This doesn’t seem like a daily use but specialized for running/hiking. It’s like criticizing hiking boots for being uncomfortable and hard to lace compared to sneakers.

No Hanna Barbera? You should throw a few in to mix it up. Like a Snagglepuss, one Huckleberry hound, and one Yogi Bear. The first season of Scooby Doo is iconic. Josie and the Pussy Cats was good. 60’s Hanna would include the excellent Johnny Quest. I’d also throw in a singular Space Ghost and Herculoids to break things up.

Yes they are contradictory. The computer isn’t supernatural. The premise states the computer isn’t 100% accurate. It says 99.9% but it could say 75% without changing the problem. It says 99% to simplify the scenario for the reader so you assume the computer is accurate. The premise is the computer can reliably predict your behavior. The premise is not the computer can defy physics.

Martha Stewart Living, of course.

You said this:

“This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.”

The premise states the computer sets up the boxes BEFORE you enter the room. The OP states he flips the coin AFTER he enters the room.

The computer cannot change the boxes after he entered the room. The computer cannot know the results of how you will respond to the coin flip because it happens AFTER it has fixed the boxes.

. This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.

The OP said he flips the coin after going into the room. But the computer setup the boxes before they entered. So the computer knowing how you’d react to the coin flip can’t change the boxes.

There’s the possibility that there’s something else at play that we don’t know, and maybe cannot fathom.

The possibility that there is something hidden that we are not aware of is why Bell’s Theorem was such a revolution in physics. The experimental proof of Bell’s theorem won the nobel prize. There are no hidden variables. Probability is fundamental, not a result of some unknown process.

The premise wasn’t that the computer was 100% perfect. It was 99.9% perfect. That is its good enough such that you should assume its correct. The premise could have said 75% and it wouldn’t change anything. Saying 99% makes it simpler for the reader to assume that the computer is correct.

The computer is not supernatural. The premise does not say the computer is 100% accurate. The premise does not say that the computer can violate known laws of physics. The premise is that the computer knows your behavior.

HTML with CSS is Turing complete.

https://github.com/wizardpisces/js-ziju

As someone who started watching Saturday morning cartoons in the 1960’s, I can definitely say the mid 90’s was peak cartoon.

He didn’t say it was the best, only that it was better than Chrome.

Then the experiments may be flawed. We dont know what we dont know

That’s the same excuse flat Earthers make. Yes every single observation made over the past 100 years could have been wrong and tomorrow we find out that all of quantum mechanics is wrong.

There are a near infinite number of variables involved, but if we knew every variable, we could solve it.

Take a single electron. You can’t define it’s position and motion (momentum) simultaneously. It is fundamentally unsolvable. There aren’t even hidden variables that we are unaware of. Bell’s inequality has been experimentally proven many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem

I believe the universe is determinate

That has been experimentally proven false and outside of all mainstream science.

While you can have a supernatural belief in a clockwork universe, the premise is a supercomputer makes the prediction, not God.

You didn’t read the article. The computer isn’t watching you flip the coin and then switching the boxes at the last moment.

The boxes are fixed before you enter the room. The computer has already predicted your choice.

Which is beside the point that the OP posited using a random process to make the choice for you. The method of randomness isn’t the issue. That’s why I said a Geiger counter could be substituted for a coin flip.

Don’t be pedantic. We all understand the meaning.

1st, a coin flip is random enough such that no computer can pre determine the result of the flip with 99.9% accuracy. The process is chaotic.

2nd, walk into the room with a Geiger counter and pick the box based on the click you get from a cosmic ray.

That’s one case study. He lists many more where throwing an epsilon at a floating point problem is the wrong solution.

What did you do that all your clients went to AI?

Your mom is lying to herself.

I used to add eggs to my children’s oatmeal. I cooked the oatmeal with milk and maple syrup so the result was like an oatmeal custard.

Why tho?