thesmtsolver

It is really not that difficult. Here is a paper that formalizes a version of feed forward networks to prove properties about them.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.10558

There is nothing inherently difficult about practical implementations of continuous numbers for automated reasoning compared to more discrete mathematical structures. They are handleable by standard FOL itself.

See ACL2's support for floating point arithmetic.

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~moore/publications/double-float.p...

SMT solvers also support real number theories:

https://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/papers/nfm2019-draft.pdf

Z3 also supports real theories:

https://smt-lib.org/theories-Reals.shtml

Any data backing this? If this were the case, why isn’t most innovation done outside the US?

Jobs that have a high 0-1 component will still be in the US but jobs that are more 1-n may be offshored.

Disagree. Part of the reason China produces more power (and pollution) is due to China manufacturing for the US.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-do-china-and-america-...

The source for China's energy is more fragile than that of the US.

> Coal is by far China’s largest energy source, while the United States has a more balanced energy system, running on roughly one-third oil, one-third natural gas, and one-third other sources, including coal, nuclear, hydroelectricity, and other renewables.

Also, China's GDP is a bit less inefficient in terms of power used per unit of GDP. China relies on coal and imports.

> However, China uses roughly 20% more energy per unit of GDP than the United States.

Remember, China still suffers from blackouts due to manufacturing demand not matching supply. The fortune article seems like a fluff piece.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1042209223/why-covid-is-affec...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58733193

That will be a great solution. Tariffs based on some measure of worker/environmental exploitation rather than trade imbalance.

> I ain't doing 996.

Neither am I. But how do you prevent countries doing 996 from dominating the market like they did in manufacturing without strict regulation and barriers?

How does this work with other countries not enacting 32-hour workweeks?

This will be a repeat of manufacturing going outside of US due to reduced standards (labor and pollution) and therefore cheaper manufacturing in China. And due to that blue collar work got destroyed in the long term.

Logically, unless there are high trade barriers for software/services/goods from countries that don't have similar standards, long-term, these jobs will just shift there.

I feel these agreements are highly asymmetric and are used to gain market advantage by countries that don't have qualms violating these agreements behind closed doors.

This then leads to more pollution.

Before Trump, the US had a higher rating than China (though both were bad):

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/2024-11-13/

(Same as EU's rating: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/)

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/2024-09-17/

The sad reality is that unless there is uniform compliance across major countries, these talks are just climate theatre.

This is just outdated, bad and dangerous advice that a ton of recent research invalidates.

1. Ritalin, and other stimulants are not cognition enhancing for non-ADHD adults and may in fact do the opposite.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/smart-drugs-can-decrease...

2. > Because the doctor will rigorously apply artificial and unreliable diagnostic categories backed up by invalid and arbitrary screens and queries to make a diagnosis. So after this completely subjective and near useless evaluation is completed, your doctor should be able to exercise prudent clinical judgment to decide if Ritalin could be of benefit.

What else can you do for psychiatric conditions? We don't have a magic ADHD-o-meter but know that it statistically impacts lifespan, health, etc. Even for more objective measures like blood glucose, BP, BMI, clinical interventions are based on discrete thresholds that don't exist in nature.

No one is saying that the industry will self-regulate. There is a right amount of regulation and all evidence points that the EU is over that limit. The US is below (probably) but closer.

That's quite optimistic given EU's track record in practice.

E.g., DieselGate. Europe was more impacted but US caught Volkswagen cheating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#E...

>If China is the factory for all of these products sold in the US (and elsewhere of course), then isn't China just accounting for even more US emissions?

China can't have it both ways, they are glibly blaming the rest of the world for their emissions while reforesting due to importing timber from rest of the world illegally.

> The Environmental Investigation Agency says: "The immense scale of China's sourcing [of wood] from high-risk regions [of the world] means that a significant proportion of its timber and wood product imports were illegally harvested." And research by Global Witness last year said there were "worrying" levels of illegality in countries from which China sources more than 80% of its timber.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54719577

Great quality comment.

We shouldn't consider the fact China did much more deforestation to start with and even after all this reforestation China has lesser forest area than the US despite being larger in size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_ar...

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54719577

> The US claims: "China is the world's largest consumer of illegal timber products." > And, according to studies, that is true.

> The Environmental Investigation Agency says: "The immense scale of China's sourcing [of wood] from high-risk regions [of the world] means that a significant proportion of its timber and wood product imports were illegally harvested." And research by Global Witness last year said there were "worrying" levels of illegality in countries from which China sources more than 80% of its timber.

