SRY testing was done at the 1996 games and for a while before that. 8 cisgender women tested positive at that games. Far more than the number of transgender athletes who have ever participated. This resulted in genetic testing being changed from all women to on-suspicion.
The bottom line is these tests will catch dozens of people who are phenotypically women, who can even give birth. Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women?
From what I've read, these women all had CAIS or similar, and testosterone had no effect on their bodies. Thankfully the new IOC guidelines have an exception for that and would let them compete with women.
But I want to point out that XY+CAIS individuals cannot conceive or carry a child. They have no ovaries and no uterus.
> Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women?
They are, if they are female or have CAIS. Caster Semenya, for example, does not meet that standard. Caster was assigned female at birth and raised as a girl, but is not biologically female, rather a male with a DSD (5-ARD) who has testes and fully male levels of testosterone and musculature.
There is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the US.
There is a political talking point that “aliens are voting” in our elections but it has been proven false again and again. The purpose of this is to put up barriers for legitimate citizens to vote, not to truly fix an imaginary problem.
What does specialized to the process mean? Lots of JIT tooling these days readily supports caching and precompilation. Invalidation is hard but things like reloading global references are hardly intractable problems especially for an org as large as pgsql.
Pointers to process specific memory addresses to functions other data structures that only exist in that process. I didn't say it was intractable only that it takes more effort, other databases do it.
The current PG query plan and jit is designed around just being in memory in a single process, this would need to be extracted into something not process specific and shared between all processes. The plan itself is just a bunch of C structs I believe.
That Erdos problem solution is believed by quite a few to be a previous result found in the literature, just used in a slightly different way. It also seems not a lack of progress but simply no one cared to give it a go.
That’s a really fantastic capability, but not super surprising.
You're thinking of a previous report from a month ago, #897 or #481, or the one from two weeks ago, #728. There's a new one from a week ago, #205, which is genuinely novel, although it is still a relatively "shallow" result.
Terence Tao maintains a list [1] of AI attempts (successful and otherwise). #205 is currently the only success in section 1, the "full solution for which subsequent literature review did not find new relevant prior partial or full solutions" section - but it is in that section.
As to speed, as far as I know the recent results are all due to GPT 5.2, which is barely a month old, or Aristotle, which is a system built on top of some frontier LLMs and which has only been accessible to the public for a month or two. I have seen multiple mathematicians report that GPT-5.2 is a major improvement in proof-writing, e.g. [2]
Thanks for the wiki link, very interesting, in particular
- the long tail aspect of the problem space ; 'a "long tail" of under-explored problems at the other, many of which are "low hanging fruit" that are very suitable for being attacked by current AI tools'
- the expertise requirement, literature review but also 'Do I understand what the key ideas of the solution are, and how the hypotheses are utilized to reach the conclusion?' so basically one must already be an expert (or able to become one) to actually use this kind of tooling
and finally the outcomes which taking into consider the previous 2 points makes it very different from what most people would assume as "AI contributions".
The zoning laws are far from the only tool used by municipalities to dramatically reduce supply. Permitting, requiring expensive changes at various points in the process, local building boards requiring extraneous modifications and often forcing scope reductions, affordable housing requirements, etc all make building more expensive. Often by a very large amount.
I don't believe this has much impact on the current situation (relative to zoning) but would be interested to learn otherwise. Can you provide verifiable examples for any of it?
I'm not opposed to alternative research organizations, funding structures, etc. But this does seem like a fairly direct attempt to shift funding from universities into private firms, a funding structure which IMHO is much easier to abuse.
> Tech Labs will provide entrepreneurial teams of proven scientists the freedom and flexibility to pursue breakthrough science at breakneck speed, without needing to frequently stop and apply for additional grant funding with each new idea or development.
This sounds great, but has a few issues. #1 only funding proven scientists risks destroying the training pipeline which is the crucial edge that the US has over any other country in the world. It's also something that can and should be applied to universities as well. Lab groups or centers should be given much more runway than they are now.
> coordinated, interdisciplinary teams to achieve success
There are two places where this can really happen today: universities and national labs. The NSF should be fostering more cross-disciplinary and product engineering research across different departments at universities which already have deep talent pools across the board.
> The Tech Labs initiative will support full-time teams of researchers, scientists, and engineers
This sounds great, more university labs should have full-time researchers attached. Research Software Engineers are one somewhat common example in the computational sciences.
In general I support the overall mission statement but I am extremely wary of this kind of rhetoric from this government. They have failed to walk the walk on the sciences in any domain. This seems like a Trojan horse to transfer more money from the research apparatus into industry.
The proven pipeline you are discussing here isn’t going anywhere. PhD students still will do their phds. What this kind of funding structure will do is reduce the amount of time writing proposals. It’s not dissimilar to Norways research centres for excellence which are funded for ten years. I think this is good. Like, I have three separate proposals I’m writing concurrently. It’s annoying and takes away from my ability to interact with my colleagues and those I advise as well as my own research. Additionally, it’s basically impossible to hire engineering type roles which are way better than trying to convince a postdoc to be a software developer. Additionally I see a lot of colleagues not optimising for impact where I feel that this program will force that.
The store I worked at for a while had a surprising number of real bearded experts, alongside at least a few younger folks who really understood the internal systems. It was great, but clearly was eroding as the experts retired and young folks with no experience were hired to replace them.
Their internal setup was also an absolute mess as of 4 years ago. A horrific hybrid of extremely legacy systems and new systems created around COVID which are both nicer and also deeply lacking in features we needed as floor workers.
I understand that upgrading and migrating to new systems takes time but this process never seemed like it involved anyone on the ground.
The bottom line is these tests will catch dozens of people who are phenotypically women, who can even give birth. Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women?