Um... E.coli is an existing gut friendly bacteria, one of the most common ones present in at least 90% of all humans' gut biome. There are only some specific strains which are pathogenous.
> then infect some immunosuppressed political prisoners and see who dies fastest.
A virus that makes victims die the fastest is not, in fact, an effective bioweapon, because it won't spread much. And the "spreads by itself" part is what actually makes bioweapons worthwhile, if you have to manufacture it in bulk and dump it directly on all targets, you can just use a chemical weapon instead.
TDLR for the other two comments: a Japanese mathematician is claiming to have a proof for it, but it is based on an entirely new very complex field of maths which he invented. Getting into it takes years, so other mathematicians are hesitant to invest that much time only to find out that the proof is broken and the field isn't otherwise useful.
It doesn't help that the author is rather withdrawn and not willing to spend any effort in making it more approachable.
Some tried, and said they found gaps in the proof, to which the author responded, but they were not convinced.
Why would they stockpile it when they're used to just buying it in the supermarket?
It's not bought for its long-shelflife property anymore, it's basically just an ingredient in some popular traditional local recipes. Sure, those recipes emerged because the shelflife used to make hard-tack a reliably available source of calories, but that's basically gastronomical skeumorphism.
Today as well. You need special equipment and a lot of time to remove all the moisture without burning it.
Sure, you can probably find a way to achieve a "good enough" result with normal household appliances, especially when it doesn't actually need to be stored for years and you're just going to soak it again for some tranditional recipe.
But it's a lot more effort than most people want to invest when they just want to replicate that recipe.
I live in the same city as the factory mentioned in the article. It's hard enough to even make croutons this time of year due to the humidity. My wife is a fairly experienced/talented home cook and over cooked two batches last week trying to get them right.
Statements like this are a stretch. This was not the fact of using the OS, but specifically the fact of wiping it. The situation is atrocious enough as is, no need to make up additions.
Guys don't follow that rule (unless they are gay), they worry about women following it. It appears to be originating from a post on the (rather toxic and apparently now defunct) reddit sub /r/FemaleDatingStrategy many years ago, but apparently is still being brought up.
I have to admit that I know very little about formalized proofs, but the article seems to put some reasoning behind this distinction, specifically this statement:
> Because it is only the proof calculi that have proof objects that seemingly need to put everything into the kernel.
I interpret that to mean that for some reason, having proof objects requires or at least encourages putting more logic in the kernel (which is apparently equivalent to having more axioms) and that results in a greater risk of having bugs in the proof checker itself.
In every proof assistant something is doing all that logic, whether you call it a kernel or not.
As I understand their writing, ML is a language meant for developing proof assistants and this debate is specific to proof assistants written in ML, about the extent to which you use ML's type system as part of the kernel (proofs or theorems are types, at least partially), or write one yourself (proofs are just objects).
Even Rust has an unsound type system that allows arbitrary memory access in safe code, so you can't just assume your programming language has a sound type system.
Read up on current politics in Taiwan. The KMT, the party that lost the civil war, fled to Taiwan, and still claimed to be the true government of China, is now essentially a PRC puppet.
That's because the primary goal of the spending is not to produce a capable military. It's an expensive, inefficient jobs program, but one that you can get conservatives to support
reply