SpeakMouthWords

Very much analogous to the current AI proofs debate

In the future, some mathematics will be proven but not understood.

Frontier Mathematicians will work on proving theorems, and Pure Mathematicians will work on taking proven results and making them understood.

Someone has run an experiment, and in this experiment they created a large amount of evidence that seems to say that quite an important particle in particle physics weighs something slightly different from what we thought it should.

This is important because the weight of that particle was predicted by our generally-accepted theory of how the universe works. If the weight is different, it means the theory hasn't taken into account everything that it should.

I had a completely different interpretation to everyone else. I read it as the astrologer doubling down on his assertion despite the evidence staring him in the face. The guy can't have kids, so he should look after the ones he has! (Even though they prove that he CAN have kids)

The Bridgerton example is silly and not comparable. His character is barely in the other books, so of course he's not in the other seasons. It's like asking why Professor Quirrell isn't in the second Harry Potter film.

It's not the full-time job of each member.

Worth noting that N26 was touted for a while as a grim reaper that would come to the UK with its vast capitalisation (at the time about 2-3x as a much as any UK mobile bank) and blow Monzo and Revolut away.

A good lesson that a well-funded incumbent in another market can't always make the hop to a different geography with assured success.

You would be hard pressed to elucidate a biological causation there.

Cars and air-con are the main offenders there, right?

This is an outdated version of the Tube map.

1. Yes 2. Basically 3. No 4. No

To be fair you have Simple Bank and Qapital in the US if you're looking for Monzolikes

I remember having band practice at our drummer's house when I was younger. The drummers mother and our vocalist knew each other. To reach the high notes, she said to him, you have to "sing higher" and your voice will naturally fail down to where you want to be.

These predications kind of feel like that. Kurzweil was "singing higher" than where we ended up. Just enough that it's a clear overshoot, but not but so much that he's off-key.