If you don’t have independent confirmation for the specific event, you could do a simple application of Bayes’ theorem.
If (say) FOX is reporting something and you’re not sure how much credence to give it, ask yourself:

A. How often does this sort of thing happen in general? (Check historical sources.)

B. How often does FOX claim this type of thing happens? (Check Google trends.)

C. How likely is FOX to report this if it actually happens? (If it fits their narrative, probably close to 1.)

Then you can estimate the likelihood of the report being true as AC/B.

just think “medi(cal) eval(uation)”.

You can make a rough magnifying lens by trial and error using glass and a hand grinder—not the same as prescription lenses, but for many it would be better than nothing.

deleted by creator

Physics experiments.

I’m having trouble thinking of a scenario where that would be useful.

Maybe someone puts on a disguise and sets out to do something nefarious, but their cat keeps following them around?

RFK Jr. eagerly takes notes

there is no “AI” in “IPA”

…because they’re still in the process of putting it there.

Also Punch-Drunk Love.

I would say his role in Magnolia is the exception.

I think the biggest determinant of a politician’s success is their ability to delegate to the right people, and a big determinant of that is their ability to assess other people and to question them critically. Stewart’s interview skills suggest he wouldn’t be terrible at that.

Anywhere you buy that book from that isn’t using DRM, isn’t paying the author.

That’s not always true—many authors request that their publishers sell their ebooks without DRM.

He just wants to make sure all the world’s resources are being exploited by someone—he doesn’t care who.

If you can buy the ebooks in a different format (either DRM-free or with a compatible plugin), you can use Calibre to convert them to PDFs.

I’ve predicted nine of the last five recessions!

Trump’s brain turning to oatmeal would imply that his condition is improving.

The original (and still valid) meaning of “to suffer” is “to tolerate”.

Is it possible that whoever told you that “suffering is good” had that definition in mind?

A neural network can learn to closely imitate someone making logical inferences, but that’s different from making logical inferences itself. It doesn’t have a sense of whether it’s correct or incorrect—just a sense of how similar it is to its training examples.

Sure—the point I was trying to make is that it still needs to be done piecemeal, while a blockchain can verify a collection of works as a collection (that is, it not only verifies that each work is unaltered, it verifies it in the context of other related works).

It’s a pity that blockchain technology is so intertwined with crypto—it would make a great anti-AI check. As in, a way for a decentralized community to maintain an expanding collection of information while efficiently verifying that no existing works have been altered.

Sure, you can sign individual documents—but then for each document you need a separate channel to verify the original signature.