The title says "first shape found" but the article clarifies that it's really the first convex polyhedron. A sphere isn't a convex polyhedron, so it doesn't quality for the (now-disproven) conjecture.
> Yea, the issue is fewer and fewer people care about objective fact anymore.
Is there any factual basis for this claim?
I don't have any evidence, but I would speculate that if you got longitudinal data somehow, it would show that more people today care about objective fact than they did in 1950.
For me the biggest benefit of thumb keys isn't finger strength, it's the fact that the thumb is separated from the rest of the hand. It's really easy to hit a thumb key while hitting any other key on the "main" part of the keyboard. Whereas on a traditional keyboard, typing something like shift-T or ctrl-R requires stretching out your hand.
Have LLMs resulted in a democratization of law where anyone can now afford to hire a lawyer? As far as I know, the answer is no. Lawyers who use unreliable tools to generate fake citations are still charging just as much.
> - Important processes are undocumented. E.g. sharing the pass repository with another computer is not obvious: you need to copy more than the `.password-store/` directory...
What do you mean? I copy my repo to new computers by just copying .password-store and I've never had a problem.
The reason I used to oppose nuclear energy is that its proponents would say nuclear waste isn't a problem, but they would never explain why it isn't a problem. I knew the half-life of uranium was 4 billion years; I didn't see how you could possibly make that safe, and nobody on the pro-nuclear side seemed to have an explanation, so I assumed that no explanation existed.
(Turns out the answer is that you can store nuclear waste deep underground at geologically stable locations where tectonics won't cause it to eventually resurface.)
(Also radioactive waste isn't uranium and the half-life is considerably shorter than 4 billion years, although it's still quite long.)
it’s also true that you get better at using (and reusing) what we would consider waste today over time.
The more energy we are able to use, the more inert the waste material becomes, leading to much lower storage timeframes (though still multiple human lifetimes even in the best case).
> If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it
Did you read the article?
Chemical weapons provide no benefit to a modern army. They do, however, to simpler armies. So the world's militaries, who command modern armies, came together and banned them.
Put another way, the U.S. military gains nothing from chemical weapons over high explosives. The Taliban, on the other hand, might.
