For techbros, "open" doesn't mean libre, it means free work for corporate.
But technically "opencode" can be used with OLMo, so it is not as bad as OpenAI. Weight-released models also work, if you consider those open source.
The article over-dramatizes the story. This "deeply wrong" discrepancy is less than 10%. CMB measurements predict a Hubble constant of around 68km/s/Mpc. Distance ladder measurements get around 73km/s/Mpc.
Our current understanding of the universe the Lambda-CDM model is still wildly successful and it's more likely that the true correct model of the universe will be a correction/extension to Lambda-CDM rather than a completely new theory (although if it is a completely new theory that would be pretty cool).
The only times anyone would use the asterisk as multiplication symbol are
\times in LaTex), so they just use the asterisk insteadThe US government falls in the second category.
This meme was about training on model outputs. But would be nice if they got some trade secrets as well. Intellectual property is cancer and these IP-stealing Chinese companies, if they exist, are doing god's work 😊 hope Indian companies steal from China next as well
Did I say OC? I photoshopped the Bloomberg thing on top of someone else's meme that I ~~stole~~ obtained via fair use. It's basically OC by tech companies' standards.
Caption: an interview dialogue
End of caption
Dark matter is the mainstream among physicists, but internet commentators keep saying it can't be right because it "feels off".
Of course, skepticism is good for science! You just need to justify it more than saying the mainstream "feels off".
For people who prefer alternative explanations over dark matter for non-vibe-based reasons, I would love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment!
CW: Reddit
Originally from https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/1gg2ifk/eurosummer/
Shark is hai in German and haj (pronounced hai) in Swedish. blåhaj means blue shark.
Re your first point: I was imagining doing the two experiments separately. But even if you do them at the same time, as long as you don’t put the two objects right on top of each other, the earth’s acceleration would still be slanted toward the ball, making the ball hit the ground very very slightly sooner.
Re your second point: The object would be accelerating in the direction of earth. The 9.81m/s/s is with respect to an inertial reference frame (say the center of mass frame). The earth is also accelerating in the direction of the object at some acceleration with respect to the inertial reference frame.
If your bowling ball is twice as massive, the force between it and earth will be twice as strong. But the ball’s mass will also be twice as large, so the ball’s acceleration will remain the same. This is why g=9.81m/s^2 is the same for every object on earth.
But the earth’s acceleration would not remain the same. The force doubles, but the mass of earth remains constant, so the acceleration of earth doubles.
Yes, the earth accelerates toward the ball faster than it does toward the feather.
When the earth pulls on an object with some F newtons of force, the object is also pulling on the earth with the same force. It’s just that the earth is so massive that its acceleration F/m will be tiny. Tiny is not zero though, so the earth is still accelerating toward the object. The heavier the object, the faster earth accelerates toward it.
Both the bowling ball and the feather accelerates toward earth at the same g=9.81m/s^2, but the earth accelerates toward the bowling ball faster than it does toward the feather.
Tap for spoiler
The bowling ball isn’t falling to the earth faster. The higher perceived acceleration is due to the earth falling toward the bowling ball.
As always, relevant Wikipedia links:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm
The x axis is position. The y axis is energy. The blue box is a potential energy barrier. The red curve shows the wavefunction of a particle at a certain energy level coming in and tunneling through the wall. (the wavefunction actually live on a different y-scale from this plot and is only superimposed here for illustrative purpose, so don’t use the energy y-scale to read into the amplitude of the oscillatory part).
more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
It is giving you exactly what you ask for.
To people complaining about this: I hope you will be happy in the future where all LLMs have mandatory censors ensuring compliance with the morality codes specified by your favorite tech oligarch.