The arxiv has more details. They sparsely populated a dense lattice with particles. Then they turned off the lattice, which allowed all the particles’ wave functions to evolve according to the Schrödinger equation. Then they turned the lattice back on, which constitutes a measurement and collapses the wave functions. Then they took statistics on how far and in which direction each particle traveled and compared those statistics to the ones implied by Schrödinger’s equation.
So is this really just a different version of the double-slit experiment, building up a statistical measurement of the waveform by performing many discrete measurements?
In a way, although the double slit demonstrated self interference. In this experiment, I think the lattice is so sparsely populated that interference effects are negligible and particles move as free wave packets while the lattice is disabled.
Indeed, the article is extremely confusing. The wave in wave-particle duality is not the wave (function), one that collapses. For instance, electromagnetic wave is not the same thing as the wave function of the photon.
I guess people can’t handle that one of their favorite writers did something despicable. No need to downvote so much, just comes across like you’re trying to conceal the truth, which is that the guy supported a monster.
It’s not flamebait. There was no deliberate attempt to piss people off. That it happened to anyway is entirely the fault of those outraged. It’s a relevant fact. People just get insecure and then defensive when they find one of their favorite people did something stupid. Same thing happened with Michael Jackson whose music was evidently so good that no one really batted an eye at all the awful shit he probably did.
Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern.
It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.
I invite you to search for dang's admonishments against flamebait and generic tangents, and see if you might be able to suss out a pattern and/or rationale for that moderation. Here's the site search:
Keep in mind that such acts are judgement calls, and I'll occasionally differ strongly with dang's take. For the most part, however, I find his moderation appropriate. Another point is that most HN moderation is actually performed by members, not mods, and admonisments (my term for his moderation comments) constitute only a very small number of moderator-specific interactions.
The prime directive of HN is "intellectual curiosity" (<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>), and ... regardless of how you feel about it ... taking a late hit on an accomplished author for one act on his obituary ... tends to be read poorly.
(Those whose lives were overwhelmingly negative may get different treatment. There've been a few recent obits that hit this mark in my view.)
And no, I'm not a mod, nor do I know what others' motivations are. I'm just pointing out the most likely guidelines and moderator rationales which are likely at play here.
It's very much flamebait to go looking for some random shit someone did and then paste it into a thread context-free, which is what the commenter self-admittedly did. Going on about downvotes and how everybody else is a censorious sheep is definitely against the site guidelines so there's nothing particularly odd about that part.
Referring to it as random shit is just yuck. There are lots of people who would like to know the positives and negatives of someone who died. This is a random message board, it's not like ’rgrieselhuber is going to the funeral page and commenting. So it's alright.
This guy supported him in 2009, 30 years after the act. Also, it's no secret RP did not stop his abuses after 1977.
It's literally a thread about Paul Auster, what more context do you need?
HN has a history of being cozy on abusers, supporters etc, which alienates a lot of smart people from participating. It's unfortunate that you chose to die on this hill.
You conveniently ignore my directly adjacent post where I make it clear that I found this "controversy" while attempting to learn more about the author.
The other commenters made him sound interesting, so I wanted to see what his life was like and it turns out that he supported a pedophile. Seems relevant to me as I would want to know that about an author if I'm going to start reading their books.
Apparently these facts about him are just "random shit."
I could say you conveniently ignore the fact your comment was downvoted and flagkilled by other users. And like the other commenter, I'm trying to tell you why that happens - it's not, as you seem to think, because those users are keen on supporting an abuser.
Obviously I didn't ignore the fact that it was downvoted because I specifically mentioned it. I just don't derive my opinions from group consensus or magic internet points. I stand by what I wrote, for the reasons I explained.
I understand the argument you are attempting to make, I just don't buy it.
What would be the context of signing one's name to support something like Polanski that would make it excusable? It's not random shit I went looking for, I was educating myself on a writer I hadn't heard of and came across that action, which I find to be reprehensible.
I'll undo one of your downvotes, I guess. I've never heard of this guy in my life, and I'm not exactly poorly-read. No idea what the connection with HN is.
But if you do want to break up your keys more, make sure you specify IdentityFile and Identities Only in the per host definitions in your ssh config.
By default assuming you use an ssh agent (no forwarding) with multiple keys and a default ssh config, the behavior is to just try to auth with every key in order.
So if you're worried about the ssh server identifying you, you're still exposing yourself. I don't think this is much of a concern but worth noting.
Slightly more important: you're wasting time during the initial connection to fail authentication a few times. This can matter more with higher latency
Even more important: sshd has a configurable number of times a client is allowed to fail authentication in a session attempt. If you have too many other keys in your agent you will just fail to auth before it tries the key that is actually valid for that host.
> No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information.
What?
> Sure it does.
What? Contradicting yourself immediately?
> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”
…what?
> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.
I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).
> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.
Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.
My only point was that people were reacting to future versions of a confidential product as if we know. I didn’t contradict myself by saying “obviously they are working on new versions.”
My point was that we have no idea what the new versions are.
So do you just have a list of like thousands of specialized discord servers for every question you want to ask? You're the first person I've seen who is actually _fond_ of discord locking information behind a login instead of the forums and issues of old.
I personally don't think it's useful evaluation here either as you're trying to pretend discord is just a "service" like google or chatgpt, but it's not. It's a social platform and as such, there's a ton of variance on which subjects will be answered with what degree of expertise and certainty.
I'm assuming you asked these questions because you yourself know the answers in advance. Is it then safe to assume that you were _already_ in the server you asked your questions, already knew users there would be likely to know the answer, etc? Did you copy paste the questions as quoted above? I hope not! They're pretty patronizing without a more casual tone, perhaps a greeting. If not, doesn't exactly seem like a fair evaluation.
I don't know why I'm typing this all out. Of course domain expert _human beings_ are better than a language model. That's the _whooole_ point here. Trying to match human's general intelligence. While LLM's may excel in many areas and even beat the "average" person - you're not evaluating against the "average" person.
Well, I thought this was funny. For what it's worth.