gizmo686

If you have a model of the programming language, then you can make proofs about the source code itself. At this point, your assumption is that you are accuratly modelling the compiler.

You can go a step farther and model the instruction set and architecture, and which point you can make proofs about the final binary directly (thereby sidestepping the problem of compiler bugs). At this point, your assumption is just that your physical hardware actually matches your model.

The environment around Chernobyl has already recovered, and is now healthier than it would have been without a nuclear disaster (due entirely to it's function as a human repellent).

The area is still bad for humans; but not terrible for the ecosystem.

Without RPKI, it would be easy for many governments to cut off Russia's internet access by launching a BGP attack.

Assuming the Netherlands was acting unnilaterally, Russian ISPs would be able to coordinate with other ISPs to get back online via other routes. Assuming Russia's enemy wanted to press the issue, it would quickly devolve into a political question of who wants to allow Russian peering, who does not, and who is willing to not peer with peers of Russia (and peers of peers, etc).

This has always been the case. The internet is a network of networks; all of which are subject to control by their host governments should they choose to exercise it. With or without RPKI, a partitioning of the Internet for a significant period of time was always going to be a political decision.

> You should look into how many air craft carriers the US has

Air craft carriers such as the USS Abraham Lincoln? Which had to remain at sea for 286 days, including 208 consequtive days without making port. During which time, the military suffered a massive logistical failure to adaquetly supply it, presumably due to them moving their logistical base from Bahrain to Diego Garcia. Then, was relieved only by diverting the USS George Washington and USS Theodore Roosevelt to the region, leaving no carriers in the West Pacific

> Also there are somewhere between 20 and 28 US military bases in the middle east alone

Bases which have been comming under repeated air attack; the extent and damage of which is kept quiete, but appears to be much more substantial than the US military wants to admit. And which are increasingly vulnerable as they loose air defense abilities due to both loss of supporting infastructure, and a depletion of interceptors.

You can get rich by stealing pennies, if you steal them from enough people. It is still wrong, even if no individual lost enough to care about going after you.

If enough people try profiting by stealling pennies, the cumulative losses are significant; and can threaten confidence in and the strenght of the market.

You would have made a lot of money betting against technology back in 2000 ... assuming you got the timing right.

There are a bunch of ways that AI the technology could be massivly successful, while AI the industry crashes.

When a stock hits the public market, it gets incorporated into broad market index funds (subject to the rules of those funds). If an overvalues stock gets dumped onto the public market, then crashes after being bought by index funds, then holders of those index funds are harmed.

There is some notational subtletly here. Strictly speaking, BB(n) represents the output of the BB function for the input n. In that sense BB(n) is computable.

However, the BB function itself is not computable. It makes sense to ask "for what inputs is the BB function computable?". When people talk about BB(n) not being computable, they are really talking about the computability of the BB function at n, not the computability of the integer that happens to be BB(n).

The integer C is computable. However, we do not know what integer C is without first computing BB(10); and doing that might be not be possible.

Given a constanct C, you can construct a constant sequence f(n) = C.

Since f(n) is trivially computable, we know that BB(n) grows faster than f(n). It follows that there must be some n such that BB(n) > C.

The BB sequence still has infinitely many entries. Any turing machine will either halt or not halt. For any N, there is a finite set of N-state turing machines which halt, and there is therefore a finite number of steps after which all halting N-state turing machines would halt.

There is a point where these values become uncomputable, but they still exist (for some definition of exist).

Where is the association being stored if not the model? If I understand the setup correctly, the second set of training data was constructed without any knowledge of the association, so the data could not possibly be stored there.

This looks like a pretty classic case of stenography. You are able to hide the data in the weights such that the data is not apparent on casual (or even careful) inspection. However, the information is still there, and someone who knows to look for it can still find it, even if they do not know the specific message.

It backfeeds onto the grid and becomes the utility companies problem to deal with. This is similar to them dealing with a house that is an unbalanced consumer between the legs.

We know how to make inverters that can produce an AC voltage on their own. It is not particularly difficult or expensive. The reason why we do not put those inverters in plug-in solar units is entirely because we don't want them to have that ability.