It's maybe been useful motivation. The problem is, it's essentially the same definition as that of "the soul."

None of your examples are examples of "not thinking." They're examples of things that you think don't think.

The problem with that is it's entirely useless for extrapolating, as much as your prejudice would like you to think the opposite. It's also generally agreed that rocks don't do arithmetic, but if you arrange them in just the right way they're actually awfully good at it.

Funny, but the entire human population spends most of their time not "thinking."

From coordinating complex movements like walking through routines like driving to work to, yes, knee jerk reactions to most things, most of what our brains do is subconscious. Only the weird justifies the effort of actual executive control. Whatever it is that we call "conscious thought" is even rarer.

Einstein's theory of relativity was not based on scientific research.

Well, you can stop reading there. I don't necessarily agree with the thesis, but the supporting arguments seem to range from wrong to kind of dumb.

It's pretty important if you're working in a developing field. The original TPU couldn't do floating point so it wasn't really useful for training. IIRC they also work best with matrices that have dimensions that are multiples of fairly big numbers (128? 256?) with later generations working best with bigger matrices.

That's great for the current focus on gigantic attention matrices but not so great if the next big thing can't be efficiently shoehorned into that paradigm.

I tried to install Platform IO to try it out, but the multi-gigabyte Visual Studio won't work on my old macbook. The Arduino 2.0 IDE isn't exactly fast and efficient, but it at least installs. A plain old text editor is fast, efficient, and installs no problem.

Arduino is powerful because it's a collection of device drivers and other libraries written to a reasonably uniform standard and mostly cross platform too. You can write firmware for an ATMega hooked up to some obscure sensors and an old RS-485 driver then (mostly) have it also run on an STM32, Pi Pico or ESP32.

Lowering prices won't help. That would lower GDP. Raising pay and raising prices would, although raising pay relative to prices is a bit of a double edged sword. The more money you've got the more you're likely to save.

The real answer is that GDP is a pretty shitty measure for this kind of thing.

The GP is not talking about LTE, they're talking about "voice over LTE" (VoLTE). The Bell compatibility checker they linked to seems like a fairly comprehensive list of phones that support it. Very old phones, like the iPhone 4 or original Pixel don't support it because the standard didn't exist when they were manufactured.

This article almost sounds like an ad to get people to buy things to keep the economy rolling rather than a serious discussion.

You've answered your question. "Productivity" in this case is GDP / capita. If an American buys something with American parts from an American retailer then they increase the GDP, which increases the productivity. It doesn't have to increase their personal productivity.

It might not even be necessary to fork much. Genuine Arduino hardware is so expensive most people use clones, lots of people use Platform IO instead of the Arduino IDE, and the Arduino core for the newer microcontrollers is not made by Arduino anyway.

Why would he feel inadequate when, according to a trustworthy source, he's a better boxer than Mike Tyson, fitter than LeBron James, hotter than Tom Brady, one of the top minds in history with a near-Olympian physique, the world's best runway model, better at resurrection than Jesus, the world's best bottom (ahem) (cough) and the ultimate throat goat?

Sooner or later, we'll end up at the point where trying to maintain the ways of the past is a fruitless fight. Teachers' jobs are no longer going to be "to teach" - that that's inevitably getting taken over by AI (for economic reasons, but also because it's a one-on-one interaction with the student, with them having no fear of asking questions, and that at least at a pre-university level, it probably knows the material a lot better than the average teacher, who these days is often an ignorant gym coach or whatnot). Their jobs will be *to evaluate frequently* (how well does the student know things when they don't have access to AI tools?). The future of teachers - nostalgia aside - is as daily exam administrators, to make sure that students are actually doing their studies. Even if said exams were written by and will be graded by AI.

Oh, I think I saw that YouTube video!

Generally the "even engineer dads can't make heads nor tails of it" objection is that the engineer dads didn't spend a couple minutes reading the helpfully coloured highlight box in the textbook. There has been a push in math to develop teaching methods that emphasize understanding rather than memorization. Thus 5x3 becomes 5x5x5 or 3x3x3x3x3 instead of "STFU and memorize your times tables."

A better example, also from Internet memes, is a procedure where you add or multiply a pair of larger numbers by breaking them down into component problems. 37 + 55 becomes (30 + 50) + (7 + 5) and some "parent" on Reddit or Facebook with add a comment like "why can't they just do addition like we learned??" Someone sensible will usually point out that people who are good at arithmetic will often use decomposition on harder problems if they're doing them in their head.

The teaching algorithms are pedagogical tools used to increase understanding or illustrate problems from different perspectives, not the final here's-the-algorithm-you-should-always-use".

I said that the 5x3 answer being marked wrong was likely due to a poorly educated teacher. No, primary school children probably won't be multiplying anything non-commutative soon. That was a joke. However, it is important not to instill, and then spend years reinforcing, incorrect facts. You shouldn't tell students things like "multiplication is defined as commutative" because that kind of thing will eventually screw someone up.

Sure. I think the GP's example, if it was correctly described, is probably a sign of a teacher who doesn't understand what they're teaching.

I was pointing out, educationally I hope, that the GP also doesn't really understand what they're talking about, despite claiming it's "simple." Which, incidentally, makes me suspect the anecdote may not be entirely accurate.

Or maybe they want to prepare the kids so they're not shocked when they start Clifford algebras.