chank

Nobody needs permission to solve an open problem. That's the whole point of publishing them. The question for any result is whether it's correct, not who produced it or whether anyone requested it.

Bringing up OpenAI's lawsuits is irrelevant to whether these proofs hold. And calling a release that includes Lean formalizations a "demonstration of power" gets it backwards. Machine checkable proofs are the least "trust me" form of mathematics there is.

There are fair criticisms here. Not every result is formalized, the model can't be reproduced by outsiders, and the massive dump strains review capacity. Those are reasons to demand full formalization, open access to the methods, and help funding human review. They aren't reasons to dismiss correct mathematics or to tell people to stop working on hard problems.

Until somebody comes along and uses it for that. Fun toy turns into decision making tool that the creator never intended. Maybe nothing will come of it. That's just my unfiltered opinion on it. I don't assume malicious intent, only identifying the possible vector.

It means prices will go up and service/quality will go down. I already consider the service sort of at a base state. If it gets any worse, it will just go under. Which is what they want.

Questionable ranking algo. Easily hacked. We shouldn't and don't really need to "gamify" GitHub stats as it's likely extremely unhealthy.

Wasn't really trying to take the socialist view. Merely stating what usually happens. Grow the business usually means make more money in the easiest way possible (cost cutting usually) rather than invest in future gains.

Capitalists usually recoup gains rather than re-investing in people or working in new verticals. This gels with companies who would rather do anything else than grow.

And Americans leave because employers will just replace them with offshoring and h1bs to save money. It's a self perpetuating cycle. Loyalty goes both ways. Employees finally realized that they should be treating employers like employers have always treated employees. That's capitalism.

> In 2025, social media has moved from self-expression to self-entrapment

I sort of feel if you're only figuring this out now you've been willfully/woefully ignorant.

How are we not full circle back to the early 00's with this design? It didn't really catch on then. Maybe this time? Wasn't a big fan of it then. Still not.

The point is, supplements will mostly only help you shore up deficiencies in your diet and generally won't do it as effectively as eating right. No matter how much supplementation you do, you can't out-run a bad diet.

Honestly, likely not that much. From what I've found you can get recommended dosage and more from just eating the right foods. Right meaning foods rich in what you're looking for. Now in context that may be hard for some people or they just don't like those foods. So supplementing makes sense.

The meaningfull context here was "good diet". If middle distance runners ate for middle distance running would they need to take beta alanine? E.g. ate more organ meat which contains high levels of beta alanine.

I don't want to be rude, but your off-topic anecdote about my uninteresting and useless anecdote is also... uninteresting and useless.

Over the years through my own involvement in sports and physically demaning jobs with trying a lot of different supplementation, I've come to the conclusion that most (if not all) supplements provide little to no value beyond a good diet. If they do, they're either illigal as non-perscription and/or require regular physician monitoring use correctly.