You aren't kidding! Young women need role models that aren't pop culture divas.

The only caveat is that the promoters sometimes have a problem of adding digs at men, as in telling us how men suppressed women.

So rather than say "Annie Jump Cannon" was an incredible Astronomer, who took on the daunting work of cataloging stars, even creating the first they say how she was ignored, and uncelebrated because of the patriarchy. Fact is she had many accolades and was extremely worthy of them. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Or how Hedy Lamarr invented spread spectrum and I've even heard WiFi, and the articles spent most of the time on how she was not rewarded because she was a woman, and that she was only appreciated for her beauty. In fact, she partnered with George Anthiel, a composer, and put out a patent in the end. It was a little late for WW2, but still a very good work. She and he were eventually inducted into the Inventors hall of fame. Probably the proper accolade.

Point is, it is a great thing to give young women positive science and technology role modelsIt is perhaps not as good a thing to encourage hatred of men at the same time by adding how they were so horribly repressed. Because at that time, it sends a message of misandry.

Wish we had changed Unix seconds to TAI instead of UTC when dropping 32-bit... Who cares where the stars are.

While your concern is applaudable, explain how during times in the past when CO2 was much higher than now, the world didn't end.

This is not for a second to deny the energy retention of an atmosphere being controlled by its gaseous composition. This is not to suggest that this isn't a big problem.

Your idea is pure FUD. Fact is, we've been through warming and cooling cycles before. The world is not ending. The oceans will not become lifeless. There will be problems - some substantial. But doom and gloom hand-wringing doesn't help.

You know the video is going to be turned into a meme within minutes of it happening.

I predict that among the first memes will be Trump meme-ing it up by replacing the condemned man's face with that of Iranian leadership, saying "who wants to be next" or something like that.

This gets to some extent into the issue of what we mean by "novel" and admittedly that has some subjectivity to it. One take on what is going on here is that this should be showing us how much that we thought of as creative was just rearranging things. There's a legitimate argument that the AI isn't doing anything creative or clever here, and that if someone says, "Well, by that metric the vast majority of human mathematicians aren't doing anything creative or clever," and while I see that as a pretty hard response, one response is to just say "Yeah, go bite that bullet."

Here? None.

I'm not sure where the line is there. For at least some of these, part of it seems to be the AI importing pieces of techniques used in other areas of math. In general, no human discovery is completely novel. Newton's work relied on prior work of Galileo, Oresme and many others. Einstein's work relied on ideas of hundreds before-hand. At the same time, there's people whose work really does look like it is fundamentally different in many ways than what went before, and both of those are examples. In math, Peter Scholze's perfectoids for example clearly build on existing ideas, but there's a lot of stuff that looks deeply new. How to draw the line here isn't always clear. For what it is worth, Harald Helfgott, who is a much smarter and more knowledgeable mathematician than I am thinks that of what he's looked at it seems like the AI is still producing things in what amounts to almost the "convex hull" of known math or close to it. But his idea of what that looks like may be much bigger than my idea.

I hadn't considered that part, and it is a really good point about people starting their day around the only time they can get some decent sleep.

For people who might be living in more arid parts of the world, humidity can be a real beotch. And we're"used" to it here. At one of my work sites, it was a beautiful fall day, sunny, 70 degrees, around 55 percent humidity. I was loving it. I was working with a guy based in Southern Arizona. He was suffering. Good thing he wasn't here in July!

I don't think they think that far ahead. So unintended consequences bite them in the backside all the time.

It always helps to ask questions like Why did time get coordinated in the first place? Until the early 1800's most places kept local time, as in directly tied to the sun. So every town/area had it's own time. Think of it as hundreds of thousands of mini time zones.

Then along come the railroads. As they branched out, there was a need to have more coordinated time. Needed to have it known what point in time what train was likely to be where. We don't want the trains running into each other.

