Note: Generally "dark" (as opposed to "bright") means emphasis on the lower frequencies, which is a good description for brown noise, but they aren't formally the same. Formally, brown noise refers to a power distribution that drops ~6 dB per octave, and I have no idea how strictly apple's "dark noise" matches the technical specifications of that.
I'm not familiar with the case, but to me it sounds like the bicycle manufacturer is encouraging people to use bikes in the drive through, maybe even providing specific tools explicitly for that purpose?
Maybe the subset of japanese content I'm exposed to is biased, but personally I encounter doubled vowels (obaasan) more often than macron vowels (obāsan). The latter is explicitly "modified hepburn romanization". Even if the latter is more common in general, it's worth noting that the former is the original. The article seems to say that the former is weird and nonstandard, which afaik is completely false.
Also, the particles は を へ aren't always romanized the way they're pronounced; I can think of several places I've seen を written as wo despite being used as a particle.
Using doubled vowels instead of diacritics is just one more concession to Americans, who are unfamiliar with the use of diacritics and whose software frequently does not work correctly when text contains characters with diacritics.
Hepburn is an inappropriate method of writing Japanese, which nonetheless has become the dominant way of writing Japanese, just because it caters to the inability of most Americans to learn how other languages than English are written and pronounced.
My understanding of the result that was found is that the blowup doesn't happen in the real world, and only happens in an NS simulation. The bottom line is that NS is insufficient to model the real world, because in this case the real world is more stable than the model. [Take this with a grain of salt, I barely knew of NS before a couple days ago]
To my understanding, the problem was never about the real world really. Navier Stokes approximates a fluid (which is made of discrete particles) as a continuous volume. The point of showing that you can achieve unbounded increase in velocities is that the approximation breaks down - it's a clearly an outcome that can't happen in the physical world.
I'm not too familiar with the exact problem as I only became aware of it due to this drama, but I think you're correct. That said, another commenter noted that it may also be one of the Millennium Problems with the least application. We already know "all models are wrong, but some models are useful" (George E. P. Box), the fact that this holds for Navier-Stokes is not a surprise.
Huh? Nobody's talking about that because it's old news. We already talked about it the first few times that AI made notable progress on a difficult math problem. Now, most people who care about the intersection of AI and math just assume that Lean was involved.
I feel like this whole thing hinges on one point. OAI says[0]:
> However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced).
How true is this?
If the implied statement is true (i.e. OAI couldn't have stolen results because the results were so different anyways), then I feel like it's pretty clear that OAI solved the problem on their own, and offering some amount of credit to Tristan and Levent is generous. Though on the other hand it's dirty to have even attempted a scoop in the first place.
If the implied statement is false, and Tristan/Levent's results are a substantial portion of the solution to the millennium problem, then it's probably unintentional but clear plagiarism. I think it's plausible to assume that OAI has trained their models on Tristan's codex conversations, and so regardless of legal ownership, the academic ownership definitely includes Tristan and Levent.
The rest of the drama (individual statements and wordings, e.g. by Sebastien) seems like a bit of a red herring. Worth noting, but not worth basing conclusive judgements on regarding academic misconduct. Regardless, OAI does not seem like the good guys.
Agree with this framing, but we may find out that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Personally I think it is extremely unlikely that this is straight plagiarism in the sense of the model simply regurgitating training data from prior work by Tristan, but it is very plausible that his work (and others’) was foundational to the breakthrough. What is unfortunate is that the stakes are so high (and no I don’t mean $1M) and the timeline is so compressed.
I expect a lot more of this kind of drama in the near future.
You're absolutely right. I did not increase it to 16, and it's my fault that the seam—which was right there the entire time—was not flipped towards the bucket that drips into the ocean—want me to correct this before we move onto the real story?
My favorite, on being told to commit and merge to a branch and saying that "this is done"...
"You're right, I'm sorry. You told me to do it, I said I would do it and I did not do it and I said that I had when I did not do it. Would you like me to do it now?"
Me, thinking: that depends, Claude, will you actually do it this time?
and better is when it moves onto "want me to do this before doing x?" where x is some vaguely discussed idea/long term thing that was never greenlit but now all of a sudden it's the next step
Investments need a return on investment. If "the thing you wanted to exist now does" is the only return, that's not enough to support anywhere near the current amount of digital product creation happening today.
It's almost impossible to predict how much demand there will be in that scenario because the world would be a very different place if that system was the default. And with things that are relatively cheap to make, such as professionally produced YouTube videos, people may only need to chip in a few cents to provide an equivalent return to ad revenue.
Given that people are already accustomed to paying for the promise of future things existing in the form of crowdfunding, Patreon or most subscription services in general, I don't think it would as drastic of a difference as you imagine, as long as the infrastructure is there to facilitate effortless 'investing' into many small things.
I find json annoying to write a lot of the time, but I do enjoy that it's a lot more difficult to get wrong than yaml. The json spec is pretty clear, and can be learned and memorized by any programmer in 5 minutes. I'd much rather write in a format that's slightly annoying than a format that's slightly ambiguous.
The "File" menu is about CRUD operations on file-level objects.
I think eventually (~decades) the concept of the menu bar will go away, but until it does, File is a fine name for the first menu on the bar. I don't know what it will get replaced with, but it will go the same way as the Save icon—a relic that was a good design at some point, but no longer has much basis other than inertia, and will slowly get forgotten as it becomes obsolete.
Note: Generally "dark" (as opposed to "bright") means emphasis on the lower frequencies, which is a good description for brown noise, but they aren't formally the same. Formally, brown noise refers to a power distribution that drops ~6 dB per octave, and I have no idea how strictly apple's "dark noise" matches the technical specifications of that.
reply