My split was more 40% GPT-5, 60% GPT-4o. I think GPT-4o was better at communicating over interpersonal issues, but it ultimately depends on your perspective.
Yes, that accruing is linear. I mean there are exponential examples in the religious system, such as more karma required for different things, the lifespans of deities in various realms and the length of the kalpas/ timespans of the ages.
And compared to saying it aloud by yourself it's orders of magnitude more. And when they cram the text into like neat folds with dense text, thats a few more. I just googled, yeah I still google because perplexity on comet is not my thing, 100 trillion prayers on a microfilm is an example I saw.
Maybe "exponential" means "big" to non-math people. Years ago in a writing class I took, English majors kept using "hyperbolic" to mean "exaggerated". That was hard to parse for this physicist.
Actually gym classes are a dumb leftover from the turn of the century (no not that turn, the 1900 turn). It serves no purpose anymore. Modern students get no meaningful skills, no lasting health benefits. It's mandatory exertion for a grade.
Learning to drive a car at school would do a whole lot more good!
What's wrong with making sure every kid gets to move a bit (exert, as you put it)? It doesn't matter for kids that are already fit, but I think that it's great for health of the bottom 30% who doesn't exercise and doesn't have a proper diet (both are their parents fault, to be clear).
Patient reviews. So you can tell a patient they can lose weight, but if you do they might leave you a bad review. If you get enough of them, your practice might not keep you. Try few doctors own their own practice these days, so they have to care about patient satisfaction surveys.
Granted with such a device you still have to do something with the data for it to make you better, but I think this makes a lot more sense. Many people are diabetes 2, or close to it, and they have no idea. A continuous glucose measuring device could very quickly be a real eye-opener, in a way a fitness tracker does not. --> I don't need no Fitbit to tell me, I skipped my 5k again, but I do need a sensor to tell me that my blood glucose is too high.
A glucose monitor is not the best way to tell if you have type 2 diabetes. It varies throughout the day, by a lot.
You judge diabetes by your A1c, which is a cumulative effect over months. That's part of a standard bloodwork panel, which you should have every year -- which is plenty of notice.
That isn't necessarily the wearable RFKJ means. The article also goes on to point out that nobody has measured health benefits from wearables, and that the surgeon general nominatee has a company that makes wearables, a giant conflict of interest. None of this is surprising, in that RFKJ testified under oath in his confirmation hearings that he would keep the vaccine advisory committee in place, but then fired them summarily. He's a known liar.
The article nowhere mentions individual compensation to descendants by Harvard. I suspect the bankruptcy comment is an institutional fear of financial liability tied to large-scale identification of descendants.
How is the institution 'liable' for the slaves owned by the founders? I'm both confused that people expect the University to pay significant reparations to the many descendants of slaves and that it would be afraid of that expectation. Is a preferential entry or special scholarships not enough?
Mathematics isn't monolithic—it depends heavily on the axioms you choose. Change the axioms, and the theorems change. ZFC, ZF¬C, intuitionistic logic, non-Euclidean geometry—each yields a different “math,” all internally consistent. So it’s not right to say math “just is” in some absolute sense. We’re not just discovering math; we’re exploring the consequences of chosen assumptions.
For instance:
Under Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC), every set can be well-ordered, but we do get the Hahn–Banach paradoxes.
Under ZF without Choice, analysis as we know it no longer holds.
In constructive mathematics, which avoids the law of the excluded middle, many classical theorems lose their usual formulations or proofs.
Non-Euclidean geometries arise from altering the parallel postulate. Within their own axioms, they are as internally consistent and "natural" as Euclidean geometry. Do non-intersecting lines exist in this universe? I've no idea.
This just steps one meta level higher. Yes, you can make your object of analysis the axioms and what they lead to and proof theory etc. But now you've just stepped back one level. What are the axioms that allow you to derive that "ZFC leads to Hahn–Banach paradoxes"? Is this claim True and discovered or is it in itself also simply dependent on some axioms and assumptions?
This is part of a broader meta-ization of culture. Philosophers are also much more reluctant to make truth claims in the last century compared to centuries ago. Everything they say is just "To a Hegelian, it is {such and such}. For Descartes, {x, y, z}." If you study theology, they don't teach with conviction that "Statement A". They will teach that Presbyterians believe X while the Anglicans think Y, and the Catholics think it's an irrelevant distinction. Of course when push comes to shove, you do realize that they do have truth claims, and moral claims that are non-negotiable but are shy to come forward with them and explicitly only talk in this "conditional" "if-then" way.
In fact many would argue that math is not too far from theology. People who were obsessed with math limits, like Gödel, were also highly interested in theology.
I guess physics is the closest to still making actual truth claims about reality, though it's also retreating to "we're just making useful mathematical models, we aren't saying that reality is this way or that way".
No, you are wrong. 90% of Philosphy it's bullshit about giving a fake truth status depending of WHO said what. Meanwhile, Math and Science always put FACTS over personas.
About the axioms, not really. Axiom sets is mostly there just as a 'short hand' to quickly describe a context we're talking about, but ultimately you could just do away with them. E.g. if we let A be the set of axioms from some theory (e.g. set theory, number theory etc.) and you have a mathematical statement of the form X => Y within that theory, you could just as well consider the statement "A ^ X => Y" in the purely formal system without any axioms at all, then it is purely a logical question (essentially, if X => Y is a theorem within theory A) and more objectively true than "X => Y" which would be theory-independent.
The overarching point still stands: our formal systems are just models built to describe the patterns we observe. In that sense, math “just is.” The fact that some models aren’t compatible with others doesn’t undermine that—it just shows they’re incomplete or context-dependent views into a larger structure.
You prompted chatgpt to create movie based titles and then passed it off as regular output.
With the prompt "suggest 10 titles for this article" + the article text, I get the following _normal_ titles.
1. When the Brain Misreads the World: How Uncertainty Shapes Thought and Behavior
2. CogLinks: A Virtual Brain That Teaches Us How the Mind Adapts
3. The Neural Balancing Act: How the Brain Decides Under Uncertainty
4. Modeling Mental Flexibility: Simulating How the Brain Learns and Adapts
5. Inside the Decision Machine: How New Models Reveal the Brain’s Hidden Algorithms
6. Uncertainty, Meaning, and Misfires: Understanding the Neural Roots of Psychiatric Disorders
7. When Circuits Go Off Course: What a Virtual Brain Teaches Us About Mental Illness
8. The Thalamic Switchboard: Linking Flexibility and Habit in the Human Mind
9. From Neurons to Algorithms: Building a Bridge Between Brain Biology and Psychiatry
10. Toward Algorithmic Psychiatry: Simulating Brain Circuits to Decode Mental Disorders