Your post history contradicts that. The correct statement is that you are against governments that are not run by your Lord and Savior. For you, the first rule that needs to go is the separation of church and state, you want to fuse the two forever together.

Don't pretend you wouldn't celebrate it as a great step forward if your Lord and Savior were the one promoting it, instead of the current leader.

Though ultimately, this could be an improvement for drivers and trucking companies. The logs truckers are legally required to keep and carry are a substantial burden. If the government can track it instead that could allow the drivers to spend more time actually driving and less time doing paperwork. You should be celebrating that as it means they have more time to do actual work.

Under strict supervision, yes. Unfortunately there is no supervision left as there are only two people working for slashdot and they both have real jobs in the outside world that pay the bills (Taco of course left years ago).

And don't ask about the unicode support they were working on 20 years ago...

Right now the contest is between fascists and cowards. The "independents" cannot compete with the way the system is set up. I'm sorry that is the case, but we all know it's true. Yes third parties can win governor's races and other such non-federal seats but they don't exist where national policy is made. You can go vote for your favorite third party candidate or for Mickey Fucking Mouse if you want. If that makes you feel better about yourself, great. It's marginally better than not voting at all, but only marginally.

Smart money is on a Lenin-style mausoleum for Trump with a body permanently preserved in a top-secret cocktail of preservatives. Not that he hasn't already begun that process with his diet...

As I've pointed out before, I have an actual PhD in number theory. I've explicitly discussed here specific results which are due to me and linked even to one of my papers before. You should be able to think that maybe, just maybe, people who are subject matter experts might know what they are talking about, and maybe know something you don't. But for some reason that possibility seems to be one you immediately and completely discount.

The proof structure here is somewhat simple, enough that any algebraic number theorist can follow most of the argument. But that isn't because it is a counterexample. There are occasions where a counterexample requires an extremely difficult, delicate, construction and there are times where a proof of the claim in question is surprisingly straightforward. This is the sort of mistake that one makes if one a) Doesn't know as much about number theory as one thinks one does and b) have a lot of motivated reasoning going on to discount the significance of the result.

POTS lines use very little power nowadays. Decades ago they still used very little power, except when ringing. Those electromagnets hitting big bells did take some juice, but the actual power required once you lifted the receiver is very low. Modern (transistor-based, with piezo tweeters for ringing) are much more efficient, all the time.

This is about them having to continue to keep tabs on and maintain equipment that they've been maintaining for decades. This isn't about additional costs, it's about them wanting to cut costs by ditching gear that's expensive to maintain and gets far less use than it was designed for. (it's efficient at scale, and the scale has gone)

I can't say I blame them. Imagine your old house got central air a decade ago, and you still have a window air conditioner in the living room, and you'd like to get rid of it, but the city is saying you can't remove it, and have to keep it maintained and working, and pay for annual inspections.

The only reason we still see around 4% landline usage is simply inertia. Old people don't want to give it up because they don't like change or learning something new, younger people that have it don't have a reason to get rid of it and see it as a cheap "just-in-case" backup, and there's a really small percentage of people (I'd venture a guess at under a tenth of a percent) that have a good reason to keep it.

So the question is "at what point do we tell that tenth of a percent to look elsewhere?" There's tons of other good examples, how about leaded gas? or R34 freon coolant? or businesses accepting cheques? or something closer to home on the issue - pay phones on many street corners? Technology moves on, and the longer you wait to move on once the writing is on the wall, the bigger of a personal hassle it's going to be. (I see this all the time with computers, upgrade people! get rid of that ten year old doorstop! I don't care if "it still works", you need to modernize!)

so the TL;DR of my rant is "it's not about the power use, but the telco doesn't want to come right out and call you a hold-out that needs to get with the times so we can all move on." Power savings looks like something that's "good for everyone" instead of pointing fingers at the stubborn few.