Real objectivity would be like BBC calling terrorists “militants”.

So you count tofu dreg, declining population, Tibet, Taiwan, pollution among the real world strengths? Awesome!

> A famous anecdote is from Rupert Murdock who is able to influence UK poltics at whim but had no effect on EU:

Is it though?

> There is much fake news published about me, but let me make clear that I have never uttered those words

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/rupert-murdo...

I buy the rest of your comment that EU may be better than local govts.

Another equivalent way to look at that:

Historically, top scientists/researchers/engineers/businessmen migrate from rest of the world to the US rather than to Europe or China.

Imagine if Europe or China were a bit more open with immigration and equally attractive, we would see the same pattern there too.

> Reasonable standards are a discovery process, not a unitary dictatorial step.

You just described a meta standard for standards. Now, is that meta standard an objectively reasonable standard?

> Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines.

No. I really wish you would have bravely responded to the points rather than accuse me. Do the guidelines encourage or discourage good faith arguments?

That "numbered list" is called a proof or argument. My PhD was in mathematical logic (see my user name).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

https://people.cs.pitt.edu/~milos/courses/cs441/lectures/Cla...

An AI accusation on top of misrepresenting that the original point OP made was about population-level patterns.

> This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place.

I don't think it is productive for us to continue this conversation. It is really sad that minor formatting and rudimentary logic is all it takes for some people to suspect AI usage.

Response to:

> If you reread what I wrote, I didn’t say you were AI or not using it, merely bringing to your and the other readers’ attention that your formatting wasn’t the norm for many folks who post on this site, whereas it is the norm for many AI-generated outputs.

Ah, the classic. "Did you beat your wife? I didn't make accusations! I am just questions!"

> OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates.

Yes, and you can make a straightforward logical deduction from survival rates to delaying diagnosis which I left out, but detail it below:

     1. From Data: Assume equal or worse cancer rates in the US and similar levels of cures across US and Europe (cancer rates are indeed worse in the US and Europe does have good cancer treatment on par with US)
  
     2. OP claimed: People delay diagnosis in the US  

     2a. From data/science: Delayed diagnosis => Higher death rate

     3. Deduction from 1 and 2, and 2a.:  Higher death rate in the US

     4. Data: Lower death rate in the US

     5. Contradiction: 3 and 4

     6. Reductio: We have a contradiction. We have to negate one of our assumptions or more. We can't throw away data, so we can only throw away OP's claim (2).

I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.

If they are "reasonable standards", it shouldn't matter what the source of them are.

This appeals to a dangerous view of morality where some entities/people are good/bad intrinsically and all their actions are good/bad by definition.

Their aside is also false though. Look at my comment below the OP.

> This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place.

Is there any data supporting this? Cancer survival rates by country seems to go against your narrative.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-su...

For example, for stomach cancer, US has better cancer survival rates than Canada, and most of Europe (including the Scandinavian countries)

   1. USA: 33%
   2. Canada 29%
   3. Norway, Sweden, Finland: ~25%
   4. Germany ~33%
   5. Italy 30%

US has better survival rates for lung, breast, prostate cancer than most of the world. Look at the above link.

I have relatives who are doctors from outside the country, now in the US. None of them fall under your narrative.

Logically, the data disagrees with your narrative.

The reason why they came to the US is: 1) access to best research/tech; and 2) (of course) more money, and 3) most of the Western developed world is highly restrictive when it comes to immigration for doctors compared with US

What are these foundational issues? Whatever issues are there, I feel they are more in other big economies.

Remember, when a bear is chasing you and some others, you don't have to be faster than the bear to escape.

Well, it is much worse elsewhere.

You should look at other countries where pay is much less and real estate is at similar levels of cost: from Europe, Canada, China, Australia and India.

Condos in Mumbai are priced similar to those in the major cities in the US.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mumbai/comments/zxsl8l/mumbai_real_...

And Mumbai is one of the more affordable cities globally.

Isn't Venezuela a defacto dictatorship now? Not sure the 3% is correct under these conditions.

Growth can be gained from the shape of the graph.

HN lives in a bubble. Almost everyone I know uses FB daily. These are legal numbers and shouldn’t be too much off.

False. Facebook continues to grow.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...

The country that spent taxpayer money to create research that led to the founding of Google. The country where most of its employees work. The country where it gets most of its revenue.

Isn't that obvious? Why the unnecessary snark?