"What does Trump talking about sending tariff money to citizens say about the rise of basic-income-type policies?"
It says that Trump will spin self-serving lies without end to get what he wants. But we already knew that.
It's never going to happen. The money is not there, and Trump would never do it anyway.
Let's work with the argument's load-bearing phrase, "exploration is an intrinsic part of the human spirit."
There are so many things to criticise in that single statement of bias. Suffice it to say there's a good case to be made that "provincial domesticity and tribalism are prevalent inherited traits in humans", without emotional appeals to a "spirit" not in evidence.
The kinds of foods that trash your LDL predate the FDA and the United States.
No. ChatGPT parrots language without understanding it. That is not using language. "Using" something implies achieving a purpose by means of that thing, and ChatGPT has no purpose of its own.
...seems to be about four years late.
"Grand Theft Auto Forever"
With a president who solves an existential threat by finding the best expert he can find, and using his own formidable political skills and charisma to run interference for that expert.
Seriously, Comacho was a meathead, but Iâ(TM)d vote for him.
"The Three Mouseketeers"
"They speak a form of english that has been manipulated by marketing people to such a degree that it's often difficult to see the reality behind those words."
In other words, Newspeak.
We can defeat the giant enemy crabs by hitting their weak points for massive damage.
I don't even know *how* to drive a stick!
"Prior art" is only a factor in patents. This ain't a patent.
and peppered the public with constant lies.
That skill proved useful in his later career.
I happen to dislike Douglas Hofstadter, actually. He isn't nearly smug enough.
The halting problem isn't unsolved at all; there are simple programs that can be fed into the testing framework for which the behavior is impossible to analyze, i.e., undecidable. Perhaps you got "unsolvable" and "undecidable" mixed up.
The original formulation of Pascal's wager is actually quite interesting—it's a game-theoretic probability analysis, described long before game theory was devised and when probability was in its infancy. Pascal's mugging targets the assumptions of the wager rather than its logic: in his writing, the nature of the divine is regarded as immutable, certain, and consistent with church doctrine.
To judge Pascal's intellect we really have to look at the context in which he was writing—the middle of Europe and the height of the witchcraft scare—and observe that he seems to have omitted the possibility of a demon (the sort that witches were alleged to commune with!) posing as a fake god, an idea that was explored extensively in early Christian heresies such as Gnosticism and Marcionism. Moreover the seventeenth century, Huguenots (protestants) were all over France, and so all of his readers would have been intimately familiar with questions of which doctrine was more authentic.
A lot of authors in this period heavily self-censored in order to avoid conflict with the state. Although the Inquisition was no longer active in France, the church had an immense amount of power, and running afoul of it could cost one's livelihood or worse. (Not to mention the sensibilities of patrons.) In some cases we only know an author's real position on occult subjects because of texts that were published posthumously or barely circulated; Isaac Newton, for example, wrote way more on magic and alchemy than on gravitation, calculus, or optics.
It's possible Pascal was not the theological bootlicker we've remembered him as, and, frankly, it's hard to imagine he never considered the flaws of the Wager, considering the messy world he lived in. Unfortunately there's no room for nuance when it comes to the popular narrative of, "child prodigy mathematician drinks too much communion wine and tragically starts spouting nonsense upon reaching adulthood."
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop
