TechTakes

this was of course the toast of the UK press and Twitter

they're doing a parody of it in LA, which looks like rubbish but they're flying over the Oompa Loompa actor so if she gets a paying gig out of it then fine

While the above analysis may seem to be critical, we do believe that many of our points could be adopted in the next version of this work. More scrutiny of the “new” materials needs to be performed prior to putting them into a database and claiming “...an order-of-magnitude expansion in stable materials known to humanity”. In fact, we have yet to find any strikingly novel compounds in the GNoME and Stable Structure listings, although we anticipate that there must be some among the 384,870 compositions.

This brings us to our final point concerning the claim of “an order-of-magnitude expansion in stable materials known to humanity”. We would respectfully suggest that the work by Merchant et al. (1) does not report any new materials but reports a list of proposed compounds. In our view, a compound can be called a material when it exhibits some functionality and, therefore, has potential utility. Since no functionality has been demonstrated for the 384,870 compositions in the Stable Structure database, they cannot yet be regarded as materials.

then they proceed to explain how badly have they fucked up in the only one example where they tried to find some utility of "new" "material"

The few examples of functionality mentioned in the article are associated with Li+-ion conductors. While the proposed materials are encouraging, their compositions leave much to be desired since they incorporate chemically soft anions. These anions are usually associated with narrow electrochemical stability windows, which renders materials that incorporate them somewhat pointless as Li+ solid electrolytes. (29)

this is basically closest you can get to "you fucked up, do better" in a published article. saying "you fucked up, actually don't even try to do better, go home" is not what i've seen ever really in published piece, excluding obvious cases of cooked data, even if it's warranted this time. it's in conclusions section https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c00643

it's really the "i'm doing 1000 calculations per second and they are all wrong" meme in machine form

so that preprint got published. good

This journo: "Hmm, a guy that was deeply in this community says it's a fucked up shithole with bad politics. I'm going to ignore that aspect of it and just uncritically platform them wholesale"

The thermodynamic god is a kind of in-joke for e/acc; a reference to the laws of physics

But apparently asking a physicist whether these people are all full of shit is too much.

welcome! this is a good first post.

"Ever since I was a kid, I wanted to figure out a theory of everything, to understand the universe."

It turned out the real Beff Jezos was a brilliant Quantum AI computing scientist.

He's only in his early 30s, but he'd already held leadership roles at two cutting-edge companies owned by Google's parent company, Alphabet.

and I can see why you needed to sneer. the entire fucking article quirkwashes e/a and BasedBeffJezos by sharing some of the absolute stupidest opinions and memes ever formed (an e/a staple) and a small fraction of the bigotry in their community, and handwaves it all away by claiming BasedBeffJezos must be a genius cause he was a nepo hire at two google subsidiaries and was a “Quantum AI computing scientist”, whatever the fuck that means

Despite the apparent war, e/accs and doomers have a surprising amount in common.

wow, it’s almost like your ass forgot to interview anyone outside of an AI cult for this article

This is a bit meta but the fact that this Black Horse guy got his thread recommended by the algo seems to imply he's a bluechecker but there's none visible. So the question is if he is hiding it, and if it will be revealed by the latest ukase from St. Elon that hiding the blue check is no longer possible...

I skimmed this thread and OOP is mad that you can beat Civ without literally conquering the world, a change which may have been made for balance and depth; but ig its just another attempt by the soiboi elites to longhouse gamers

Edit: whoops, turns out everyone wrote my comment but better. Have an unhinged quote retweet instead

Once, when I was ~21, I got embarrassed at a viewing of RHPS because I told the floor show people, "oh, I've seen Rocky Horror lots, like, 5 or 6 times!" 5 or 6 viewings is, in the context of RHPS, not even remotely "lots".

Anyway imagine having opinions about Civ and bragging, "I have replayed each civilization game at least once from beginning to end".

that thread is quite nuts, as his main complaint is some sort of 'you can no longer take over the world as easily' thing, while civilization always had anti-snowballing mechanics. (He also doesn't mention the spinoffs like alpha centauri, colonization and call to power, which (apart from call to power I think) should be part of the conversation as they were created by the same teams/software houses as the civs at the time. But the changes in those games would undermine his message of 'ruling class (?? Firaxis ruling class really??) cultural decline'. And not just a higher focus on different game mechanics because they want every game to have a distinct different felling to try and get new people involved, the market has changed and pure 1991 style civilization games don't do as well and don't recoup your budget. The problem also seems to be that he is a 'conquerer' type player while civ tries to also appeal to the 'builder' type players, and I think more modern civs also try to appeal to the 'multiplayer' type player which is in conflict with the 'conquerer' type. (I made the specific types up here, but there are general types of players, and somebody interested in a 'clash of civilizations I want to take over the world' type of game is going to want a different type of game than a 'clash of civilizations I want to build the best civ' game or a 'clash of civilizations, I want to play a game with my friends' game).

This thread feels like a shapiro, and I have only glanced at game design theory as an amateur.

Edit: sorry my comment is obviously bad as I didn't first replay all the civ games before making this comment. ;) But if I had, I would remember that in the first game you could 'win' the game by building a spaceship to alpha centauri, as the game was score based (I think a successful big spaceship gave a massive score boost), not 'win by taking out all other empires' based (which iirc just ends the game, aka he confused completing a game with winning a game). In civ1 you don't play against others, you play against your earlier self via the high score system.

Because I am a glutton for punishment I found the unrolled thread here (via HN but they don't have anything to say apart from complaining you have to be logged on to Twitter to read it).

All I'm gonna say is that if you're coming after me with a thesis about the Fall of the West, you'd better not have apostrophes in your possessive its.

looks like not that i could find smoking guns of, but i was surprised to see the Heritage Foundation pop up as a supported (specifically to advocate the "High Frontier", I would presume in the interest of defense spending)