If they don't like to travel I put them in the same category as people who don't like fancy coffee, playing sports, wine, video games, or science. I like a lot of those things but not everyone needs to [although I really wish more people understood science]. All these things cost resources and so far resources aren't infinite.
Or you visit and then read the Wikipeida article. I mean even better as a double-decker wikipedia sandwich, but good as long as you read it.
I spent my last 3 hours in Hungary reading about the 1957 revolution [1]. The whole city was out celebrating the anniversary with funny-looking flags. I felt like an ass for not knowing about it before, but I learned.
The author is right that you don't magically become cultured by traveling. But you also don't become a Shakespeare expert by reading all his plays. That doesn't mean you should read the Shakespeare Wikipedia article instead.
Weird that I couldn't find the paper on arXiv: in my field I just google the title prefixed with "arXiv" and it pops up.
Some earlier articles by the same authors are there though (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06106), does the journal of chemical physics prohibit arXiv posting or is the norm just different in that field?
I agree, this might just be an interface design decision.
Maybe telling it not to talk about internal data structures was the easiest way to give it a generic "human" nature, and also to avoid users explicitly asking about internal details.
It's also possible that this is a simple way to introduce "tact": imagine asking something with others present and having it respond "well you have a history of suicidal thoughts and are considering breaking up with your partner...". In general, when you don't know who is listening, don't bring up previous conversations.
The tact aspect seems like a real possibility. In a world where users are likely to cut&paste responses it can't really be sprinkling in references like this.
You either believe that monopolies produce worse products or you don't.
If you believe it, the "I know they are bad" -> "but we need to complete with the boogie man" -> "we need to build our own monopoly" argument is just confusing. So we should make worse products to be competitive?
If you don't believe it, you should be explaining why monopolies make better products, not arguing that desperate times call for desperate abandonment of logic.
There's HarmonyOS [1], which is developed by Huawei, and which has a similar mix of open (OpenHarmony) and proprietary components. I haven't used it, but it's supported by quite a few phones and sort of surprised it wasn't mentioned anywhere on this thread.
The "pass through itself" criteria is the same as "has one shadow that fits entirely inside another shadow". If you allow "one shadow equals another shadow" then it's trivially true for every shape because a shadow equals itself.
Note that this "shadow" language assumes a point light source at infinity, i.e. all the rays are parallel.
If they don't like to travel I put them in the same category as people who don't like fancy coffee, playing sports, wine, video games, or science. I like a lot of those things but not everyone needs to [although I really wish more people understood science]. All these things cost resources and so far resources aren't infinite.
reply