a_cardboard_box

My boundary is also greener than 95% of the population. I think it's because I mentally separate cyan from green and blue, but still see cyan as a shade of blue. If you asked me what color it was without forcing green or blue, I'd have answered cyan on most of them.

Insider trading. People surrounding Trump like when he does crazy stuff that shifts markets, so they influence him to do so. And Trump is really easy to influence.

The paper doesn't even use it consistently. At first it uses "all-cause mortality" to mean "all causes except COVID", and then in the results section it uses the same phrase to mean "all causes including COVID". The whole purpose of terms of art is to increase the specificity of language, but they're not doing that here. Their usage of the term is confusing.

Edit: I'm wrong. I could have sworn it said that the groups had similar all-cause mortality, but it doesn't.

Yes, but they incorrectly called it all-cause mortality under Findings. "Mortality" on it's own would be fine. "Mortality from other causes" would be better.

According to your view, the text you have written has nothing to do with consciousness.

The NES DPCM runs at up to 33kHz, so it actually has double the bitrate of the 2-bit 8kHz encoding used in the article. If you run it at 16kHz to match the bitrate, it will sound much worse.

The post doesn't blame individual Americans. There is no irony.

The stick is the player character's head. Pull back their head and they look up.

You seem to misunderstand the proposal. The proposal is that after they have done everything that is already legally required (advertise an open position for some amount of time etc), then they must amend the posting to include that the position is filled by an internal/external/H-1B hire. There is still a period of time when the position is advertised as open.

Because I have plenty of opportunities that don't involve dancing for a micromanaging sociopath.

It's possible you could at least mitigate the problem by checking that what you've proven isn't trivial. If you slightly change a mathematical statement, it frequently becomes either trivially true or trivially false. So if you accidentally proved the wrong thing, there's a good chance that your proof can be shortened to a point that it becomes obviously wrong. For example, if you accidentally put "there exists" instead of "for all" in Fermat's last theorem, the proof is 1^3 + 1^3 != 1^3. That is obviously too short to prove FLT - it would have fit in Fermat's margin.

> As humans can be reduced to physics, and physics can be expressed as a computer program

This is an assumption that many physicists disagree with. Roger Penrose, for example.

"Gender" referred only to grammar before it gained its modern meaning. The modern meaning was introduced in the 1950s/60s to differentiate social aspects (gender) from biological (sex). Of course people then started using it to just mean "sex", but if you use social definition I don't think it's a bad name for the concept.

> Note that it's not necessarily simple to pick an element from a set. For instance, how would one pick an element from the set of uncomputable numbers?

In ZF without choice, you can pick an element from any non-empty set, so it actually is simple to pick an element from a set. Choice is only needed when you have an infinite number of sets to pick elements from.