Proposals like this has more to do with Finance (spaceX quotation / funding / shares values) than real applications. But is anyway a risky very bad idea.
After ROTFL, and checking is not 1st april, seems in the same line of: "life is a disease, sexually transmitted, with 100% lethal exitus".
More seriously (very little indeed) maybe the 'problem' is all those activities that need to create more and more new problems/disorders to justify all the work uppon, so what if psychiatry is a psychiatric disorder? regressum ad infinitum, take the red pill.
About happiness, Buddha, asked about the way to happines, say: happiness is not the destination, is the way.
Power tools? seems something more -high level- like: "Make me a table", not "saw this board", and evolving to: "make me a 2-level house".
Will the house be solid? You have to cheek indeed, and more complex the tool, mode depth the checking of the results, given the uncertains about the inned workings of these systems.
But correct use of these tools is IMHO the big big problem.
The -best- tool-language-tech is the one you know well, because this will avoid the use for the wrong problem, a situation very uneasy discovering ahead in development. Those AI tools are well understood? Seems not quite.
>> Suddenly, the monstrosity of infinity, long feared by mathematicians, could no longer be relegated to some unreachable part of the number line. It hid within its every crevice.
Exageration, the quite mayority of mathematician live very well with infinity, just handle with care.
Giving no credits on a "co-author" is a bit different than plagiarize (a theft).
It's reasonable to suppose than both authors can have reach results indipendently, given enough time, working on the same matter, maybe Dedekind before Cantor?
Probably Cantor has the core ideas in it's mind, and Deedekind's arguments was similar enough to push him proced. Sure Dedeking has given a (big) contribution, but the core concept is from Cantor
maybe a wise use of technology?: never adopt a higher complexity tech when a lower one fit well.
And white boards are less clear (to me) and markers dry (often in the worst moment).
And about slides... very easy for prof, but i cannot copy a slide, always follow the reasoning, so having the things written is best, writing indeed is another side of thinking.
About efficiency (energetic), correctness and safety (logical), seems way long from a forward step (by now).
[Lemma (: from Murphy's Laws of Computer Programming, wisdom from a more civilized era: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.]
reply