
2025-08-12 09:45:23
Unambiguous discrimination of the change point for quantum channels
Kenji Nakahira
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06785 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.06785…
Unambiguous discrimination of the change point for quantum channels
Kenji Nakahira
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06785 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.06785…
Trump is working on regime change in Europe — fact, not conspiracy theory - @…
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0ec480cc
The liberal obsession with optics serves the right and persuades no one. There is literally an active ethnic cleansing happening in the US right now, and the only thing that matters is making that as hard as possible to carry out.
Anarchists destroying intelligence assets saves lives. Every escooter thrown at a cop car is one less escort for a goon too afraid to kidnap random brown people without being flanked by a branch full of bad apples. Spray paint is not violence. Vandalism is not violence. Community self defense in all forms is legitimate.
Make no mistake, these raids are about changing demographics. Demographic trends have been shifting blue for a long time, and the right has, for a long time, been blaming "white replacement." Conspiracy theory aside, Democrats have also been relying on the growth of black and brown voters as a block. The nuances of whiteness as an identity are lost on the current administration and their supporters. They see that "white people will be a minority by 2050" and equate that with the "end of Western Civilization."
The only way to "save Western Civilization" is to change those demographics. Forced birth and forced removal are two sides of the same white nationalist objective. Of course they can't have due process, because they need to be able to kidnap anyone who they see as a threat to their demographic future.
They don't care about optics. The plan is to murder away any threat and flood everyone else with propaganda. There is no mythical middle. There's no one unconvinced. They know this, but they win when democrats buy that myth and save the police the work of policing the protests.
If your protest is 90% "peaceful," they'll take pictures of the 10% that isn't. If it's 99% peaceful, they'll shoot rubber bullets and teargas until someone throws a brick and take 100 pictures from a dozen angles. If its 100% "peaceful" and no one can be provoked, they'll generate pictures with AI or photoshop like they did during the George Floyd uprising and the pictures from the CHOP/CHAZ. Do you have literally no memory?
#USPol #FiftyFiftyOne #50501movenent #resistance #NoKingsDay #NoKingsDayOfAction
Identification of Causal Effects with a Bunching Design
Carolina Caetano, Gregorio Caetano, Leonard Goff, Eric Nielsen
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05210 htt…
This https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17490 has been replaced.
initial toot: https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mat…
This https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08894 has been replaced.
initial toot: https://mastoxiv.page/@arXi…
Time for another "review". This one's hard. While the book was quite interesting, it required me to be quite open-minded. Still, I think it's worth mentioning:
Robert Wright — Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny
The book basically focused on a thesis that both biological evolution and cultural evolution are a thing, they are directional and this directionality can be explained together using game theory — as eventually leading to more non-zero sum games.
It consists of three chapters. The first one is is focused on the history of civilization. It features many examples from different parts of the world, which makes it quite interesting. The author argues that the culture inevitably is evolving as information processing techniques improve — from writing to the Internet.
The second chapter is focused on biological evolution. Now, the argument is that it's not quite random, but actually directed towards greater complexity — eventually leading to the development of highly intelligent species, and a civilization.
The third chapter is quite speculative and metaphysical, and I'm just going to skip it.
The book is full of optimism. Capitalism creates freedom — because people are more productive when they're working for their own gain, so the free market eliminates slavery. Globalisation creates networks of interdependence that make wars uneconomic. Increased contacts between different cultures makes people more tolerant. And eventually, the humanity may be able to unite facing a common "external" enemy — the climate change.
What can I say? The examples are quite interesting, the whole theory seems self-consistent. Still, I repeatedly looked at the publication date (it's 1999), and wondered if author would write the same thing today (yes, I know I can search for his current opinions).
#books #bookstodon @…
Generation of new quadratic coefficients within Ginzburg-Landau theory: Applications for specific heat calculations in various high-temperature superconductors
Feulefack Ornela Claire, Keumo Tsiaze Roger Magloire, Tsague Fotio Carlos, Danga Jeremie Edmond, Fotue Alain Jerve, Mahouton Norbert Hounkonnou
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507…
Rises for Measuring Local Distributivity in Lattices
Mohammad Abdulla, Tobias Hille, Dominik D\"urrschnabel, Gerd Stumme
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23168
LLM coding is the opposite of DRY
An important principle in software engineering is DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself. We recognize that having the same code copied in more than one place is bad for several reasons:
1. It makes the entire codebase harder to read.
2. It increases maintenance burden, since any problems in the duplicated code need to be solved in more than one place.
3. Because it becomes possible for the copies to drift apart if changes to one aren't transferred to the other (maybe the person making the change has forgotten there was a copy) it makes the code more error-prone and harder to debug.
