If the people fought before they'll keep fighting, even after their robots are gone.

As for why accuracy and perplexity aren't reported: the experiments generally choose a threshold to consider something a "b-hadron" (basically picking a point along the ROC curve) and quantify the TPR and FPR at that point. There are reasons for this, mostly that picking a standard point lets them verify that the simulation actually reflects data. See, for example, the FPR [1] and TPR [2] "calibrations".

It's a good point, though, the physicists should probably try harder to report standard metrics that the rest of the ML community uses.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.06319

[2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05120

https://www.nowcast.de/en/

it's an array of VLF/LF radio antenna.

Everyone needs to agree on a place to put the LHC, and a lot of the accelerator team is on sight and probably should be payed by CERN, but they have a clear set of KPIs for that: they need to get the machine up to design energy and luminosity and hold it there. The CERN accelerator and civil engineering teams are pretty impressive and have mostly done their job.

The rest of the scientific community can (and does) organize into pseudo-autonomous collaborations that draft proposals for what to do with the real-estate around the collision points and beam dumps. The vast majority of these people don't work for CERN.

> To meet these extreme requirements, CERN has deliberately moved away from conventional GPU or TPU-based artificial intelligence architectures.

This isn't quite right either: CERN is using more GPUs than ever. The data processing has quite a few steps and physicists are more than happy to just buy COTS GPUs and CPUs when they work.

- FPAGs like this one are generally COTS.

- All the experiments use GPUs which come straight from the vendors.

- Most of the computing isn't even on site, it's distributed around the world in various computing centers. Yes they also overflow into cloud computing but various publicly funded datacenters tend to be cheaper (or effectively "free" because they were allocated to CERN experiments).

Some very specific elements (those in the detector) need to be radiation hard and need O(microsecond) latency. These custom electronics are built all over the world by contributing national labs and universities.

CERN builds a bit.

Some tried to hold out and keep calling it "ML" or just "neural networks" but eventually their colleagues start asking them why they aren't doing any AI research like the other people they read about. For a while some would say "I just say AI for the grant proposals", but it's hard to avoid buzzwords when you're writing it 3 times a day I guess.

Although note that the paper doesn't say "AI". The buzzword there is "anomaly detection" which is even weirder: somehow in collider physics it's now the preferred word for "autoencoder", even though the experiments have always thrown out 99.998% of their data with "classical" algorithms.

https://opendata-qa.cern.ch/record/93940

if you can beat it with linear regression we'd be happy to know.

    Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional [acrobatic] maneuver...

It's perfectly legal for a 787 to carry a few parachutes just for the full-volume passengers.

[1]: https://faraim.org/faa/far/cfr/title-14/part-91/section-91.3...

Now given that, do you really want to pay the extra cost of flying with 300 parachutes just so mr-full-volume-phone can have one?

- It's fun.

- The prizes are accessible to young scientists who actually need the career boost from the publicity (as opposed to established scientists who are mostly boosting the prestige of the prize)

- They promote awareness of how diverse and awesome science is.

But in my case it was the other way around. I work in a Kowloon Walled City of code: dozens of intersecting communities with thousands of informally organized but largely content contributors. It looks like chaos, but it works ok.

Code formatting really did feel like a new neighbor declaring "you know what this place needs, better-marked bus lanes!" as though that would help them see the sky from the bottom of an ally or fix the underlying sanitation issues. As you might imagine, the efforts didn't get far and mostly annoyed people.

But as the GP said, it all depends on the culture. If you pick up and move to Singapore you'd damn well better keep your car washed and your code style black.

It was a confluence of a lot of bad design features and blunders and I can't blame the formatter for the mess it caused. So I understand your point but, I'd amend it a bit: version control is the reason many projects require a specific formatting style.

In projects without an explicit style, the number one formatting rule is don't reformat code you didn't touch.

I have similar reservations about code formatters: maybe I just haven't worked with a code base with enough terrible formatting, but I'm sad when programmers loose the little voice they have. Linters: cool; style guidelines: fine. I'm cool with both, but the idea that we need to strip every character of junk DNA from a codebase seems excessive.

The result: very few features. Which is exactly what I want.

But they'd probably like you.

<3

> Starting in 2027, consumers will be able to remove and replace the portable batteries in their electronic products at any time of the life cycle.

Interesting that it's also introducing limits on EV carbon footprints, but that's not to the exclusion of mandating replaceable phone batteries.