Fantastic person.
Funny that the post closes with "thank you". So kind. I depend on K-9 Mail daily, so "thank you" from me doesn't cut the amount of indebtedness and gratitude I have to this person. Thank you! 🙏
The usual misleading sensationalistic title. It isn't the "shape of the electron" at all. A less misleading – but still not quite correct – explanation is that they have determined the statistical distribution of electron quantum states in a material. Very roughly speaking, it tells us where we're more or less likely to find an electron in the material, and in what kind of state. Somewhat very distantly like a population density graph on a geographical map. Determining such a population density doesn't mean "revealing the shape of a person".
The paper can also be found on arXiv. What they determine is the so-called quantum geometric tensor. I find the paper's abstract also misleading:
The Quantum Geometric Tensor (QGT) is a central physical object...
but it's a statistical object more than a "physical" one.
It's a very neat and important study, and I don't understand the need to be so misleading about it :(
"Ethical and legal objections". The point in this case is that what's legal is unethical, and what's ethical is illegal. Analogous to other situations through history and countries, for example in the USA when it was illegal for black people to sit in certain parts of a bus, or in Germany when marriage with Jewish people was illegal.
As human beings, it's always important to make the ethical choice.
Appreciated if someone can explain what is the problem and its context in simple terms 🙏
I understand the GNU "framework" is built on free, open source software. So I don't understand how one can "discover" that there were pieces of non-free software there... They were put there by mistake?
It's utter bullshit from the very start. First, it isn't true that the Ricci curvature can be written as they do in eqn (1). Second, in eqn (2) the Einstein tensor (middle term) cannot be replaced by the Ricci tensor (right-hand term), unless the Ricci scalar ("R") is zero, which only happens when there's no energy. They nonchalantly do that replacement without even a hint of explanation.
Elsevier and ScienceDirect should feel ashamed. They can go f**k themselves.
Yeah that's bullsh*t by the author of the article.
This image/report itself doesn't make much sense – probably it was generated by chatGPT itself.
Icanhazcheezeburger? 🤣
(Just to be clear, I'm not making fun of people who do any of the specialized, difficult, and often risky jobs mentioned above. I'm making fun of the fact that the infographic is so randomly and unexplainably specific in some points)
One aspect that I've always been unsure about, with Stack Overflow, and even more with sibling sites like Physics Stack Exchange or Cross Validated (stats and probability), is the voting system. In the physics and stats sites, for example, not rarely I saw answers that were accepted and upvoted but actually wrong. The point is that users can end up voting for something that looks right or useful, even if it isn't (probably less the case when it comes to programming?).
Now an obvious reply to this comment is "And how do you know they were wrong, and non-accepted ones right?". That's an excellent question – and that's exactly the point.
In the end the judge about what's correct is only you and your own logical reasoning. In my opinion this kind of sites should get rid of the voting or acceptance system, and simply list the answers, with useful comments and counter-comments under each. When it comes to questions about science and maths, truth is not determined by majority votes or by authorities, but by sound logic and experiment. That's the very basis from which science started. As Galileo put it:
But in the natural sciences, whose conclusions are true and necessary and have nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in the defense of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened to hit upon the truth for himself.
For example, at some point in history there was probably only one human being on earth who thought "the notion of simultaneity is circular". And at that time point that human being was right, while the majority who thought otherwise were wrong. Our current education system and sites like those reinforce the anti-scientific view that students should study and memorize what "experts" says, and that majorities dictate what's logically correct or not. As Gibson said (1964): "Do we, in our schools and colleges, foster the spirit of inquiry, of skepticism, of adventurous thinking, of acquiring experience and reflecting on it? Or do we place a premium on docility, giving major recognition to the ability of the student to return verbatim in examinations that which he has been fed?"
Alright sorry for the rant and tangent! I feel strongly about this situation.
In my case this translates to "Twitter is now deleted".
For me it’s like using a coffee machine as a stopwatch, and then complaining that it doesn’t always give the exact time lapsed.
They can be useful, used "in negative". In a physics course at an institution near me, students are asked to check whether the answers to physics questions given by an LLM/GPT are correct or not, and why.
On the one hand, this puts the students with their back against the wall, so to speak, because clearly they can't use the same or another LLM/GPT to answer, or they'd be going in circles.
But on the other hand, they actually feel empowered when they catch the errors in the LLM/GPT; they really get a kick out of that :)
As a bonus, the students see for themselves that LLMs/GPTs are often grossly or subtly wrong when answering technical questions.