fooker

> put an encryption key of 4

Hey the 4 was picked for good reason!

xkcd.com/221/

“PHP security team”

Everyone in such a ragtag team would have an overlapping day job where the same crisis management needs to happen.

That is the integral

When this piece of code exists in a library, it makes it pretty much impossible to extend by the user of the library.

It is important to get people excited about science, and inspire the next generation of scientists rather than choose the cheapest path to ‘good science’.

Without public support, you’ll soon find yourself without any funding. This pretty much explains NASA’s dire funding situation over the last thirty or so years.

You can only get so many people excited about weather balloons and space rock chemistry.

The country is pretty polarized now, and amusingly everyone seems to think that the polarization is one sided. Definitely not the side they support.

I have lived in many cities across different countries with dramatically varying economies, and the price of chicken has always been a good proxy for the cost of living. And maintains the same ratio to the price of a bus ticket (and similar things).

Does this phenomenon have a name?

> Is the implication of all this that mathematics research should get a cash injection to pay for high-powered computational tools?

Math will, sure. Mathematicians, doubtful. After all, most high end physics research with billions in funding is now done by postdocs making a lower middle class salary.

Maybe partially.

I think this sort of progress, compounded over the next N years will serve to cleanly split useful math from the ego driven math you speak of.

Certainly there are enormously impactful pure math results yet to be found, but we have no idea really which directions to pursue.

I wonder if this is going to look like the chemistry-alchemy split in the rear view mirror.

“I’m on a war footing,” he said while grabbing coffee during a two-day math workshop at the University of California, Los Angeles, that was rife with talk about the existential crisis that artificial intelligence has created in his field.

There is a huge jump from

AI solves math problems to

> If there are no humans in the field

Realistically, math will be done by well funded teams of people instead of cult of personality mathematicians.

Also, insights from scientific discoveries are for everyone. You do not have to understand the complex multi dimensional algebraic geometry of general relativity to appreciate that gravity bends time as well as space. You don't need to understand fifty years of linear programming research to use a modern solver.

Math doesn’t exist to make mathematicians famous.

It provides deep insights into logic, computation, provides tools for us to understand the universe, establishes mind blowing relationships between seemingly unrelated things.

For example “how much information can a black hole contain?”

This phenomenon has a famous name, the clever Hans effect.

They will be, that’s the point.

The point is to make the field progress by discovering new things!

Who gets credit for what and how credibility is assigned is going to be muddy for a while but that’s the case whenever a bunch of new science happens in close sequence. History is full of math/science discoveries having debated and dubious provenance.

> who's opinion of Tao don't matter in the slightest.

Similarly, Tao being ‘on the warpath’ does not matter in the slightest when it comes to formalizing math and finding proofs to important unsolved problems with AI.

I think ‘destroy his field’ is ‘destroy his method of being famous in the field’.

Terrence Tao is famous because of solving problems better that most mathematicians because he has an uncanny ability to look across different math fields. AI gets everyone this ability for 20 to 200$ per month, eventually free.

Most mathematicians are happy to see interesting problems in their field being solved, and are looking to build on these to find more interesting problems.

No, pretty much every math PhD student and researcher is now using the AI+lean combo.

Depends on how you want to define fields.

Fields that seem really close to the layman are surprisingly difficult to have any knowledge transfer.

For example Programming Languages and Compilers.

What you are describing is a side effect of pursuing a PhD, not the main goal.

You can achieve the same side effects, often better, by pairing a smart undergrad with a good mentor.

Deep expertise is not about the soft skills here.

Look outside CS, and in CS outside the ‘big tech employs all the engineers’ era.

Of course if you can get a 400k software engineering job, you’re going to choose it over a 140k research job in your field.

I find this entirely self serving.

Terrence Tao was very supportive of AI and formalizing math with lean when it looked like it was giving ‘generalists’ like him an edge over mathematicians too deep into one particular niche field.

But now that it’s letting everyone, including mathematicians who are perhaps too specialized, explore ideas and patterns from related math fields, he’s suddenly ‘on a war footing’.

The graduate level understanding of multiple branches can be pretty hollowed out.

In practice you read the relevant papers, and have mentors and collaborators explain the insights useful for a particular purpose until you get the zeitgeist but not an in depth understanding of a neighboring field.

This feeds off a misconception people have of the idea of a PhD. A PhD is not something you get by studying more, taking a few years more in advanced courses.

It is something you get by specializing on a topic so much that you are pretty much THE expert on that specific topic. (The inside joke is that at the end of your PhD you must know everything about nothing)

This fundamentally makes the usual job search strategy of casting a wide net completely useless. A PhD is typically a worse employee than a normal malleable undergrad you can train unless you really need an expert on the topic the person has a PhD on.

It’s not uncommon for top tier Phds to land good jobs regardless of, but that’s more because of willingness to do different things, give up on solving problems you have invested half a decade into, and the general availability of researchy jobs.

The last one is the least important.

You pass butter

Some cars are not for a normal person.

Not all products have to be aimed at you.

> You'd immediately fly off the road if you lost any suction

This is why it was banned in F1 cars.

Interestingly conglomerate market caps are punished by the market.

The only recent exception is Samsung because of memory suddenly costing 10x.

All supercars fall apart constantly and rapidly lose their value.

> the "ancient prng + date" angle

I remember hearing this in a cryptanalysis lecture at some point, so it was not a completely novel theory.

Admittedly I am not finding written evidence of this anywhere.