Vsevolod Morozov

@giffmana It was visible from Grenoble too!

Today i saw a glitch in the matrix. This is not a camera issue, there really were these rainbow colors in the cloud borders. I think the simulation we live in forgot to clamp to 225 before casting to uint8.

@Drumbiker09 @sentdefender That was civilian train. 1 person was killed

@sentdefender Amazing how attacking Military, infrastructure and logistical targets instead of civilians can be an effective tactic in war. 🤫 Don’t tell the Ruskies….

The 413th Unmanned Systems Regiment of the Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces carried out a successful drone strike Saturday, June 7, targeting and disabling a Russian locomotive hauling a military logistics train in the Bryansk Oblast of Western Russia, roughly 20 miles from the border with Ukraine.

@RealAmericanArt @MericaCulture @LucasFdezCast @TimothyDooner Look at Portuguese ocean beaches. Beautiful and plenty of them too

@MericaCulture @LucasFdezCast @TimothyDooner There are no beaches in continental Europe as nice as the Florida west coast and panhandle. Probably Florida east coast, too. Also, and I’m not surprised, Florida has more beaches, too.

Europeans: Americans never leave their country! The Spanish National team after visiting Chattanooga: Why would they ever leave?

@BristolComSense @YanFickerRuiz @WxNB_ What are you trying to say with this blurry picture?

@YanFickerRuiz @WxNB_ TOTALLY NORMAL

Hard to believe I’m even writing this. Meteorological summer hasn’t even begun, yet Paris, France has already logged more days above 32°C (89.6°F) than its annual average.

Our key idea is to reformulate the layer as a 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦. We then construct an active-set Lagrangian “ghost” problem that preserves the local hypergradient, while reducing the backward computation to first-order operations. (3/n)

@Comply_Wiser @iam_elias1 Adaptability has it's limits. Great depression was caused by much smaller effects, than what AI might be

That sounds dramatic, but “will destroy the economy” is a stretch. Models assume fixed behavior. Reality adapts. Jobs disappear, but new ones - and new demand - usually emerge. That’s how every major tech shift played out. The risk is real in the transition, not some inevitable zero demand end state.

Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy. Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes. The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled. The conclusion is one sentence. "At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand." An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself. Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation. The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger. No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion." Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem. Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it. Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place. Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University · arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20617

@47fucb4r8c69323 @boazbaraktcs It's airtight in philosophical delusional chamber

@boazbaraktcs Because it's an airtight argument.

TL;DR: new paper is a rehash of the Chinese room argument.

@iwsfutcmd Kazakhstan is healing

@teshbek what's also interesting, though, is unlike practically every other country right now, Kazakhstan has a wide base instead of another pinch

just noticed that Kazakhstan has kind of an insane population pyramid

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files There is same semantics. 3x4 and 4x3 is the same expression. It's a limitation of our notation that makes the difference. Notation is based on handwriting, which was made for natural language, where order matters. Here it doesn't matter, and paying attention to it is misleading

@teshbek @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files It even says it's the "correct math". That's not at question here. But so is 6*2 It just doesn't describe the equation correctly semantically

Teachers who are incapable of controlling their emotions towards children they're meant to be teaching shouldn't be teachers.

@DanMarquesk1 @RGlitches74115 @PeverellTom @Math_files Please define multiplication for me, and show how I'm wrong. I don't think you have any qualification if you think there is a "right way"

@teshbek @RGlitches74115 @PeverellTom @Math_files nope. there's a right way. and you are proving that this needs a teaching, because you are wrong and are still debating.

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files In this way you first teach about order in multiplication, and than you say that it does not matter, which is just a waste of time for everyone. It undermines math understanding where order really matters

@teshbek @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files Okay, nobody denies that the result is the same. That's clear. But logically it just makes a lot more sense to write "4" 3 times. We read from left to right. There is no reason whatsoever to interchange the order. She asked for a description of the equation, not an alternative

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files It seems to make sense in english, because thats how you read this. I studied math in russian, where it reads differently, and this order is not obvious. But most important is that correction from teacher highlights misleading information about multiplication order

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files Here is GPT 5.4 Thinking "AI" (which noncommutative matrix multiplication btw) answer:

@teshbek @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files Sure, I have problems understanding. Do me a favor and ask a more advanced AI if 4+4+4 is the obvious and correct answer in this context of the task or 3+3+3+3 is completely acceptable. Or doesn't AI know simple math either? Brother you struggle with primary school level maths

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files The child was correct. It might not be the answer they were taught, but it is still mathematically correct, and it should not be dismissed. School math can be dumb because it often restricts students within arbitrary boundaries

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files I explained to you what math is. It's not about reading teacher mind, or real life context. It's about rigorous logical structure, clear definitions, and proofs that stand on their own

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files Dude, I do applied noncommutative algebra for a living. Just google what ring means in math, and you will see that multiplication and addition is not primary school math, there is depth

@RGlitches74115 @DanMarquesk1 @PeverellTom @Math_files No, equation says "3x4", where x is mutiplication sign. 3 times 4 is a way to read it, as well as 4 times 3. Addition 2+2+2+2+2+2 would also be correct, because it what is asked in the question

@teshbek @DanMarquesk1 @PeverellTom @Math_files The value is the same, and the teacher should not have marked it wrong, BUT the equation says 3 times 4, so 4 is added 3 times not the other way.

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files Mathematics is a precise tool. If children are taught to guess meanings that are not actually written, they will struggle to proper understand math. I think you have this exact problem with math undertanding

@teshbek @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files Which is why I raised the variable context. Because yes...purely mathematically 3*4 and 4*3 are commutative. However in our real world numbers, rarely are just numbers. They have a meaning behind them, which a lot of times doesn't let you interchange them without causing error

@DenisI65615087 @unclegubsey @PeverellTom @Math_files If you need to work with non commutative numbers, you have to make special form of multiplication(like cross product), or use something else