I mean, the artifact in LotR is magical. Reading too much into the name would be a mistake.

The term “social murder” is co-opting violent language to describe things that are not violent. I’m sure you can understand the difference even if you do like to use the term. What you mean is that the consequences of politics can be extremely severe, but once you see that is not the same as violence the way we both understand the term literally, you see that “politics is violent” is not a useful reply.

What you seem to be trying to say is that, because political decisions can cause mass deaths, violent language is by default justified in political discourse. That’s dangerous and wrong, and leads to politicians getting killed. And it’s not going to be right-wing politicians who get killed the most, because right-wingers are more l ikely to carry out political violence, once it becomes normalised through violent political discourse.

But this was about Israel more than the USA.

There are significant relevant differences between Britain and Israel today compared to German Jews and Germany in the late 1930s. But the same calculations need to apply when you allow violence into your speech: is it going to increase the risk of violence against innocent people? Anti-semitic assaults in the UK rose by approximately 50% in the wake of October 7th. (I was not able to find comparable figures for Islamophobic assaults, unfortunately), so this is against a backdrop in which Jews are at an increased risk of violence. So although “death to the IDF” does not call for violence against Jews in general, as the Chief Rabbi wrongly claimed, it does increase that risk.

Coming from the other direction, shouting “death to the IDF” does not materially call for justified action in a way that “fuck the IDF” does not; they are both merely expressing directionless disapproval. They will be seen too as calls for the governments to stop funding Israel, providing it with weapons, and associating with a government actively and brazenly carrying out ethnic cleansing.

We can also see that things are different for the people directly affected by violence. If a Palestinian shouts “death to the IDF” I don’t see that as unacceptable violent speech; I see that as an inevitable response to the violence enacted upon them. But Bob Vylan is not a Palestinian being attacked by the IDF so we shouldn’t give him the same latitude.

Not convinced this really belongs in Technology; he was inciting violence and would expect to be convicted on whatever medium.

When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.

For all you have said - “without the consent” - “being sexualised” - “commodifies their existence” - you haven’t told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:

1. if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
2. if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
3. I don’t know what the “commodification of one’s existence” can actually mean - I can’t buy or sell “the existence of women” (does buying something’s existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don’t see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way

It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,

I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.

If a boy fantasises sexually about a girl, is that harmful to her? If he tells his friends about it? No, this is not harmful - these actions do not affect her in any way. What affects the girl is how the boys might then treat her differently than they would do someone they don’t find sexually attractive.

The solution, in both cases, has to be to address the harmful behaviour. The only arguments for criminalising deepfakes themselves are also arguments for criminalising sexual fantasies. that is why people are talking about thought crime, because once you criminalise things that are harmless on their own, but which might down the line lead to directly harmful behaviour, there is no other distinction.

The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form.

Both of these, for example, apply just as readily to discussing a shared sexual fantasy about someone who didn’t agree to it.

No distinction, that is, other than this is new and icky. I don’t want government policy to be dictated by fear of the new and by what people find icky, though. I do lots of stuff people find icky.

It’s bullying with a sexual element. The fact that it uses AI or deepfakes is secondary, just as it was secondary when it was photoshop, just as it was secondary when it was cutting out photos. It’s always about using it bully someone.

This is different because it’s easier. It’s not really different because it (can be) more realistic, because it was never about being realistic, otherwise blatantly unrealistic images wouldn’t have been used to do it. Indeed, the fact that it can be realistic will help blunt the impact of the leaking of real nudes.

You’re welcome!

Mass music festivals are perfectly acceptable places to make political statements.

I didn’t say anything about political statements, I mentioned violent statements. There is a big difference between wishing death on people and expressing your disapproval with them, and anyone who can’t express the latter without the former should, generally, expect to be censured (and censored). The angry person you quote doesn’t even express violence.

It wasn’t though, was it. The IDF are not Jews in general; they are multi-ethnic and are the armed forces of a country at war. Would a chant of “death to the Russian Armed Forces” be Russophobic? “Death to the Wehrmacht” for anti-German during World War 2? “Death to Hamas” for Islamophobia?

