If there are super bright light sources on the ground nearby that are bright enough to produce a visible reflection off a satellite, you are about to be dead.
Very nice to see someone actually looking at the issue objectively instead of the unholy blend of clickbait, shoddy "science" and either fear mongering or blind denialism we usually see.
Getting to the point where we're actually able to measure something real is good progress.
Which makes the headline quite clever in this case, since people will assume that means they aren't wrong, when in fact it means they aren't _always_ wrong.
I remember it taking long enough (they had to wait for another project to need a lot of that color) that we wound up using dope to mock it up. (Regular paint didn't hold and just chipped off.)
It would help if the variables were defined somewhere near their point of use. Economists may have dedicated uses for P & Y as well known (to them) as π, but to the casual reader they are...just letters?
Having now read the actual complaint / emails, I'd like to revise my position (if anyone cares).
Prices go up in response to shortages in a properly functioning market, but these clowns were clearly over the line and trying to manipulate the prices in addition to that.
Why is it people have such a hard time understanding that this is what we want markets to do? If there is a scarcity of some resource, the prices rise and this motivates producers to produce more and consumers to consume less, until an equilibrium is found. On net, this means that we can have more of what we want for less effort over time. Yes, the people doing this profit from it. That's why they do it.
The GP post's point was that, logical as this would be, the IAU definition explicitly states that planets are "in the Solar System". So no, exoplanets are exoplanets, not planets. And Pluto isn't an example of either.
My point was, LLMs always generate fiction (bad fiction, but fiction nonetheless); what they generate is plausible, grammatical text that may have many points of congruence with the truth, but are not in any way constrained to do so. In short, fiction.
If they could reliably generate high quality non-fiction, that would be news.
If you want to believe she was who she said she was and lived to be 122, there's evidence in there to support it--providing you're willing to ignore all the evidence pointing to identity theft and pension fraud. My objection to the Wikipedia article is the way the a priori most likely interpretation (identity theft and pension fraud are currently many orders of magnitude more common than living past 120) is treated as a debunked conspiracy theory and the improbable/sensational interpretation is treated as established fact.
That's a very weird way to spin it. The Wikipedia article misrepresents the situation (e.g. reporting that she "had correctly answered questions about things that her daughter could not have known first-hand" (which is irrelevant) and omitting the fact that some of the stories she told were true of the daughter but not of her, such as being walked to school by the maid).
She was almost certainly a fraud, but the Wikipedia mob doesn't want her debunked.
There's a missing dimension: orthogonality. Having terse notation that implements a feature that you can reason about in isolation is fine for both beginners and experts. But features that have complex interactions with their environment are hard to reason about regardless of the syntax (though bad syntactic choices can certainly make it worse).
You can introduce a notation that's terse without problem, so long as it's comprehensible when encoutered. Example: the (!·!) operator (which I just made up), which can be placed around any expression to log the value of the expression to STDOUT. Its value is the same as the expression (so `(!3+7!)` equals `10`).