I'm a mathematician, so there's a chance that I maybe, just maybe know what I'm talking about it here. You appear to be using an extremely narrow definition of "leverage" and then insisting anyone who doesn't use your definition is wrong. But whether one insists on an overly narrow definition of leverage or not, the central point remains: when people make mathematical discoveries, they are building on and using existing ideas. Whether you object to the word "leverage" there isn't relevant to that central point.

This is a *famous* unsolved math problem. It was already highly unlikely that there was a solution hiding in the literature for Problem 1196. The Unit Distance Problem is so much more famous, with so much more work, it is genuinely hard to express how fantastically unlikely it was for this solution to be somehow hidden in the literature.

This seems to be somewhat incorrect. They also released the rewritten "cleaned" chain of thought here https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925de8b/unit-distance-cot.pdf(pdf). That isn't everything, and has been cleaned in some respects, but shows a massive number of dead-ends, unnecessary complications, and everything else you expect to see in a working mathematician's initial attempt at a proof. As far as I can tell, the primary thing they've done here is just compile the text LaTeX into a PDF form but given that this is a proprietary model output it wouldn't surprise me if it also had some things they don't want to leak scrubbed from it.

Lemma 2.2 struck me as a type of bound on an extension with complex multiplication that I had not seen before and seemed clever. I was also struck by even as the Lemma itself was clever, that the proof of that Lemma was pretty straightforward. The overall approach is in many respects pretty similar to existing work and feels in some respects in the same spirit as Erdos's own lower bound construction, but having a tower of fields which seemed clever to me, but the writeup notes three prior papers where a tower was used to produce a combinatorial object of some type. That said, I still find this choice of the class field tower to be clever and intricate in this context.

I am mostly in agreement. Disagreement here:

We're not at that point yet. Right now, we're not seeing it solve the genuinely hardest problems, like say the Riemann Hypothesis, or P ?= NP. What is true is that these systems are at least as good as a beginning grad student in all subfields and are outputting results equivalent to a top-notch mathematician on some problems. But it is also true that these systems are improving rapidly. So while your statement is false right now, it looks likely your statement is going to be true within just a few short years.

Have you read the paper? I have, and it is very much not the case of what is going on here. There are multiple deeply clever bits in this argument. If this were written by a human, it would be recognized as highly insightful. Moreover, you are also missing how much what human mathematicians often do really does look like what you are dismissing. I've worked on hundreds of problems, and gotten successful results in maybe 5 or 6 of them. If someone dismissed humans under that basis, you'd recognize the problem.

And if you read the raw output of the AI, it looks a lot like what human mathematicians do. We try one thing. It fails. We try to look at a related theorem; doesn't generalize. We go check a few cases; doesn't give much insight, so we rope an undergrad into writing some code for us to go up a big more. Then, we're sitting in a seminar on a completely different topic, and trying to pay attention while the speaker does a really poor job explaining their research, we're like "Hmm, what if I tried to combine it with that other thing we saw 2 years ago." That still doesn't work. But then six months later, you bash your head against the problem a bit more trying to use some sophisticated representation theory results, and then you are falling asleep and you realize that other thing from now 2.5 years ago combines with a pattern the undergrad mentioned in the data that you didn't think was important, and you get a result. Mathematicians work by trying lots of different things on lots of different problems.

All mathematicians build math by leveraging what other mathematicians have done. When Andrew Wiles proved enough of the Modularity Theorem to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, he was leveraging ideas from all over, from algebraic geometry, from representation theory, from complex analysis, from Galois theory, from elliptic curves, etc. Combining that was the big thing. When Peter Scholze and Dustin Clausen recently did their work on "condensed mathematics" (which may get Clausen a Fields Medal- not Scholze since he already has one), they were seeing deep patterns in a whole bunch of existing work, and then used existing work to leverage together that those patterns were real. All math builds on existing math going back to people in caves wearing bear skins who were thinking about how to count beyond using their fingers and toes.