kvakil

In addition, even if a normal number was used, it's far simpler to describe the data by just using a single number alone. For example, a binary encoding of the data (perhaps using a prefix-free code). Using a normal number and two "positions" is just more complicated.

Anecdote: for me the actor model has been the most understandable and useful concurrency primitive I've used. Pi-calculus, which was inspired by the actor model, is similarly elegant.

jsfuck is hardly obfuscation: remove the first 828 bytes (for "eval(") and the last 3 bytes (for ")()"), and then execute the remaining string, and that gives you the original source code.

> Maksymilian Piskorowski found that if you happen to have a spare eight 9s, you can compute 𝑒 = (9/9 + 9^(-9^9))^(9^(9^9)), which is accurate to a little over 369 million decimal places.

Sure, because 9/9 = 1 and if you take x = 9^9^9, you get back (1 + x^(-1))^x, i.e. the first formula. It's cute, but I don't know if you could call it a "discovery".

Seems likely that the hard reset works on a lower level as it works even if the phone is hung.

From the article: "As an extra bonus, the generated proofs tend to be shorter than the ground truth proofs collected in CoqGym."

This feels a little misleading, the paper itself says that the phenomena "... suggests that theorems with longer proofs are much more challenging for the model." It'd be more interesting to see how the automated theorem proving length compares to the manual length for the same proofs (although I'd expect this to be biased downwards, for the same reason).

Modern secure messaging systems are typically OTR and have deniability: after the session ends, anybody can forge messages to make it look like they came from you. Sure the messages can become public, but they're no more "proof" than someone saying "X said Y".

In French, there is a space before exclamation and question marks. Based on the author's name, I'd also guess that they are French.