Only for English, and not for every article.
The motivation behind "fix our sometimes overly dense summaries" isn't wrong, this just isn't the right solution.
ricecake
joined 2 years ago
Not quite. Science is empirical, which means it's based on experiments and we can observe patterns and try to make sense of them. We can learn that a pattern or our understanding of it is wrong.
Math is inductive, which means that we have a starting point and we expand out from there using rules. It's not experimental, and conclusions don't change.
1+1 is always 2. What happens to math is that we uncover new ways of thinking about things that change the rules or underlying assumptions. 1+1 is 10 in base 2. Now we have a new, deeper truth about the relationship between bases and what "two" means.
Science is much more approximate. The geocentric model fit, and then new data made it not fit and the model changed. Same for heliocentrism, Galileos models, Keplers, and Newtons. They weren't wrong, they were just discovered to not fit observed reality as well as something else.
A scientific discovery can shift our understanding of the world radically and call other models into question.
A mathematical discovery doesn't do that. It might make something more clear, easier to work with, or provide a technique that can be surprisingly applicable elsewhere.
We discovered one of the postulates was really interesting to fuck with.
It's better to say that we've discovered more math, some of which changes how we understand the old.
Since Euclid, we've made discoveries in how geometry works and the underpinnings of it that can and have been used to provide foundation for his work, or to demonstrate some of the same things more succinctly. For example, Euclid had some assumptions that he didn't document.
Since math isn't empirical, it's rarely wrong if actually proven. It can be looked at differently though, and have assumptions changed to learn new things, or we can figure out that there are assumptions that weren't obvious.
They haven't been ordered to do something patently illegal as of yet.
Disobeying an order can carry a sharp penalty for soldiers and it's frankly not worth the risk when the dubious order is to guard a federal building from people who pose no threat.
You want the military to strongly resist illegal orders, but having the military decide policy is a dangerous line to cross.
Fundamentally, I agree with you.
Because the phrase "Wikipedians discussed ways that AI..." Is ambiguous I tracked down the page being referenced. It could mean they gathered with the intent to discuss that topic, or they discussed it as a result of considering the problem.
The page gives me the impression that it's not quite "we're gonna use AI, figure it out", but more that some people put together a presentation on how they felt AI could be used to address a broad problem, and then they workshopped more focused ways to use it towards that broad target.
It would have been better if they had started with an actual concrete problem, brainstormed solutions, and then gone with one that fit, but they were at least starting with a problem domain that they thought it was a applicable to.
Personally, the problems I've run into on Wikipedia are largely low traffic topics where the content is too much like someone copied a textbook into the page, or just awkward grammar and confusing sentences.
This article quickly makes it clear that someone didn't write it in an encyclopedia style from scratch.
A page detailing the the AI-generated summaries project, called “Simple Article Summaries,” explains that it was proposed after a discussion at Wikimedia’s 2024 conference, Wikimania, where “Wikimedians discussed ways that AI/machine-generated remixing of the already created content can be used to make Wikipedia more accessible and easier to learn from.” Editors who participated in the discussion thought that these summaries could improve the learning experience on Wikipedia, where some article summaries can be quite dense and filled with technical jargon, but that AI features needed to be cleared labeled as such and that users needed an easy to way to flag issues with “machine-generated/remixed content once it was published or generated automatically.”
The intent was to make more uniform summaries, since some of them can still be inscrutable.
Relying on a tool notorious for making significant errors isn't the right way to do it, but it's a real issue being examined.
In thermochemistry, an exothermic reaction is a "reaction for which the overall standard enthalpy change ΔH⚬ is negative."[1][2] Exothermic reactions usually release heat. The term is often confused with exergonic reaction, which IUPAC defines as "... a reaction for which the overall standard Gibbs energy change ΔG⚬ is negative."[2] A strongly exothermic reaction will usually also be exergonic because ΔH⚬ makes a major contribution to ΔG⚬. Most of the spectacular chemical reactions that are demonstrated in classrooms are exothermic and exergonic. The opposite is an endothermic reaction, which usually takes up heat and is driven by an entropy increase in the system.
This is a perfectly accurate summary, but it's not entirely clear and has room for improvement.
I'm guessing they were adding new summaries so that they could clearly label them and not remove the existing ones, not out of a desire to add even more summaries.
When your argument consistently lines up with the actual fascists, people might mistake you for one when you give no other context. (Consistently arguing that it's protestors causing violence is literally the argument being used to justify violence). Doubly so when you respond to the hint that left protest organizers try to keep violence in check, so it's notable when it does happen with a "why do you think protest violence is impossible?".
Makes you sound like a bootlicker toeing the line.
Purely to keep the inaccuracy from spiraling: "not personally liable" is not the same as "legal".
They ruled that the person holding the office isn't personally liable for official acts unless certain extremely high bars are passed.
The act can still be illegal, you just sue the office of the president, rather than the individual who is president.
To him it's the same, but since it's not default legal, there's still lines for others to stop at. It's much easier to disobey an illegal order than a legal one.
If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.
After saying over and over, you seem to have finally gotten it! Congratulations!
You vastly overestimate how much effort it takes to "wear jeans and a t shirt, go over there and throw stuff".
Up until now you haven't mentioned anything about any myths you're combating, so.... You kinda just came across as someone standing up for the noble police who would never stoop to trickery to find an excuse for violence.
When your argument consistently lines up with the actual fascists, people might mistake you for one when you give no other context. (Consistently arguing that it's protestors causing violence is literally the argument being used to justify violence). Doubly so when you respond to the hint that left protest organizers try to keep violence in check, so it's notable when it does happen with a "why do you think protest violence is impossible?".
Makes you sound like a bootlicker toeing the line.
My argument is...
I don't care. Basically everything else you wrote is arguing against something I never said or implied.
Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?
Do you believe that using strong language and massively over exaggerating the slightest wrong interpretation of what someone said, or what you'd rather they had said, makes you the literal second coming of rhetorical Jesus?
while it's probably not the case that it's overwhelmingly likely to be an agent provocateur, it would be unsurprising if it were that, someone there to push for escalation with no police affiliation, or just petty hooliganism.
You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They're not, which was the point of my comment.
It's not a conspiracy theory to think that someone causing trouble came to the protest solely to cause trouble, for whom or why not withstanding.
I believe this is the third or fourth time I've clearly stated my point, so I'm going to start copying from previous comments to save you the trouble of scrolling.
In the context, conspiracy theory seemed the more likely meaning, since being pedantic about the word would mean most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.
Asking incredulously if someone really thinks the police are more likely to conspire to violence than people there under guise of peaceful protest is a level of naivete that I didn't assume.
But you are correct, I didn't interpret your words strictly literally, and assumed you didn't know about agitators rather than reading your comment as the naive defense of police it otherwise appeared to be.
I'm not seeing the relevance.