![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dmmI am not sure what (I missed the latest part of the story). But here is a beautiful petition on change.org which says this:
*****
Waluigi has been scorned by Nintendo yet again, being left out of the roster of Super Smash Bros Ultimate. However, there is still a chance for Waluigi to get his rightly deserved place in the spotlight. Waluigi should appear in the next edition of Higher Algebra.
Indeed, Waluigi fits naturally into the framework of stable ∞-categories, and would probably have been incorporated long ago were Nintendo not so notoriously protective of their copyright. For example, the discussion of the Waldhausen construction in §1.2.2 generalizes without much additional effort to the WAHldhausen construction. It is also worth noting that a careful treatment of the WAHll finiteness obstruction from the ∞-categorical perspective is sorely lacking from the literature.
*****
(I've read the original Waluigi effect paper. I am going to write more about all this in the comments.)
*****
Waluigi has been scorned by Nintendo yet again, being left out of the roster of Super Smash Bros Ultimate. However, there is still a chance for Waluigi to get his rightly deserved place in the spotlight. Waluigi should appear in the next edition of Higher Algebra.
Indeed, Waluigi fits naturally into the framework of stable ∞-categories, and would probably have been incorporated long ago were Nintendo not so notoriously protective of their copyright. For example, the discussion of the Waldhausen construction in §1.2.2 generalizes without much additional effort to the WAHldhausen construction. It is also worth noting that a careful treatment of the WAHll finiteness obstruction from the ∞-categorical perspective is sorely lacking from the literature.
*****
(I've read the original Waluigi effect paper. I am going to write more about all this in the comments.)
no subject
Date: 2023-03-08 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-03-08 02:52 am (UTC)https://twitter.com/adamnemecek1/status/1622636853097824257 - pinned tweet
he tweets about this; I tried to read the text, but felt that it needs better details (I liked thenice informal part, but I found it difficult to reproduce and fully understand without further details being spelled out).
The context is that there have been a number of papers explaining “backprop without a backward pass” in Transformers from various very different angles and points of view. This is one more which says it achieves that, and it presents an entirely new viewpoint compared to viewpoints of previous attempts.
Of course, a lot of people are eager for more insights into the famous manifestations of “backprop without a backward pass” in Transformers.