I wouldn't expect this to be better tasting than a regular soup/stew. If you keep eating it, new stuff added today has been almost completely consumed in a week.
I would eat it out of respect for the craft and the values that are being preserved.
In text, you have the advantage of putting things in any order, with the assurance that the reader knows exactly how long the message is.
Always start your email to a busy/important person with exactly what you want from them. Within the first two sentences. Then peel the onion, giving details from more important to less important.
This gives the reader opportunity to stop reading at any point having decided to help you or not, with the least waste of their time. In many case, the person can skill your description of your work, and just tell you what to do.
If there is a choice, I would much rather someone use an AI to do the project, and then used their human words to explain what the project is, rather than vice versa.
The critical difference is that a project artifact (software or mechanical design) is good as long as it works. It might not be maintanable, or editable or extendable, but it might narrowly just work. But explanations don't work like that. The content, the actual words matter just as much as the overall message.
An explanation can be thought of as software executed in your brain as you read it. I don't want to execute badly written software in my brain.
Not all the time, but I certainly do to keep up with latest results. Usually, these days I go through SciRate, where the quantum computing community is very active in voting up good paper [1].
> Workers enjoy highest living standards of any time in history.
It's entirely possible for someone to be paid a lot in absolute terms, while at the same time paid very little relative to the value that they produce which is monetarily captured by their organization. The truth of the first does not invalidate the injustice of the second.
Most popular sports have world cups every four years. Basketball, cricket, rugby, volleyball, field hockey WCs are all held every four years. Some others like handball are held every two years.
Cricket gets the same level of crazy support in South Asia as football does in most of the world. But the reason football gets such support in most of the world is simply because most people consider it the best sport, or the "beautiful game". It is one of the most well designed sports, having the fewest number of unnatural rules - only one in fact (offside). It can also be played with basically any number of players from 2-20 in fields of any size, so it's really popular for normal people. The skills floor is reasonably low, but the skill ceiling is very very high.
So, then it flows naturally into social actions like blocking streets.
> How generalizable are these methods? Can they consistently deliver truly high performance? Can we get to a place where AI produces designs that maximize every conceivable trade-off, holistically optimizing every parameter to its most ideal physical state? .... AI can hallucinate a design that creates bad circuits that don’t work. This means verification methods need to remain under human oversight.
And they are essentially correct. We need better validation and verification methods, both software and hardware to keep in check the mistakes of automated random processes.
> In particular, the process of converting a medium-sized Lean document (containing a few thousand lines of code, with some proofs AI-generated) into a nicely golfed and structured Mathlib submission has been an interesting experience. AI agents can be used to perform local golfs that can shave the size of the code somewhat, but global refactoring decisions, such as noticing that a certain argument appears multiple times across the document and can be abstracted into a standalone lemma that can may have additional utility beyond the file, is still largely beyond the reach of current AI tools. (I find that I can explain such a refactor to an AI agent, who can then execute it, but they struggle to spontaneously discover such refactors on their own.)
This is a weird viewpoint. Most academic work in STEM fields is collaborative with 2-100 other scientists or engineers. This is because it is well realized that 2 people talking can do many times better work than two people working alone.
Your supervisor should at different times, as appropriate, wear the collaborator cap or the examiner cap. During the course of your project, he should be your collaborative advisor who helps you flesh out ideas and improve them. At the start and end, he should be your formal examiner.
This is how I have seen most Masters (and PhD) projects proceed in Physics in North America.
A simpler way to do this would be for the user to create and place some temporary virtual "grids". For example, the user might create a virtual triangle of a certain size. Or in the case of this request, a circle with n points. Note that these are virtual and temporary items never created in the underlying tikz code (though you may implement them with hidden tikz code).
Then the user can do one of two things. (1) Select an item and place it on the grid, and the item gets replicated on all the grid points. (2) Pick and place different items on each of the grid points.
Nastaliq fonts already exist and used whenever possible. Yes, rendering a Nastaliq font takes marginally more compute. But in a world of electron apps which have a 10-100 times slower UX than they could be, saving compute is not an argument.
It's likely the same problem as in Pakistan. Due to the history of colonialism/control by European powers, in these countries personal economic success is usually tied to command of English or French. So even within each of these countries, the rich, educated and those in power prefer latin script. Consequently, there was never any strong push to develop computing technology for local languages.
The other reason is that it's not technologically simple to solve all the issues highlighted in the TFA. Unicode actually does a pretty decent job of setting a uniform standard, but a lot of software has to be written on top of it to get the entire system working: (1) your software must support bidi text, (2) good fonts must be available to display the text in multiple languages (3) textual data needs to be properly stored in unicode and transmitted as is at every point in the OS (4) search engines must deal with the complications of non-breaking spaces and legacy unicode characters.
You have to kind of rewrite the entire stack from top to bottom. Preferential Arabic/Persian/Urdu speakers never had the technical skills and the political power to drive those changes in software largely written in different continents.
There are many high quality Nastaliq fonts available. You can install them on your computer and use them easily in whatever software (example office apps) allows you to set the font.
There are no technical reasons preventing the use of Nastaliq fonts everywhere. Only product design decisions by big tech.
This problem is not limited to Arabic. Variants of the arabic alphabet are used by Persian (including Iranian and Dari dialects), Mazanderani, Qashqai, Luri, Gilaki, Kurdish (excluding Kurds in Turkey), Talysh, Azerbaijani (in Iran), Pamir languages, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Sindhi (in Pakistan), Punjabi (in Pakistan), Uzbek (in Afghanistan), Turkmen (in Afghanistan), Saraiki, Hindko, Brahui, languages spoken in Kashmir.
Whole languages are dying out because people are unable to express them properly on computers. Even popular software that dominate these speakers does not care to improve their experience. For example, Urdu has traditionally been written in the Nastaliq form [1], but is usually is rendered everywhere in the Naskh form [2]. There is no way to change this, for example, in Android without basically rooting it and changing the system fonts.
> (i.e. loud and busy environments with many strangers, often physically closer than comfortable) is unnatural to begin with.
What is unnatural about this? We have plenty of anthropological evidence that humans have been doing massive festivals for at least many thousands of years i.e. people voluntarily gathering together with strangers in loud and busy environments with all sorts of sounds and smells.