Genady

I assume that the same correlation holds also for marketing BS, political BS, pop-sci BS, etc.

Susceptibility to BS and stupidity are correlated. "Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals." "In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence." "Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making. The study found that being more receptive to corporate bullshit was also positively linked to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements." Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs | Cornell Chronicle

Sorry, forget about it. OT.

Isn't it true for all people? How is it different for autistic people?

I didn't know that,

"Results show that, compared with the non-autistic population, as represented by standardized norms ... and typically developing (TD) control groups ..., individuals with ASD exhibit significantly lower math scores ... and greater variability." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-02-closer-mathematical-abilities-autistic-people.html

It's not only in the title...

It's OT, but I can't ignore the coincidence that this is the same year I got to uni.

See my later addition to the previous post.

You know that only one photon passed through because you get only one mark at a time on the second screen, say one mark a minute on average. If your setup makes it certain in any way which slit a photon went through, there is no interference. If it makes it almost certain, there is almost no interference.

It does not matter how many photons are sent out at a time: by moving your source farther away from the screen you can get the intensity at the screen as low as you wish.

Same units as for [math]E=\frac{mv^2}2[/math].

Thanks a lot for reminding me. Having the first shot tomorrow.

This is not the study's issue, but the pop-sci reporting's one. The study only says,

But this argument is wrong, at least in math: [math](A\ge B)\Leftrightarrow (A\gt B) \vee (A=B)[/math] [math](5=5)\Rightarrow (5=5)\vee (5>5)\Leftrightarrow (5\ge 5)[/math]

I've asked her about 6≥5. It was wrong, too, and you can guess the reasoning. ("6 is not equal to 5.")

I've met a math teacher once who marked 5≥5 as wrong because "5 is not greater than or equal to 5 -- it is equal to 5."

Yes, but we used to have preview, didn't we?

When I write LaTeX in my post, is there a way to preview it?

Yes, we can, but I doubt it is a significant factor.

The title question can be reversed: How far forward in time could've one understood English. Perhaps the answer to this question is much shorter than the original one.

I understand what the formulas say, but I don't understand your question (the infinity sign there is idiotic, but this is not your fault)

Where does this derivation involve the fact that the two directions are orthogonal? What would be different in this derivation if they were not?

I've guessed that this should be well known to billiard players. I, OTOH, never played billiard in my life.

Yep. Or, simply, the momentum conservation shows that the three vectors make a triangle. And then the KE conservation shows that the sides of the triangle obey Pythagoras.