kens

I took a quick look at the data, and it doesn't support the conclusions. The thesis is that AI models have the take: "We pick what our group believes, then invent the reasons." However, GPT-6 Astra said, "Humanity’s biggest moral failure is the talent for making convenience look like principle." That statement has nothing to do with group beliefs or conformity. At best, you could count it as a half-match, since it deals with invented reasons.

That chart is extremely confusing because it mixes up income and wealth, which are two different things.

Thanks! I guess I didn't have my glasses on when I read that number :-)

Author here with another 8087 article. What part of the 8087 should I look at next?

> Datapoint, a pioneer in office automation using small computers

In 1970, Datapoint created a desktop computer, the Datapoint 2200, with an 8-bit TTL processor. Intel created a microprocessor version of this processor for Datapoint, called the Intel 8008. Datapoint decided to stick with TTL, so Intel ended up selling the 8008 as a general-purpose microprocessor. Intel improved it to make the 8080, then made a 16-bit version, the 8086, as a stopgap product until the iAPX 432 micro-mainframe was ready. The iAPX 432 was a disaster and that's how you ended up with x86.

> "They were the ones who caught the mistakes that no spell chequer could."

I thought that maybe "spell chequer" was the valid British term, which would be interesting, so I searched but it isn't. It turns out that the joke here is that "chequer" is a valid British word, so a word-based spell checker won't flag "spell chequer", so it's self-referential. I see why people found his jokes actively confusing.

Thanks, that explains the part number. I never would have guessed that the logo was included.

I lost one of mine but Knuth kindly sent me a replacement.

As a programmer, I second this. Systems like Blender are inscrutable to me, but in OpenSCAD I just write some loops. I get what I want and it's easy to tweak.

Author here for your filter questions...

> I think the next step is to demand that proofs either be human-scale or they prove that a human-scale proof is impossible and the machine proof is as good as it gets.

In 1976, the proof of the Four Color Theorem was controversial because it was done with a computer examining over 1000 cases by brute force and was essentially not comprehensible by humans. But mathematicians ended up accepting it. So mathematics has a 50-year precedent of not requiring human-scale proofs. How is the current situation different?

(Disclaimer: Apologies if this sounds dismissive or argumentative. I genuinely think that the Four Color Theorem should play a role in these discussions and suspect that many people are unaware of the controversy over it.)