Looks interesting, I'll take a look when I get back in to work.

Probably the metadata is in UTC, and they forgot to convert it for Americans.

Interesting. I've never seen this claim made before; do you have a reference?

I'm saying this because mass is part of the source term of the Einstein field equations. Are you being deliberately obtuse because you want to extend this meaningless conversation infinitely long despite the lack of any content here?

Huh? No, rho/c is just one term of the tensor. If you want it in some other frame, you can't just take one term out of a tensor, you have to use the full tensor.

If you label the T00 term energy density, it's not invariant either. One term out of a tensor is not invariant no matter what you label you put on it.

Correct. The stress-energy tensor is the fundamental source for gravity. Which mass is a part of.

Correct. And you plug it in as the 00 term in the stress energy tensor.

I don't know what you think those quotes means, but I don't think either one is denying the existence of mass, nor saying that mass is not a source of gravity.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Mass is explicitly part of the source term for Einstein's field equations.

If the point you are trying to make is that it is not the only thing in the source term, well, yes of course. The statement I was disagreeing with was "There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor, nor anywhere else in the Einstein Field Equation." This is absolutely and unambiguously wrong.

> It was possible to run the entire Windows XP system plus user applications on 128MB of RAM... 256MB was a luxury.

I did an experiment once. Windows NT 3.5 could boot with 12MB of RAM. You really couldn't do anything with it, but it did boot up. As I recall, the whole OS only took up about 40MB of disk space.

Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that mass is explicitly part of the source term in Einstein's field equations.

The belief that mass is not a source term for gravity is absurd, and also non-physical.

Maybe in the book. In the movie there is no science.

Although I don't think I can come up with ANY plausible explanation for the magical bugs.

Which is also mass density. Multiply by c to keep the units straight. (If you're a physicist, you just set c=1, and the units don't matter.)

I guarantee, if you have a mass density of M kg/m3 and you put it in Einstein's field equations, you get gravitation.

A fun movie, but the movie wasn't in any way hard science fiction. I don't think there was any real science in it, other than the distances to various stars. It was hand-wavium from beginning to end.

But, heck, that's par for the course for film science fiction. If you try to find the science in "Dune" or "The Last Jedi", good luck.

There most certainly is. Density-- mass per unit volume-- is the (0,0) term of the stress-energy tensor.

The conops says that the reactor doesn't get turned on until after it's successfully placed in a high orbit.

A good feature of nuclear reactors is that they aren't dangerously radioactive until after you turn them on.

Here's a case of a very experienced journalist getting caught by including made-up quotes that had been hallucinated by the AI he'd used to summarize research information: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Vandermeersch added: “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author. Of course, I should have verified them. The necessary ‘human oversight’, which I consistently advocate, fell short.”

When even experienced journalists fail to find AI hallucinations, you really can't expect unpaid volunteers to do better.

Yes. To be precise, banning is a form of regulation which the amendment forbids. Regulation OTHER than banning is not forbidden.

Unfortunately, even the best LLMs sometimes make up information ("hallucinate"), and the stuff they make up is deliberately crafted to appear exactly like real information. This is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

If Wikipedia were written by paid professionals, you could plausibly put in place protocols to check and verify, and fire the ones who fail to check properly, but even paid professionals have been seen to let hallucinations through. As it is, as an encyclopedia that it is put together by volunteers, forbidding AI is pretty much a forced choice.

https://www.evidentlyai.com/bl...
  https://arize.com/llm-hallucin...
  https://thisweekinsciencenews....