> The conjecture was widely believed to be true — if so, it would have automatically validated several other important results in the field — but the community greeted the new development with both enthusiasm and surprise: the author was a 17-year-old who hadn’t yet finished high school.
This article is quite poorly written. Case in point above. If the conjecture was believed to be true, refuting it would be news in itself, deserve more than half a sentence, and have nothing to do with the age of the refuter. It should have been simple to add a line about the "other important results" and not violate show not tell. AlsO I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the Spanish academy? The researcher is from Bahamas/USA, it's just the writer is from Spain?
Oh come on. This is in the Spanish newspaper El Pais. Context and audience matters. It’s simultaneously news about a math problem, an article about a young mathematician, and an article about things that happened at a math conference in Spain, which is where they presumably interviewed her.
Sure context and audience matters, but even outside of that the article is rather poorly written. This part in particular should really emphasize that she disproved the conjecture, as it stands it almost sounds like she proved it:
> Cairo solved the so-called Mizohata-Takeuchi conjecture, a problem first proposed in the 1980s that had kept the harmonic analysis community had been working on for decades. The conjecture was widely believed to be true — if so, it would have automatically validated several other important results in the field — but the community greeted the new development with both enthusiasm and surprise: the author was a 17-year-old who hadn’t yet finished high school.
> "After months of trying to prove the result, I managed to understand why it was so difficult. I realized that if I used that information correctly, I might be able to refute the claim. Finally, after several failed attempts, I found a way to construct a counterexample [a case that does not satisfy the studied property and therefore proves it is not universally true]."
This excerpt features a terrible typo, so I agree it's poorly written, or at least not properly proof read. I don't agree with your specific criticism of the excerpt though. I think the excerpt makes it perfectly clear she disproved the conjecture by highlighting how that was potentially a disappointing outcome.
The writer introduced and resolved the potential disappointment much more elegantly and in far fewer words than I can manage here by paraphrasing. I admire that and feel it's indicative of good writing, albeit spoiled by an earlier typo.
> It should have been simple to add a line about the "other important results" and not violate show not tell.
Only a very tiny fraction of the publication's readers will have any idea what the heck the Mizohata-Takeuchi conjecture is. Naming the important results that Mizohata–Takeuchi being true would have validated would have been just technobable to nearly everyone reading the article.
It's more to the point that disruptions tend to be very disruptive, too frequent, not well understood, and the reset takes a really long time. But you're right that this does not quite belong. If we solve the technological problems, the maintenance should resolve itself.
Making the reactor sufficiently maintainable is a technology problem.
There was a group that tried to analyze the expected uptime of DEMO, the pre-commercial follow on to ITER. With the expected MTBF (mean time between failure) and MTTR (mean time to repair) they estimated it would be working just 4% of the time. That's too low even for a research machine.
RAMI (reliability/availability/maintainability/inspectability) is one of the major issues for fusion, and even if nothing else stops fusion it alone will make the development process very long and iterative. Good RAMI requires long iterative improvement of individual components and processes.
Their Lumia with the Windows OS was great too. Unfortunately no market => no apps => death. But I loved it when I had it. They made great phones no doubt.
Yea, no one believes me when I tell them that the Lumia with Windows Phone 8.1 or 10 was one of my favourite phones ever. WP 8.1+ was such an underrated OS. Unfortunately it had virtually no support from anybody, even Microsoft quickly stopped caring.
Too many. I still write /bin/sh syntax (I know it's a symlink to bash now but I mean the old school sh). Anything that requires bash-that-isnt-sh is usually better written in perl or something else.
The oil industry is not larger. I believe oil and gas is not even a separately measured category so the numbers you're getting are probably including many sectors across the board and are quoted by some vested interest like the American Petroleum Institute.
You're right about the respect part, but it does in fact compute. We (I'm Indian) treat books with respect, but we have no preservation ethic beyond treating them with respect. An old book is in our home until it disintegrates or termites get it. But beyond that, shrug. Humidity control etc, what's that. This is of course partly because India is a poor country, and partly because of corrupt government, but it's also because of the fatalism - we simply do not care about the past as is the norm in the West. You know how even a tinpot town's history is available in the local library in the US? Beyond rarefied academia and the odd hobbyist, India just does not have that culture.
It absolutely is. For a language whose biggest selling factor is embeddability with C/C++, that decision (and I'm being polite) is a headscratcher (along with the other similar source of errors: 0 evaluating to true).
It's the perfect distraction: once you start accepting one-based, everything else that might be not quite to your liking isn't worth talking about. I could easily imagine an alternative timeline where lua was zero-based, but never reached critical mass.
Absolutely so. It’s just one obvious thing from a large set of issues with it.
One can read through “mystdlib” part of any meaningful Lua-based project to see it. Things you’ll likely find there are: NIL, poor man’s classes, __newindex proxying wrapper, strict(), empty dict literal for json, “fixed” iteration protocols.
Perhaps that's the secret to lua's success: they got the basics so wrong that they can't fall into the trap of chasing the dream of becoming a better language, focusing on becoming a better implementation instead. Or perhaps even more important: not changing at all when it's obviously good enough for the niche it dominates.
That's an interesting notion but I think that Lua had no competition - it was almost unique in how easy it was to integrate vs the power it gives. Its popularity was inevitable that way.
