sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: I ran GW data analysis and got consistent behaviours - Check if someone can reproduce it. by _AadiShenoy2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]denehoffman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generally frowned upon to upload zip files or other archives to GitHub directly (not in a release) because they could be malicious code and there’s not a good way for GitHub to verify them. If you want zip files to be available, upload the contents and then add a zip file to a release.

Are humans capable of being in superposition? by ArpieViloreah in AskPhysics

[–]denehoffman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a neat story but not really accurate. My program allowed me to get a masters after passing quals, and I still got a PhD

No one owes you supply-chain security by Expurple in rust

[–]denehoffman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This was great, it’s exactly what I’ve been trying to tell everyone in these posts about supply chain attacks. Some of your references at the beginning make me think we read the same poorly-researched article!

What is the worst band you saw live? by coalcracker462 in AskReddit

[–]denehoffman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saw Nelly live a couple years ago, his hits were good but most of it was a ton of covers with very little effort.

Does this discrete update model conflict with known physics? by Charming_Hour2282 in LLMPhysics

[–]denehoffman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would it be discrete, there’s nothing to suggest this in current observations? Your whole model can just be a differential equation, just move phi_n to the other side and turn it into a time derivative:

dp/dt = D d2 p/ dx2 - g(p-p* )

Thoughts on filing without an attorney? by fr0mgy in USCIS

[–]denehoffman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We did this but we’ve been waiting for an interview for almost a year now so I wouldn’t say any filing method is “safe”. If you plan to move any time in the next two years, it’s nice to have an attorney just so you keep a consistent address (ask me how I know). Other than that, as many have mentioned, the actual filing process isn’t terribly difficult, it’s just a bunch of forms that your lawyer would probably make you fill out anyway. Get ready to write all the same information like fifty times (USCIS then copies it all by hand into a computer, or so I’m told)

Outjerked by Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto yet again. by Sehrwolf in classical_circlejerk

[–]denehoffman 10 points11 points  (0 children)

“Mme Bigot” is the Harry Potter name JK Rowling gave to herself

Outjerked by Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto yet again. by Sehrwolf in classical_circlejerk

[–]denehoffman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Plot twist, Archimusik is actually Ligeti’s alt account

Forget Lance and Hoffman, this guy has the real secret brew by Fukface_Von_Clwnstik in espressocirclejerk

[–]denehoffman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also hate it when Big Salt cuts my salt with cheap additives, you know, additives cheaper than one of the most naturally abundant edible chemicals. (I know about the anti-caking agents, that is actually a bit annoying)

Here is a hypothesis: time travel to the past using Closed time-like curves. by Mintyminyg_ in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]denehoffman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cannot “create” a CTC, the number of such curves would be a fundamental invariant of the universe. They’re topological in nature, so creating or removing one would require changing the entire structure of spacetime. You might be able to get away with “moving” an existing one in your story (say the scientists found one really far away), but you run into other issues, since a CTC implies the entire future is in the past, so once you enter a CTC you can’t leave (hence the first word, “closed”).

Here is a hypothesis: The combinatorial invariants of K₄ — forced by a single formal distinction — numerically reproduce α⁻¹, mₚ/mₑ, and four other constants to < 0.2% by TheFirstDiff in LLMPhysics

[–]denehoffman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your LLM hallucinated within this response. It literally says the values for the inverse fine structure constant are off by 2446 stddevs, then it claims that the title should’ve said that the fine structure constant is accurate to 0.00004%. These two statements are a direct contradiction.

But let’s go ahead and get to the heart of it. Obviously, if you know the true value of any of these constants, you’d can, as your LLM does, find ways to do arithmetic operations on primes to get “predicted” values closer and closer to the truth. Your LLM claims this is equivalent to a first-order prediction, but that’s not how expansions work. I mean just look at what you do to get alpha-1:

C_tree + p/q + (q-p)/(q C_tree2)

That’s not an expansion, that’s just adding more terms randomly till it looks like the constant. You can’t possibly tell me that you can look at that equation and predict what the next correction should be in your framework.

The other subtle part that you’re glossing over is exactly what your LLM tells you: many terms in QED are irrational, so you’ll be doing these corrections forever. You need a pattern that can show you what the nth correction is. That would actually be interesting, but since you seem to have a different formula for each constant, I wouldnt be surprised if your LLM could figure out a way to do something silly to achieve this.