Identification of the armed forces of a state with a state is a sign of fascism, and the identification of the state with an ethnic group is a sign of extreme nationalism - though admittedly that is less the case with Israel and Jewish people.

Chanting “death, death to the IDF” is violent and inappropriate at a music festival. “Fuck the IDF” would’ve been fine though.

In my (old) field, this was not really true, but maybe it’s true in some other fields.

But it is true that if all these grants are cut, it will have a big effect on research output due to killing off early career researchers. It’s clear that the US Government doesn’t give a shit that it’s going to ruin the country’s research credentials.

The succinct way of defining the topology (on NxN) is the product topology of the discrete topology(/ies). Maybe that’s the discreteness you’re feeling?

Axiom of Choice is not regarded as a big deal by most set theorists, but it’s interesting when it comes up. The diagonalisation proof that there are undetermined games uses choice to well-order the set of strategies, so it’s actually the other way around: without choice it is consistent (assuming consistency of some other stuff) that all games in this formulation are determined. This is called the Axiom of Determinacy.

The axioms in question are power set and replacement: to prove full Borel determinacy you need to apply the power set axiom infinitely many times (using the replacement axiom). These two axioms are what gives the ZFC axioms their power, really.

Set theorists nowadays I don’t think debate about axioms per se. Set theory nowadays is at once somewhat pluralistic and somewhat settled (paradoxically). I’ll explain a little: set theorists are basically agreed that the ZFC axioms are natural, intuitively “true” (many set theorists would not put scare-quotes there, but I would), powerful enough to do all ordinary mathematics and more, and probably consistent. They also generally agree that many large-cardinal axioms are natural and probably consistent, though there is a wide variation in whether people think they are “true”; there is not nearly so much intuition that such huge objects could exist. This is different than our intuition behind the axiom of infinity, because that axiom is actually needed to do some ordinary mathematics (though you can do without it for a lot!)

The Projective Hierarchy continues the stratification of the Borel Hierarchy even further. If you assume infinitely many woodin cardinals, then you can prove Projective Determinacy. I have heard Tony Martin being quoted as saying that “if Projective Determinacy were found to be inconsistent” (and hence infinitely many Woodin cardinals is inconsistent) “then I’d be having serious doubts about [the axiom of] Replacement.” This gives you a flavour of how people think about the relationship between these concepts.

I wonder if this is the best they can come up with in response to the airbase attacks?

As far as I can work out about this USA, this is not true. It is certainly not true where I am from. It may be true in the case of postdoctoral researchers (but not always), i.e. relatively junior researchers who don’t yet have a permanent position. But a permanent position is just that - it’s like a permanent job, and you’re paid a salary by the university that gave you that position. You will typically also need to apply for grants in order to pay for things like:

• travel to conferences
• travel to collaborate in person with colleagues at other institutions
• make papers open access
• hire postdoctoral researchers and PhD students.

I did two postdocs during my time in academia and both were grant funded (one awarded to me, one awarded to a more senior researcher who then took me on as a postdoc). I also applied to one postdoc position I remember which although fixed term, not permanent, was paid for by the university. I worked with many permanent staff who had salaries from the university as well as grants for other things.

As far as I can tell in the USA the only real difference is that your salary may only be for the 9 teaching months, not the full academic year, and you’re expected to top up those 3 months if you want to be paid a proper wage.

This is not really “mildly infuriating” and you should make the link point to the article, not to a screenshot from it.

As a field of study, it’s the study of two-player games of perfect information (so think chess, not football or poker) in which each player may make countably many moves (you can also look at uncountable-length games but it’s not common). I’ll give you more detail than I would a child :P

Each player takes turns to move. You can encode the moves they make as coming from some set - for example they might just play numbers. The rules of the game are imposed by a winning set, which is a set of countable-length sequences of moves, and we say that player I wins if the infinite sequence of her first move followed by player II’s first move followed by her second move, etc, is in the winning set. Otherwise player II wins. (There are no draws, which technically means chess falls outside the scope of this setup, but it turns out not to be a big deal)

(This allows you to encode what moves are allowed by the rules - you just say that any sequence which contains a move where that player broke a rule is a loss for that player, regardless of what comes afterwards.)

