That’s not how any of that works.

Surely you mean doughknot?

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They don’t decide if something is “acceptable”, just if it is widely used enough to report. If a mistake becomes common, it will enter the dictionary.

What crimes should he commit?

Why doesn’t he just go “a vote for me is a vote for Kamala”

Because the US electorate is both racist and sexist. Reminding them that if Biden dies or is incapacitated that the country would be taken over by a non-white woman would probably drive votes to Trump. If his VP was a white protestant man, he could probably get away with reminding people how good his VP was.

But, I do think you’re on to something in that his focus shouldn’t be on himself, it should be on his team. Tell voters that Trump is a narcissist, that his cabinet will be full of ass-kissers. Remind them of how many of Trump’s cabinet were yes-men and still got fired because they didn’t kiss his ass enough. Show how they did essentially nothing over 4 years despite control over the house and senate. Then, contrast that with the effectiveness of his people. For example, how Trump talked a big game, but accomplished nothing. But, Biden’s officials are actually suing the big tech companies for abusing their monopolies. A lot of the things Biden’s picks are doing are wildly popular among the American people, but most people aren’t aware of the accomplishments.

It’s almost like that person doesn’t know the difference between “literal” and “figurative”.

Doubleclick has been Google for decades now. The difference is that (at least these days) most companies wouldn’t accept it if doubleclick ads had obnoxious pop-ups. But, they choose to have a Google sign-in form that has an obnoxious pop-up. Yes, it’s annoying that Google made an annoying login pop-up. But, much worse is that places like Reddit choose to go with that obnoxious pop-up instead of saying “we don’t want to force that on our users”.

Sure… but if we’re talking about the presidency, it’s more like we’re choosing a Dean of Medicine, rather than the surgeon who’s going to be doing the operation.

Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to deal with an 81 year old Dean who had some good days and some really bad ones. But, ultimately, the Dean of Medicine’s most important job is hiring good doctors and then delegating to them. It’s a rare occasion when you know ahead of time who the Dean’s team will be… but in this case we’ve seen both options as Dean, and we know that only one of the two is planning to hire Dr. Nick Riviera and Zoidberg.

What I mean by it not being a Google thing is that it doesn’t just appear there on its own, like it might if it were a Doubleclick ad or something.

This is something that companies like Reddit see and think “Yes, I want that obnoxious thing on my site”.

Stack 3 of them up and…

Worth noting, this isn’t really a Google thing. It’s something other websites do to allow you to login with various other credentials: Facebook, Google, Amazon – Twitter used to be common. It’s just that Google is obnoxious because when say Reddit allows you to login with your Google account, the login widget Google uses is an obnoxious pop-up.

That may be, but he’s better at hiding it than Hillary. She seemed to always be making it clear that it was her turn. That message came across much more strongly than anything else.

I’m actually surprised we haven’t heard Trump talking about nuking Gaza yet.

In a first-past-the-post system, an independent only ends up stealing votes from the mainstream candidate that’s closest to their position. He’d undermine the Democratic candidate, making a Republican win more likely. He’s smart enough not to want to do that.

Yeah, but the “for comedic effect” is key here. Unless you’re going for comedy or confusion, you shouldn’t refer to someone by a name they don’t use.

Who goes by Jamie, and always has?

Even just the map of the world is outdated pretty much by the time it’s taught.

In 2023 Micronesia made a fairly minor change from the former name, “Federated States of Micronesia”. But, in 2022 Turkey now wants you to use its metal name: Türkiye.

Then there’s the new country of South Sudan, Bougainville on its way to splitting from Papua New Guinea. And Kosovo shows another problem – whether its an independent country or not depends on who you ask. That includes regions like South Ossetia, Transnistria, Catalonia and Taiwan.

Then there are things that students are taught that we’ve known are wrong for over a century, but the fully correct version is too complex for anything below a university course. Like, Newton’s laws are appropriate for high school, but they’re known to be incorrect and are simplifications of Einstein’s refinements. But, they’re close enough for most purposes, and understanding Einstein’s stuff is pretty hard. Same with models of the atom.

And, history is another subject where the deeper you dig, the more the generalizations you’re taught are shown to be wrong. The names and dates might be the same, but the reason X happened is often a whole lot more complex than the simple reasons given in high school.

I’m saying that by the time the wheel is rolling, the plane’s is already moving forward

The wheels are attached to the plane, so they move at the same time. There’s going to be slight flex due to rubber and metal not being insanely stiff, but essentially as soon as the plane starts moving forward through the air, the wheels start rolling forward along the ground. Since the conveyor belt cancels the forward movement of the wheels, the movement of the plane ceases too.

The plane would continue accelerating even as the wheels reported weird rates of turning.

