This is of course an oversimplification by graduate students trying to reach a broad audience, but one could argue that it in fact is. Langlands himself viewed his program as part of an attempt to achieve non-abelian reciprocity laws. See for instance: https://www.phys.ens.psl.eu/~kashani/slides_chenevier.pdf
>The situation with human mathematicians is not much different. Eg, Wiles original proof of Fermat's Last Theorem contained errors found by reviewers, which he later repaired.
In fact, it was Wiles himself who realized there was an error.
I don't know the numbers, but you and the parent are saying different things. The US could still be supplying 2/3s of Israel's weapons while only subsidising about 10% of that supply.
”For example, it allows NSF to make awards to nontraditional recipients such as a limited partnership or a venture capital firm, some of which might have been created solely for the purpose of receiving the NSF award. It also allows NSF to make additional awards without the need to review a new application.”
FTA: The public comment period closes approximately July 13, 2026 (45 days from May 29 publication). Comments must be submitted to regulations.gov, Docket OMB-2026-0034.
This kind of comment might have been borderline reasonable before 2025 (though I would have found it laughable even then), but the evidence of the last 18 months shows that one side is in fact evil, corrupt and venal in entirely unprecedented ways.
>See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies.
Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book?
>No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement.
What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it.
It's okay, I guess: the firearm registration thing applies to essentially every kind of private ownership that the commons might have some interest in. Pinpointing it out of all possibilities betrays a very American perspective where the ability to bear arms is considered a fundamental right.
Edit: as another commenter astutely pointed out above, this rule, when sufficiently contorted, can essentially be applied to invalidate every law. It amounts to a radical mistrust of government. I wonder what the author's perspective is on property rights and their enforcement.