No, but these tweets describe the basic concept: extension of AlphaZero to train on theorems in Lean automatically converted from natural-language proofs.

Looking first at figure S3, nothing stands out. The most important figures here are A, B, and G-I. G-I are showing the % of sequencing runs that gave an unexpected base at I-Ppol cut sites, I-Ppol alternative cut sites, and 100,000 randomly selected sites. There’s a little bit of variation in the ICE samples at canonical sites, but I consider this pretty convincing evidence that the ICE system is not particularly mutagenic.

You should reconsider that conclusion. Double-strand breaks cause an increase in mutation rate. This is a known fact.

The experiment design is weird and the supposed results contradict a lot of other things.

see also phonons

I previously wrote a post that answers this question.

You only need a majority of voters, who would then vote for local government that would negotiate a mutually-beneficial deal. Not every single person.

People can already build a single normal house on a normal lot well enough. The people who want to massively increase density want big apartment complexes built. Big projects.

residents made the areas valuable by doing things they've since disallowed

It's not mainly the buildings that make an area valuable, it's who lives there. If there's a problem in how appreciation is distributed I'd say it's that non-resident property owners capture some value that they don't deserve to.

If developers need to compensate nearby property owners for negative externalities imposed on them, then who compensates the developer for the positive externalities they cause on properties the developer doesn't own? Because if the answer is "no one" then this is a pure disincentive on development

...governments do? It's common for big commercial/industrial projects to get big incentives from city and state governments.

Right now builders face an enormous number of veto points in any construction process someone once decided that this makes it possible to be used as an illegal apartment

People vote for ideological anti-development hardasses because other people kept getting bribed to look the other way while developers got special permission for an apartment next to your house, or because houses in the area got split by 10 guys.

If increasing density in a populated area has some costs to current residents but is worthwhile overall, it should be possible to pay off the existing residents to allow it. What I see instead is that developers consider that too expensive to make development profitable, but can bribe politicians/officials for less, and YIMBYs are useful patsies for this.

When I've mentioned this to YIMBY people, the response I've gotten was basically: "Those people in high-value suburban areas don't deserve to live there the way they do." But it's the existing residents who made areas valuable.

the reward for playing the game is more game ... It’s just the same thing over and over until you die. You don’t get out by winning; you get out by stopping.

What does this say about what it means for someone to be "qualified" for a position? What does it say about where you should expect to find the smartest people?

That has all been considered extensively before and this post isn't a good place to discuss it. Prizes have been found to be generally worse than patents and research funding.

Right. "Having a nucleus" is a pretty big difference.