Unlurker|Replay|About
iPhone Duo display deal could send Samsung $1.25B (forgeeks.net)
•
So? It's an insignificant amount compared to Samsung/Apple scale revenues. Samsung's revenue for 2025 was 233 billion. They get 0.4% more. So?
•
Whatever Apple does in 2026, it's the competitors who cash in — Samsung on the displays, Google on Gemini running Siri AI.
•
Apple still has their 30% margins on top of whatever they give, like always. And has used Samsung and other parts since always. They, on the other hand, have razor thin, mass retail, margins, for what they sell to Apple.
Navier-Stokes Announcement (claymath.org)
Even funnier that it wouldn't even be the first time that happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
•
It's very likely that no one will claim any of the cash prizes, which is funny to me
•
And he also gave up his trophy, which is displayed in a random corridor of a random math museum in Paris, where visitors pass by without looking, lacking most, if not all, of the context. Only because I knew the story and the man did I recognize the object for what it was.
Anyone can put anything on arxiv, it counts the same as printing it on tissue paper.
•
Not really. It's not peer reviewed, but it's also not a free-for-all repository. If you make a new account, you either have to get someone to vouch for you, or you have to wait arXiv mods to look carefully through your first few preprints. If you are found to post pseudoscience, overly fringe theories, etc., you'll get banned from arXiv; that's why alternative repositories like vixRa.org popped up. But I know why you think this; when I first joined arXiv many years, there were no such checks in place, at least not that I can remember.
> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
•
> I have a PhD in computational logic. And you don't know how the peer-review system works? Just a hunch but Claude saying your work is "PhD level" does not count
Can you elaborate on what constitutes a vacuous proof?
•
It can happen when the proof process ends up with universal implication that holds trivially. Then you end it with something like Forall x, x is empty -> P(x).
•
I present to you my new theorem as follows: If 1 == 3 then 3 == 3 ---- This statement is 100% logically coherent internally. But it also doesn't matter because we know that 1 does not equal 3 so this proof is completely pointless. I could also say 3 == 5 and it would still be logically sound but completely useless information.
•
Trivially, a proof that relies on a bug in Lean. Less trivially, a proof that is technically true but about something trivial and does not, in fact, prove what it claims to have proven.
For one thing it was, I’m guessing, 100% written by actual humans. An increasingly rare phenomenon.
•
This was the first thing I noticed as well. It was refreshing to read.
google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update (autom.dev)
•
[self-promotion] I got annoyed by this change, so I added a feature to my Safari extension (iOS and Mac) to automatically replace all of the /goto?url= links in Google search results with the destination URLS: https://underpassapp.com/news/2026/9/2.html
•
Google wants to build up a private web here. We already know this from AMP before. Also, the search results are total garbage now. Just give it a try and you see how useless the UI is, with AI results first, then tons of commercial go-to entries and only then a few links that are often also totally useless and irrelevant. Google optimised towards crap. We really need to get rid of Google. Qwant results are now a bit better than before, but still not that great, and I hate that its default UI is a clone of Google. We need more alternatives. Let's get rid of Google once and for all - it has disappointed too many people now.
So why are we angry about that ? I mean the end result for the users are exactly the same, it matters only for bots. Google have such a (justified) bad reputation that whatever they do, people assume it’s entishification. I don’t believed it is on that matter.
•
For me it's annoying that I cannot right-click the link and copy the actual target. They are breaking the web.
That's just Google not caring about your ISP because you live in the global south. Everyone gets this. US citizens get the exact same problem but Google whitelists their networks.
•
Not just global south, happened all the time to me after first search page of the day until i stopped using them, northern eu.
> because you live in the global south I don't, but thanks for confidently assuming.
•
At least Google thinks you do. And Google kind of has the power to decide where the global south is, at least as far as it pertains to captchas.
What do you use now?