So we had to sit down and figure out time zones in a manner that made for easy calculation, taking into account that even from east to west in any given time zone , sunrise and sunset will differ somewhat. since the world operates on a 24 hour clock, 24 time zones was then logical choice.

Especially radio which was a worldwide communication tool, everything had to be synchronized. If I have a contact in say, Japan, and we need to talk at a certain time, we bother have to know just what time it is. Enter Greenwich Main Time, known known as Universal coordinated time. When it is 0910 in Eastern US it is 0910 in Japan. Just figure out the local time which is either added or subtracted.

But what this fixed time and time zoned approach does not have is a lattitude based differential As noted, places near latitude zero don't have much difference in day/night length, and the further north or south you go, the larger the variance in seasonal day/night cycle there is.

So DST was born. It wasn't a group of stupid people creati gnit, and it wasn't people trying to kowtow to farmers in Minnesota. It was dealing with the issues created by necessary changes in a connected world.

It's why people in my latitude don't want the sun to rise at 8:30 A.M. in December and January if we go permanent DST. And as noted before, I'm at around 40 degrees latitude.

Unfortunately, few politicians are versed in physics, so I guess this will be a case of FAFO. The likely result is a repeat of the 1970's permanent DST failure.

... the Oscars not being shown live in theaters.

It may not be impressive, but it can be useful. If, by rapidly iterating over others' homework, you or your bot can prove X, then it can boost everyone's confidence of MY research that relies on X being true.

No one saw quasi-RH coming or many of the others here. So that is unlikely. And the last batch of 10 problems they released a few weeks ago which were impressive enough were all novel results. There have been issues with them using techniques or ideas that should be better credited to where some of those approaches are coming from. But that's the sort of thing that often happens at a preprint stage. When I referee a paper, if this happens, you just request they cite the relevant papers and move on. This isn't at all stealing things.

This is really not accurate. There's Fields Medal level work here with quasi-RH for example. And for Hadwiger-Nelson it took an approach that doesn't seem to be in in the literature. These things really are doing novel math. I've personally seen this is in a bunch of situations. Here's a personal example, much smaller than anything like these problems. I have a recent preprint with a student here https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2609.36068 (about 90% of this was done by her. She's very good.) But part of this came from when I ran a version of Proposition 13 in that paper through Claude just to clean up the draft of that bit before I sent it to her. Claude informed me (essentially unprompted) that the argument had a whole in it (in addition to pointing out grammar errors, unbalanced parentheses and some other embarrassing minor mistakes). I then fixed the hole, and gave it back to Claude. Claude thought for a few minutes, and then informed me that I had *not* fixed the hole, and the reason was that my version of the proposition was missing an entire infinite family which it constructed. The literature on this problem is small, and I'm very familiar with it. The family it produced is straightforward (see Prop 8), but definitely was not in the existing literature. So yes, these systems really can do novel math, and can even do so in an essentially minimally prompted fashion, in this case, explaining to the meat mathematician why his proof is wrong. My student and I then generalized Claude's family to Theorem 9 in that paper, but the AI definitely had an impact.

At some level this was actually not a good thing. I'm trying to encourage students to *not* rely on the AI for research so they develop basic research skills. So if the AI had not volunteered the family I wouldn't have had to tell her that the AI had discovered it, but honestly required noting it. So I had a conflict between intellectual honesty and being a good role model.

HEIC is worthless because it's illegal to implement unless you get permission. Maybe in 20 years it'll be usable.

Don't like that fact? Then we need to find and support (oh no, and be?) political candidates who oppose software patents.

You shouldn't need anyone's permission to write a computer program. It's infuriating.

Never thought of epoch time! The ultimate revenge of the nerds! 8^)

During the longest days many of the outside contractors in my area tend to tie their workday to the light/dark cycle. There are times here in PA where it is getting light at 4 in the morning! That's like bonus time toward meeting the schedule. And you are correct about the heat. We have the added humidity (it hung around 100 percent this past summer) Upper 80's and 100 percent humidity plays hell on construction workers.

