Indeed it's often a waste of time to just focus on talking people fully if you want to learn fast, reading and especially deliberate practice are better for that. But if you don't have the time, energy or focus, then listening to interviews in the background can be useful supplementally

This doesn't seem to follow at all let alone obviously? Humans are able to reason through code without having to become a completely discrete computer, but probably can't reason through any length of assembly code, so why is that requirement necessary and how have you shown LLMs can't achieve human levels of competence on this kind of task?

For example I don't believe the US saw particularly large scale anti Germany protests surrounding WW2. Before the US joined the war people didn't really know what to do, while after they joined the war there was little disagreement. The Vietnam protests were much larger, because you have the internal conflict and something obvious to do: stop fighting.

People showed up for Gaza protests because they were angry and because they felt people around them, and particularly their governments were complicit in events. People do not show up for Iran because everyone agrees it's terrible but no one really knows what to do, so who are you going to be yelling at on the streets and what would you yell? Additionally events in Iran, relatively speaking probably triggers more hopelessness/confusion than anger, these are not exactly the best emotions to inspire protest

And as another commenter already pointed out: You can't really eradicate the existence of an unknown Z

While it's certainly not the only cause, high wages as a contributing factor to innovation in productivity does still seem like a plausible factor behind the industrial revolution. I suspect that these days in the west, labor is relatively so cheap compared to how much capital is around, that capital ends up being rather inefficiently used. Or at least, capital doesn't primarily go to production increases anymore. Perhaps there's avenues for gains here today

There might be some, so it could be lucky and just random chance, but the stats seem to say that it's very unlikely

- We've found these to be equal

- We're hypothesizing this to be equal

- These are approximately equal

- These are defined to be equal

- This is a way to calculate something else, whether it's equal is up to your philosophy (a^2+b^2=c^2)

- I'm transforming my function into something else that looks different but is exactly the same

- I'm transforming my function into something else that is the same for some of the stuff I care about (but for example does not work anymore for negative numbers, complex nrs, etc.)

- I'm transforming my function into something else, but it's actually a trapdoor, and you can't convert it back.

- This is kind of on average true within an extremely simplified context or we know it's not true at all, but we'll pretend for simplification (looking at you physics)

- We are trying to check if these two are equal

- This is equal, but only within a context where these variables follow some constraints mentioned somewhere else entirely

- This is equal, but, we're not going to say whether you can or can't replace the variables with functions or whether it supports complex nrs, negative nrs, non-integers, etc.

A lot of this is usually kind of clear from context, but some of these differences are a nightmare if you want to code it out

It's a cut through the scroll, with the time dimension in this video representing the location of the cut along the scroll lengthwise.

As you can see from the mess it's far from trivial to find the surface of any of the sheets in the scroll, often they layers are blended together messes.

You may be thinking of the scans they used of an unwrapped sheet, those were as you describe and were used to help figure out methods for the real challenge.