But this doesn't mean the remaining task is small or doesn't ask much from the reviewer, does it?! Otherwise we'd see a considerable turn-out of new findings on https://palomar-registry.org/ or https://github.com/Vilin97/lean-pool , or not?! (A considerable number of the presented proofs claim new results, as far as I can tell.)

I would be grateful, if someone familiar with the situation could say a word about this.

As for the proof in question - I'm not sure the author himself can firmly state he understands every detail of what he presented. In a way it's amusing that people who already enjoy a certain level of recognition outside the field are now using it to find (via shiny websites) reviewers for proofs they have worked out as a hobby using Chat GPT and the like.

What we definitely need is more recognition for those who possess the competence and energy to assess the correctness and relevance of such "results".

I suspect the same. But do you have any evidence for this? The status pages of Github and Gitlab (more precisely their history pages) don't seem to be a good starting point for comparisons. Anything I find online are people reporting their own experiences, and it's difficult to tell how accurate they are, how many users were truely affected etc. The only thing I can vouch for is that Github has got more unreliable - adding to the hearsay myself...

Tangentially: Although many of the creators, maintainers and board members of Palomar have a background in Lean, the project welcomes alternative proof assistants, see "What about other proof assistants?" on the about (https://palomar-registry.org/about) page. From what I can tell, many in the mathematical community lament the predominance of Lean, but it reached some sort of critical mass (ecosystem, size of library) that makes it very hard to compete with - e.g. find someone who volunteers to support an alternative on Palomar, with all that this entails.

This is not the way Palomar works. From the About page (https://palomar-registry.org/about):

> Palomar does keep a public preservation fork of every registered source, solely as a backup for the registry in the event that the original repository disappears.

The decision to limit git sources to Github is likely in order to be able to use Github's fork mechanism. Palomar could still offer to take a copy of the relevant commit of non-Github repositories.

15 years ago I lived in East London, and when I came to borrow books (e.g. to the "Idea Store Whitechapel"), I felt some sort of proudness seeing homeless people hanging out there, listening to mp3, having a coffee in the cheap cafeteria or - yes! - reading: True inclusion seemed to work in so few places in the country - at least there it was tangible. I live in Marseille/France now and haven't noticed this here; but a homeless person is not necessarily obvious - next time I visit, I'll have a look!

> such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway

Please elaborate and don't lump all "regions" in with each other. My personal impression is that the combination of the community kitchen movement (which has its roots in the failed Sudanese revolution) and money transfers to mobile phones makes it relatively transparent where one's money goes and what it achieves. I'm not in the US, but I have no doubt that money donated to an organization like the Sudanese American Medical Association (https://sama-sd.org/about-us/finances/) largely reaches the people that need it.

> Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies.

I can assure you none of use would send money to hospitals or community kitchens, if this was likely to happen. What makes you think so?

> Anthropic has also been in ongoing discussions with US government officials about Claude Mythos Preview and its offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. As we noted above, securing critical infrastructure is a top national security priority for democratic countries—the emergence of these cyber capabilities is another reason why the US and its allies must maintain a decisive lead in AI technology.

Not a single word of caution regarding possible abuse. Instead apparent support for its "offensive" capabilities.