heptagon is a polygon. 2D. CO and WY are spherical geometries.

I did VA. But nothing happened. Still, best place to live and love east US. VA is for lovers.

Earth is spherical. Round not a rectangle which is 2D. There lies the disparity. Longitude is NOT 2D.

That needs a MMPI to Dx.

ANY polygon by strict geometric definition is 2 D planar; & imposing 2 D on a spherical, provably 3 D surface does Not have polygonal edges.

The typical print madia journo defects. Ignoring the Spherical shape of earth, thus concluding the facts that the EARTH is Round does not happen.

Facts are, there are NO proven evidences of that many sides. Show us the real, existing sides by photography. Those are not there. Imposed, illusions. Caca del toro Post SOS on the utube, which hasn't the slightest credibility. Credulous yes. Truth no.

Provably the Spherical quadrangle of CO is the case. There is no polygon because polygons are 2D.

I mean it's just so easy to show the post is wrong. 1900 upvotes mean 1900 were wrong.

Gee, that's a terrible outcome & measures utter ignorance.

Which means that without substantiation, nothin here is reliable but to the credulous. The lines on a 2 D quadrangle do NOT meet. In the 3D world the N/S lines meet at the poles.

Thus we can also, truly conclude the NE and NW corners are closer than the SE and SW corners of Both CO and Wyoming.

IT'S that simple and geometrical & the case. A polygon? BS. A spherical quadrangle, likely.

Yer wear a life jacket and that keeps the upper body above the lower body, so we don't drown.

somehow keepin yer head above water does often succeed and prevent drowning, with the lower body being down.

Sad to say reason is not a powerful voice, but it is persistent as events are and does get a hearing.

Mark Twain: The ONLY distinctly Criminal class in the US is Congress."" Nothing has changed in 140 yrs.

the Swiss Patent Office, where he worked.

and for that original Miembre" he uses Viagra.....

Lord forgive them, they know not what they write...

Show us the DNA testing evidence.......

Don"t have that? Then how do you know? & one in 10 sibs does not have the same daddie, either.

the whole rationalization is best termed a "Pop Fart" sorta baloney.

because some unknown writes it makes it so? We have our doubts....

Well most tarts "have the parts" which will make the men pop up and then pop off, likely. grin

Marketing of words was effective once again.

& you would be right. YOU get the Baloney Detector of the Month award for clear thinking.

Another OP has just been tossed into the toilet again. We doubt will survive the irrational streak in 'im.

Or you just put them in a pop up toaster and then they pop up when ready. That's how they are to be used. As usual, the whole truth is ignored on TIL.

Or as the French Philo said about LA, the ignorance of the people here, gives meaning to the word, Infinity.

Is the Welsh place name of "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"
the longest word?

& the reason we docs do not put such a word on the charts is because of Writer's cramp if any should. That word is simply NOT used.

At least someone here knows of the Bidet.

Civilized nations have bidet's. And the first time a kid sees one and asks what it's for has resulted in some of the finest & funniest family humor ever seen.

The funniest part was when Marty Feldman also played Igor's brother, who had a hump on the opposite side to Igor.

Speaking from a clinical NScience place, the question so far regarding General AI, as opposed to the AI which can do chess, Go, spell checkers, and highly specialized tasks but NOT a sum of many tasks, There is this question.

How do we know what kind of progress towards AI has been made without any standards to measure such ?

Have just reviewed in detail the claims made by Blake Lemoine, and then ran repeatedly into the comments that the conversation with Lambda had been edited for "flow and clarity". At once the biggest imaginable red flags went up.

IOW, how can we KNOW the system is AI, or not, esp. because we know and have many, many examples of AI, which can at times sound OK, but then commit one to many huge blunders, which defeats such a claim. AI MUST be supervized . & that's what Lemoine did with Lambda, to remove the junk, and leave only a modified text which made sense.

That's not on. That's not AI. Does the turing test work? What's the empirical testing show? Nothin as it's not been done yet. Again, no landmarks. CAn it speak and make coherent statements and converse with a human being? Not yet, but if so then is it AI, general?

The hugest problem with AI is that not having a good model of how brain works, structure/function is the problem. If AI eng'rs. don't know WHAT functions they are simulating in brain, how can they create those? IOW, if yer don't know where yer going, how can we get there? But by endless trial/error, and brute force.

BUT if we KNOW what brain processes are being used in brain, and Anil Seth, Dr. Karl Friston, and I do to some extent, THEN we can get there. They need a good brain model to create a AI sim.

What creates most all growth? Again we have good answers to that. What creates Dawkins memes, and how does that work in brain? How do those spread, and why? We know. We have data on how it comes about Reliably.

For instance how does your brain create info from sensory inputs? No one has ever really broken that down to brain processes ongoing. How do we create creativity? Again, no simple, sensible answers.

Well, I have some of those. And with specifics of brain processes can answer, largely those questions including a general algorithm for problem solving.

Aut viam inveniam, aut faciam. Latin from Hanniba'al. 3rd C. BC.

And if you can understand that, then you can figure out what computer processes/functions need to be made which can simulate human info processing. To whit:

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/how-physicians-create-new-information/

And it goes a long way to answering how to create creativity and how to solve the problem, generally, of problem solving. And NP is NOT equal to P, either. We add info to get P. More info in P means NP is not equal to P. That's the big key, deep point.

Does the Chatbot make sense, or not? Does the bing search give any good answers? How do we know?

"Among nations". Between refers to 2 parts. Clearly more than two nations on earth.

Plausible but still unlikely is the heart and core of fantasies, sci-fi und delusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

1920's sci fi fantasy, fictions made worse the the Great Depression as escape behaviors.

The psych diagnoses of these are pretty grim to deal with. esp. in OCD.