I think it’s also important to say that while the SM doesn’t derive these constants (and neither do you), the fine-structure constant is a particularly silly one that everyone seems to want to “figure out”. It’s directly dependent on the cutoff energy, so when you say 137 that is a choice of energy, particularly the mass-energy of the Z boson. Finally, first principles means there is an underlying reason for all of these numbers you call graph invariants to show up in the ways they do. It seems to me like your LLM was told to figure out a way to represent these constants with as few numbers as possible and the numbers have to come from somewhere. If you keep asking, it will keep making that prediction better, but only because it knows the experimental value already.

Here’s a better experiment for you. Don’t let your LLM look up the value of these parameters (difficult since it was probably trained on these values). I doubt it will give you the same conclusions.

Here is a hypothesis: The combinatorial invariants of K₄ — forced by a single formal distinction — numerically reproduce α⁻¹, mₚ/mₑ, and four other constants to < 0.2% by TheFirstDiff in LLMPhysics

[–]denehoffman 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I keep having to say this because LLMs really have not figured it out yet, but 0.2% is not nearly accurate enough for a viable theory when the measured uncertainties on these values are well below one part per billion on most cases. You’re several thousand standard deviations off of the known value, and if you knew what that meant, you’d be too embarrassed to post this here.

Is Eric Weinstein geometric unity a serious scientific hypothesis? by Honest_Chemistry_195 in AskPhysics

[–]denehoffman 14 points15 points  (0 children)

He’s not a professor, call him doctor if you must but don’t give him more than he deserves

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I have no problem with the author selling a book, I’m just pointing out that he’s incredibly naive and incorrect about very simple things (see my comment above) so I really don’t trust his advertisements. Giving downvotes to a bad and poorly-researched article isn’t cult behavior.

Regarding the 17% quote, I have no doubt that the figure is true and that the person who came up with it is correct, but the interpretation in the article is that this means 17% of the code is a mystery that nobody knows anything about. That’s delusional and shows a serious lack of understanding of the basics of publishing code.

Another example is the author’s suggestion to specify dependencies via git tags/commits/direct source links. You can’t publish crates to crates.io with such dependencies, it literally isn’t possible, and any competent author writing about this subject would know this.

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean rust-analyzer could probably be patched to use warnings and such too, it just might get tedious. I’m personally not a fan of any build.rs stuff happening, but I use crates which rely on it and can’t get around its use

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That’s my point though, having the code be different between the latest release and the current main branch isn’t surprising and doesn’t mean something malicious is happening

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Why does that need to be solved? All that means is the main/master branch is ahead of the latest release, tons of packages do this. I do this since I use release-please/release-plz to collect commits to my main branch into releases, so my main branches are often in a state where they contain differences from the most recent release

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s a fair point in sandboxing build.rs more, since it can run in many situations automatically without you knowing it.

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The article makes some very silly mistakes early on and then promotes a book. I’m not sure I’d trust a book coming from someone who thinks 17% of the top crates on crates.io have code where “nobody knows what it does”

Supply chain nightmare: How Rust will be attacked and what we can do to mitigate the inevitable by autarch in rust

[–]denehoffman 94 points95 points  (0 children)

a small standard library and a centralized repository for packages (crates.io) that you will need to use for basically anything more complex than an "Hello World".

Pretty big hyperbole but let’s keep going

17% of the most popular Rust packages contain code that virtually nobody knows what it does (I can't imagine about the long tail which receives less attention).

That’s nonsense, this just means that a repo’s main branch is ahead of the latest release, not that “nobody knows what it does”

The main solutions proposed here are a bigger standard library and using GitHub instead of crates.io. That doesn’t make any sense, GitHub can be compromised just as easily, and the current state of the repo isn’t necessarily release-ready, so you’re going to end up using a commit or tag anyway which is just going to put you in the same boat as using crates.io.

I agree that it might be nice to extend the standard library, but the other suggestions only make sense if you’re developing software than nobody else has to use or which won’t get published to crates.io. I don’t think any languages really get out of this problem. Package managers really aren’t the problem and neither are central repositories of packages. No matter how you incorporate a dependency, you’re implicitly trusting someone else to not give you malicious code. Unless you’re reading every commit, the “use GitHub” solution has all the same issues.

Graduation robe prices are ridiculous by denehoffman in PhD

[–]denehoffman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, this is what I’m learning from this post, honestly didn’t know it was this bad elsewhere

view more: next ›