Okay thats wrong they didnt find that. Looks like just did some ml and it suggested that such a reaction exists and what the two species are.
Also its unclear whether during the phase transition there really is two seperate macroscopic regions as opposed to a mixture (maybe like a suspension)
If I understand the article correctly, they found a phase transition reaction, a chemical reaction that occurs in liquid water below 0 C that splits the body of liquid water into one continuous region of high density and one of low, so its no longer a uniform liquid.
This would also release heat, like the freezing reaction (and unlike random rearrangements of molecules in the liquid).
Pretty sure that debit chargebacks lead to an instant credit (by regulation).
I'm almost tempted to test it right now but I am pretty sure I did this once and it took under 1 day
Ok now I asked a chatbot for how this is regulated. The answer was wrong as expected but it happened to mention the applicable regulation which can be looked up at gesezte-im-internet.de
The factory does decent software engineering - for which it can also use the same llm - so that when an attacker does either, a sota llm does not find bugs to exploit.
This is one of the things a comprehensive interoperability mandate could enable.
Require monopolistic companies that have a frontend/backend architecture to publish the interface docs and to not obstruct third party commercial alt backends/frontends.
Its a bit like carving up monopolistic firms along the joints (interfaces) defined by the software architecture, and team structure. Just less extreme; the firm isnt actually split, it's just required to allow "fair competition by third party architecture components"
This would really improve googles software, we might get e2ee google keep or gmail with pgp.
(I have not worked out the details of this, it might not be feasible)
My reading of [1] is that Palantir does data fusion. Their software, when installed on an organization's peripheral systems by their FDEs, centralizes all the org's data (within the org - not at palantir), and allows the org's management to do analyses on the pool.
I'm guessing that people are scared that the state will install one big palantir instance on all its systems. So that anything any part of the state learns about you, in any context or interaction, can be effortlessly used against you in every other context (perhaps via parallel construction in a lawsuit).
Basically, the fear would be that palantir makes mass surveillance data actionable, fuses surveillance programs, and incorporates most IT into mass surveillance programs.
The government would become less like a series of seperate agencies, more like a big consciousness that knows things (knows centrally, everything it was told anywhere).
Note this is just my interpretation of the fear.
Its fuzzy. Others may know more about palantir than me and thus have a more precise and grounded concern.
You're saying maybe people have mistakenly accepted incorrect proofs now and again, so some theorems that people think are proven are unproven. I agree that this seems very likely.
In practice when proofs of research mathematics are checked, they go out to like 4 grad students. This isn't a very glamorous job for those grad students. If they agree then it's considered correct...
But note this is just the bleeding edge stuff. The basic stuff is checked and reproven by every math undergrad that learns math. Literally millions of people have checked all the proofs. As long as something is taught in university somewhere, all the people who are learning it (well, all the ones who do it well) are proving / checking the theory.
Anyway, when the scientific community accepts a bad proof what effectively happens is that we've just added an extra axiom.
Like when you deliberately add new axioms, there are 3 cases
- Axiom is redundant: it can be proven from the other axioms. (this is ... relatively fine? we tricked ourselves into believing something that is true is true, the reason is just bad.)
This can get discovered when people try to adapt the bad proof to prove other things and fail.
Also people find and publish and "more interesting", "different" proofs for old theorems all the time. Now you have redundancy.
- Axiom contradicts other axioms: We can now prove p and not p.
I wonder if this has ever happened? I.e. people proving contradictions, leading them to discover that a generally accepted theorem's proof is incorrect. It must have happened a few times in history, no?
o/c maybe the reason this hasn't happened is that the whole logical foundation of mathematics is new, dating back to the hilbert program (1920s).
There are well known instances of "proofs" being overturned before that, but they're not strictly logically proofs in the hilbert-program sense, just arguments. (Of course they contain most of the work and ideas that would go into a correct proof, and if you understand them you can do a modern proof)
Cauchys proof that, if a sequence of continuous functions converges [pointwise] to a function, the limit function is also continuous (cauchys proof only holds for uniform convergence, not pointwise convergence - but people didnt really know the difference at the time)
- Axiom is independent of other axioms: You can't prove or disprove the theorem.
English doesn't have a "I'm just hypothesizing all of this" voice, if it did exist this post should be in it. I didn't do enough research to answer your question. Some of the above may be wrong, e.g. the part about the 4 grad students.
One should probably look for historical examples.
I'm confused about this.