Anotherdev

Physics student at @UdeA and Software engineer.

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@noisk8 @Interledger @Ruta_N @sergiotechx @alexrubeola Nequi SMS 🥸

[𝕾𝖊𝖗𝖌𝖎𝖔𝕿𝖊𝖈𝖍𝖃.🌞 💫 @sergiotechx]

Con el equipo Devstroyers 🤠, a darle duro al código . Con los compas de viejas batallas @noisk8 @alexrubeola @0xAnotherdev
@Interledger 👍🏻

[Kevin Schawinski @kevinschawinski]

BREAKING: OpenAI has improved Newton’s law of gravitation.

F = Gm₁m₂/r^1.99999999999983

Lean proof is forthcoming.

[Lauren Flor Torres @lauren_flor]

Apoyemos a estas científicas colombianas!

[Shaun Fosmark @Shaun_Fosmark]

I want to talk about this Navier Stokes result for a minute because I see alot of people sharing it and not nearly enough people explaining it. A share for this one would be appreciated.

The Navier-Stokes equations are just Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, adapted for liquids and gases. Instead of tracking the acceleration of a solid object, the equations track how a bit of fluid moves, deforms, and flows as different forces push and pull on it. The reason these equations are so notorious, and the subject of a million dollar mathematics prize, is because of turbulence. Smooth, layered flow, or laminar flow, is relatively straightforward to calculate. But once the fluid speeds up and turns into a chaotic turbulence mess, the mathematics become incredibly non linear. The fluid's movement feeds back into itself, creating unpredictable, swirling eddies that become so complex you baisically need a super computer to simulate it.

Ok so what the hell is the millennium prize then?
The millennium prize is for proof that the equations can result in a singularity or what you see referred to as a "blow up". This is where the equations essentially go to infinity.

Ok so why doesnt your cup of tea blow up or turn into a singularity that swallows your house? The Navier Stokes prize isnt about proving that nature makes blow ups or singularities possible, its about proving the limitations of the model's mathematics.

Ok so why can a model allow for things we dont observe? This is THE SAME type of mathmatical allowance that general relativity gives when the model breaks down around black holes. The chance that a black hole is an actual singularity where everything goes to infinity is basically zero. Thats not how the universe actually works.

Ok so WHY is this possible in the model? The Navier Stokes equations assumes fluid is an infinitely divisible, perfectly smooth substance. In the math, you can zoom in forever, and it remains a continuous fluid. But that's NOT how a real fluid in reality is structured. Real fluids are made of discrete, individual molecules bumping into each other. Theres a real limit to how far you can zoom in. In the proof and the model it means that as a vortex shrinks and speeds up, it eventually gets smaller than the distance between individual water molecules. This cant happen in reality.

So the millennium prize isnt about finding if nature allows for infinite turbulence or eddies until a singularity forms, its about FINDING THE LIMITATION OF THE NAVIER STOKES EQUATIONS, proving global regularity false.

Ok so why all the drama with the Open AI solution? It used a method called "forcing". In the simulation they essentially used a continuous force to keep the vortex spinning faster and faster until it blows up, the vortex is smaller than the actual molecules that the fluid is made of. It goes to infinity in a time period that ISNT infinity. While the millennium prize doesnt specifically PROHIBIT forcing, most mathematicians would agree that they are specifically interested in the unforced proof, the spontaneous blow up. But that doesnt mean the result isnt legitimate.

I hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding.

[Drew Hahn @drewhahn]

"hey codex can you just move the text slightly to the right"

gpt-5.6-sol xhigh:

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

📄 Paper: https://t.co/c22toeDfCP
💻 Code: https://t.co/nZ4IMbMlb0

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

Update, we made the top 3 at Quantathon 2026.

We developed a quantum computing solution for the TFIM challenge, implementing Suzuki–Trotter time evolution, benchmarking against Exact Diagonalization (ED), and exploring error mitigation with Quantinuum Nexus (H2).

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@OlaOlaPaola_ Los mejores deseos para tu recuperación, un abrazo!

[Terrible Maps @TerribleMaps]

Believe it or not, Germany’s 5 largest cities lie perfectly on a 4th-degree polynomial

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@fede_intern @class_lambda When comsol multi physics?

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

Stokes supremacy

[Mathieu @miniapeur]

Always has been

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

There have recently been some discussions on the ongoing role of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem, especially in the face of two facts:

* L2s' progress to stage 2 (and, secondarily, on interop) has been far slower and more difficult than originally expected
* L1 itself is scaling, fees are very low, and gaslimits are projected to increase greatly in 2026

Both of these facts, for their own separate reasons, mean that the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path.

First, let us recap the original vision. Ethereum needs to scale. The definition of "Ethereum scaling" is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum - that is, block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum.

