LLMs have already discovered new proofs for math problems that were previously unsolved. Granted, this hasn’t been done with a commercially available model as far a I know, but you are technically wrong to say they will never discover anything new.

My favorite version of this proof:

Let S be the subset of natural numbers that are not interesting. Suppose by way of contradiction that S is inhabited. Then by the well ordering principle of natural numbers, there is a least such element, s in S. In virtue of being the least non interesting number, s is in fact interesting. Hence s is not in S. Since s is in S and not in S, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore our assumption that S is inhabited must be false. Thus S is empty and there are no non interesting numbers.

Containers aren’t an alternative to serverless computing. That’s like saying “roads are a scam, I’ll just drive my car instead.” The only serverless compute service they mention, Lambda, literally allows you to deploy custom containers.

It’s not the same, and you kinda answered your own question with that quote. Consider what happens when an object defines both dunder bool and dunder len. It’s possible for dunder len to return 0 while dunder bool returns True, in which case the falsy-ness of the instance would not depend at all on the value of len

Interesting. I think it isn’t unital either otherwise Ω=0.

0=Ω+Ω=Ω+ΩΩ=Ω(1+Ω)=ΩΩ=Ω

For some reason, people will sometimes flip the fraction when calculating decreasing percentages, so this roughly means that the old number of crossings is beyond one hundred percent greater than the current number of border crossings. It’s really dumb

Yeah. That makes sense. It is definitely a real problem.

I respectfully disagree. Its thesis is simply that you can have a better life if you stay alive. The “proof” is simply all the changes the artist went through in order to find a better life. The changes aren’t supposed to be a recipe on how to make your life better - I don’t think the artist is telling people to divorce their spouses. There isn’t anything “just be happy” about getting a divorce.

In the US, I think red pepper could get confused with chili peppers, but maybe that’s just me.

That’s not true. There isn’t anything special about jury nullification. If it happens, it happens and that’s the end of the trial. If the jury is hung because some of the jury members wish to nullify and others don’t, then it will lead to a mistrial simply because the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision - not because of jury nullification. Of course, any verdict can be appealed as usual, but there’s no guarantee the appeal will be granted - even in the case of jury nullification.

No. I’m just wrong, lol

I think that means alcohol poisoning

It actually means tuberculosis

In Arizona, the RCV proposition didn’t pass because it was bundled with open primaries. The bill was mainly about requiring open primaries with only a small mention of requiring ranked choice voting at the end. I would bet a lot of people here didn’t even know ranked choice voting was on their ballot.

When I was a kid, I literally walked 43 miles from my home one day. Took 15 hours. I just had my parents pick me up when I got to the pizza place - no big deal.

Python and Java are barely comparable. I adore both languages equally and use them about the same amount at work. They are just different tools better suited to different tasks.

Okay. That’s a very convincing analogy. Thanks for the thought out response. Forgive me for being rude.

That is not how Hispanic is used in the dataset. Just read the methodology for crying out loud.

Not unless someone methodologically captures all the accounts through interviews and surveys and turns it into one.

I agree that anecdotes aren’t worthless, but for different reasons. There’s actually a saying that goes, “the plural of anecdote isn’t data.” Anecdotes are just stories. They aren’t data points and they aren’t peer reviewed. If you want to turn anecdotes into data, you have to do the proper interviews and surveys to actually build a dataset and then get the peer review, but at that point we aren’t talking about anecdotes anymore.

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!