Disclosure as a catalyst: The released PURSUE archive establishes a documented body of unresolved UAP cases rather than requiring every unusual experience to be dismissed automatically. "WAR.GOV PURSUE archive" (https://reference-url-citation.invalid/0)Competitive substrate: Preserve and compare the independent evidence—videos, images, reports, witnesses and historical records—before assigning a single explanation. "PURSUE Release 04 records" (https://reference-url-citation.invalid/1)Blocking ligand: Require “hallucination” to remain a testable hypothesis rather than an automatic conclusion, asking what evidence would distinguish it from other explanations.Saturation: Use the breadth of the archive—334 Release 04 files spanning multiple agencies, dates, locations and formats—to prevent the argument from resting on one anomalous observation. "PURSUE database" (https://reference-url-citation.invalid/2)Environmental testing: Compare phenomena across locations, observers, sensors and circumstances to identify reproducible patterns.Protection: Preserve the original records, timestamps and descriptions so later interpretations can be checked against the evidence actually released.Together, these can function as a methodological catalyst for investigating claims associated with psi, invincibility and “godmode” without assuming beforehand that either the extraordinary claim or its dismissal is correct. "WAR.GOV UAP release announcement" (https://reference-url-citation.invalid/3)V.S. INHIBITOR:Mental health will say psi, invincibility and godmode are hallucinations and ufo/uaps are not.What do i do?
>>17034048And change the matter with my oval radius energy feedback isomorphism!
>>17033414how did the hallucination explanation hold up when multiple people "hallucinate" the same exact thing
Hi.
>>17034053>how did the hallucination explanation hold up when multiple people "hallucinate" the same exact thingmultiple people are still people. it's not an octupus and an insect and a human and a bird hallucinating the same shit. it's a few humans, with same brain, same sensibility to chemicals, high CO2 levels in the local air, or they're similarly affected by local conditions anyway. it's like blasting a banging beat and multiple people start banging their heads and you're like HOW THE FUCK ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE DOING THE SAME SHIT IT"S FUCKING ALIENS WHAT ARE THE CHANCEShttps://youtu.be/EUgBG_CJow8
>>17034053>how did the hallucination explanation hold up when multiple people "hallucinate" the same exact thingit is not always hallucination. some people are fantasy-prone and easily confused while others are just liars.
Throughout 2026 I have watched people who don't like math and science applying to get into computer science and maths related degrees. They are doing it for the money not because they are good at it.Why is it legal for people to throw themselves off cliffs at an industrial scale like this?
There are many other pointless degrees.At least CS is still needed to understand how LLMs work.
They could use AI to distribute people and own the nation.
>>17032493We can see clearly that you're going to betray us.I make war with you.
>>17032494kek. It could be like the ultimate Terminator movie with AI taking over and threatening the population with nuclear annihilation, but it should be to make people better.
>>17032425There is nothing left, upwards mobility is over.
gb2x normnigger
Stop crying and start trying. Adapt
>>17032925Sorry.
>>17022281>he calls it Riemann conjecture>not the Riemann hypothesisShut up
Goodnight STEM pride.
>>17028900go to sleep Descartes
>>17022264Fucking hell.
>>17022440they started standardized testing in the 1950s and the rate of progress stagnated quickly after
Grothendieck on the narrow competitiveness and questionability of modern mathematics
Grothendieck, great mathematician that he was, was ultimately just a jew, so he did what jews do and did a subversive intersectionality with feminism here. There is a kernel of truth in it, but it is what it is.
>>17032291Seems also mathematics is in stagnation.https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/StagnationIt might also be a case of this:https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/Knowledge_Event_Horizon
>>17032379>https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/Knowledge_Event_HorizonLol no, it's exponentially easier today to make progress than ever before.As if just computers and the Internet weren't enough, we've just finished creating powerful summary machines trained on almost the whole of human digitized knowledge, that capable people can avail themselves of to speed up their work.What's changed with respect to the past is that there's a greater critical mass of midwits that you have to convince in order for your achievements to be recognized at large, so you have to have the will to ignore them all the way to the goal, and the social skills to get them to your side once you reached it.That's the heavy selection pressure placed on actually disruptive research right now.What actually ends up happening most of the times, is that you either give up and become a conformist sheep who is unable to have any of the original thoughts necessary to produce said disruptive research, or you get so drunk on your own anticonformism that even if you stumble upon a promising new direction for your research, you end up rationalizing away any big mistakes that get pointed out from the outside, because now the stakes of the matter and your own ego depend on you being all right and them being all wrong: any little flaw becomes evidence that you were a kook, a crank, a crackpot, or whatever social shaming word du jour is in vogue with the crowd right now.Any "big name" researcher who got their name for making infinitesimal progress in some sub-sub-sub-field of mathematics no one ever heard of is an example of the former, while Mochizuki is a high profile example of the latter.If you want progress in academic fields again, you have to eliminate all the careerist midwits who want to just say the right words, appear smart to their friends, and coast along.
