Don't blindly follow voter guides. Look people up and vote for individuals, not parties.

Your Resting Heart Rate tells the whole story. 95+ bpm - Heart is working overtime to keep you alive. 90 bpm - Sedentary and stressed. 80 bpm -

Many of you don't understand how serious this is, so let me break it down. In computer science there is a famous kind of puzzle called 3-SAT. You are given a long list of yes-or-no switches and a set of rules about how they must be arranged, and you have to find a combination that satisfies every rule. The obvious way to solve it is to try every combination, but each new switch doubles the number of possibilities, so a puzzle with a few hundred switches would take longer than the age of the universe to brute force. For decades, the smartest people in the field found clever tricks that made this a little faster, but every trick still hit the same wall: the time required kept exploding as the puzzle grew. About 25 years ago, two computer scientists, Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, working with Francis Zane, turned that wall into a formal idea. They proposed the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which says this explosion is not a failure of human cleverness but a law of nature. No algorithm, however brilliant, will ever solve 3-SAT without the time blowing up exponentially. Nobody could prove it, but almost everyone believed it, and it became one of the foundations of modern computer science. Researchers used it as a measuring stick. If you could show that solving some other problem quickly would also crack 3-SAT quickly, you had shown that problem was hopelessly hard too. Hundreds of papers, across scheduling, graphs, logic and much more, rest on this one assumption. Now an internal AI model at OpenAI claims to have broken it. It says it found an algorithm that solves these puzzles meaningfully faster than the hypothesis allows, and it has checked the proof in a computer verification system called Lean. And here is the remarkable part: the very people who proposed the hypothesis, Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with MIT's Ryan Williams, are now leading the public review of whether a machine has disproved their own idea. So what happens next? If the disproof holds, a large part of theoretical computer science has to be revisited. Every result that said "this problem cannot be solved faster, assuming ETH" loses its foundation, and researchers will have to work out which of those walls were real and which were simply where we stopped looking. It does not mean everything becomes easy. The new algorithm is still slow in absolute terms and this is not the famous P versus NP problem being solved. But it means our map of what is possible was wrong in a place we were very confident about, and it was an AI that redrew it. If the disproof fails, the hypothesis survives and the field breathes out, but we will still have watched an AI produce serious, checkable work on one of the deepest questions in the discipline, closely enough that the founders of the idea had to take it seriously. Either way, something has shifted.

Hey @grok, everyone says Trump CAN’T serve a third term. But is there a loophole that could actually put him back in the White House?

Let us find the value of y ?

should aging be classified as a disease?

Wow: 41% of people polled think “our limited lifespan is good” I expect my father, Andrew - who at 87 is fit, disease-free, a true friend of his 5 grandkids & the happiest, most active physically and socially he’s ever been - would disagree

APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE TO ANY TENANTS READING THIS, BUT I’M NOT STAYING QUIET. I’ve housed you for four years at $1,750 a month. You’ve never been late. You’ve never trashed it. You’ve been a solid tenant. Then I sent the renewal: rent’s going up $275. YES. You’ve paid me almost $84,000 over four years. That money covered the mortgage (which I’m still on the hook for if anything goes wrong), property taxes that keep rising, insurance premiums that have jumped hard, maintenance and repairs that cost more every year, and all the other costs of keeping the place habitable and legal. The equity and any portfolio growth come from the capital I put in, the risk I took, and the fact that I own the asset, not from the rent check itself. You’re the one writing the check every month for the right to live there. At the end of it, you own nothing because you didn’t buy it, finance it, or take on the ownership risks. I did. If the roof fails, the HVAC dies, a pipe bursts, taxes go up again, insurance spikes, or you leave and it sits vacant, that’s on me. A $275 increase isn’t “because the market lets me.” It’s because the costs of providing the housing have gone up, insurance, taxes, labor, materials, compliance. Recent data shows typical homeowners paying ~$1,380 a month just in maintenance, taxes, and insurance on top of the mortgage, with insurance up sharply over the last several years. Apartment owners have been keeping only about 11 cents of every rent dollar after debt service, operations, taxes, and the rest. Expenses have often risen faster than rents. Stop treating landlords like a free housing subscription that never has rising costs. The rent pays for the use of the property and the service of ownership. The equity belongs to the person who bought it and bears the risk. If you want a version where some of the money eventually becomes yours, buy your own home.

I’ve talked down my fair share of leapers, but ultimately the pain is yours, as is the choice to end it. But please know that, if you go through with your plans to end your life, your presence in this world will be sorely missed.

once AI cracks biology, aging stops being a fact of life and becomes an engineering problem lol and engineering problems get solved