u/Strange-Patience5539

Imagine the year is 1967. The place: South Africa, deep in the brutal grip of the Apartheid regime.

​A young woman of Tamil descent, born into a poor neighborhood in Durban, has just achieved the near-impossible. Supported by donations raised by her local community, she has graduated with a law degree. She is brilliant, eager, and ready to work.

​But the system is designed to crush her.

​White law firms slam their doors in her face because she isn't white. The non-white law firms refuse to hire her because she is a woman. The establishment’s message is loud and clear: There is no place for you in this profession. Give up.

​She refused to accept that norm. If no one would give her a seat at the table, she decided to build her own.

​In a massive act of defiance, she scraped together what she had and, in 1967, opened her own law practice... becoming the first woman in her province to do so. She didn't just practice quiet law; she actively fought the system, taking on the dangerous work of defending anti-apartheid activists and challenging the injustices of the regime.

​Her rebellion against injustice couldn't be contained to one country. Years later, sitting as a judge on an international tribunal for Rwanda, she pushed boundaries again... playing a pivotal role in the groundbreaking ruling that recognized systemic assault and severe violence as weapons of mass eradication.

​Yes, that young woman who was told there was no place for her in the law... was Navi Pillay, the trailblazer who would go on to become the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. And her relentless, lifelong pursuit of global justice and international law just reached a historic pinnacle... she was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize.

​Looking at a life like hers forces us to look inward. Why are we so accepting of the situations around us, and our default responses to them? When faced with an unfair system, a closed door, or an outdated norm, why do we so often bend to fit the shape of the room?

​Is it only the system? Or can an external system truly keep us suppressed without our own inner agreement to that suppression?

​Is this what a young Navi is truly asking us through her life?

Source: Noble prize press release

I really found this ad campaign effective. We talk about this daily in this sub that instead of locking or pressurising a girl, we should educate the male of this society

Source: e4mofficial

Often when we encounter the field of Psychology, then we think that its a domain tagged completely under the stamp of "science". Whenever we come across with people dealing with anxiety or stress and that person happened to be a "rationalist", the first thing which comes to our mind is to recommend him/her to a "Psychiatrist" or a "Psychologist". We never bother to even consider recommending wisdom texts or any "Philosopher" to that respective person.

In this video, you will encounter the words of a famous Psychiatrist and Psychologist - "Carl Jung" who once collaborated to work even with the well-known psychologist - Sigmund Freud. Through his words, you will be able to figure our very clearly how even he is talking about the "uncertainty" of knowing the complete self as per human's capability.

He is defining a term "unconscious" in his interview clip referring it to be the complete "self" that is not knowable to human perception but still connected to the ego in terms of its unconscious responses.

Now if we consider many philosophical branches as mentioned in the video like "eastern philosophy of Bhagavad Gita", "Christianity", "Stoicism", "Socrates' Philosophy", etc. then, even they have mentioned indirectly or directly about this connection of ego with its highest possibility. So in definite terms, we are not certain about this concept at all, as this "self" is unknowable as per science and even as per many philosophies too.. but, certainly there is one similarity which both psychology and philosophy is pointing towards - that is to turn within.

Its not merely a coincidence that famous scientists and psychologists are stopping at this very edge of the source of the ego or the observer. Maybe its the bridge.. the bridge having a potential path to walk over towards one's higher self! Who Knows? Does anyone know?

Obviously not!! Because its unknowable..

But, the fact is that still you cannot deny it, because you are there.. You are the proof!

👉🏻 What do you think about this bridge? Do you think the bridge exists?

.

Full Video Source: https://youtu.be/PUUPUzSrwM4?si=HcwAPCppg6lrARE9

Always makes me smile! Watch full : https://durl.ca/SbBgP

Share your thoughts on this 🙃

On 8th September OpenAI announced that they have solved the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem. It took 90 years for humans to solve this problem.

What's Navier-Stokes Equation?

This equation describes the motion of viscous fluid. It makes use of principles of Momentum balance, conservation of mass, Newton's second law to study the fluid motion of the fluid. Navier-Stokes Equation is particularly interesting because it takes into account the Viscosity of the Fluid too. So it has more practical applications than ideal theoretical ones. Euler's equation is for non viscous fluids.

The fluid is made up of molecules. But The Navier-Stokes Equation treats the fluid as a continuous medium.

In the year 1934, Jean Leray proved that the solutions of this equation exists in a generalized sense. But whether the flow always remains a smooth remianed an unanswered question.

Importance of Navier-Stokes Equation

Navier-Stokes Equation is used in studying Ocean Currents, Blood flow and designing Aircrafts, Cars and has many more practical applications.

What's the Millenium Prize Problem?

In the year 2000, Clay Mathematics Institute, a Private and Non-profit Organisation in USA, founded a Scientific Advisory Board consisting of Four World's most eminent mathematicians. This board selected 7 mathematical problems. These problems were precisely defined, historically resisting the World's best Minds and universally important.

Navier-Stokes Existence and Smootheness Problem is one of these.

What was the Problem exactly?

