Chinjut

Why was the title changed from the article? The original title is "ICE Is Running One of the Largest Anti-Left Surveillance Operations in US History".

Teach him to be rich. That's all that matters from now on. That's the only measure of merit. He can buy IQ by the token.

Making prompts shorter does not seem like the characteristic trait of AI writing.

That is, an optional is just a list of length 0 or 1. But this seems to propose treating that completely oppositely from how it proposes treating other lists.

This paper "purporting to have solved the Collatz conjecture" was essentially a deliberate joke. It was not a serious attempt to prove the Collatz conjecture, it just used that framing to deliberately point out a Lean soundness bug. The soundness bug is real, but the idea that this was something you might accidentally run into while trying to prove the Collatz conjecture is made up.

Push lists of 0 or 1 up, but push lists of 0, 1, 2, 3, or etc, down?

It's interesting because people wondered if it was possible to go below the threshold at all, that's all. Many suspected it was not possible.

Yes, and keep in mind also the article author is chair of machine learning at University College London and was a core member of the AlphaGo team at DeepMind.

If only we could all snap our fingers and have our dream jobs.

I don't want to fly planes, be in a traveling circus, or be a chef. There are things I want to do, but the money spigots of our society aren't lining up to pay me to do them. I'm all for obtaining optionality through universal income. But optionality means also the optionality to retire (today, not decades from now).

Retirement doesn't mean you can't work. It means you don't have to. It means you can work for yourself on your own interests instead of for some other boss who tells you what to do.

This is unreadable. What is this?

These are pretty close to each other, to the point where I wouldn't bother strongly distinguishing them.

Suppose we have foldr as in [A] -> B -> ((A, B) -> B) -> B, foldl as in [A] -> B -> ((B, A) -> B) -> B, and reduce as in [A] -> ((A, A) -> A) -> A.

Then we have foldr list value operator = reduce [\b -> operator a b | a <- list] (.), foldl list value operator = foldr (reverse list) value (flip operator), and in the case of a finite non-empty list and associative operator, we have reduce list operator = foldr (tail list) (head list) operator = foldl (init list) (last list) operator.

So these are all basically slight re-parametrizations of each other.

People always bring up the Continuum Hypothesis as though it has something to do with Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but it doesn't really. The Continuum Hypothesis being neither proven nor disproven by some particular axioms is a similar phenomenon as that the group axioms neither prove nor disprove commutativity, the ordered field axioms neither prove nor disprove the existence of a square root of 2, etc. There's no particular reason to expect any particular formal system to be complete, sans some demonstration that is.

Gödelian incompleteness is the specific kind established by Gödel's proof, where theory T can't prove Con(T) without being inconsistent. But the inability of ZFC to consistently decide the Continuum Hypothesis is established in a completely different manner, with the Continuum Hypothesis not consistently decided by ZFC + Con(ZFC) either, or any such thing.