<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: radioactivist</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=radioactivist</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 12:25:27 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=radioactivist" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "We're no longer attracting top talent: the brain drain killing American science"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>While I echo some of your points, [1] is bad example (as a Canadian).<p>Research money in Canada is harder to come by; a basic research grant is roughly ~5x-10x lower than a comparable American grant (students are cheaper here, so its not completely proportional, but equipment, travel, etc doesn't scale).<p>The example for money for poaching international researchers also comes with the asterisk that while they found ~$2B for this, they also are cutting the base funding of the federal granting agencies by a few percent at the same time, atop of that funding being anemic for decades at this point. A big "fuck you" to the Canadian research community in my opinion.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 03:08:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47083173</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47083173</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47083173</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Also a physicist here -- I had the same reaction. Going from (35-38) to (39) doesn't look like much of a leap for a human. They say (35-38) was obtained from the full result by the LLM, but if the authors derived the full expression in (29-32) themselves presumably they could do the special case too? (given it's much simpler). The more I read the post and preprint the less clear it is which parts the LLM did.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2026 18:05:10 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47016746</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47016746</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47016746</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Prism"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Thanks! (very quickly too)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:09:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46789101</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46789101</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46789101</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Prism"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Is anyone else having trouble using even some of the basic features? For example, I can open a comment, but it doesn't seem like there is any way to close them (I try clicking the checkmark and nothing happens). You also can't seem to edit the comments once typed.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:56:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46786556</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46786556</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46786556</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Prism"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>In my circles the killer features of Overleaf are the collaborative ones (easy sharing, multi-user editing with track changes/comments). Academic writing in my community basically went from emailed draft-new-FINAL-v4.tex files (or a shared folder full of those files) to basically people just dumping things on Overleaf fairly quickly.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:44:36 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46786338</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46786338</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46786338</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Seems like the someone dug something up from the literature on this problem (see top comment on the erdosproblems.com thread)<p>"On following the references, it seems that the result in fact follows (after applying Rogers' theorem) from a 1936 paper of Davenport and Erdos (!), which proves the second result you mention. ... In the meantime, I am moving this problem to Section 2 on the wiki (though the new proof is still rather different from the literature proof)."</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2026 05:08:48 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664946</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664946</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664946</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Learn Your Way: Reimagining Textbooks with Generative AI"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is a comparison between a new and interactive medium (+ slides, mind-maps, etc) and a static PDF book as a control. How do we know that a non-AI based interactive book wouldn't give similar (modest) increases in performance without any of the personalization AI enables?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 01:42:44 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45297079</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45297079</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45297079</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Analyzing a Critique of the AI 2027 Timeline Forecasts"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Thank you for this comment, it is exactly my impression of all of this as well.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:42:51 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44376635</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44376635</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44376635</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Teaching National Security Policy with AI"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It happens again in the next video. It says:<p>> The team came up with a use case the teaching team hadn’t thought of – using AI to critique the team’s own hypotheses. The AI not only gave them criticism but supported it with links from published scholars. See the demo here:<p>But the video just shows Claude giving some criticism but then just says go look at some journals and talk to experts (doesn't give any references or specifics).</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:21:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239193</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239193</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239193</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Teaching National Security Policy with AI"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>At one point this states:<p>> Claude was also able to create a list of leaders with the Department of Energy Title17 credit programs, Exim DFC, and other federal credit programs that the team should interview. In addition, it created a list of leaders within Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget that would be able to provide insights. See the demo here:<p>and then there is a video of them "doing" this. But the video basically has Claude just responding saying "I'm sorry I can't do that, please look at their website/etc".<p>Am I missing something here?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:14:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239140</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239140</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239140</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Scientific Publishing: Enough Is Enough"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I'm not the person you're replying to, but in my subfield (scientist is such a broad term) I would say in my opinion at least half of those key problems that are listed in the article are basically non issues. Things really are quite different field to field.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 04:36:23 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44177272</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44177272</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44177272</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Scientific Publishing: Enough Is Enough"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>And in many subfields there is a preprint freely available on the arxiv during those three months.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 04:29:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44177242</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44177242</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44177242</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Ask HN: Share your AI prompt that stumps every model"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>OpenAI o4-mini-high<p><pre><code>   I’m actually not finding any officially named “Marathon Crater” in the planetary‐ or       
   terrestrial‐impact crater databases. Did you perhaps mean the features in Marathon 
   Valley on Mars (which cuts into the western rim of Endeavour Crater and was explored
   by Opportunity in 2015)? Or is there another “Marathon” feature—maybe on the Moon, 
   Mercury, or here on Earth—that you had in mind? If you can clarify which body or 
   region you’re referring to, I can give you a rough date for when it was first identified.</code></pre></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:43:01 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43786038</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43786038</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43786038</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Black Mirror's pessimism porn won't lead us to a better future"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Small correction: The meow meow beans episode of Community aired in 2014 and the Nosedive episode of Black Mirror aired 2016. So the Community episode came first.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:25:03 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43654909</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43654909</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43654909</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "How University Students Use Claude"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Most of their categories have straightforward interpretations in terms of students using the tool to cheat. They don't seem to want to/care to analyze that further and determine which are really cheating and which are more productive uses.<p>I think that's a bit telling on their motivations (esp. given their recent large institutional deals with universities).</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 16:32:14 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634021</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634021</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634021</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Is AI the new research scientist? Not so, according to a human-led study"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think this comment is significantly more dismissive of science and scientists than the original comment was of AI.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:32:46 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43511919</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43511919</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43511919</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Some hard problems have remain unsolved in basically every field of human interest for decades/centuries/millennia -- despite the number of intelligent people and/or resources that have been thrown at them.<p>I really don't understand the level optimism that seems to exist for LLMs. And speculating that people "secretly hate LLMs" and "feel threatened by them" isn't an answer (frankly, when I see arguments that start with attacks like that alarm bells start going off in my head).</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:29:44 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43321665</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43321665</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43321665</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "General Reasoning: Free, open resource for building large reasoning models"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The data set quality seems a really spotty based on looking a few random problems (I looked at about a dozen in the "Physics" subcategory). Several problems had no clear question (or answer) and seemed to be clipped from some longer resource and thus had back references to Sections and Chapters that the models clearly couldn't follow. Worse is that the verification of the answer seems to be via an LLM and not all that reliable; I saw several where the answer was marked correct when it clearly wasn't and several that were correct but not in the precise form given as "the" answer and thus were labelled as incorrect.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2025 04:21:13 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43136067</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43136067</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43136067</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "FAQ on Microsoft's topological qubit thing"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There are caveats there too. Generally topological qubits <i>can</i> be immune to all kinds of noise (i.e. built-in error correction) but Majorana zero modes aren't exact the right kind of topological for that to be true. They only enjoy protection on most operations, but not all. So there is a still a need for error correction here (and all the complication that entails) it is just hopefully less onerous since only essentially one operation requires it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:30:48 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43118297</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43118297</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43118297</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by radioactivist in "Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's a topological superconductor.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:59:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43107597</link><dc:creator>radioactivist</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43107597</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43107597</guid></item></channel></rss>