Well for one with a gigantic derivatives market compared to the underlying one it becomes relatively cheap to manipulate the underlying market.

If you can make a gigantic bet on the price going up and then buy a large amount of Bitcoin that moves the price up you can win from that. See the Jane street India derivatives market issue.

In particular that means that if you fill the border up to a depth of 2 on one board with pieces, it becomes a theoretically inpenetrable fortress.

For an overdone example see 2024,4219.

I absolutely agree. Not re-running the computation for the first 4*10^18 and claiming a new record is absolutely disingenuous. I could verify just a single example that hasn't been covered before and claim a new record with this logic.

That is not to say that this is not a cool project. The distributed nature and running so seamlessly directly in the browser is definitely cool and allows people to contribute compute easily.

It may be that grandiose claims of new records are needed to make people donate their computational resources but I am not a fan of deceptive claims like this.

You are assuming that the underreporting will be uniform. In reality people may be underrporting things they are embarrassed about and maybe even overreporting the opposite.

This is a flaw in the data that is much harder to account for.

Why would that be a problem for reporting relative results if everyone is under-reporting things they're embarrassed about and over-reporting the opposite?

Different people are embarrassed by different things. A frat student's probably going to overstate their alcohol consumption, a Morman understate.

People with bigger appetites underestimate their food consumption, people with smaller appetites overstate.

Not to mention the degree of over/under statement will vary wildly. "A big meal" might be 300 calories for somebody with an eating disorder, or 3000+ for somebody on the opposite end of the spectrum.

> "A big meal" might be 300 calories for somebody with an eating disorder

I knew a guy that complained that he "ate like a lion" and yet couldn't gain weight.

Turns out, his breakfast was typically a single egg and a slice of toast. Lunch would be half a sandwich and a bag of chips that he wouldn't finish. Dinner of course varied, but basically was like 4-6 oz of meat of some sort and a small side of veggies.

Overall, his daily calorie intake was probably only around 1,000 calories.

I don't know if this qualified as an eating disorder, or what, considering when we hear about someone undereating, it's because they're trying to lose weight. He was trying to GAIN weight and yet was still horrendously undereating.

Sure, but in a representative sample size this is largely irrelevant. The fraternity brothers and the Mormons cancel each other out, and regardless both are dwarfed by the large middle of the population that likely systematically and reliably under-reports their drinking by a few units.

The idea of outliers and systematic biases isn’t new to statistics, relative comparisons are still useful.

>Sure, but in a representative sample size this is largely irrelevant.

There is no way to know whether your sample size is representative. What amount of fraternity brothers and Mormons cancel each other out?

>and regardless both are dwarfed by the large middle of the population that likely systematically and reliably under-reports their drinking by a few units.

And? That does not prevent spurious correlations.

Well if you consider 1/z as a function of a complex coordinate it definitely makes a lot of sense to set it to infty. That identifies +infty and -infty if you restrict yourself to the real numbers.

Yeah but width-first immediately gives you the solution for any finite alphabet. So in that sense it is trivial.

The nice thing about formal verification is exactly that. You have a separate tool that's very much like a compiler that can check those 1200 pages and tell you that it's true.

The source of truth here is the code we wrote for the formal verification system.

Could formal verification prove the nexus between the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's last theorem? I don't claim to know what the former is, but I am skeptical that a system that can only validate what we already know would have any luck with sudden leaps between disparate corners of the field. Or worse, what if we had this verification 30 years ago, Wiles gets excited thinking he proved a 300 year old mystery, only to be told by the algorithm, "sorry son, this code doesn't verify. Try again next time!"

> "sorry son, this code doesn't verify. Try again next time!"

But that's not how it works; rather it tells you about the specific issue with a particular step in the proof, which you then debug, as you would with code that isn't compiling (or not passing some static analysis test).

AI allowed him to avoid detection for a long time. It allowed him to create thousands of songs so that the each one would only get moderate amounts of streams thus not raising suspicion.

Had he created songs by hand they would rack up millions/billions of botted streams but them not being international hits anyone had ever heard before would have made it obvious botting behaviour.

I'm not sure if you are kidding but just in case you are not this is very misleading and in fact misguided.

Refering to polynomials as exponential just results in confusion essentially removing any meaning from the word. Any function can be written as something involving exponents, so that statement becomes meaningless.

Ok I don't mean to be pedanntic but a sphere is just the boundary of a ball. If we are trying to capture volume we should be talking about balls of water.

Counter pedant: a ball is indeed what you get when, as in TFA, you put water “in a sphere”

I agree. It's a volume of water bounded by a sphere. I'm just being pedantic about the common use of the word in this thread.

I'm also somewhat surprised no one else was being pedantic about this. I expect better from HN :)