Sounds like gin and tea, served hot with a twist of lemon.

I'm not sure this is a level headed take... They say, when someone tells you who they are, believe them. Meta has already made it very clear who they are; I'm not sure skepticism is really in order.

I'm not a Mastodon expert, but I'm pretty sure you can still get their memes if they reply to you (or @ you), or if they post to a tag you're following.

I suppose I disagree with the formulation of the argument. The entscheidungsproblem and the halting problem are limitations on formal analysis. It isn't relevant to talk about either of them in terms of "solving them," that's why we use the term undecidable. The halting problem asks, in modern terms—

Given a computer program and a set of inputs to it, can you write a second computer program that decides whether the input program halts (i.e., finishes running)?

The answer to that question is no. In limited terms, this tells you something fundamental about the capabilities of Turing machines and lambda calculus; in general terms, this tells you something deeply important about formal analysis. This all started with the question—

Can you create a formal process for deciding whether a proposition, given an axiomatic system in first-order logic, is always true?

The answer to this question is also no. Digital computers were devised as a means of specifying a formal process for solving logic problems, so the undecidability of the entscheidungsproblem was proven through the undecidability of the halting problem. This is why there are still open logic problems despite the invention of digital computers, and despite how many flops a modern supercomputer can pull off.

We don't use formal process for most of the things we do. And when we do try to use formal process for ourselves, it turns into a nightmare called civil and criminal law. The inadequacies of those formal processes are why we have a massive judicial system, and why the whole thing has devolved into a circus. Importantly, the inherent informality of law in practice is why we have so many lawyers, and why they can get away with charging so much.

As for whether it's necessary to be able to write a computer program that can effectively analyze computer programs, to be able to write a computer program that can effectively write computer programs, consider... Even the loosey goosey horseshit called "deep learning" is based on error functions. If you can't compute how far away you are from your target, then you've got nothing.

The actual answer is that "difficult" comes from "difficulty," which is itself from the French "difficulté." "Cult" is a direct shortening of the Latin "cultus."

If you ever really want to look at word origins, the Online Etymology Dictionary is great: https://www.etymonline.com/word/cult#etymonline_v_450

I got a 19/20, and it reports the one missing point as being slightly skeptical. I'm guessing it was this headline, which I marked as fake: "International Relations Experts and US Public Agree: America Is Less Respected Globally."

I feel like this is actually a test of two things: first, can you recognize the form that headlines tend to take? and second, can you recognize the kinds of things the media would be willing to say? The reason I marked that headline as fake is because it sounds slightly more casual than I'd expect.

So it's no surprise that boomers would be able to answer those particular questions with more accuracy, because they grew up with headlines looking like the "real" headlines in the survey. Or put very bluntly, this is primarily a survey of how in-touch you are with boomers' mode of journalism.

Boomers score highest on this test.

Stop the presses.

It's funny that Indy is accused of taking artifacts from their people, since Raiders is the only movie in which he does that, though he does it twice. But he returns the stones in Temple of Doom, and he lets the grail stay behind, and he lets the crystal skull stay behind (though he didn't have much choice).

The other issue to consider is MBAs. Or at least the MBA way of thinking, that "caring about customers" actually means "leaving money on the table." The relentless search for "business efficiency," evaluated in pure accounting terms, can easily lead to destroying the core business due to a lack of understanding of how the core business shows up on a P&L statement.

Glow-in-the-dark heating elements...

This is the curation effect: generate lots of chaff, and have humans search for the wheat. Thing is, someone's already gotten in deep shit for trying to use deep learning for legal filings.

Seatbelts don't eliminate the possibility of dying in a car crash, but you should still wear one.

It's a staggering display of stupidity that some people think vaccines must completely eliminate risk, or else they're useless. The unredacted portion is just about how some people do get symptomatic COVID despite being vaccinated. Never mind that their symptoms are, on average, much milder than those of unvaccinated people, or that their chances of getting "long COVID" are much lower.

This is, in any case, the perspective of someone who's never had to take any responsibility for any single thing in their entire life.

We routinely take photos in other frequency ranges. It's easy enough to find infrared photographs, made easier since not only is there film that exposes IR, but digital cameras are naturally sensitive to it so you just need to change out some filters. But you know, astrophotography often uses different frequency ranges, since a lot of stellar phenomena emit different kinds of radiation.

The bigger question is, would an alien without eyes at all be aware of electromagnetic radiation? And conversely, what phenomena are there that would be obvious to aliens but we just don't know about, because out sensory organs don't predispose us to being aware of them?