I would really suggest you rewrite the README, to remove the cliches and make it clear how much effort you put in. You clearly are able to communicate well about this project on your own.

I hate to say this, but this submissions readme seems obviously AI generated.

The AMF works to fight malaria in an extremely cost effective way with insecticide treated bed-nets. Every year hundreds of millions of people will be infected with malaria, and half a million of them will die, with many more being debilitated or disabled. Independent charity evaluators, such as GiveWell, have ranked the AMF as one of the most cost-effective charities in the world for over a decade, due to our long and well-studied track record preventing hundreds of millions of cases of malaria.

Our tech team is just a couple people, and all-remote. Our software is essential to the charity work we do; it is one of the ways we stand out among other charities, by allowing us to automate, analyze, and validate our work in novel ways. Our tech stack includes C# .NET, Blazor, and Python.

If you are a senior SWE in the UK who is interested in making a difference, please reach out to me by email at my first name at againstmalaria.com

I am thinking of an example like constructing two incredibly large numbers (of the same sort as grahams number) where it is not known which is larger, and then e.g. doing x damage to a creature with y health. Ideally this happens in a way that nobody would object to the construction if x and y, since they are simple to describe and construct.

I understand that you can construct a turing machine to perform an arbitrary computation, but that defeats the spirit of this question. The question is whether there is a simpler way to construct such a paradox where you might follow along happily until you get to the end.

For your example of the landlord and the tenant, think, what if the landlord wanted a list of all payments that went into a specific bank account, what if the tenant wanted a list of all rent payments, etc. It's basically a database index to speed up those queries, but for a written database that is updates by hand. The fact that there is redundancy is just a bonus because you can now notice if the two places a piece of information are written down don't match.

The fact remains that for things which are claimed to be true but turn out to not be true later, the p values that were provided in the paper are very often near the significance threshold. Not so much for things which are obviously and strongly true. This is direct evidence of something that we already know, which is thst nobody cares about p values per se, they only use them to communicate information about something being true or false in the real world, and the technical claim of "well maybe x or y is true, but when I said p=0.49 I was only talking about a hypothetical world where x is true, and my statement about that world still holds true" is no solace.

> This isn’t innovation—it’s institutional auto-cannibalism. The new mission statement? Optimization.

Likewise, the example of compositeness is a bit off because even though there is knowledge about the composite number that the proof does not reveal, that knowledge is in fact not known the to person constructing the proof either! The proof is not really zero knowledge either, since it gives the reader knowledge of a specific witness to its compositeness.

Even the wikipedia example of going into the cave (which used to be featured more prominently in the article) I think is terrible. Why wouldn't you just walk a loop to prove you know the way through the secret door? Also, it's clearly not zero knowledge, as it reveals some information about how quickly they can pass through the gate.

In general I think avoiding physical examples is necessary, since reality is complicated, and in the real world some information always leaks.

I think the best example for teaching about ZKPs is the graph isomorphism problem: Given two large graphs, you can prove that you know a isomorphism between two graphs by generating a new randomly labeled graph that is isomorphic to both of them and showing it to the provee, who can then ask you to demonstrate that this new graph is isomorphic to either graph A or graph B. Since you don't know ahead of time which one they will ask for, the only way you could consistently pass this test is if you actually do have a graph that was isomorphic to both A and B simultaneously. But since you only reveal one of the isomorphisms, it really is zero knowledge.

There's no "wonders of china", just the fact that we are falling further behind because of dumb policy which is justified by non sequiturs like "china also installs coal" or "china uses child labor".

However, I should note that it's a hackable ROS system, so people have added obstacle detection with various sensors on their mowers. There is just not official support or a standard way to do it.

I've mowed with it this summer and last summer, and there hasn't been downtime at much as repeatedly getting stuck and requiring me to bring it back to the dock (although less and less). But my lawn is probably the hardest lawn any Openmower mows, as I mentioned in a cousin comment.