I think it’s overall scapegoatong on poor immigration. It happens to be from Muslim countries currently, so they add the islamophobia on top to confirm the fear-of-difference bias. If they were somehow translated to North America by magic, they would be against Latino-Americans.

The irony is that Bardella is an Italian name. He has Italian and Algerian roots, at the time when Italians where the discriminated poor immigrants (same time as the Spanish and Portuguese during their dictatorships). But of course, for him, those were the good kind of immigrants who worked hard and integrated perfectly, while the new ones from Africa are lazy and free-riders.

Bottom looks like a render

That it thinks the other genocide supporting country has worse values.

I recommend reading the whole article as it summarizes some history of French far right. How it has switched from pre-WW2 antisemitism to anti-(poor-)immigrationism and now playing friends with Israel’s far right government.

They already allow AI as shared in my edit. Do you mean no AI features in their products maybe? I bet it will come too, some kind of chat interface to modify the document. IMO the reasonable choice is to make AI features opt-in only.

They allow the use of AI for contributions but with multiple restrictions: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy

Yes, eventually no one will care, that’s my point. Using AI will become as normalized as using the internet for help, so the no AI policy will not hold. I agree that people should still own their changes and be held responsible for the quality.

Edit: I checked the actual source, they actually already allow the use of AI for contributions but with multiple restrictions: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy

I wonder how long this will hold. Remind me 3 years?

It’s mark-phd-down, that’s why it’s not easy to start with.

He also asked to remove all the fun emojis because fun is banned in hell.

Yes, I was going to ask, how does this compare to with/without internet access. Coders were also likely more persistent when they could only read the tool’s manual and keep trying, vs getting the answer from StackOverflow immediately.
I’ve heard there’s been a decline in memorization skils since the internet, but I have not verified.

Can we opt to “live” in the Matrix?

Yeah, we also need to solve the attribution and retribution for the people who contributed to the result, and we can’t expect this to happen from mega corps alone.

Even if it’s finding bugs in those, it would be progress. Imagine we can find bugs like that in many other problems, that’s pretty valuable. Agreed it will take time to digest proofs and produce something new out of it.

I think many theoritical researchers do not care about practical applications (from physics university time, I even remember a disdain from some students about applications because it’s “dirty”, meaning badly approximated). In any case, it’s hard to predict, but sometimes theoritical results have real world impact eventually. Crazy theories like quantum physics and Relativity are used to for computing (semiconductors and newer quantum computers) and GPS now.
Having this proven solution will probably motivate new research directions, and it could improve the understanding of this fluid mechanics equations, which has applications everywhere fluids are used…

Well written and agreed. I think suddenly having many new statements that are proven true, with probably some of them being unexpected, will have serious impact on research directions, even if it still takes time to digest and find useful applications.

I don’t have an English source, but on this trustworthy French public service radio scientific podcast, 2 mathematicians (from reputed organizations, including one Henri Poincaré Prize) are discussing the Navier-Stokes AI solution. https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/la-science-cqfd/ia-et-mathematiques-quand-la-solution-pose-probleme-5497880
They say that the results are legitimate and proven through mathematical proof software. It did build on recent progress by humans, but it would still have taken years for humans to get there, because AI could explore so many paths in a much shorter time than a few human specialists can.
They explain the help from AI is technically remarkable, and people who don’t recognize it are in denial. They think mathematics research without AI will not make any sense soon. There’s also some hope that it will allow focusing on new interesting problems that the current AI cannot solve yet. They also discuss the problem of AI being owned by foreign mega corporations and that’s a risk for public research produced for the common good.
I’m probably going to get downvoted for this unpopular opinion here, just know that I also hate the social and environmental impact of AI, but denying its effectiveness is clearly irrational now.

Shocking!

As an intermediate solution, you can define it as X times the median or the minimum legal wage, so they still have incentive to raise them.

Do you think you have some trauma from childhood of parents serving you food too hot and actually burning your mouth?