NS is continuous approximation to what is otherwise a discrete system. Particle collisions are discrete time events that are averaged over time. NS loses accuracy for very, very, very very low fluid densities and energies.

AI "proving" that this approximation can numerically "blow" up does not mean the approximation loses validity.

Like its a no brainer to force your employees to use your own models, then RL train them to be better.

Yep

More slop.

Because in the flip side, you get C++ templates, which are turing complete, so you can write entire program syntax that the compliler executies during the complie process.

For example, when I worked on writing embedded software for autopilots, we had 2 files, common.so and common.h that contained essentially a super robust typing framework. The way it worked is that you defined types through the provided functions at the beginning of your code, and all of the definitions were stored and checked at runtime at the beginning before the main execution loop took effect. So basically taking what a more robust language compiler would do and just moving that processing to the start of execution.

I use something similar for my local llm setup at home, where i can have my agent basically write tools for itself and when the tool fails, the error code makes it pretty easy for the agent to fix.

Look at Moto GP. The crash speeds are much slower, because they happen during cornering, and because bikes don't have that much aero downforce even with all the power ranger wings on them now, the riders have to brake a lot more.

Instead of trying to push hybrid tech, which will never be that good for racing, Id like to see F1 focus more on actual ICE engine refinement, because ICE isn't going anywhere even in the age of evs. Something like no front/rear wings, no pitstops, ICE only, standard ECU for power delivery, no ABS, but you can run AWD with electronic suspension and torque vector as much as you want.

Meanwhile models like Gemma4 which are fully activated preform slightly worse on the specific benchmark but are capable of exploring much more domain space with careful prompting.

If you have a card with 24gb of ram, you can run Gemma4:31b above 100 tok/sec if its not being used for rendering. With careful prompting and RAG system, you can actually make it do better than frontier models. Especially if you add web search into equation (which with google basically runs Gemini for you).

The thing is, they do these searches not because they are "evil" - definitely not morally upstanding people, but at the end of the day, its still a job and they are following some guidance. When they encounter an uncooperative person, a) it makes their monotonous job more exciting, and b) an uncooperative person is more likely to be guilty, which means more excitement.

As such, if you care about privacy, just get a degoogled phone, and use the web interface for all the communication stuff that you need, including phone. Then just clear browser data and cache before you land. If you get one that supports usb OTG or screen mirroring, you can also get a lapdock and use that as your laptop.

Then, if they detain you and ask for your devices, you can just give them everything and let them have at it. Because you are cooperative, and the phone did not reset with the pin like the Graphene OS one, they are way more likely to let you go

Fundamentally, when it comes to making any decision, there is always one that we will pick (which sometimes includes inaction), based on perceived values of the expected outcome.

We may feel bad about it, we may feel scared, we may have any other emotion in relation to it, but if a person commits to that decision, that perceived outcome is what they truly desire.

This may seem like we don't have free will, but that is not the case. We can chose what we value, which affects how we internally rank outcomes based on the percieved value. And that can be a logical decision.

Its highlighted well in the psychological effect of tossing a coin when you are not sure about something, not to make the choice for you, but to see how you feel about the outcome, which tells you what you really want.

So for someone that overeats, and then feels ill, knowing that would happen, is simply a case of them valuing the enjoyment of food over feeling ill. If they were perfectly logical, without emotions, they would overeat, feel ill, and then not complain about feeling ill because they understood that they did it to themselves and this is a necessary sacrifice for the enjoyment of prior. But because humans are emotional we react to feeling ill with negative emotion, which externally makes it seem like we made the wrong choice, but we didnt.

As long as the financial advisers statement is along the lines of "this is the service I provide, these are my rates", with no lies about saying how his rates are the best or lying about what he can actually do, absolutely no problem.

That doesn't mean that he is of a moral upstanding character, but he certainly shouldn't be banned from setting his own price.

>Selling heroin outside of a drug rehab clinic (All information available & understood, but under compromising circumstances)

This one is tricky, because unlike online sports gambling, this ties into other things.

My answer would still be yes with the following caveats

* The heroin seller is FDA certified and not making the drug at home where he can accidentally mess it up and kill someone that is not expecting to die.

* We have a system of dealing with people effectively who turn to drugs. Id be 100% for state/government funded drug camps where anyone can either voluntarily enter, or get put there if their drug use causes them to be a public nuisance. They can stay there, get shelter and food and basic first aid for free, and get all the drugs they want, with 2 caveats: no advanced medical care (if you OD, or have a heart attack, you die), and the only way to leave is to go through a trial reintegration program where you get support for getting off drugs, get put to work, and do this for a year before being let out.

1. If someone knows all the information, but still chooses to make the wrong decision.

2. Someone is being told wrong or incomplete information, leading them to make the wrong decision

3. Someone is being forced by external means into making an wrong decision.

Two and three are already illegal, under fraud and coersion.

Im solely talking about 1. Because if you don't believe people have full agency in that regard, you have to prove to what extent can you determine what is deception. You can't just willy nilly say that something feels immoral, and therefore should be banned.

Do we treat humans as

1) having full agency, and thus full responsibility for their actions

2) having less than full agency, and then to what extent must society/governments implement control over things that humans can't control within themselves

Because generally, if you subscribe to 1, there is nothing immortal from taking money from a human that that wants to hand it over, provided that human well knows what is at stake. So as long as these websites aren't defrauding the customers with fake stats, there really is nothing wrong.

If you subscribe to 2, then thats a much riskier line to walk because that affects a lot of things, not just gambling.