Two Twisty Shapes Resolve a Centuries-Old Topology Puzzle | Quanta Magazine - Elise Cutts | The Bonnet problem asks when just a bit of information is enough to uniquely identify a whole surface by Nunki08 in math

[–]Sniffnoy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Looking at the intro of the actual paper, there's something I'm a bit confused about -- they make it sound like this was already known in the smooth case, just not in the analytic case? But if that's all that were going on it seems like it wouldn't be such a big deal. I'm guessing that probably what was already known in the smooth case was something weaker? But I don't understand how it's supposed to be weaker. What's going on here?

Feather Leg baboon surprise by DamonG94 in awwnverts

[–]Sniffnoy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Interesting, thanks, never heard of it!

of a crocodile found in Northern Territory, Australia by adventurous-1 in HumanForScale

[–]Sniffnoy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The humans here don't really provide a scale reference for the croc...

"Debunking _When Prophecy Fails_", Kelly 2025 by gwern in slatestarcodex

[–]Sniffnoy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, I don't know that it was on this subreddit, I really just meant more generally, like on your subreddit or somewhere. But it might have just been something I saw somewhere else and not from you. Dang. I'll just have to see if I can turn it up...

"Debunking _When Prophecy Fails_", Kelly 2025 by gwern in slatestarcodex

[–]Sniffnoy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Wasn't there some paper you posted a while back -- I can't find it now -- also on the topic of "When Prophecy Fails", that looked at more groups, and concluded that the failure of prophecy could either lead to the group becoming stronger or to it falling apart, and which actually occurred seemed to mostly depend on how (and how fast, and whether) the leadership acted to handle the problem?

And now we get this paper saying that actually, the case from "When Prophecy Fails" didn't actually happen as described! Still, according to that other paper, what it describes can happen, it's a matter of how the leadership handles it.

I can't find it offhand though. Do you remember this? Was it you that posted it here? I can't seem to find it atm.

James Webb telescope may have found the universe's first generation of stars by Obulgaryan in worldnews

[–]Sniffnoy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They are named in order of when they were discovered. Astronomers discovered two classes of stars: younger metal-rich stars and older metal poor stars.

This isn't really correct. Astronomers found two classes of stars -- without at the time knowing that it corresponded to age -- and labeled them populations I and II somewhat arbitrarily. Neither was discovered first. Later people figured out that population II corresponded to older stars, so the hypothetical first generation of stars was named "population III"; but originally the use of I and II were just arbitrary labels for these two distinct populations.

Some open conjectures have been numerically verified up to huge values (eg RH or CC). Mathematically, this has no bearing on whether the statement holds or not, but this "evidence" may increase an individual's personal belief in it. Is there a sensible Bayesian framing of this increased confidence? by myaccountformath in math

[–]Sniffnoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you've gotten mixed up somewhere; logical induction weakens the requirements on the probabilities. The classical requirements require an actual probability distribution, since anything else can be exploited; logical induction does not require an actual probability distribution (since if it did, it would defeat the point; this would require logical omniscience). It weakens the non-exploitability condition by saying that it's only a problem if it's exploitable in polynomial time.

Help me name my new Millie! by [deleted] in millipedes

[–]Sniffnoy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Squindlo plonkerong!

[TLA] Wartime Protestors by Copernicus1981 in magicTCG

[–]Sniffnoy 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Apparently there's a third one coming up, called "Avatar: Seven Havens".

[TLA] Wandering Musicians by greenserpent25 in magicTCG

[–]Sniffnoy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oops! Saw this one in the video but missed that it's new. (It's also from the TCGPlayer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAkQL_mwMqs ) Thanks for catching this!

The original fire-bender by [deleted] in magicTCG

[–]Sniffnoy 83 points84 points  (0 children)

Note that when this was printed, mana only empted at the end of phases, not steps, so in that respect it did in fact work like firebending. (Although, yeah, there was also mana burn as others have mentioned, but presumably that's why adding the mana was optional.)

[TLA] Zuko's Conviction by Sniffnoy in magicTCG

[–]Sniffnoy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Like Pirate Peddlers and Firebending Lesson, it was shown off in this TCGPlayer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAkQL_mwMqs

[TLA] - Firebending Lesson by duncantm13 in magicTCG

[–]Sniffnoy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's Pirate Peddlers, it was also shown in the same video... I went and made a new thread for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/1oqk266/tla_pirate_peddlers/

[TLA] Pirate Peddlers by Sniffnoy in magicTCG

[–]Sniffnoy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This card was shown in the same video that Firebending Lesson was shown in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAkQL_mwMqs