harpastum

Without providing definitions of "True / Mostly True / Misleading / False" to each rater, I rate the article's claim that "Only one verdict bucket can be correct per claim" as false.

Something can be simultaneously "misleading" and either true or false. Which category should something go in if it's "mostly false"?

How much can something be wrong before it goes from "mostly true" to "false" (objectively, both have some part of the fact that is not true)?

This is at least partly testing the model's definition of "mostly" and "misleading". Not its understanding of the fact. Claiming that this means the models have fundamental disagreement on the facts themselves is an overreach.

It depends on the specifics of your format, but we’ve had success embedding the questions and answers separately. If either match, you return the complete question and answer text. Make sure to deduplicate before returning, in case both match.

I think your math is correct, and it will be very limited compared to a real-life retina screen, but I think there's also a perceived resolution increase from having binocular vision and moving.

If you hold your head steady while looking through a window with a plastic screen on it, things outside are obstructed. If you move your head slightly back and forth and focus in the distance, the screen pretty much disappears.

Your brain can do some motion smoothing to determine the "actual" content, even if it's sampled. I'm not sure how you could quantify it, and it only helps a relatively small amount, but it's there.

Depending on your climate and what you mean by "windows cracked", you would be much better off with a heat recovery ventilation (HRV) system. They have the explicit purpose of pulling in outside air while only losing about 20% of the heat difference between indoor and out.

With slightly open windows, you're losing a bunch of heat for very little ventilation.

Yes, but it seems like the grandparent was trying to fit in every polysyllabic word they could find.

They're saying that some groups tend to have more children and some have fewer. The groups that have more will become a larger and larger percentage of the populace (because they have more kids), and the groups that have few children will disappear. Therefore the global birth rate will go back up to the levels of a couple hundred years ago.

(I don't agree with this idea, just trying to present their argument with more straightforward vocabulary)