A sloop’s guns were generally so light the balls would bounce off the hull of a ship of the line. The sheer weight of firepower in return would shred a sloop to pieces. Add on to that the fact that heavier guns can achieve longer range when trained at the right angle, and a sloop can’t really get anywhere near a ship of the line and live to tell the tale.

"Over a six-year period between 2019 and 2025, almost half of a large set of denied health insurance claims in New York state were reversed when the cases reached independent review organizations, comprised of clinicians unaffiliated with insurers"

But that doesn't get into the reasons why the claims were denied in the first place. It doesn't tell us anything about bona fide spurious denials vs. improperly filed claims (mistakes in the paperwork), clerical errors, or clients placed under investigation for claiming too early (after applying) or too often (making a lot of spurious claims), or care providers who do the same.

Insurance companies are concerned with adverse selection and moral hazard. A client who files a lot of claims shortly after getting insurance raises the suspicion that they were not honest about their health prior to applying. Similarly, a client who claims every drug a pharmacy carries raises other suspicions.

Of course, most clients aren't like that, but a not-insignificant minority are, and a small number of clients can file a very large number of claims.

Spurious denials? Or improperly filed claims?

I think that's the point. "How do I say they're lying without outright saying they're lying?"

It's a common rhetorical trick.

2^2.2 = 4.595, 255^2.2 = 196,964.699

What could be better than that?

It should be considered common courtesy that when you ask a question you have at least attempted a bit of research to find the answer on your own. Then you can explain why your attempt to Google for the answer failed.

Of course that may be breaking down, as search engine results quality has declined dramatically in recent years.

It doesn’t. Computer interfaces had no superfluous subservient text for their entire history prior to LLMs. Some of these interfaces have been highly efficient as tools, arguably more efficient than more recent software in many cases.

When people complain about LLMs being subservient, they’re not complaining about the tool fulfilling their request. They’re complaining about being forced to read a lot of superfluous, overly polite, or even self-deprecating language. There’s nothing in the entire history of tools (going back to Neolithic times) that would indicate that we need that. All of that stuff is an artifact of social interaction between humans in the presence of cultural norms.

When you’re alone in your shop with your tools, you don’t need your bandsaw to apologize to you for nicking your finger.

-- Yogi Berra

Writing is hard now, not because AI exists, but because there are so many writers out there and everyone's competing for attention, not just with other writers, nor with books from the past, but with all forms of media. Loads of people today, who might otherwise be reading novels for entertainment, are too busy scrolling their phones or watching TikToks or playing video games.

We don't have another Terry Pratchett because all the would-be Terry Pratchetts are toiling in obscurity, and possibly giving up on writing as a result.

Walmart and Amazon ruthlessly squeeze their suppliers. They achieve low prices on some things and try to corner the market on others (and then raise prices). What I don't see them achieving (to the contrary, I see them failing spectacularly at) is the quality control that some Japanese companies excel at.

So there has to be something more to it than that.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

Oft-repeated but not true. Neurons, for the most part, are never replaced. If a neuron dies, it's gone forever. Repeated head traumas (leading to CTE) are known to cause personality changes as the brain has been permanently altered due to neuron losses.