Inference Review

I don't think you have understood the nature of Dijkstra's work nor the genius behind it. It is different from the genius of Niklaus Wirth (simplicity of OS, Programming Language implementations) or Donald Knuth (efficiency of Algorithm implementations) in that it is at a more "meta level" bringing together the fields of Computation, Languages and Mathematics.

I have already pointed out the laughable ridiculousness of your measuring Dijkstra's contributions by the amount of code written. He pioneered, defined and established great many aspects of the Computing Science field when it was still in its infancy. Here is a non-exhaustive list (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra and other sources)

1) He designed/described an ISA/Assembly Language to interface with one of the first Computers ever built (his PhD thesis named "Communication with an Automatic Computer").

2) He designed/wrote/headed one of the first OS ever written "THE multiprogramming system" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THE_multiprogramming_system

3) He designed/co-wrote one of the very first Algol 60 compilers named the "Dijkstra-Zonneveld Algol 60 compiler" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_60

4) Instrumental in establishing "Structured Programming" constructs in language design itself which we all take for granted today.

5) Instrumental in establishing Mathematical Rigour to Computer Programming via Mathematical Logic/Predicate Calculus akin to the writing of Mathematical Proofs to…

Tangential comment: if you are interested in quantum mechanics then you may be interested to read about "Bohmian Mechanics".

I became interested in Bohmian Mechanics after reading an email exchange between Sheldon Goldstein & Steven Weinberg [1]. It contains a few quite entertaining quotes, in particular:

> And since Bohm’s equations make exactly the same
> predictions as those of ordinary quantum mechanics,
> it is not clear what is accomplished by adding the
> complication of guiding waves, except to restore a
> sense of sanity to the whole affair.

Scott Aaronson has a brief introduction to Bohmian Mechanics at the end of his notes on decoherence and hidden variables [2]:

> Again, the amazing thing about this theory is that it's
> deterministic: specify the "actual" positions of all the
> particles in the universe at any one time, and you've specified
> their "actual" positions at all earlier and later times.

Scott's perspective is particularly interesting because he points out some limitations of Bohmian Mechanics. To paraphrase badly, the deterministic particle trajectories obtained from Bohmian Mechanics rely upon dealing with actual particles, position, momentum, in infinite dimensional spaces. It doesn't give you deterministic behaviour in the finite dimensional spaces that computer scientists prefer.

Some proponents of Bohmian Mechanics point out that the theoretical predictions of deterministic particle trajectories for the…

> Japan did not experience a major wave before the borders were reopened. The peaks were lower than in Europe and the US, and contact tracing never failed as badly.

Japan's testing rate was described as "ultra-low … 0.2% of the population"[1][2], no one can claim to be able to compare the infection waves with any certainty, and there certainly were major waves[3]:

> Japan is reporting nearly 200,000 Covid-19 cases a day—more than any other country in the world currently

> The ongoing surge in cases—which is being referred to as Japan’s seventh Covid wave

That was a month after a tiny reopening of the border so unless there were 6 waves in a month, you're a tad off.

What there weren't were major numbers of deaths compared to some other places.

I can't share your faith in Japan's general response and contact tracing (after a number of high profile incidents[4][5], and this excellent and realistic article by the Diplomat[6] goes over many of the flaws, including poor contact tracing that wouldn't work anyway[7]) but I'm going to go with a reason much more obvious for the lack of deaths, especially given what we know now[8] - less obesity, and the old in Japan are far more active than I've seen in Europe. I can't speak for the US but we know the stereotypes.

Certainly, "closing" the borders did not do anything but impoverish people and cause trouble.

[1] https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/japans-contact-tracing-method-is-old-but-gold/

(that article is a bit presumptuous in…

To get a comprhensive and upto date overview for the lab leak theory and its evidence I would recommend reading the following four long form articles in order (primarily to get good context on how the narriative has evolved).

As background:

[1] Jan 2021 - Intelligencer: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html

[2] June 2021 - Vanity Fair:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

[3] Oct 2021 - New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-mysterious-case-of-the-covid-19-lab-leak-theory

[4] Feb 2022 - Inference Review
https://inference-review.com/article/thunder-out-of-china

The points presented in these articles are all thoroughly well researched and balanced. IMO the points and facts raised taken in a mosiac paint a palpable picture of events.

From the last articles conclusion:

THE CURRENT SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been, and continues to be, a public health catastrophe—the most serious in a century. Questions about the origins of COVID-19 are, at once, matters of legal, financial, and moral concern. For the moment, researchers can do no better than to hope for an inference to the best explanation; and, for the moment, the best explanation seems to be that the virus escaped from the WIV.

The WIV was the biggest transporter of viruses to Wuhan from all over Asia, including many SARS-like viruses from Laos and Yunnan. Phylogenetic analysis shows that the…

Half my family grew up in the Soviet Union and tend to love Putin, so, though not the above commenter, I can definitely answer this if you're willing to take an analogy.

Yes, a leader can be corrupt and dictatorial, and yes, they can strong-arm many people. To somebody with strong morals and heavily deontological beliefs, they can look at that leader and say "How could anyone support such a person?". The answer is to look at a concept like Maslow's hierarchy of needs [1] and realize that the supporters are likely pursuing an entirely different stage of needs than you. When your kids are hungry and you have to work from sun-up until sun-down to keep the family fed, and somebody makes it easier for you and your family to survive and maybe even have extra money at the end of the week, none of the moral ideologies against corruption or dictatorship really matter to you. That's why Russians give Putin such a high approval rating; they don't deny that he's corrupt, they just don't care, because their lives have improved.

The same can be said of hopeful Trump supporters to a lesser extent, in fact, and linked is a fantastic analysis on that topic (the most fair and analytical one I've read) [2].

My point is: the above poster's mother wasn't apologizing for Nazis. She was likely saying that, as far as she could tell at that point in time, similar to my Russian family, her family's life had improved. I don't see how that becomes false in light of future events.

[1]…

Not a mathematician, but I've kept up with this story as a non-mathematician.

> For instance, imagine the proof is made of 50 lemmas. One could check the main theorem derives from the 50 lemmas. And checking each individual lemma could be left to other mathematicians.

To my understanding, some mathematicians have gone ever further and checked the work themselves. Peter Scholze (a 32-year-old who won the Fields medal a couple of years ago and seems to be in the sweet spot of expertise and stamina to really audit this thing) has identified a specific result ("Corollary 3.12") that he says does not follow from the results leading up to it [1]. This is pretty weird because "Corollary" is usually reserved for things that are immediate consequences of previous results.

Based on the featured article, Scholze's position hasn't changed. There is a specific objection and the two sides just...disagree.

For those interested, you can look at the papers yourself if you want to. Here's the one containing the controversial result [2]. Theorem 3.11 is on p153, and the statement alone is 5 pages long. The proof is 3 lines and asserts that it's obvious from definitions and previous statements. Corollary 3.12 is on p173.

As an outsider, I am amazed at Scholze's ability to work through all of this and identify a specific criticism.

[1] https://inference-review.com/article/a-crisis-of-identification

[2]…