Tootfinder

A proposal for the role of higher spin fields in Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
Anders K. H. Bengtsson
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06634 https://

A proposal for the role of higher spin fields in Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
This paper proposes a research program into how the special properties of the cubic chiral higher spin gravity theory may play a role in conformal cyclic cosmology and black hole physics, in particular for the black hole information paradox. The paper is qualitative, raising a number of questions and connections, that may be interesting to pursue in more detail. The proposal is based on a new -- at least not so commonly expressed -- view on the presumptive role of higher spin gauge fields in fu…

I think I'm done and will step off the soapbox now. I'll answer any other questions that pop up and maybe add to this thread any updates on the install (July 14th) or initial impressions on operating if I think it would be interesting to other HVAC nerds.

Dear Emily:
I recently read an article that said, "reply by mail, I'll summarize."
What should I do?
-- Doubtful
Dear Doubtful:
Post your response to the whole net. That request applies only to
dumb people who don't have something interesting to say. Your postings are
much more worthwhile than other people's, so it would be a waste to reply by
mail.
-- Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette

Interesting observation by Langdon Winner regarding technological transformation: “by the time the issue of ‘use’ comes up for consideration at all, many of the most interesting questions involved in how technologies are constituted and how they affect what we do are settled or sub-merged.”
This is happening right now with #GenAI .

Interesting observation by Langdon Winner regarding technological transformation: “by the time the issue of ‘use’ comes up for consideration at all, many of the most interesting questions involved in how technologies are constituted and how they affect what we do are settled or sub-merged.”
This is happening right now with #GenAI .

Interesting observation by Langdon Winner regarding technological transformation: “by the time the issue of ‘use’ comes up for consideration at all, many of the most interesting questions involved in how technologies are constituted and how they affect what we do are settled or sub-merged.”
This is happening right now with #GenAI .

Continuous Petri Nets for Fast Yield Computation: Polynomial-Time and MILP Approaches
Addie Jordon, Juri Kol\v{c}\'ak, Daniel Merkle
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.02371 https:/…

Continuous Petri Nets for Fast Yield Computation: Polynomial-Time and MILP Approaches
Petri nets provide accurate analogues to chemical reaction networks, with places representing individual molecules (the resources of the system) and transitions representing chemical reactions which convert educt molecules into product molecules. Their natural affinity for modeling chemical reaction networks is, however, impeded by their computational complexity, which is at least PSpace-hard for most interesting questions, including reachability. Continuous Petri nets offer the same structure …

Overly academic/distanced ethical discussions
Had a weird interaction with @/brainwane@social.coop just now. I misinterpreted one of their posts quoting someone else and I think the combination of that plus an interaction pattern where I'd assume their stance on something and respond critically to that ended up with me getting blocked. I don't have hard feelings exactly, and this post is only partly about this particular person, but I noticed something interesting by the end of the conversation that had been bothering me. They repeatedly criticized me for assuming what their position was, but never actually stated their position. They didn't say: "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, it's actually Y." They just said "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, please don't assume my position!" I get that it's annoying to have people respond to a straw man version of your argument, but when I in response asked some direct questions about what their position was, they gave some non-answers and then blocked me. It's entirely possible it's a coincidence, and they just happened to run out of patience on that iteration, but it makes me take their critique of my interactions a bit less seriously. I suspect that they just didn't want to hear what I was saying, while at the same time they wanted to feel as if they were someone who values public critique and open discussion of tricky issues (if anyone reading this post also followed our interaction and has a different opinion of my behavior, I'd be glad to hear it; it's possible In effectively being an asshole here and it would be useful to hear that if so).
In any case, the fact that at the end of the entire discussion, I'm realizing I still don't actually know their position on whether they think the AI use case in question is worthwhile feels odd. They praised the system on several occasions, albeit noting some drawbacks while doing so. They said that the system was possibly changing their anti-AI stance, but then got mad at me for assuming this meant that they thought this use-case was justified. Maybe they just haven't made up their mind yet but didn't want to say that?
Interestingly, in one of their own blog posts that got linked in the discussion, they discuss a different AI system, and despite listing a bunch of concrete harms, conclude that it's okay to use it. That's fine; I don't think *every* use of AI is wrong on balance, but what bothered me was that their post dismissed a number of real ethical issues by saying essentially "I haven't seen calls for a boycott over this issue, so it's not a reason to stop use." That's an extremely socially conformist version of ethics that doesn't sit well with me. The discussion also ended up linking this post: https://chelseatroy.com/2024/08/28/does-ai-benefit-the-world/ which bothered me in a related way. In it, Troy describes classroom teaching techniques for introducing and helping students explore the ethics of AI, and they seem mostly great. They avoid prescribing any particular correct stance, which is important when teaching given the power relationship, and they help students understand the limitations of their perspectives regarding global impacts, which is great. But the overall conclusion of the post is that "nobody is qualified to really judge global impacts, so we should focus on ways to improve outcomes instead of trying to judge them." This bothers me because we actually do have a responsibility to make decisive ethical judgments despite limitations of our perspectives. If we never commit to any ethical judgment against a technology because we think our perspective is too limited to know the true impacts (which I'll concede it invariably is) then we'll have to accept every technology without objection, limiting ourselves to trying to improve their impacts without opposing them. Given who currently controls most of the resources that go into exploration for new technologies, this stance is too permissive. Perhaps if our objection to a technology was absolute and instantly effective, I'd buy the argument that objecting without a deep global view of the long-term risks is dangerous. As things stand, I think that objecting to the development/use of certain technologies in certain contexts is necessary, and although there's a lot of uncertainly, I expect strongly enough that the overall outcomes of objection will be positive that I think it's a good thing to do.
The deeper point here I guess is that this kind of "things are too complicated, let's have a nuanced discussion where we don't come to any conclusions because we see a lot of unknowns along with definite harms" really bothers me.

Asymptotic structure. IV. A counterexample to the weak coarse Menger conjecture
Tung Nguyen, Alex Scott, Paul Seymour
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14332 https://

Asymptotic structure. IV. A counterexample to the weak coarse Menger conjecture
Coarse graph theory concerns finding 'coarse' analogues of graph theory theorems, replacing disjointness with being far apart. One of the most interesting open questions is to find a coarse analogue of Menger's theorem, which characterizes when there are $k$ vertex-disjoint paths between two given sets $S,T$ of vertices of a graph. We showed in an earlier paper that the most natural such analogue is false, but a weaker statement remained as a popular open question. Here we show that the weaker …

It is interesting to me how different we humans can be in ways that we often don't think about.
"When M.X. thought of people or objects, he did not see them. And yet his visual memories were intact. M.X. could answer factual questions such as whether former Prime Minister Tony Blair has light-colored eyes. (He does.) M.X. could even solve problems that required mentally rotating shapes, even though he could not see them."

#WritersCoffeeClub July 16: How often do you raise questions in your writing without intention to answer them?
I try to, occasionally, despite being weak at that. I usually have a clear understanding of what's happening in my story. But modern writing is a collaborative effort where an original text is a spark to ignite the discussion. Comments bring many interesting things, yet to…