Initially, for a few tenths of a second, or a few seconds sure. But, during that time, the conveyor belt would be moving faster and faster as it matched the speed of the wheels. The faster the conveyor moved, the more friction there would be, and the more drag there would be from that friction. Eventually you’d reach an equilibrium where the drag from the wheels was equal to the thrust from the engine, and the plane would cease moving forward. It would be exactly like the plane being anchored to the ground, except instead of a stationary anchor, the anchor would be a spinning treadmill in contact with a spinning wheel. In a world without a magic conveyor belt that could instantly adjust to the speed of the wheels, there would be some slight forward and backward movement of the plane, but that’s just like being attached to an anchor with a bungee rather than a rigid rope.

an affixed anchor does not allow the free motion that a wheel would.

The wheel doesn’t have free motion. By definition, the conveyor is moving at the same speed as the wheel, so the wheel is locked in place. With a real conveyor belt there would of course be some lag as the motors of the conveyor accelerated the belt, but using the hypothetical as defined, the axle of the wheel couldn’t ever move because every rotation of the wheel would be matched by a movement of the conveyor belt.

And one of a few things happen. Either the plane has enough engine thrust to overcome the acceleration induced by the wheels, and therefore takes off, or it does not.

The thrust would have to be infinite because, by definition, the conveyor is always going to match the velocity of the wheels. If the wheels were truly frictionless, then the conveyor belt would have no effect at all. But, any real wheel will have some friction that will increase with speed, so there will always be some speed where the force backwards from the friction of the spinning wheels matches the force of the engine.

As an aside, my guess is that most real airplane wheels would probably fail pretty quickly at just double the normal takeoff / landing speed. The centripetal force acting on the spinning parts of the wheel and tire increase with the square of the velocity, so 2x as fast means 4x as much force. 3x as fast and 9x as much force. So, if you did this with a real wheel, you’d destroy the wheel pretty quickly. Of course, the same applies to the conveyor belt, but I’m going to assume that it’s specially engineered to survive this challenge.

the wheels would continue spinning in increasing RPM until the plane begins moving backwards

The plane wouldn’t move backwards because if the wheels slowed down, the conveyor belt would slow down too. Of course, that’s in a world where the conveyor belt could adjust its velocity instantaneously, but for this thought-experiment you can say that if the pilot cuts the engine or something, the wheels don’t spin as fast, so the conveyor belt slows down, and the plane remains in one spot.

eventually it would take off anyhow. because the airflow over the wings would still generate lift

In the thought-experiment world, there wouldn’t be any airflow over the wings because the plane would be stationary. In reality, there would be some airflow due to the movement of the conveyor belt, but the wheels would probably melt long before that was enough air to give the plane lift while stationary relative to the world around.

So, it’s not really a good use case of an LLM.

Just to clarify; you understand that because the engines are pushing on the plane itself and not the wheels, by the time the wheels start moving, the plane is already moving relative to ground and air alike.

The wheels are attached to the plane so they move at the same time as the plane. But, I get what you’re trying to say, that the wheels are effectively being dragged by the plane, they’re not powering the movement. But, what you need to think about is that if you oppose that dragging by moving the conveyor belt in the opposite direction you can prevent the plane from moving at all. Yes, the wheels are merely dragging and there isn’t a lot of friction there, but friction increases with speed. And, if you move the conveyor belt fast enough, you can stop the plane from moving relative to the ground, which can stop it from moving relative to the air, which can prevent it from taking off.

An anchor sufficient to keep the plane from rolling forward is different because the force it is apply is significantly greater.

No, by definition it’s the same. The conveyor moves with however much speed is necessary to stop the forward motion of the plane. The conveyor would eventually go so fast that it generated enough force to stop the plane from moving, so it’s indistinguishable from an anchor.

Sure, you can deflate the tires and increase the rate of spin on the wheels.

You don’t need to deflate the tires, you merely need to increase the speed at which the conveyor moves to match the speed of the wheels.

if we assume the wheels are indestructible, which I’d argue is only fair, then even if what you’re saying is true and we ramp up the drag induced by the wheels sufficient to counter the engines… then the wind generated by the rolling treadmill would be producing a sufficient headwind for the plane to take off

That seems like an unfair assumption because you’re assuming that the conveyor belt has second-order effects on the air (i.e. generating a “wind” over the wings of the plane), while ignoring the second-order effects the conveyor would have on the wheels (massive heat from friction leading to failure).

On the other hand, this entire conversation assumes the thrust to weight ratio is less than 1. If it’s more than one, well they just…. Go straight up.

I mean, the discussion is of a plane, not a helicopter or a rocket. Even jet fighters with a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 1 typically have engines that only have that ratio once they’re at high speed, not from a standing start. That’s why even fighter jets on carriers need a catapult-assisted takeoff. A VTOL aircraft like a Harrier wouldn’t need that, but then its takeoff speed is zero, and the myth isn’t very interesting when the conveyor belt doesn’t move.