Each winning set defines a different game. The property of determinacy is a property of sets of infinite sequences which says that there is a winning strategy for either player. A strategy is just a function which takes the finite sequence of moves up to that point in the game and tells the player (the player for whom the strategy is) what to do. A winning strategy is one which, if followed, always results in a win for that player.

If we modify the rules of noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) so that draws are arbitrarily decided to give a win to player I, we know that this (finite) game has a winning strategy. In fact, any finite game has a winning strategy (or, if there are draws, this means there is a non-losing strategy). The outline of the proof is that if player I does not have a strategy to get to one of the (finitely many) winning states, then we can find a strategy for player II which avoids those winning states. (Remember, winning states are winning for I).

So, which games are determined? Are all games determined? Well, it’s actually easy (through a diagonalisation argument, same as proving uncountability of the reals) that not all infinite (countable-length, that is) games played with natural numbers (as moves) are determined. But you can create a way of categorising the sets of countable sequences of natural numbers (i.e. the possible winning sets) by a kind of complexity. This is the basis of descriptive set theory. It starts with topology: you can define basic open sets in this space as those sets consist of all infinite sequences which share a common finite prefix. Closed sets are the complements of open sets, as usual. But then you can define a hierarchy of complexity where the next level are countable unions of closed sets, then the next level are countable unions of complements of countable unions of complements of open sets. (An introduction to descriptive set theory will say more about this).

It’s quite easy to prove that all open sets and all closed sets in this hierarchy of complexity are determined. It’s a little harder to prove that the second level is determined, and harder still to prove that the third level is. Eventually a guy named Tony Martin (D. A. Martin) proved that all Borel sets in this hierarchy are determined. If you know your analysis, the Borel sets are exactly what you’re thinking: they’re the sets formed by all arbitrary countable unions, intersections and complements of open sets.

The interesting thing about this proof was that it needed a huge amount of set theoretic “power”. Most ordinary mathematics like analysis doesn’t need all the axioms of set theory, but this needed a massive chunk of them. This makes it interesting to set theorists because it tells us something about the relationship between something quite concrete: complexity of sets and strategies for easily-defined games on the one hand, and something quite abstract: the axioms of set theory. This pattern continues higher up: more determinacy can be proved if you assume even stronger axioms, going beyond what is typically included in set theory.

How much sugar do you add?

How long do you boil it for? (You don’t know; you have to monitor the temperature)

How long does putting it all in jars take you? (ages)

It’s not difficult, but it is time consuming and not trivial.

Making jam is not trivial but it I think that makes it rewarding! My dad has made jam and marmalade for as long as I’ve known and it’s always an event. My parents have hundreds of jars (for some reason my dad calls them bottles? Only in a jam context though!) and every so often he cooks up a giant pot of jam with an old-fashioned sugar thermometer, testing the batch on a piece of baking paper, then bottling everything up. He often did it with my sister, who now also makes her own jam.

He labels all the jars, and we’ve opened jars that were… I dunno, a decade old I’m sure, and they were totally fine. So they will definitely keep for a long time!

I have a PhD in mathematics (set theory). It would be pretty tough to explain to a child. Specifically my PhD is in determinacy, which is way easier to explain than most branches of set theory, but you do need a decent understanding of infinity to really get anywhere.

I’m sure Netanyahu will be calling the IDF anti-semitic in a few hours.

I mean the UK has 6% of its energy over the year come from solar, and 30% from wind, and installations are only accelerating, so this amount of installed solar is far from unrealistic.

Installing storage approximately doubles the LCOE of solar energy, so this is also feasible from a cost point of view as we get rid of dispatchable gas turbines.

Basically if we solve storage, we can get rid of nuclear, but not before.

I am not saying we should get rid of nuclear. I am saying we should keep some nuclear, also once we have got less gas and more storage. Does this resolve some things in this discussion for you?