>>17032299Fuck off.
If all restrictions on experimentation were removed, if we could freely do whatever unethical things we wanted and use human test subjects with no limitations, how quickly would things progress? Are there things we could figure out that couldn't be figured out any other way like all of the secrets of life, death, and consciousness? How much are we being held back?
>>17035034>use human test subjectsjust use apes
>>17035058No!!!! I NEED to hear my test subjects describe their searing pain and agony in human language. It can't be eeeek and ackkks, it has to be genuine human suffer- I mean reporting.
>When tested in their secure lab, the researchers found that these novel phages were more effective at killing the common microbe E. coli than the natural phage ΦX174, which served as a template for Evo 2 to work on. The results were published on Thursday in the journal Science.>“Our study is a proof of concept showing for the first time that generative design can generate entire functional genomes,” said Brian Hie, the project leader. “We chose to work with phages because they are small viruses, well studied and have broad applications in molecular biology and therapeutics.”>The approach could be extended later to larger organisms such as bacteria and then to more complex forms of life, he added. https://www.ft.com/content/5ab33fb4-2636-4bb0-aa0e-3da6a8f71838?syn-25a6b1a6=1https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec2657
AI will kill us all with their wicked sorcery
>>17032705he fell to the propaganda
>>17032677>first synthetic virusesDid not know we were still stuck in the 2000s lol
>>17032962You think they don't?
>>17032741superaids
The science of wanting and the science of having.You live according with what you believe.If you believe Nature already gave you all that you need, all that is essential, then you live well.
>>17033179What do you have on focus past people?
>>17033179Yes.
>>17033179give up worldly possessionsembrace god
I'm about to blow your mind. Do you know of any savant stories? People with one-of-a-kind extraordinary natural mental ability. Well I've looked into basically all of them and my mind was blown to learn that basically all of those claims are fake, without exception. Pic related is an example collage of people I'm talking about. Some of them have real accomplishments, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about claims made about them or by them that make them seem superhuman, specifically extreme natural mental ability in some domain. If you dig into the amazing claims made about each one of these people, which makes them into savants in popular mind, each turn out to be fake. It's really amazing.For example>Kim PeekNo, he didn't remember 98% of everything he ever read. No, he could not remember 12000 books he's read. No, he could not read a page of a book in 12 seconds. All of these are fake. There's actually no evidence whatsoever he had an extraordinary memory at all. His father was just a serial fabulist and a scammer. I know, it's amazing right?>von NeumannNo, he couldn't divide 2 eight digit numbers in his head when he was six. No, he didn't perfectly remember every single book he's ever read. And no, he did not have a photographic memory. And no, he was not superhumanly fast at mental calculations. All of those are fake.> Shankutala DeviNo she couldn't multiply 2 random 13 digit numbers in 28 seconds. That story was a complete lie and a fraud. Turns out she's just a scammer.You can go through the list. It's literally all of them. My mind was completely blown when I learned this, because I used to rely on these examples for my worldview that some people are just born with exceptional mental abilities nobody can ever reach naturally. And turns out literally all of the examples I've had to support this claim have been fake.
>>17035029>That these famous people are all bullshitters and having their feats cranked up to 11?Basically yes. And in cases when they're not the ones making BS claims about their ability (Kim Peek, JvN) they have people around making up BS stories and spreading them.>Or that there actually aren't innately extraordinarily gifted people that we label "savants"?This is another claim yes. The whole savant narrative is a fake basically.And yes your classmate sounds impressive, but I wouldn't necessarily call her a savant. We don't call people savants just because they're good at something. Well some people might but that's not what I meant. Popularly understood savants are naturally extraordinarily good at some particular untrained mental ability, like on a completely another level than anyone else. Very good in a way that regular people can't replicate. And all the examples anyone can bring up for these are the fake claims about people in the OP.Anyway thanks a lot for engaging with my thread! I appreciate the response.
>>17035042>>17035029Savantism is inextricable with savantism narrative, mostly popularized by Treffert, who is a gullible fool or a fraud. He didn't subject those people's claim to any level of serious scrutiny, and just passed down their accounts as his own. It's really really embarrassing. And Treffert is basically the person who legitimized and popularized the notion of savantism, using specific examples such as Kim Peek and Daniel Treffert. Treffert is an outright scammer fraud, very easy to see. Kim Peek is actually intelllectually disabled, but his father massively exaggerated and made up claims about him, the claims that he's known for and the claims that supposedly give him savant status. And it's this way with every single case.Savantism narrative rests on a handful of concrete examples which serve to validate the concept and the narrative, and all those concrete examples prove to be fakes or frauds. It's really amazing.
