Can anyone explain to me why Q and K are both needed? They only ever appear as a pair, so why can’t you just define a matrix A = QK and learn that directly?
> On March 12, 2025, a search warrant was executed at Sohaib’s home in Alexandria. Agents grabbed plenty of tech gear but also turned up seven firearms and 370 rounds of .30 caliber ammunition. Given his former crimes, Sohaib should have had none of this.
For god's sake, don't commit crimes while you're committing crimes.
I have a feeling taxes are possible to circumvent only because a government tends to have one arm that wants to collect taxes, and another that wants to reduce them to encourage certain outcomes (like having a business setting up shop within its borders).
The US may have this dual incentive structure since it wants to build its tech giants while limiting their control, but the EU doesn't. The arrival of a foreign tech social media giant might make the legislation a bit more palatable to pass.
It will undoubtedly be complex to regulate all dark patterns away. But there are a few obvious, easy wins. It'd be a shame to make perfect the enemy of good.
Us consumers don't want moats. But to understand the investment you need to understand the moat: no sensible investor will throw this much money around without one. If you don't understand what is keeping new players from entering the market, then either you've missed something or we're in bubble territory.
That's why it's interesting to try to pick apart where the moat is.
I'm sure some python devs care about cache misses too. I guess my point was that the big results will be picked over again and again to understand _exactly_ which conditions are needed for them to hold.
In my experience those debates are usually between experts who deeply understand the difference between ABC and XYZ widgets (the example I'm thinking of in my head is whether manifolds should be paracompact). The decision between the two is usually an aesthetic one. For example, certain theorems might be streamlined if you use the ABC definition instead of the XYZ one, at the cost of generality.
But the key is that proponents of both definitions can convert freely between the two in their understandings.
IMO it's not far off how most python or javascript devs don't care about registers or cache misses. Someone's thought deeply about those things so you don't have to.
Mathematicians do care about how much "black magic" they're invoking, and like to use simple constructions where possible (the field of reverse mathematics makes the central object of study). For example, Wiles' initial proof of Fermat's last theorem used quite exotic machinery called "inaccessible cardinals", which lie outside of ZFC. Subsequent work showed they weren't needed.
Another good example of mathematicians caring which 'house of cards' their results are built on is the search for an "elementary" proof of the prime number theorem (i.e. showing it doesn't rely on complex analysis).
Anyone have a good explanation for why elliptic curves have a 'natural' group law? I've seen the definition of the group law in R before, where you draw a line through two points, find the third point, and mirror-image. I feel like there's something deeper going on though.
As far as I've seen, the group law is what makes elliptic curves special. Are they the _only_ flavour of curve that has a nice geometric group law? (let's say aside from really simple cases like lines through the origin, where you can just port over the additive group from R)
That's more like the false positive rate and false negative rate.
If we're being literal, accuracy is (number correct guesses) / (total number of guesses). Maybe the folks at turnitin don't actually mean 'accuracy', but if they're selling an AI/ML product they should at least know their metrics.
The word “some” in the quote from Box is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
If a model is useful, I’d like to see it being used (outside academia, where there’s minimal penalty for complexity and a high emphasis on novelty).
If models like these are widely adopted at social media companies or news agencies, it’s fair to say OP’s take isn’t valid. Otherwise they may have a point.
I didn't say it wasn't alarming, I said it wasn't civilization- or nation-ending. Unless you're a tiny island nation, in which case I'll happily retract what I'm saying.
There are degrees of awfulness between "the end of all mankind" and "nothing to see here", but it seems like there's a taboo on calling those shades of grey out when it comes to climate change.
Ports get retrofitted, redesigned, and rebuilt. The AMOC collapsing is a serious thing, but I'm not saying climate change isn't real or isn't a threat. My original point is that three feet of sea level rise is manageable, if expensive. Simply that, nothing else.
If you draw the line at the year 2100, things are uncomfortable but maneagable. If your horizon is 2300 or 2500, you get a different story. But you would hope that in tha sort of time frame, we have time to adapt.
A metre of sea-level rise is painful for a rural cottage by the sea. But if you're in a city - particularly a wealthy city - it's something that can be engineered around.
An expensive liability? Definitely. A civilization or nation ending event? Unlikely.
He's comparing AGW, which drives a trend, with weather-based events, which are noise around the trend. He conveniently cuts his analysis off at the year 2100, by which we'll all probably be dead. But he's probably right that the trend itself doesn't cause insurmountable problems by that point.
But what about the year 2200, or 2300? At three degrees warming per century, the earth looks like a pretty hostile place to live in a few centuries.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit", and all that...
Otherwise the most common vocab size would be equal to one.