falseprofit

> they were so much better they managed to lock up search for long enough to cement their position

There is still a chance for something like this to happen with AI, no?

The wear on the pieces and board was not an input for the AI tool they used.

Also, they didn’t “ask” an AI anything, as it was not a natural language AI tool.

Maybe it isn’t changing mass at all, and what’s changing is just the probability distribution resulting from a hypothetical flavor measurement. If we could measure the mass (collapse to mass eigenstate), I think I understand we would see no oscillation.

Not a physicist, but here are a couple Wikipedia excerpts I found: From page “Conservation of mass”:

“In general, mass is not conserved. The conservation of mass is a law that holds only in the classical limit.”

From page “Neutrino oscillation”:

“Neutrino oscillation arises from mixing between the flavor and mass eigenstates of neutrinos. That is, the three neutrino states that interact with the charged leptons in weak interactions are each a different superposition of the three (propagating) neutrino states of definite mass. Neutrinos are produced and detected in weak interactions as flavour eigenstates[a] but propagate as coherent superpositions of mass eigenstates.[23]”

The contest has a cash prize. Why did you put the university name in quotes?

Professor Simonton, quoted here, seems to be confused about what is meant by Shakespeare’s “problem plays”.

The U.S. itself has been engaging in similar behavior around the world for a long time. The specific relevance of Israel may only be a combination of recency and amount of U.S. attention.

But “scapegoat”?

“Israel did 9/11” is treating them as a scapegoat. “IDF often calls men they killed terrorists with no justification” is just stating a fact.

Hey, do you mind sharing any of these other forums? I’m trying to make my way up the satire food chain.

I would guess that was not a joke. The benefits could drop all the way to 0 at a reasonable point unless you impose the stronger condition that the function be analytic.

I actually agree with your premise of ruling out “not at all”. I was just responding to your characterization of “if ever”.

I’m not quite as certain as you are, though. Just because a technology is possible does not mean it is inevitable.

Let’s say there are three options: {soon, later, not at all}. Ruling out only one to arrive at {later, not at all} implies less knowledge than ruling out two and asserting {later}.

Awareness of a fundamental limitation would eliminate possibilities to just {not at all}, and the phrasing would be “never”, rather than “not soon, if ever”.

Computing, they propose

Not being forced to open a joint account either…

In all seriousness, all the pushback against paternalism comes from people who still believe in free will.

That’s the next guy’s job to pressure wash it off ;)