If you do something that violates the terms of your bond, the prosecution can file a motion alleging a violation, at which point the defendedant can admit to the violation or deny and request a hearing. Then there's an evidentiary hearing, basically a mini-trial, where the judge hears evidence and determines if there was a violation. If that happens, the consequences can depend. You can forfeit your bond, your bond can be raised, new bond conditions can be imposed, etc.

If you were given a cash bond and can't afford it, you can contract with a bail bondsman. That bail bondsman will pay the bail for you, and in some sense takes responsibility for you not violating your bond, in exchange for some fee (usually 10% of the bond amount). That amount is NOT refunded

The grand jury only hears from the prosecution, there is no defense involved. Only a majority of the grand jury has to sign off, not unanimous like in an actual trial. The standard of evidence is just probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The rules of evidence are relaxed, meaning hearsay and other evidence can potentially be introduced that would normally be barred from a trial.

Because of the above, the rate of indictment from a grand jury is very high, over 90%. Most prosecutors will go their entire careers without getting a "no true bill" (meaning the grand jury did not sign off on an indictment). There's a saying that "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich." So the fact that there was no indictment here is a big deal. It will probably hurt that prosecutor's career.

Fun fact: the usage of TERCOM in the tomahawk missile actually limited its ability to be used in Operation Desert Storm. Routes had to be planned to go around actual topographical features, instead of hundreds of miles of flat desert.

EDIT: Yeah this plaintiff is nuts. His complaint, linked by a response to my comment and in other places, is just bizarre. I would highly doubt any allegations he might make.This guy has apparently been suing a bunch of judges in the family courts in Las Vegas. A lot of those proceedings appear to be online: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsKMpjAPcB2vRRCMtdEb1...

But for me, for any stronger definition of “thinking,” I don’t think the output of any LLM would actually convince me. Producing a result isn’t thinking - for all you know it is just printing verbatim something from the training data. No, to conclude if it is thinking or not I would want to look inside its head, at the architecture and watch it produce those results. And because LLMs are so different it will probably take advancements in mathematics or computer science to be able to really interpret what is going on

We are in a period of strategic instability and an arms race that is unlike anything we have seen in the last 50 years. You can quibble with the specifics all you want, but I don’t think anyone can argue that we are at a lesser risk of nuclear war that we were, say, 20 or 30 years ago

Learn data structures and algorithms. Understand finite state machines and context free grammars. Learn at least some mathematics. Discrete math, Boolean logic, and statistics. Learn how operating systems work, networking, databases, compilers, machine code, low-level details like registers and the cache hierarchy. Learn more obscure programming languages: like Lisp, Prolog, Haskell, and Forth.

You probably won’t use those in your day job, but they will open your mind to fundamentally different ways of thinking about problems. Honestly, just try to learn as much as you can about as many different areas of computer science as possible. Don’t worry about learning version control, the latest web frameworks, or working with AI, at least not until the very end.

You want to come out of college with two things: the ability to learn new things quickly, and having a wide breadth of knowledge to draw upon. As someone who regularly interviews candidates, that’s what I’m looking for more than anything else.

I skimmed the article, but the next third of the article seems to be devoted to using this relationship between the zeta function and prime numbers to prove the prime number theorem, which is a theorem approximating how many primes are less than or equal to any given number N.

The final third goes into how to get increasingly accurate approximations for the number of primes less than N, ending on the fact that Gausses approximation is in some sense the “best”, but only if the Riemann zeta functions zeroes lie on the critical section.

If you just want a general primer on why the zeta function has anything to do with primes, the product formula might suffice. In which case, the proof on the Wikipedia page might be a better read. The derivation in the article focuses on the general setup that is later built on to prove additional things

Sure, you could argue it was going to be dismantled anyway under this administration. But I think that’s pretty close to the “just following orders” excuse. Which falls especially flat when it was a task he volunteered for!

And I don’t want to understate the harms of other AI CEOs, but in terms of direct, quantifiable deaths, Musk is pretty clearly the most evil.

It’s worth noting that it’s common for it to take years or decades for victims to speak out against an abuser. Especially when the victims are children. Especially when the abuser is a prominent figure, like the literal King of Pop.

I’m not going to try and convince you that these allegations are credible (though I believe they are), I just want you to think about how a child victim might behave in that situation. There’s almost never any objective evidence or 3rd party witnesses of abuse. It’s almost always the word of one person against another. And it may be years before a child victim even fully understands what was happening, and years beyond that to come to terms with it.