@georgiamuseum@glammr.us2026-10-21 15:19:31
The Catholic Church often commissioned artworks depicting saints, angels and sacred stories. In the sixteenth century, there was a movement to start showing religious images in more relatable fashion, with the hope that people would identify themselves more with these figures. Damiano said the church hoped this effect would “elicit more piety, more devotion, by seeing this happen by example.”
10/
@zudn@theres.life2026-08-18 21:58:57
@steadystatemcr@mstdn.social2026-08-02 08:33:04
Critical analysis of the Welsh tram-train proposals.
Is it relevant to Greater Manchester? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?
Cool it with the tram-trains
https://nation.cymru/opinion/cool-it-with-the-tram-trains/
@unixorn@hachyderm.io2026-10-13 15:43:51
@billbert@mastodon.social2026-10-17 07:13:02
I needed to start watching something. Started watching episode 6 of LOOKING, which came out in 2014. It’s not a show I’ve ever had to devour.
I think I hate EVERY CHARACTER on this fecking show. I hate Patrick, I hate Agustin, I hate Doris. Dom is at least less hateable.
1/2
@pgcd@mastodon.online2026-08-12 18:45:41
Però devo dire che queste lezioni mi hanno pure un po' rotto la minchia.
@pre@boing.world2026-10-13 23:30:16
They tell me that Open AI have solved four hundred previously open maths problems this week.
The news media, and even the mathematicians, seem quite credulous about it.
No way to know how many of those will really stand up in the end. Lots of proofs turn out not to be really proofs coz they have a mistake, and AI is quite good at discovering mistakes as well as now apparently discovering maths.
Some of them are counter-examples that prove the conjecture is false and those are gonna be good at last. Machines can check it.
Some have other types of mechanical machine-checkable proof, which is interesting in that we can all believe the checker-machine: coz it's deterministic and understandable.
We can't trust the machine that isn't deterministic or understandable as much though.
GPT says these things are true. Now maths people have to check, because OpenAI staff aren't expert mathematicians either, mostly.
Some of the 400 proofs will fall, I'm sure.
How many tokens will be spent before machines find the flaws that are surely still there? How many tokens until you decide to stop?
But if a machine can prove a thing to itself, but not explain it to any person, is it really doing maths? Even if it's correct more often than people are? Or is doing maths more about making meat understand a thing?
🤔
I'm sure I can't tell if the proofs are true or not. No point me reading them. Mostly won't even understand the question. The boundary of my meager meat-mind's maths-understanding was around barely-degree level.
Can the academic discipline continue as one which is devoted mostly to trying to understand the output of a machine writing about maths, which is mostly right but nobody can really tell without an entire academic discipline trying to check.
In other words, mathematicians now also face a spam problem familiar to many github project leads.
#ai #maths
@unixorn@hachyderm.io2026-10-01 23:20:01
Another great article from Brent Chapman - "What managing emergencies at Burning Man teaches me about incident management in tech"
#sre #devops #incidentmanagement
@egallager@social.treehouse.systems2026-09-28 02:10:00
Watching "Mad Men" with my parents tonight. One of the ad guys makes his "satis-feculent" pun. My dad asks what he said, so I explain it to him. He claims he'd never heard the word before! Then by the end of the episode I realize, no, he has, actually, because we watched Severance together, too, and there was a whole thing in the second season about how Tramell Tillman's character was too verbose because he'd say "devour feculence" instead of just "eat shit"... anyways, I don't really have any point to this anecdote; just wanted to make sure I recorded it somewhere...
@unixorn@hachyderm.io2026-07-31 14:39:23