All modern programming languages make it almost entirely unnecessary to repeat code: we can move the repeated code into a "function" or "module" and then reference it from all the different places it's needed. At a larger scale, someone might write an open-source "library" of such functions or modules and instead of re-implementing that functionality ourselves, we can use their code, with an acknowledgement. Using another person's library this way is complicated, because now you're dependent on them: if they stop maintaining it or introduce bugs, you've inherited a problem, but still, you could always copy their project and maintain your own version, and it would be not much more work than if you had implemented stuff yourself from the start. It's a little more complicated than this, but the basic principle holds, and it's a foundational one for software development in general and the open-source movement in particular. The network of "citations" as open-source software builds on other open-source software and people contribute patches to each others' projects is a lot of what makes the movement into a community, and it can lead to collaborations that drive further development. So the DRY principle is important at both small and large scales.
Unfortunately, the current crop of hyped-up LLM coding systems from the big players are antithetical to DRY at all scales:
- At the library scale, they train on open source software but then (with some unknown frequency) replicate parts of it line-for-line *without* any citation [1]. The person who was using the LLM has no way of knowing that this happened, or even any way to check for it. In theory the LLM company could build a system for this, but it's not likely to be profitable unless the courts actually start punishing these license violations, which doesn't seem likely based on results so far and the difficulty of finding out that the violations are happening. By creating these copies (and also mash-ups, along with lots of less-problematic stuff), the LLM users (enabled and encouraged by the LLM-peddlers) are directly undermining the DRY principle. If we see what the big AI companies claim to want, which is a massive shift towards machine-authored code, DRY at the library scale will effectively be dead, with each new project simply re-implementing the functionality it needs instead of every using a library. This might seem to have some upside, since dependency hell is a thing, but the downside in terms of comprehensibility and therefore maintainability, correctness, and security will be massive. The eventual lack of new high-quality DRY-respecting code to train the models on will only make this problem worse.
- At the module & function level, AI is probably prone to re-writing rather than re-using the functions or needs, especially with a workflow where a human prompts it for many independent completions. This part I don't have direct evidence for, since I don't use LLM coding models myself except in very specific circumstances because it's not generally ethical to do so. I do know that when it tries to call existing functions, it often guesses incorrectly about the parameters they need, which I'm sure is a headache and source of bugs for the vibe coders out there. An AI could be designed to take more context into account and use existing lookup tools to get accurate function signatures and use them when generating function calls, but even though that would probably significantly improve output quality, I suspect it's the kind of thing that would be seen as too-baroque and thus not a priority. Would love to hear I'm wrong about any of this, but I suspect the consequences are that any medium-or-larger sized codebase written with LLM tools will have significant bloat from duplicate functionality, and will have places where better use of existing libraries would have made the code simpler. At a fundamental level, a principle like DRY is not something that current LLM training techniques are able to learn, and while they can imitate it from their training sets to some degree when asked for large amounts of code, when prompted for many smaller chunks, they're asymptotically likely to violate it.
I think this is an important critique in part because it cuts against the argument that "LLMs are the modern compliers, if you reject them you're just like the people who wanted to keep hand-writing assembly code, and you'll be just as obsolete." Compilers actually represented a great win for abstraction, encapsulation, and DRY in general, and they supported and are integral to open source development, whereas LLMs are set to do the opposite.
[1] to see what this looks like in action in prose, see the example on page 30 of the NYTimes copyright complaint against OpenAI (#AI #GenAI #LLMs #VibeCoding
Floquet-like theory and gauge transformations for general smooth dynamical systems
Giuseppe Gaeta, Sebastian Walcher
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14982 https…
TPHE-Graphene: A First-Principles Study of a New 2D Carbon Allotrope for Hydrogen Storage
Jos\'e A. S. Laranjeira, Nicolas F. Martins, Kleuton A. L. Lima, Luis A. Cabral, Luiz A. Ribeiro, Douglas S. Galv\~ao, Julio R. Sambrano
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00609
Warum ich bei der Klimakrise keine Hoffnung mehr habe? Weil das Wort Kapitalismus nicht mal mehr erwähnt wird.
Was soll das?
https://www.instagram.com/p/DKR8nWlRtZi/
Pion properties in isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter using in-medium chiral perturbation theory
Kihong Kwon, Yamato Suda, Stephan H\"ubsch, Daisuke Jido
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01398
Theory-informed neural networks for particle physics
Barry M. Dillon, Michael Spannowsky
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13447 https://arx…
Classically psh and pluriharmonic functions on Berkovich spaces
Walter Gubler, Joseph Rabinoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13548 https://
Mechanisms of information communication and market price movements. The case of SP 500 market
Inga Ivanova, Grzegorz Rzadkowski
https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09625
Interfacial instability of confined 3D active droplets
Bennett C. Sessa, Federico Cao, Robert A. Pelcovits, Thomas R. Powers, Guillaume Duclos
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17532
Warum ich bei der Klimakrise keine Hoffnung mehr habe? Weil das Wort Kapitalismus nicht mal mehr erwähnt wird.
Was soll das?
https://www.instagram.com/p/DKR8nWlRtZi/
This https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03210 has been replaced.
initial toot: https://mastoxiv.page/@arX…