another comment pointed out elsewhere that the titles are rarely made by the writer, so im inclined to believe that the atlantic recieved this piece and wanted to slant it for those who just read the headline, yeah.

credit to michael rose, they want all diabetes medications to be cheaper or free.

Yeah these sorts of summaries get pretty weird. It’s hard to really grasp why they are flawed without looking at a topic you are knowledgeable about and finding something doing a summary. but for these, it can be easier to just read the article, try summarizing it yourself for another human, and then reading the ai summary. They are rarely good, and complacency is dangerous.

if the only alternative to reading bots summarizing bot written articles is read nothing, what is anyone even doing, you know?

i am aware nobody has proven pi is normal.

isnt, qed

“ok fine consider a number that still isn’t pi, it still holds.” ??

“please consider a number that isnt pi” so not relevant, gotcha. it does not answer the original question, this new number is not normal, sure, but that has no bearing on if pi is normal.

it’s not a good example because you’ve only changed the symbolic representation and not the numerical value. the op’s question is identical when you convert to binary. thir is not a counterexample and does not prove anything.