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.

Agree 110%! It’s sad because it pushes back those people who were curious about alternatives and were willing to try. Hopefully things will improve with time…

I’ve tried different clients: Element web, desktop, and android, and FluffyChat desktop and android. The problems seems to come, as other have written, when the matrix.org server is involved: it’s people from their handle there which experience glitches joining rooms in other servers. It seems this “part” of the fediverse still needs a lot of development.

Looks very promising! thank you for sharing. Seems worth trying and supporting.

I didn’t know about !matrix, cheers!!

Which can be further summarized: academics (🙋🏻) are basically a bunch of idiotic sheep, despite being in academia.

See also https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/16/the-public-sphere/#not-the-elsevier

Fantastic, this is extremely helpful, thank you! 🥇 I wanted to test a couple of distros for my Thinkpad, and I’ll make sure to check and save this kind of information from live USBs.

Thank you, that’s useful info, I didn’t know about this. Could you be so kind to share some link, or say something more, about lspci and lsmod and how to proceed from them to identifying which drivers one should install? Cheers!

Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don’t even check them properly?

Yeah to me too. I’m not clicking on that “Download client” link for sure.

As most who have already commented here, I’m somewhat unimpressed (and would expect more analytical subtlety from a scientist). Wittgenstein already fully dissected the notion of “free will”, showing its semantic variety of meanings and how at some depth it becomes vague and unclear. And Nietzsche discussed why “punishment” is necessary and makes sense even in a completely deterministic world… Sad that such insights are forgotten by many scientists. Often unclear if some scientists want to deepen our understanding of things, or just want sensationalism. Maybe a bit of both…

Thank you for the neat examples! :) I think I get it now.

Thank you! What you wrote confused me at first, I thought that using @something created a post that was only visible to user something – like a direct message. Now I’ve re-read the help pages, and I see that there’s a second “@” at the bottom of the post field, to make the post only visible to something; otherwise (globe icon) is public.

May I ask: in this latter case, what does @something achieve then? is it a sort of “user mention”, so the user is notified to have been mentioned in a public post? Will other users interested in something see it then?

[Edit: I realize that my question was phrased in a completely misleading way. Corrected now.]

Cheers!

Thanks for the recommendations!

You brought back memories and I got interested. Interesting reading about privacy:

https://www.irchelp.org/security/privacy.html

How much of it is true?

Travelors = travellers + sailors. I like that!

Agree (you made me think of the famous face on Mars). I mean that more as a joke. Also there’s no clear threshold or divide on one side of which we can speak of “human intelligence”. There’s a whole range from impairing disabilities to Einstein and Euler – if it really makes sense to use a linear 1D scale, which very probably doesn’t.

Title:

ChatGPT broke the Turing test

Content:

Other researchers agree that GPT-4 and other LLMs would probably now pass the popular conception of the Turing test. […]

researchers […] reported that more than 1.5 million people had played their online game based on the Turing test. Players were assigned to chat for two minutes, either to another player or to an LLM-powered bot that the researchers had prompted to behave like a person. The players correctly identified bots just 60% of the time

Complete contradiction. Trash Nature, it’s become only an extremely expensive gossip science magazine.

PS: The Turing test involves comparing a bot with a human (not knowing which is which). So if more and more bots pass the test, this can be the result either of an increase in the bots’ Artificial Intelligence, or of an increase in humans’ Natural Stupidity.

This is so cool! Not just the font but the whole process and study. Please feel free to cross-post to Typography & fonts.

Thank you for the great help, I hope it’ll be useful to others too :)