nyeah

According to the article the ground-effect ceiling is around half the wingspan of 20m.

Exactly. If I'm infested with a tapeworm, who cares? My intestine is the tapeworm's domicile, to occupy and furnish as s/he sees fit. It may be helping itself to "my" hard-won food, but on a cosmic scale ... so what? In all fairness maybe I'm the one being greedy.

The key point is that nobody cares, and nobody should care, whether the humans all get infected by tapeworms. That's the worms' business and nobody else's.

The complaint seems to be that users of that site are harmed by having their IDs taken over and by being offered very inaccurate answers. It's an abuse of trust. But that's just one very narrow perspective.

Let's imagine that a tapeworm is living inside your body. You might complain. But I'd see nothing wrong. Only users with tapeworms, who also objected to being parasitized, would have grounds for complaint. (Keep in mind, many of them might not have any symptoms yet.) So, with no reason to complain, maybe the rest of us should conclude that tapeworms are beneficial and everybody should get one.

So I think some commenters here are saying, no, tapeworms sound like a health problem. But they're revealing more about themselves than about their understanding of the big picture. To me, no judgement, but those commenters come across like human beings. If I'm a worm, these "health problem" complaints are the problem. The solution is for people to keep quiet.

I can easily follow xp84's comments and random3's comment. I see no games with semantics, just a straightforward complaint about dishonest use of AI slop. Which the site owner acknowledges.

Still waiting for industry fans to comment. But let's get the ball rolling:

"I would never defend <company/common practice>. But this article is such egregious ragebait that I must speak out. It's a very sad outcome. But it's also clearly <her fault/impossible to legislate a fix/evidence that the system is working>."

Irony notice. This comment contains irony.

It feels unlikely that the pros have not just tried numerical integration over a disk. Do they really not ever do that?

TFA mentions a possible speculative explanation, that perhaps we can see some galaxies that are very low on dark matter.

>malice >shit on I don't think this is a productive or interesting way to discuss mathematics.

>No one is disputing that the Lean formaization of Navier-Stokes is correct, so we should have high confidence that the generated Lean proof is valid.

These authors don't seem to be disputing that this Lean formalization of Navier-Stokes is correct. I don't think that gives us any new information about whether the generated Lean proof is or isn't a valid proof of this N-S blowup thing.

Not a mathematician, but "pretty sure" might not be good enough to resolve this question.

You do you. When I see someone posting on LinkedIn, my only thought is "Can I get away with unfollowing?"

I guess a few posts a year are ok if they don't sound angry or delusional. But zero is really best.

That's (a reasonable interpolation of) one definition of 'belief.' The more common definition of belief is 'something someone believes.' For example I believe it's raining outside. That's testable.

It's not a joke. It's natural fallout from holding AA meetings in a liquor store.

Maybe. On the other hand it's common for genuine medical problems to 'make no sense' to a layperson. That tradition goes back thousands of years.

Force the clankers to support rss!

They tend not to overfit ... when there are way more data points than parameters.

This approach is really worth pointing out and recommending. Not everyone is allowed / encouraged to realize how powerful it is.

MIT gonna MIT. That's a known issue. But HN users are still upvoting articles that are literally MIT press releases.

I think Snow himself was reasonable. I can't promise that the article makes sense.

Are you saying this may be a bad investment?

So you get a lot more than one point for your money, you get a semi-infinite line. EDIT: Is really cone, see below.

>Snow's view appears to lean toward the scientistic, and scientism is [...] incoherent

Snow seems like a deep thinker to me. I think it's a mistake to attribute scientism to him. (Fair disclosure, I'm a bit of a CP Snow fan boy. But at least I've read a lot of his stuff.)

The article relates that this isn't about the state of the art. It's about insight gained while taking a calculus class.

Yeah, agreed. But words are cheap. It's one thing to say we don't need vector calculus, and another to develop that claim through the actual vector calculus, step by step.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Warren Buffett

I interpret this article, and all related discussion, as an invitation to talk about my personal finance habits.

I think teachers did tell us exactly this. But we were 15 and we didn't believe them or didn't listen.

He didn't quite say "widespread." He said "rewarded."

>That quote is the article, and it's a little surprising that it's buried so far into the content

Is it really surprising in 2026? Today's online writing style is not primarily designed to communicate. It's designed to keep the reader 'engaged' for as long as possible. The reader's time is a resource to be extracted.

I'm absolutely not poking this author individually. It's the writing style of the net

Oh, good point, thanks.