Israel was going for a death toll, they said it explicitly themselves.
AI “errors” had nothing to do with the outcome in Gaza. The IDF would have used another sloppier metric for targeting, they flat out don’t care as long as they still get money and US troops defending them.
Physics modeling is arguably the most important task of computers. That was the original impetus for building them; artillery calculations in WW2.
All engineering modeling uses physics modeling, almost always linear algebra (which involves large summations). Nuclear medicine—physics, weather forecasting—physics, molecular dynamics and computational chemistry—physics.
Physics modeling is the backbone of modern technology, it’s why so much research has been done on doing it efficiently and accurately.
Their articles aren’t that deep and they mostly focus on similar topics.
I think it’s perfectly possible for someone to have a backlog of work/experience that they are just now writing about.
If it were AI spam, I would expect many disparate topics at a depth slightly more than a typical blog post but clearly not expert. The user page shows the latter, but not the former.
However, the Rubik’s cube article does seem abnormal. The phrasing and superficiality makes it seem computer-generated, a real Rubik’s afficionado would have spent some time on how they cube.
Of course I say this as someone much more into mathematics than “normal” software engineering. So maybe their writing on those topics is abnormal.
You can use Kahan summation to mitigate floating point errors. A mere 100 thousand floating point operations is a non-issue.
As a heads up computational physics and mathematics tackle problems trillions of times larger than any financial computation, that’s were tons of algorithms have been developed to handle floating point errors. Infact essentially any large scale computation specifically accounts for it.
I struggle to find something more obnoxious than incorrectly employed formal logic.
There is no contradiction. The intersection of “native-sounding English” and “(English with) no grammatical errors” is not empty. So it’s actually perfectly possible to meet both criteria.
It also wouldn’t be a logical contradiction even if it wasn’t possible, since contradictions are conflicts of arguments that rely on different propositions being true, not the valuation of the actual propositions.
Pivoting away from number theory and trying to learn molecular dynamics. I still have a large number theory research library that I can work on, but now I need to find a research topic in MD.