CaptainNegative

This is what showed up for me https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/519791942654230528/10... .

Do undergraduate mathematics journals ever desk-reject sincere attempts?

Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.

> NP-complete problems are those that, if any one of them can be solved in polynomial time, then all NP problems can be solved in polynomial time.

That is (nearly) correct under Cook reductions but not Karp reductions.

I say "nearly" because "if language L can be solved (decided) in polynomial time, then so can any problem in NP" is a vacuously true statement for any L not in P, so by this definition nearly all languages (a measure 1 fraction of them) are also NP-complete despite most of them not being in any particularly interesting complexity class.

If we escape this degeneracy by replacing the antecedent with "given access to an efficient way to decide L", then we've recreated NP hardness under Cook reductions.

It's kind of disappointing that GPT-4 defines NP-completeness in terms of Turing/Cook reductions while Karp reductions have been the preferred definition for the last half century or so. For example, under GPT-4's definition there is no distinction between NP-Completeness and Co-NP-Completeness. I guess that speaks to the volumes of laymen explanations out there.

Suppose Martin Shkreli wanted to go on a diatribe in Hillary Clinton's bedroom. Would her excluding him from her domicile be a violaton of his first amendment right? Obviously not.

Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no.

Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.

It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants more flexibility to civil procedure without overstepping fifth amendment bounds.

A lot of the research is entirely unnecessary. We know cadmium is biologically unnecessary. While it is important to quantify safe doses to understand the impact of pollution, getting the precise LD50 of it across various species does little to improve health outcomes.

We already know that dosages above 10 micrograms/kg of body weight is carcinogenic and should be avoided, so establishing where in the 100,000-300,000 microgram/kg range the LD50 resides does nothing for us.

I'd support the government doing what it can to help these companies sell equity to make up for cash shortfall, but I don't see why it is a taxpayer problem to bail them out with no guarantees going the other way.

I had to give up on e-filing with Free Fillable Forms last year because it claimed an arithmetic error where none existed and it would not allow me to e-file until that non-error was corrected.

The same forms I ultimately generated with both TaxHawk's and H&R Block's software were identical to those I wasn't allowed to submit with FFF.

Images have structure that can be exploited, and exploitable structure is everything. A Fibonacci spiral isn't going to have a nice low rank decomposition but it can be specified exactly (and thus reproduced exactly) in a small handful of bytes. EYM is a structure-free guarantee, so we can't expect it to show that SVD would perform better on the natural image manifold than would purpose-built algorithms.

> Python with it’s magic functions, shortcuts is just hiding too much complexity

One counterpoint would be that verbosity, especially in the heavy syntax style of languages such as C++, distracts the reader and helps bugs hide in plain sight. For a silly example, imagine trying to read and verify the correctness of an academic paper from its uncompiled LaTeX source.

What's the role of restricting the number domain to binary here? Can't they each have a real-valued number on their back (or worse, something from a larger set) with the same argument still going through?

Excretion is the key point. There's no conservation law for acidity in a system that can selectively excrete acids or bases as necessary, as can all individuals without serious metabolic conditions.

If those who ate too few acids found a way to induce the excretion of too many of them, then they'd be in trouble.

Whatever you eat gets dissolved by something like 10-20 teaspoons of stomach acid, which is roughly 100x-500x more acidic (linear scale) than honey. By the time it gets there a teaspoon of honey is not making a dent in the overall acidity.

Elastic/OpenSearch have classically used BM25, but the latter recently added semantic search capabilities using neural embeddings in 2.4. Not sure about the former.

[1] https://opensearch.org/blog/opensearch-2-4-is-available-toda...

> which makes any vegetarian or vegan diet suboptimal because of all the processed and overly packaged foods

I don't get why vegan and vegetarian food are highlighted here. People eat plenty of packaged or highly-processed meats, too. If anything, most raw items that don't require cooking are probably vegan, and there is no shortage of low-prep ones.

I think what you're failing to comprehend is that some people have a trait called empathy which prevents them from genociding the better part of a billion individuals for the sake of a few being able to stretch their legs.

I don't believe I ever dismissed the idea. I dismiss the bad-faith article about the idea.

> And then explain to me how this isn't a paraphrase of "I don't believe in science and studying things."

I think a more accurate description would be "I don't waste my time with bad science and sealioning" (of which I accuse the article, not you).

Take the "dropped precipitously" link from the article. Does it link to an article about the before-and-after effects of the helmet mandates in Sydney in Melbourne? No. Does it talk about a drop in bicycle usage, irrespective of any relation to the mandates? Also no. It's an uninstrumented observational article about the lack of adoption (specifically) of bike share programs in several Australian cities, with no meaningful analysis of policy-based or temporal factors (outside of the changing coverage areas of the bikeshare companies). That study has zero relation to the claim for which the posted article cites it. Trying to pass it off as if it does is entirely in bad faith.

Articles like the one linked in the OP are a dime a dozen, and disregarding them based on simple heuristics is a good use of everyone's time. If one has a bold scientific claim to make, they should either present the data alongside the article in which they make the statement, or accompany it with a peer-reviewed article that does.

1.e3 e6 2.Qh5 g6 3.Qxh7 Qh4 4. Qxf7+ Kd8 5. Qe8++

Strange question, but did you formerly go by the username KillerDentist? I think I might (kind of) know you.

Yup, drupes and nuts account for about 10% of California's water usage, behind only domestic animal agriculture (~30%) and feed exported for foreign animal agriculture (~15%).

None of these belong in the desert, if anywhere.

Literally no one worth a mention was saying the animal slaughter industry adds or removes water from the water cycle in meaningful quantities. The issue with their water usage is in the redirection of the limited fresh water sources into the virtually unlimited saltwater oceans, or pollutes it beyond the point of usability for any form of life.

friends not food

Isn't that ratio being high a good thing? For every person that becomes housed, that figure goes up.

If one is willing to be that vague in drawing connections, one can reduce nearly every problem to any other one. But Turing was a mathematician, and very precise with his definitions (albeit not quite as pedantic as some successors such as Aho/Ullman decades later).

The interesting bit about Turing's result is that it can be adapted to a wide class of mathematical and real objects. Physical systems? Yep. Time and/or space bounded machines? You bet. Actually, at its core Turing's result is itself an adaptation of Gödel's, who more broadly talks about the context of first-order mathematical theories.

If one want to bring these concepts to practice (where by practice I mean the realm of proving results in theoretical cs), it's a lot more effort than comparing claims to a simple sequence with an easy to derive limit. For an introductory example of the subtlety involved, while the two series (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...) and (2 - 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/8 - ...) both approach 1 in opposite directions, most uncomputable numbers cannot be approached from both sides simultaneously (by a computably enumerable process, anyway). For example, while Chaitin's number is a definite number, you cannot write down any program whose sequence of outputs converges to it from above. They're all wrong. Comparing that to probably the most basic convergent infinite series in mathematics (that doesn't end in all zeros) is quite a disservice to the complexity and beauty of the field.

They also need Hi-C Flashin' Fruit Punch because rib eye is low in ascorbic acid.

Sonic is capped at 10Mb/s in many areas where last mile is effectively a DSL bottleneck.

> and are surrounded by competent colleagues

Current FAANG employee here -- how I wish this were true.