This vision no longer makes sense. L1 does not need L2s to be "branded shards", because L1 is itself scaling. And L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true "branded shard" would require. I've even seen at least one explicitly saying that they may never want to go beyond stage 1, not just for technical reasons around ZK-EVM safety, but also because their customers' regulatory needs require them to have ultimate control. This may be doing the right thing for your customers. But it should be obvious that if you are doing this, then you are not "scaling Ethereum" in the sense meant by the rollup-centric roadmap. But that's fine! it's fine because Ethereum itself is now scaling directly on L1, with large planned increases to its gas limit this year and the years ahead.

We should stop thinking about L2s as literally being "branded shards" of Ethereum, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails. Instead, we can think of L2s as being a full spectrum, which includes both chains backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum with various unique properties (eg. not just EVM), as well as a whole array of options at different levels of connection to Ethereum, that each person (or bot) is free to care about or not care about depending on their needs.

What would I do today if I were an L2?

* Identify a value add other than "scaling". Examples: (i) non-EVM specialized features/VMs around privacy, (ii) efficiency specialized around a particular application, (iii) truly extreme levels of scaling that even a greatly expanded L1 will not do, (iv) a totally different design for non-financial applications, eg. social, identity, AI, (v) ultra-low-latency and other sequencing properties, (vi) maybe built-in oracles or decentralized dispute resolution or other "non-computationally-verifiable" features
* Be stage 1 at the minimum (otherwise you really are just a separate L1 with a bridge, and you should just call yourself that) if you're doing things with ETH or other ethereum-issued assets
* Support maximum interoperability with Ethereum, though this will differ for each one (eg. what if you're not EVM, or even not financial?)

From Ethereum's side, over the past few months I've become more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile, particuarly once we have enshrined ZK-EVM proofs that we need anyway to scale L1. This is a precompile that verifies a ZK-EVM proof, and it's "part of Ethereum", so (i) it auto-upgrades along with Ethereum, and (ii) if the precompile has a bug, Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug.

The native rollup precompile would make full, security-council-free, EVM verification accessible. We should spend much more time working out how to design it in such a way that if your L2 is "EVM plus other stuff", then the native rollup precompile would verify the EVM, and you only have to bring your own prover for the "other stuff" (eg. Stylus). This might involve a canonical way of exposing a lookup table between contract call inputs and outputs, and letting you provide your own values to the lookup table (that you would prove separately).

This would make it easy to have safe, strong, trustless interoperability with Ethereum. It also enables synchronous composability (see: https://t.co/9jy6v1X6Fw and https://t.co/gZmu3YjebM ). And from there, it's each L2's choice exactly what they want to build. Don't just "extend L1", figure out something new to add.

This of course means that some will add things that are trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure; this is unavoidable in a permissionless ecosystem where developers have freedom. Our job should make to make it clear to users what guarantees they have, and to build up the strongest Ethereum that we can.

[Fede’s intern @fede_intern]

Humanity is completely unprepared for what's coming.

I've been talking with partners, employees, and countless people over the last few weeks. I'm amazed by most people's inability to adapt or even grasp second order effects of what's coming. They don't even want to think about the consequences. Some of the smartest people I've met in my life are trying to avoid accepting the reality: it's very likely we will have tools that are able to do almost everything better than a human in a very short timeline. It's very likely that even those of us who can generally adapt quickly won't be able to overcome this tsunami.

We will experience one of the biggest deflationary shocks in history. Only robotics combined with AI could be bigger than this.

I find it almost absurd to watch so many YouTube channels and X accounts showing you how to create your own simple app or SaaS. If anybody can build things fast, what do you think will happen? Is there demand for thousands of applications of every kind? During the last 20 years some of the smartest people alive battled for attention of people by building software and the limitation was execution costs, speed and distribution.

Right, but I'm forgeting that people say it's not the time of implementation anymore. In theory, we're now in the time of ideas. So what happens when someone has a good idea and anyone can copy it in days?

If implementation becomes worthless, what remains? Perhaps taste, distribution, or maybe in some cases deep domain expertise. But even those moats are eroding fast.

What makes this different from past disruptions is the pace. Previous technological shifts gave people decades to adapt. This one might give them months.

We built this. And yet it feels like it's happening to us, not by us. The strange position of being both the creator and the displaced. This is going to be very sad and fun at the same time. Happy to be alive during this time.

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@Ariiellus Maths

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@krichard121212 Crazy, stock market is way more complex than a Lorenz attractor.

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

Quantum mechanics is what it’s because of this:

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@cryptosinomx https://t.co/vIm4tUyisi
Y si, es un par de mappings en cualquier SC, y un par de circuitos de criptografia offchain ;b

[All day Astronomy @forallcurious]

🚨: Behold! You're looking at a photo of a single atom.

[Anotherdev @0xAnotherdev]

@Ariiellus Cries in hard navier-stokes problem