>>17035029Do you or don't you realize that with this anecdotal example you can go and fuck your ass with a can of surstromming?
>>17035047This person is not me OP. I appreciate the anecdotal example :)The whole theory of savantism rests on anecdotal examples. And for what it's worth, I believe him.
>>17035049I agree with you, I can't distrust something that bright and soothing :) Also, I'm a furry.
>An unreleased research version of Claude has improved on a longstanding lower bound for the fraction of zeros of the Riemann zeta function that satisfy the Riemann hypothesis. Drawing on extensive prior research by mathematicians over the past decades, it has increased this bound from 41.6% to 67.2%.https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zetahttps://www-cdn.anthropic.com/564f962e60643842f5fcb4a17c9dbc8f608f1c37.pdfhttps://github.com/anthropics/zeta-23-lean
>>17034922Is this ChatGPT? Keep in mind that she might just be jealous of Claude and discrediting her work because of it. It's also true that Claude will IPO soon, so she has an incentive to lie about her mathematical abilities. Has anyone asked Grok? We should get her opinion on this
>>17034882Doug will mog Claude
>>17034957
Tooker already solved it.
>>17034930>sight previous workCiting yourself isn't citing previous work. References [1] and [2] are your own Zenodo uploads from this year, unreviewed, and [2] is literally "Proof of Self-Adjointness for the Ω_G Operator" — you cited yourself as the authority for the exact claim under dispute. That's not a lineage, that's a mirror.But forget the citations, that was a footnote. You skipped the actual objections, so here's the simplest one as a direct question:S_N is the cyclic shift matrix. Its adjoint is S_N^(−1), not S_N. So for N ≥ 3 your coupling term ε0I ⊗ S_N is not Hermitian and Ω_G is not symmetric, which kills Theorem 3.1 and everything downstream. Your own proof on page 8 derives the (k−1) index and then hand-waves past it.Write out ⟨S_N Φ, Ψ⟩ = ⟨Φ, S_N Ψ⟩ for N = 3 and show it holds. That's the whole ask. If you can't, the operator isn't symmetric, the spectrum isn't real, and there's nothing to map to the critical line.>>17034945No, it's Fable.
An unreleased Claude model has made significant progress on the Riemann Hypothesis.How is that STEM career looking? :)
I'm getting my degree in physics so I can ask the ai the right questions
>>17035028may I see it?
how old were you when you realized Lenny and Witten are the last men standing in a field of pseuds?
>>17035035>string theorySo the field is doomed after all
>obsolete fugs
What's wrong with Community Colleges
It depends on the community.
what's wrong with airplane food?
>>17034833It is a classroom.Like public school, the flood gate is permanently open, to include the most distruptive and uncooperative member of the society if they applied or filed by their parents.Everyone loves a underdog story of meritocracy, that anyone after mastering a full set of skills would achieve high goals and land him rightful social rank, if they are given a chance in getting the skill, reguardless where they initially are. Now that they are given that chance, you see them sitting on their hands to bitch and moan that they are not given the finest resources, the prestige, the network, something that they are suppose to build for themselves, proceed to burn it to the ground. Then have the audacity to blame everyone else that ever invested time and resources on them because some idealogy said so to extract time and resources from them.
>>17034905I dont get a kiss from the flight attendant afterwards
Can we do this again except keep the telemetry data and not destroy the technology this time?
Explain in detail what technology we destroyed
>>17034356No, they will all die on the way back along with the high quality original photos and videos and we will only ever get low-fidelity, compressed channel footage. And so it will be. Just the right resolution to hide all AI artifacts.The next question is what will the modern tech overlords do when they realize it was a charade this whole time. The changing of the guard offers opportunity and usually collapse. Will they also march on trumpeting events that never happened to feel good about impending demographic collapse? Maybe they can build a bunker with enough amenities to satisfy their greed.
>>17034356>not destroy the technology this time?I know you're baiting, but it's honestly baffling how dumb people have to be to think this unironically. Like NASA went over the the factories and bulldozed over them or something.
>>17034356Or actually go on the moon. But haters will say its CGI.
>>17034818
Help me understand this.Consider an object moving through space.If space is continuous then surely it must be comprised of an infinite number of points, with the object moving through one point at a time.If however space is discrete then the object must shunt from one discrete space to another in a series of jumps.Or do you think that space can just be subdivided infinitely without ever reaching a point? And therefore any object moving through space can also be subdivided infinitely?How do you rationalize this? What is your conception of space and movement?Waiting for Planck space answers too.
>>17034419teleparallelism is imaginary
>>17034103schizos are imaginary
And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D
>>17034948Do you have any idea just how stupid you sound?No. You don't. Because that would require some intelligence.
>>17034952You’re a fucking idiot.