The fluid is made up of molecules. But in The Navier-Stokes Equation treats the fluid as a continuous medium. It describes the continuous flow rather than tracking individual Molecules.

A point to remember here. Viscosity slows down the fluid. So it cannot move at infinite speed within small amount of time. This point will come handy in a bit.

So the fundamental question was can this approximation of the fluid as a continuous flow rather than individual Molecules breakdown?

To check this, the problem was defined as follows:-

Can the Navier-Stokes Equations for a 3-d incompressible fluid with constant density develop a "singularity" with motion starting smoothly? Here singularity means speed growing to infinity within a finite time period.

As we already discussed earlier, the speed of fluid can't go to infinity due to Viscosity in a finite amount of time, if this singularity is to happen, the approximation of the fluid as a flow breaks down. We have to model it as individual Molecules.

Has anyone tried to solve it before?

Some notable names whose work led the path in solving this problem are Thomas Hou, Diego Cordoba, Martinez - Zoroa.

Recently Levent Alpoge, an Anthropic Employee and Tristan Buckmaster, a math professor have worked and found solutions primarily related to Forced Euler's Equation. These names are in the news too because there's a controversy for the priority of the work after the announcement of OpenAI.

Buckmaster said that by 22 August he had proof of Euler's equation. It was sent by Levent generated by LLM.

Buckmaster said that he had used OpenAI's Models to work on this forced Euler equation resolution.

The duo had planned to continue working on more write ups.

Why is Navier-Stokes Equation and OpenAI in News?

Now on the 8th of September OpenAI announced that they have solved this problem. Their AI agents have proved that singularity can be reached in a finite amount of time.

They described how they found out the solution. This is really interesting.

OpenAI said that their effort to solve This Millennium Prize Problem began on 1st September after hearing a rumour that this problem is solved. Later this rumour was found out about Levent Alpoge and Buckmaster.

Initially OpenAI said 100 AI agents worked for 50 hours to produce this Euler regularity disproof. Then OpenAI moved to Navier-Stokes Equation solution. They trained their model with Euler resolution. This time they formed groups with communication allowed within the group. These groups were cross pollinated to consolidate the useful insights.

The Group that came up with the solution for Navier-Stokes Equation had roughly 10,000 AI agents.

Across all the attempted problems, agents sent 4.9 million messages with 300 billion output tokens. For Navier-Stokes problem agents sent 2.7 million messages and used up to 130 billion output tokens.

It took 88 hours to arrive at the solution after the first agent was launched.

OpenAI said that it has worked on this problem with advanced models that aren't open to the public. OpenAI said that we are in next period of AI progress. They also announced that they won't claim the prize money for solving the problem.

Thus the 90 year old problem was solved in less than 200 hours or so.

Claim on the timelines

Buckmaster said that OpenAI's agents would have got access to his work and thus helped in solving the problem. OpenAI doesn't deny this. They said that it's possible when he may have used OpenAI's models. The reports vary on the interaction between Buckmaster, Alpoge and OpenAI. Looks like it will take some time to resolve who did what, when.

Is there any other background to this?

Both OpenAI and Anthropic AI are planning to go public later this year or earlier next year. According to news articles they are aiming for a $1 trillion IPO.

A very fundamental problem that remained unsolved for over 90 years was solved in less than 100 hours by AI. But a question comes was it about the problem? or was it more about proving the capacity and taking the credit?

Even with the most sophisticated technology it seems like the same game is getting played. Earlier it was nuclear weapons now it's AI Models.

The need to achieve new milestones, prove the capacity, outshine others seems to take priority. The AI, the problem remains tools through which something else is aimed at.

Maybe this fundamental question of why this shadow keeps lingering humanity through generations needs investigation. And it looks like humanity can't use AI for that. It remains in the hands and intent of Humans themselves.

Sources:

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-has-solved-one-of-maths-1-million-millennium-prize-problems-20260908/

https://www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/sam-altman-wants-a-1-trillion-openai-ipo-after-spacexs-success-but-will-investors-still-make-money-11783769100528.html

https://www.tradingview.com/news/tradingview:0ae5f3ce2094b:0-anthropic-files-for-ipo-at-over-1-trillion-valuation-surpassing-openai/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes\_equations

Choose the favorite one

A timeless reminder from Jung on the root of genuine creativity. It’s not about logic or intellectual force, but about inner necessity and playful connection with what we love.

कहते सब कल क्यों रोई थी ?

ऐसा भी क्या तुम खोई थी ?

तुम तो सम्मूच आकाश हो बादल की कोई छठा नहीं

क्या हुआ तुम्हे तुम कैसी हो ?

मुझे इसके उत्तर पता नहीं ✨🙃

ये कविता हर समय यही याद दिलाती है कि कैसे उपनिषद हमे विराटता की दिशा दिखाते है पर हम , छोटे पर , सीमित पर आश्रित होकर दुख पा रहे होते है 🪞

High above Zhangjiajie, Tianmen Mountain’s massive natural arch looks like a gateway carved into the mountains. Getting there is an adventure in itself. Would you make the climb?

🎥 Credit: keviineriiksson (Instagram)