ED: "But it doesn't work for gravity with linear curvature"

Relativity = gravity is represented by the curvature of spacetime. Curvature is linear, R. The formula treats curvature linearly. As things get closer and curvature spikes, the math just scales at a 1:1 rate

Quadratic gravity = Squares the curvature. Doesn't really change things much when everything is far apart, but heavily changes things when everything is close together.

Pros: prevents infinities and other problems when trying to reconcile quantum theory with relativity ("makes the theory renormalizable"). E.g. you don't want to calculate "if I add up the probabilities of all of these possible routes to some specific event, what are the odds that it happens?" -> "Infinity percent odds". That's... a problem. Renormalization is a trick for electromagnetism that prevents this by letting the infinities cancel out. But it doesn't work with linear curvature - gravitons carry energy, which creates gravity, which carries more energy... it explodes, and renormalization attempts just create new infinities. But it does work with quadratic curvature - it weakens high-energy interactions and allows for convergence.

Cons: Creates "ghosts" (particles with negative energies or negative probabilities, which create their own problems). There's various proposed solutions, but none that's really a "eureka!" moment. Generally along the lines of "they exist but are purely virtual and don't interact", "they exist but they're so massive that they decay before they can interact with the universe", "they don't exist, we're just using the math out of bounds and need a different representation of the same", "If we don't stop at R^2 but also add in R^3, R^4, ... on to infinity, then they go away". Etc.

The theory isn't new, BTW. The idea is from 1918 (just a few years after Einstein's theory of General Relativity was published), and the work that led to the "Pros" above is from 1977.

Start a new site called oldiefans

You only think that's not political because you're confusing centrists with leftists.

No, it's because of all the idiotic enablers. We could just solve the problem by walking into the halls of power en masse and removing them but you can only get that kind of energy from total fucking clowns who want anarchy, and not the good kind that doesn't exist (as it leads naturally to feudalism) but the bad kind with only chaos.

Web apps make at least some sense when you are delivering the exact same app via the web and as a local application. But Microsoft isn't doing that, so they make none...

How does one replace ERP / ERM frameworks? Is is even possible to write your own app with forms and data reports with a modern programming language as Rust?

AI make development more efficient and effective but the classic problem in development is not lack of people but lack of development progress.
If doubt that you can be able to lay off people, you just have to deal with more code to shape and scrutinise.

Take software maintainers as an example. You need more human maintainers to deal with the AI slop of reputation farming, not less.

Sooner or later the AI LLM market will collapse on the financial market but we will continue to need programmers that use AI.

The counter argument would be like C is more easier to code as assembler, so C led to assembler coder layoffs.
And we heard it before, about RAD assisted coding, in fact we only needed more and more developers.

All those poor teachers who will learn about World of Tanks from their pupils' WWII essays.

It is really sad what happened to the product. A prime example of what Cory Doctorow calls enshittification. there needs to be a harder push for open source apps, so we could stop the trend of products thea go down the drain and improve the security of services.

It was a really cool platform for making dating related personality tests and nerd around with other users, and then things happened.

Just curious, do they develop it with ADA?

A bit more about the latter. Beyond organophosphates, the main other alternative is pyrethroids. These are highly toxic to aquatic life, and they're contact poisons to pollinators just landing on the surface (some anti-insect clothing is soaked in pyrethrin for its effect). Also, neonicotinoids are often applied as seed coatings (which are taken up and spread through the plant), which primarily just affect the plant itself. Alternatives are commonly foliar sprays. This means drift to non-target impacts as well, such as in your shelterbelts, private gardens, neighbors' homes, etc. You also have to use far higher total pesticide quantities with foliar sprays instead of systematics, which not only drift, but also wash off, etc. Neonicotinoids can impact floral visitors, with adverse sublethal impacts but e.g. large pyrethroid sprayings can cause massive immediate fatal knockdown events of whole populations of pollinators.

Regrettable substitution is a real thing. We need to factor it in better. And that applies to nanoplastics as well.

I wonder why Microsoft does not go 100% open source for windows apps, as to ensure that customers are not exposed to "enshittification" risks of their favourite apps by suboptimal cloud and AI inclusions or product upgrades. These days you cannot be sure that your favourite app will be available in two years time. WIN 11 is already so much worse than Win 10.

Just move the AI data centres to Northern Europe then. Tropical AIland.