoint, Brexit was a disaster. But there are more important things than money.

I'm from Spain btw.

The first thought when moving people must be "where/how will they shit?" Only once this is solved can you ask "what will they eat?".

This is not even dumb. Unbelievable coming from act....

I guess they do not understand the relevance of the median in this. They just take the average and think it is "good enough"...

I would call it "Engineered (as machine-made trustworthy) Mathematics": you have results but nobody undrstands them but they were not produced by humans.

Despite that, people use them. In that sense, similar to the Finite Elements method. But the tools (statements) are machined like any other tool (screwdriver).

Similar to microprocessors in your example. But about statements.

Well, by "understanding" I mean "understanding by humans", indeed.

Science is not about results, it is about the transmission of knowledge. So long as those AI-"sciences" are just inside AI, they are "engineering", not science.

I am not dismissing engineering (it moves the world we live in), just trying to clarify what science is.

Applied fluid dynamics works like that: noone has ever really "verified" that the finite-element method applied to some specific model does converge

Wow, I did not know this and -despite its drawbacks, like not being able to install apps from the Apple App store- this seems like a great way to have a powerful dumb-phone.

Notice that the space rule is not so in Spanish (the RAE ---the Spanish Royal Academy--- states in its rules that it must be separated from the main text on both sides but not from the explanation).

https://www.rae.es/ortograf%C3%ADa-b%C3%A1sica/uso-de-los-si...

Well, actually I am worried about it. It needs to happen just once. Or for google to have a different kind of CEO (as companies are wont to).

You arw right.

But precisely that fact made life much less stressful than today: it was normal to be poor, it was normal to die young.

You are right. But there is also the stress for the low and middle class and there horrible conditions of the poorest countries.

Not so sunshiny when you think about the millions of people struggling to have a meal each day.

That is in part why corporate taxes exist.

It is so weird that it makes 40% sense of 50% its length.

So clear! Thanks!!

On your first paragraph: exactly. This is not a competition, Emacs is just shared software, not part of a market.

Mathematics is a language for humans, not just for machines. We may agree to let machines "do their thing" for as long as they want but to what purpose? Just creating "results"? What is a mathematical result by itself?

Unless, of course, we are willing to give machines the responsibility of building bridges. Subject on which I do not have a clear opinion yet.

But just hard drives (or whatever) filled with bytes representing strings representing nothing any human will ever understand... I am not for it (as of now). There are much more important problems to solve.

No, I am not saying he has sold out: but he has the money and the contacts to see the insider-only version.

Just that. Tell my Uni to pay me 200€/month for tokens. They are just going to laugh it out.

Ah but you can disable it completely.

"Beauty" is something I cannot define. "Elegance", as I use it, is the use of tools as precisely as possible. It is a technical term, whereas "beauty" I cannot define.

Of course, that is my view of it.

I do not know about this but, to be honest, he (or his Dpt, or whatever) has the money and connections to try the hidden-behind-closed-doors stuff.

We mere mortals (I am a prof. of Maths at Uni) do not.

Much (most?) of math consists in transmission of it (according to Thurston [1]), a 1000-page proof with no possibility of transmission is mostly useless. The proof of Fermat's last Theorem is important in itself, and adds much more than the mere result.

I am not talking about the supposed "beauty" of a proof (I do not believe in that concept, rather in "elegance", which is not the same), I am talking about the proof itself, and the insights it provides.

[1] https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1994-30-02/S0273-0979-1994...