•
https://devdocs.io/
As much as I am sad that Google died like 15 years ago, I am past the mourning phase. That was when they announced they were shifting from returning websites to "returning answers" and it has been a long slide into shittification I do enjoy using their free AI. For actual web search I actually like using Yandex. It reminds me of old Google, returning reasonable results and much less "shaping results to please our corpo-political masters". It is surprising to see how much they have stripped from our view - long tail results, actual results for product reviews and not ad spam, no preference for 20 page recipe sites. There are still illegal streaming sports and movie sites everywhere (who knew) and all other seedy corners of the internet that have been neatly erased by Google. It makes me nostalgic for that brief window of time when the web was truly uncontrolled, when page rank had meaning and you didn't know if your search would return 0 results or 4,000 pages, which you could actually browse.
•
> I do enjoy using their free AI. So how is that AI slop garbage useful? It often lies, aka "hallucinates". And I operate within this Google-controlled auto-spammed text of lies when I use its horrible AI. The last thing I want to do is make Google even more powerful; at the least now with Google search being so crap, alternatives would be well desired, but oddly enough I also get crap results using e. g. DDG, so I think in part the whole www stack must have become more crap too, quality-wise. I actually don't see it as there are extensions that eliminate this slop spam, but I never found it useful for anything. Other than waste my time, back when I still saw it. Thankfully I no longer see that AI slop spam due to these extensions.
•
anyone from Ecosia gang?
Meduza gonna Meduza. Go do the search yourself. I get nothing like what Meduza claims.
•
Yeah I did while I was in Kiev at the time. Did not screenshot unfortunately but yeah that's what Yandex did show for many "Bucha" search terms.
The real "old-school Google, but modern" is Kagi, with the caveat of being paid. (Worth the $5 for me.) But LLMs can be commanded. This is may bookmark alias for invoking the spirit of old Gog=ogle from within the new, AI-based Google: https://google.com/search?q=You%20are%20Google%20Search%20from%202004.%20Given%20a%20search%20request,%20provide%2010%20links%20to%20relevant%20pages,%20each%20with%20a%20short%20text%20from%20the%20page,%20featuring%20the%20search%20terms.%20Avoid%20any%20pages%20that%20do%20not%20contain%20the%20search%20terms.%20the%20search%20request:%20%s (Cleaned / decoded: 'You are Google Search from 2004. Given a search request, provide 10 links to relevant pages, each with a short text from the page, featuring the search terms. Avoid any pages that do not contain the search terms. the search request: %s')
•
...you.. do know classic Google Search is still an option, right? Just add `&udm=14` to the search URL. Also Google AI mode is accessible on google.com/ai.
The advert paradox, anyone willing to spend money to avoid ads is inherently worth more to advertisers, since they're willing to spend money. The more money you're willing to pay to avoid ads the more you're worth to advertisers. That's why tools like uBlock and YouTube morphe are the only answer, negotiating with terrorists never works.
•
I'm willing to pay time or money to avoid ads, not to be spied and harassed by companies making me offers to buy something that almost certainly I don't want to buy. Those companies should pay me a percent of what I make them save by not buying ads to serve me. And eventually when I want to buy something I research it and buy it and nobody had to pay anything to Google.
I don't understand your logic. Why would someone that never sees my ads be valuable to me? Why would I care? Everyone spends money on something, the fact you spend it on adblockers doesn't make you automatically more valuable to advertisers. I have never heard of this "advert paradox" concept you mention and I have worked in industry for a while now. All this is just conjecture on your part and doesn't really correspond to how it works.
•
If you have $20 to spend avoiding ads, you have $30 to spend on cool products so the advertiser is willing to spend up to $24 to make you not block ads about a $30 product you'll buy (that costs $5 to make)
Ironic that I'd need something like that to stop getting blocked from a residential IP
•
It's probably cheaper to switch your ISP to one that your target site does not block.
•
I'm trying to go the other way and switch my browsing habits to not be to sites that use these blocking measures. I moved away from Bear because it used cloudflare and I absolutely will not visit a blog or product site that makes me fill in a captcha. Sometimes I need to and no doubt it will get worse, but for now it's my rebellion
Unless you're using DNS over HTTPS they can see the unencrypted DNS traffic. There's also Encrypted Client Hello, but they can also see which IP you're connecting to.
•
Also if the domain responds on the bare IP or there's nothing else they've seen on that IP it's a fair assumption. This is without even wondering if their router sends telemetry
 Top