Thanks

It means they admit they were wrong and you were correct. As in, "I have been corrected."

If you take immortality, you also probably need to take healing. Being mortally wounded and unable to die sounds, uh, bad.

I don't think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn't mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn't reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.

In a hypothetical and highly unlikely world where everyone had to pay Oracle to use Java, everyone would switch to something else. It would be guaranteed suicide. Anyway, in that world, they would need to both make this ridiculous decision and win an unwinnable legal battle afterwards. It's not a realistic concern.

Nullable reference types are (a completely mandatory) bandaid fix in my opinion as a .net dev. You will encounter lots of edge cases where the compiler is unable to determine the nullability of an object, e.g. when using dependency injection to populate a field, or when using other unusual control flows like MediatR. You can suppress the warnings manually at the slight risk of lying to the analyzer. Objects supplied by external library code may or may not be annotated, and they may or may not be annotated correctly. The lack of compile-time null checking is occasionally an issue. But that said, NRT makes nullability a significantly smaller issue in C# than it used to be

One definition of the complex numbers is the set of tuples (x, y) in R^(2) with the operations of addition: (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) and multiplication: (a,b) * (c,d) = (ac - bd, ad + bc). Then defining i := (0,1) and identifying (x, 0) with the real number x, we can write (a,b) = a + bi.

No such thing has been "mathematically proven." The emergent behavior of ML models is their notable characteristic. The whole point is that their ability to do anything is emergent behavior.

What is this article supposed to show?

Don't use boiling water. 195-205F for black tea. Brew time typically varies by preference from 3-4 minutes, but 5 isn't terrible.

Mathematical constructivists hate this meme

I wonder if this actually fixes the ancient dwm bug that causes simultaneous motion on multiple monitors with different refresh rates to make the whole window manager choppy. That bug has existed since at least Vista, and it sucks. Nothing like buying a 240Hz monitor and not being able to watch videos on my secondary one without bringing them both down to what looks like 60.