magneticnorth

Pizza delivery has been a thing for the last 50 years. And in my own childhood, my parents kept tv dinners and other instant sodium-bombs like easy mac or ramen on hand.

Doordash costs more than that, but chipotle is a good deal more nutritious than the 90's-era tv dinners I remember, so I can understand parents preferring to spend a bit more for that equally-easy solution.

It still seems like that would save a ton of unpleasant work, if not time.

I own a pasta machine where I have to hand-feed the pasta sheets, and it's so much easier and more fun to make pasta compared to rolling by hand, even though it doesn't save me any time.

Simply feeding an item into a wringer is easy and a bit meditative; wringing by hand is a lot of work and a lot of wear on your skin.

For predictions? I'd say so. If I could make a statement and flip a coin to make it true 50% of the time, I could win the lottery with many 9s of precision in likelihood.

Another anecdata - my cat growing up was orange, and he was plenty smart. He was very relaxed/chill but would come when called and was an excellent hunter of the house mice.

His mom was a very intelligent calico (she communicated with people impressively well), and his dad was an unknown feral cat, so I think his smart-cat genes were more noticeable than whatever correlates with orange.

It wasn't clear to me in the article, but the best splash-free urinal ("nautilus"), is the tall skinny one second-from-right in the photo.

In addition to having the correct angle to minimize splash, it also fits a wide range of heights and is easier to clean than some of the other designs they tried.

This is a good point, it's not as far off as it seems from a quick glance.

My first random selection lived to age 68! I felt very lucky, and then that put my modern life into interesting perspective.

This is neat, but I don't think it's actually drawing the year from the correct probability distribution - "a random birth is far more likely to fall near the present" is correct, but in 5 "random" choices, only one was from anywhere near modern day.

Yes, but I definitely think the probabilities are off - the explanation, which I agree with, states "a random birth is far more likely to fall near the present."

But it appears to be drawing much more uniformly from the years than you'd expect given the probability curve (population curve) pictured.

Yes, I agree completely with the Shakespeare point.

I was lucky enough to have a close friend (also a teenager!) who really got Shakespeare. She would explain to me what was actually going on, and read it with the correct emphasis so you could mostly actually follow it. She is 100% of the reason that I was ever able to appreciate Shakespeare.

You would hope that most teachers could do this, but in my experience it was only my one friend who had the literary and dramatic talent to explain Shakespeare well to teenagers.

When I was in academia and had easy access to a good printer, I always did. I miss it now that it's easier to just read on my screen.

I saw it first on reddit (r/math).

Right? I just learned about this and searched it on hacker news wondering why I didn't see it earlier.

Any human mathematician would be thrilled to prove a result like this, and it's not even big news anymore that an LLM can do it.

This is a lot of fun! I'm pleased that I was able to defeat "hitler1488", but you may want to add some content filtering for the name choosing step.