Although it is mainly a transfer of energy use. But what makes me laugh is just how the intersection of solipsism and stupidity runs so deep in these matters.

Even the name "Sunshine Protection Act" the hill politicians have chosen to die on, is 100 percent wrong. The amount of sunshine in any 24 hour cycle is a matter of physics, not something politicians can vote on.

But a person who gets up at 7:00 A.M. and works a day shift. sees how it is light longer in the summer, and is stupid, thinks that all that is needed is to keep DST, and the day will be longer. And their solipsism has them thinking everyone else would benefit from that. I meant who could oppose a longer day? There are times here when it is getting light at 4 in the morning. Then it makes some sense to shift, people who work outside like that, especially in temperate zones. Hours wasted in the morning, unless you want to start work at 4 AM. But on the other end of the stick, if DST becomes permanent, in my area, during December and January, sunrise will happen around 0830, with 0835 being the latest. And I'm in PA. Around 40 degrees North, not even halfway up the latitudes.

But the solipsists don't care, and stupid is not fixable.

Mathematician here specializing in number theory with a side-order of graph theory. I've only had time to start looking at two of them. First, is the Hadwiger-Nelson/chromatic number of the plane https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHadwiger%25E2%2580%2593Nelson_problem proof. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong) the technique it uses here is not in the literature, so this is a genuine construction of a new technique. Second is the Erdos Egyptian fraction bound, and for that one it looks like the techniques are about what I'd expect, but I'm definitely still digesting both of these.

For the quasi-Riemann Hypothesis the striking thing is almost the opposite direction. It looks like the AI used standard complex analytic techniques to get the result. But many mathematicians have often thought for years that those techniques would not likely be strong enough to get this sort of result.

I know less about the Unique Games Conjecture https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnique_games_conjecture but having talked with some of the people there it looks like it took a somewhat standard set of ideas and then combined them with multiple just weird stuff and sort of took a hard left turn at one point for no clear reason and ended up at the result.

It is also worth noting that while many of these have Lean code confirming their correctness (quasi-RH for example) others do not. The three I mentioned above have all also been looked at at this point by human mathematicians who have not found issues; that's likely true for others, but those three I'm aware at least of people doing so. Not all the claims have Lean code though; a bit under half. One of the non-formalized problems also has been withdrawn due to what essentially amounts to a sign error https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenai%2Fmath%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Fpreprints%2FAlgebraicity-of-Weil-classes-on-split-abelian-eightfolds-September-18-2026%2Fpaper.pdf. It is likely others will be withdrawn also by the end, but I'd be surprised if more than 10 are. And even if everything single one without Lean code turned out to be wrong (which seems very unlikely), this would still be an amazing set of math. I commented elsewhere that if a human mathematician had made the quasi-RH result they'd be likely a shoe-in for the Fields Medal, and another mathematician replied saying "delete likely."

Now a more editorial comment: There are legitimate concerns about what this is doing to mathematics. This sort of thing is very cool. But it also is part of a trend that may make it much harder to train young mathematicians or get them to exist at all. If the AIs are limited in how genuinely novel their ideas can be, then we may end up in a situation where we get a massive burst in math over the next few years, and then math stalls out because we don't have enough good really high caliber mathematicians (Not the mathematicians like me, but people like Serre, Tao, Scholze, Clausen,etc.) to come up with deeply new ideas that the AIs can build on.

I've been on planes with hundreds of people per flight. Their experience is the same as mine. No one keeled over. This ain't just me homie. And I'm not going to provide citations with everyone I ever flew with - that's thousands of people. I only relate that people don't die because they changed timezones. If this was a regular occurrence across many people, people would notice.

That you think that my relating a personal experience over many years is flawed reasoning only shows you didn't have anything useful to say, but that didn't stop you from saying something. Good work, coward.