sn41

I agree. If I am allergic to sesame, then I would also rather play it safe, rather than try a risk.

By the way, Molitor 5901 is the phone number used by the Jackal to know if he could move, in "The Day of the Jackal", if I remember right.

With my modest experience as an expert witness in courts, I am against this. It is very difficult to make judges understand, for example, how science works - one can only be so sure, and we go ahead with that, for example, in medicine, as well as cryptography. Judges have a hard time appreciating this nuance.

I agree that something stricter should be done, but it should not be about bringing the legal system into play. I see a fundamental issue with bringing science to trial courts, where rhetoric, appeals to emotions, and other different priorities are paramount, not technicalities about overenthusiastic interpretations, data fudging, p-hacking, empirical anomalies and wilful data manipulation.

Science works by different norms of truth (I would call this statistical) than the judicial system does (beyond reasonable doubt/preponderance of evidence). I believe an international peer scientific committee ostracising a person from publication for X number of years, or forever, might be a better measure than a criminal trial and punishment in open court.

Just a quick note: Rahul Ilango is a phenomenal theoretical CS researcher who has made great progress towards understanding the "Minimum Circuit Size Problem" [MCSP], long believed to be, but not yet proven, NP hard. Needless to add, "the username checks out".

Assuming that you trust that the regulatory agency does not have leakers back to the respective companies. When there's a revolving door between regulatory agencies and companies, it gets tricky.

It's quite understandable, imho. Immigration is being allowed precisely for cheap labor, especially when citizens are not prepared to go through the extra hardship - for example, I remember reading that the fatalities when the bridge fell in Baltimore around 1 am, were all immigrants, all on duty at that hour.

For specialized labor, there is always a question of possible espionage and back-channel tech transfer. This is not so much perhaps for India as opposed to other technological rivals, but it may be one of the considerations in the immigration policy being counterintuitive.

The title sounded condescending. But the overall theme seems to be that we must not lose trust in others since it may be better for us professionally. I think it is also better for us psychologically.

Just curious: Sussman and Wisdom have written a book called "Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" following the classic SICP Scheme book. Has anyone attempted a similar approach for electromagnetics?

I don't think you need to understand a concept deeply to use it. The "do..." syntax in Haskell is something that comes naturally to many programmers. It is introduced only at the end of a Haskell course since it uses monads, but many iterative-style programmers switch to that syntax exclusively afterwards. And it actually takes a while to construct the desugared monad syntax.

For a common example of this phenomenon- I took a look into the innards of printf to see how printf("%f",...) and printf("%g",...) works. I am still clueless how it actually works. Does not prevent even beginners from using these.

==

Also for what it is worth, I think the most useful analogy of monads is "monads are pipes with types", even though it does not give a full understanding of bind.

Congratulations on the verification of your proof! It must be great to have your research life's crowning work being formally confirmed! Also a great victory for the new foundations of Quine.

Yes, it's very important to get that on record. Roko, get that basilisk off me!

Very interesting take, thank you!

Of course, my favorite David Lynch movie is "The Straight Story" - what a heartwarming tale!