I occasionally think (per Hilbert) "has the Riemann Hypothesis been solved yet?" as a reminder that we're quite some ways from ASI. The first 25 years of the third millenium saw one Clay Prize problem solved. I suspect the second quarter century will see at least 4 of the remaining 6 solved (or if not then, soon after)

Fun fact: rust needs to generate random numbers in the standard library for hash maps and sets. But that's not exposed. This is how many dependencies adding the latest version of the popular rand crate pulls in that everybody uses:

41% LONG COVID !!! 😨😨😨 "Small study suggests many more people have long COVID than previously believed" "A study using SARS-CoV-2 antibody and T-cell tests shows that 41% of 29 patients who developed a postviral syndrome (PVS)" cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/smal…

Almost all of academic science has moved away from actual (empirical) science. It is higher status to work on theories and models. I believe that it is closely related to well documented scientific stagnation as theory is often ultimately sterile. This tendency is quite natural in academia if there is no outside pressure… And is the main reason why academia should be ruthlessly judged by practitioners and users. As soon as academia can isolate itself in a bubble, it is bound to degrade. It is worth trying to understand some of the factors driving this degradation… Theoretical work can sometimes be seen as more complex. This complexity can be mistakenly equated with higher intelligence or prestige. Empirical work, while also complex, often deals with tangible, observable data, which might seem more straightforward to the uninitiated. Empirical work is more likely to lead to nuanced or inconclusive results while theory is often seemingly more direct and definitive. Theoretical research often requires fewer resources than large-scale empirical studies which might need extensive funding for equipment, data collection, and personnel. Thus you get to do more research with less using models and theory. Theoretical work is often seen as requiring a high level of creativity to devise new frameworks or models. While empirical work also requires creativity in design, execution, and interpretation, the creativity in data collection or experimental design might be less recognized or appreciated. The educational system often glorifies theoretical knowledge over practical skills until one reaches higher education or specialized training. E.g., we eagerly make calculus compulsory even if it has modest relevance in most practical fields. This educational bias can carry over into professional perceptions.

What is the most striking depiction of the subjective experience of being wrong (which feels, mostly, just like being right) ever written? I met a well-known 911 Truther years ago. He was a very good mathematician, and quite a careful thinker in many ways. And one of the striking things about talking with him was to realize how much deeper his understanding of 911 was than mine. He understood it far, far better than I (not a truther, FWIW). In a fair debate on the subject with me he would be adjudged the victor - indeed, it wouldn't even be close. And I'll bet his internal experience of thinking about 911 was pretty darn interesting What was going on was quite complicated - some complex social process whereby I delegate understanding and belief to institutions and some social process. I don't quite trust those institutions, but in this case my judgement is "good enough". Anyway, that process of delegation is another matter. I guess mostly what I'm interested in is really terrific depictions of the subjective experience of being wrong. What's it like to think really deeply and with belief about astrology, or (most) religion, or 911 Truth theories, etc?