Even if it's evaporative cooling, couldn't the water vapor just be... condensed back into water?
Yes - by cooling it. See the problem?
Readit Newsjohncarlosbaez commented on Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret source-material.org/amazo... · Posted by u/chhum
Every time I try to understand algebraic geometry I get stuck at just beyond varieties and ideals. I can't even work my way up to chain complexes and homologies to even get a hold on the content. Honestly functors and natural transformations, I dont grok either, so its greek to me.
Like whenever i'm working through definitions or content it all makes sense. But not being a working mathematician it all just blurs away into abstract nonsense that I can't organize internally.
You need to go more slowly and do lots of examples. Maybe start with
* Karen E. Smith, Lauri Kahanpää, Pekka Kekäläinen and William Traves, An Invitation to Algebraic Geometry, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
and then this:
* Igor R. Shafarevich, Basic Algebraic Geometry, two volumes, third edition, Springer, 2013.
This claimed proof is a bunch of baloney:
* First, it's written in the typical style of AI slop.
* Second, a mathematician I know and trust writes "I went straight to the technical part (Sect. 3) and randomly checked one of the results (Theorem 3.14), finding that it is obviously false. (The category Comp mentioned in the theorem is formally introduced and makes sense per se, but it is certainly not additive with the proposed definition, as claimed in the statement of the theorem)."
* Third, another mathematician I know and trust writes "I spent almost an hour poking through here carefully to see where the more central claims begin to fall apart. Theorems 3.24 and 4.1 brazenly contradict each other, proving respectively that problems in P are homologically trivial and that all NP-complete problems are homologically isomorphic to all problems in NP. Even more to the point, the proof of 3.24 really shows the lie where it says "The detailed argument uses the functoriality of the computational homology construction and the fact that homology isomorphisms preserve the 'computational topology' of problems." The last claim is, naturally, not mathematically defined. The computational chain complex also appears not to be genuinely defined, as far as I can tell. I haven't compared to see what the author chucked into the formalized definition."
johncarlosbaez commented on Neutrinos and Gold [video] youtube.com/watch?v=cdiwE... · Posted by u/johncarlosbaez
I'm starting to make videos for the University of Edinburgh. My first one was about this paper saying that neutrino oscillations may increase the formation of gold and other heavy elements in neutron star mergers:
• Neutrino flavor transformation in neutron star mergers, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11758 Here it is:
Or if you believe the simulation hypothesis, the second-largest.
Deleted Comment
Quoting https://thenieveslawfirm.com/do-police-have-to-identify-them...:
You’re minding your own business when a police officer approaches you. They start asking questions, but something feels off. You ask for their name and badge number, but they refuse. What do you do?
As a citizen, you want to trust and cooperate with law enforcement, but you also have rights that must be protected. The question of whether police officers are legally required to identify themselves when asked is a complex one, with no easy answers.
In general, no, a police officer does not have to identify themselves even if you ask them—making it even more important to invoke your right to silence no matter who you think you’re talking to.
California Penal Code Section 830.10 states:
“Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.”
However, there are a couple of key issues with this law that limit its effectiveness in ensuring police accountability:
The law only applies to uniformed officers, meaning that plainclothes officers or those working undercover are not required to wear any identifying information.
Even for uniformed officers, the law doesn’t explicitly require them to make their badge number or name easily visible or accessible to the public. An officer could potentially wear their identifying information in a manner that is obscured or difficult to read.johncarlosbaez commented on Europe's crusade against air conditioning is insane noahpinion.blog/p/europes... · Posted by u/paulpauper
"Whatever the reason, the resistance to AC technology is making Europe a more impoverished civilization. It’s a major reason why Europe now feels shabbier and more hardscrabble than America..."
It feels shabbier and more hardscabble than America now? That's news to me.
In my "crackpot index", item 20 says:
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)