butokai

I have a quite badly displaced retina due to a detachment. I wonder if technology like this could be used in conjunction with mapping the distorted retina in order to obtain a correct perceived image.

I am very sad that there is no iPadOS for A12X iPads. That tablet is the first one to be clearly desktop-class, and would still be usable with Linux as a desktop. iPadOS 26 sadly has too many issues, and it would have deserved an upgrade to 27.

I think another problem is: vibecoded emulators (like this one seems to be?) are likely to be a stunt, a cool project, but will not be maintained. Upstreaming this to qemu requires at least some human effort, and it is not very likely to happen. So we are left with a cool trick.

I feel like instances of this kind of decision (also from your examples) fall into two groups: replacing names from colonization with local names, and... Second group name left as an exercise to the reader.

I am Italian, and we get quite pissed when the government issues executive orders (the head of state can't do it), although it happens relatively often. I live in France, and when the president resorted to using them it felt like he was threatening democracy.

The US mechanism seems the strongest of the three, and people have considered this a normal thing in a democracy long enough for this to happen.

Of course kudos to the author. But I am pretty sure that the availability of iMessage and notifications over Bluetooth starting from iOS 26.5 is a direct result of the EU’s policies for smartwatch interoperability, so… kudos to the EU as well!

Your observation is perfectly on point, I think the season of companies announcing breakthroughs might be over soon (unless they somehow manage a major achievement, P vs NP or similar). At the same time, mathematicians will be left with superintelligent machines solving the actual math for them, much like software engineers nowadays. This was unexpected, and unexpected at this scale up to a couple of months ago.

I am getting 404 right now

Neither of the two. A proof by contradiction, as other comments have stated, is: assuming not P1, we reach a contradiction; thus P1 must be true. This is equivalent to tertium non datur in classical logic. I’m not sure it’s a valid deduction in your trivalent logic.

This document misses the point in a way that very commonly arises when mathematicians (as opposed to logicians) discuss proof by contradiction. The examples in this document all revolve around assuming a fact, showing that it would lead to an absurd, and thus establishing that that fact can’t be the case: there is no rational equal to sqrt(2), there is no finite listing of all the primes. They are not using proof by contradiction at all, and on the contrary these proof are fully constructive: if one where to give us what they believe is a finite list of all the primes, the proofs gives us a method to construct a new prime.

Proof by contradiction, on the other side, deems that we derive a contradiction from the assumption that a statement does not hold. Then, by contradiction, we may state that is true because it is impossible for it to be false.

This is why it is rejected by the intuitionists and constructivists: there is no way to extract an explicit procedure from such a proof, since it only states that what can’t be false must me true.

Do you think there will still be an incentive to release weights in that scenario? Everyone will have models only if there continue to be companies releasing weights.