photon_lines

Sure, thanks for the feedback either way - I'll keep it in mind for my next write-up.

I wrote most of it -- I did use AI assistance for 20% of it though (I am not an LLM).

It's not AI slop -- I wrote it and it took quite a long time to write. I did use AI assistance for some of the components and indeed you are right: I did copy paste images (that I mostly generated myself) to try to introduce the concepts in a better way although some people will always have criticisms of almost anything so I take a lot of stuff posted on forums with a grain of salt. It's good to remember behind the wires it is us humans (for the most part) trying to communicate after all and trying to help others. Hopefully the write-up did help some people get the concepts -- I tried to write it in a form that I thought would have helped me more had I had the chance of being reintroduced to imaginary numbers -- a lot of the concepts I included in the write-up were not taught to me when I initially encountered them and I wish they had been.

Eating ultra processed foods with added sugar / loads of calories. A huge reason why they're so destructive is because they lack fibre (which keep our microbiomes healthy) and lack compounds which are good for us. Try keeping weight on while eating minimally-processed food that is more vegan in nature: the amount you'll have to consume to keep the weight on is significant. When you start this diet, you won't like it that much and you will feel hungry since your microbiome is used to your old diet -- but try doing it for a month, and you'll see a huge shift in the way you feel and the foods which you crave (the above will start transforming your microbiome quite significantly). Do it for 3 - 6 months you'll wonder how in the world you ever lived without it.

So I can show you why it works algebraically -- I'm not sure if it will help you though.

Kinetic energy is the work needed to accelerate something from rest to speed v (velocity). Below we'll use the regular derivative representation to represent an tiny change in a value using notation such as dE (tiny change in energy).

Work can be described as dE (tiny change of energy) = F (force) * dx (tiny change in position). -> dE = F * dx

Force though changes momentum and algebraically can be described as:

F (force) = dp/dt (tiny change in momentum over tiny change in time)

The distance travelled over a infinitesimally small time frame is:

dx (tiny change in position) = v (velocity) * dt (tiny change in time) -> dx = v * dt

So now we have:

dE = F * dx (see our definition above) = dp/dt * v * dt (due to F = dp/dt and x = vt) = v dp (the dt terms cancel each other out and we are left with velocity and rate of change in momentum) -> dE = v * dp

So we are therefore left with:

dE (tiny change in energy) = v (velocity) * dp (tiny change in momentum) -> dE = v * dp

We can translate this as stating: the energy cost of adding a tiny bit of momentum depends on how fast the object is already moving. Now we also know that algebraically:

p (momentum) = m (mass) * v (velocity) -> p = mv

Using derivatives we also have:

dp (tiny change in momentum) = m (mass) * dv (tiny change in velocity) -> dp = m * dv

Going back to our original equation, we now have:

dE (tiny change in energy) = v * dp = v * m * dv (since dp = m * dv)

To get the total energy that it takes to move a mass m from 0 to velocity v, we need to add up all the tiny energy costs from 0 to v, and for this we use the integral to get:

E = ∫(from 0 to v) add up m (mass) * v (velocity) * dv (rate of change in velocity) = 1/2mvv (basic integration) = 1/2m*v^2

So from the above we can see that the kinetic energy rises quadratically with velocty. Now the 'why' this is encoded in the universe: read a bit more about symmetry and Emmy Noether. The laws of physics do not care where you are, when you are, or whether you are moving at a constant speed in a straight line. This is called Galilean symmetry in ordinary classical mechanics. Because the laws of motion have to stay consistent under changes of reference frame, energy cannot just be proportional to velocity. A linear energy law would break the symmetry.

I was going to comment on this too: the style and format of this writing screams 'written by ChatGPT' to me. The funny part is that the AI actually does a good job in making the argument and OP is trying to make: AI will never be able to feel the things that a human can, but yet within this post, it has shown that it can logically comprehend human tone and emotion and can create a stream of consciousness that most humans can connect with and understand.

- Visual Guide to Number Theory: write up which explains the field of number theory in a visual manner.

- Reenvision technologies: simple software. Local first - no added complexity. Infinite scale without having to add 100 front-end UI frameworks: simple Python, CSS, and JS with SQLite. The design is absolutely breathtaking and beautiful and it is built people first (let's worry about scale later).

- Simple LLM: an LLM which doesn't need a GPU to function. It uses Hebbian learning with extreme compression and attempts to achieve 'reasoning ability' through using a in-built Prolog interpreter. It very much resembles a human being in it's 'thinking mode' so far but still far from perfect.

- Simple-Education: local first software for parents looking to provide home-schooling for their children. It makes learning easy and fun and uses best practices to maximise your child's chance of success.

- About a dozen other projects which I've started but I need help on. If you want to team up -- I will give you equal equity in my start-ups. I cannot offer you a salary though I'm not at the point yet where I can do that: but I will give you equal equity in anything that you want to work on together with me. I have over 100 different million dollar ideas that will make us wealthy if you want to join my team, so PM me if you're interested.

There is an alternative: 1) limit how much descendants can inherit. Allow them only a maximum amount of let's say: 10 million and make sure that either the founder finds a way to redistribute his/her wealth to the rest of the world, or make the government find ways of redistributing this money. 2) make it mandatory for corporations to share their wealth (income) with the employees -- as an example make it mandatory to redistribute 50% of the income generated to the employees working for the company rather than paying CEOs insane amounts of money to return 'shareholder value'. The whole motto of maximising shareholder value has poisoned capitalism: the goal of a company should not be to become a cancerous growth -- but to serve as a net good for humanity. 3) seal the tax loopholes that make it easy for the rich to avoid paying taxes. There is no reason why the poor and middle class pay a disproportionate amount in taxes compared to the rich.

I agree with most of what you're saying -- but just wanted to add some notes here: 1) founders should start companies where equity is distributed to the early employees much more evenly: this actually gives additional super-powers to the company since employee incentives are much more closely aligned with the vision of the founders (building something great that people love to use). 2) stop rewarding growth: there is nothing wrong with NOT growing 90% a month. The goal of most companies shouldn't be to grow or return maximum value to investors (or shareholders): it should be to provide a greater human good the markets will be willing to pay for 3) revenue growth also is not something to aim for: sustainable income growth is. 4) unless the billionaires start re-distributing their wealth -- history is not on their side. A revolution will happen: usually this is associated with the younger male population being unemployed (~15% is the magic number) and causing an uprising. The goal of most founders at this point should not be 'how do I get to 1 billion.' The massive unemployment caused by the AI revolution will cause a massive uprising. There is great danger I think if they do not figure out a way to re-distribute their wealth. Currently, the poor and middle class are taxed way more than the rich (as a percentage of their income): and from what I see are increasingly becoming more disgruntled with the situation they are in. Why in the world would anyone want to even be a billionaire in this situation is the question I want to ask?

There is a chance - yes, but there's a lot of other evidence that he was involved in its creation (not just the 10+ years he talked about bit-gold prior to bitcoin). Bit-gold = bitcoin. My guess is that someone (like Hal Finny) implemented it with him but he was the originator of the idea and wrote the paper on it. Finny most likely had the original keys or he intentionally got rid of them on purpose (which explains why the wallet hasn't been active). Those are my guesses but the language in the paper very much gives me the impression that it was written by Nick Szabo.

Thank you! I'm glad you found it helpful (and that others did too)!!