I feel like that's the question, not if it was used as a binary flag.

Consumers want to know, so it's probably a good idea to tell them.

But there's a gradient. AI generated art assets aren't the same as AI generated concept art, which isn't the same as AI generated code, which isn't the same as AI code completion. If you include the AI search results everyone is adding you'd be hard pressed to find something that didn't use AI in a sense now.

What I care about is if your stuff is some generated slop code that will crash mid game and no one will ever be able to fix it. That any art that's supposed to catch my eye has human intention behind it, and not just random generation.
I don't want any AI that people feel the need to hide.
I should probably care more about filler assets, but I don't really. If it's the same to me if the creator handmade their grass texture or found a random one online, I'm kinda indifferent about if it's AI.

So, this might be a case of differing sources of information. I've never actually heard much emphasis out on the life outcomes angle, it's always been in the delayed gratification techniques part.
It's a case where I'd hesitate to use the phrase "discredit" because they actually did demonstrate what they were looking to show with the marshmallow test, and their findings do correlate with life outcomes: specifically delaying gratification and managing frustration. It's just that childhood marshmallow skills don't imply anything about study diligence in teenagers.

It would not at all surprise me if people used it to create a misleading narrative, I just haven't actually seen it personally.

Honestly, if you're tom hanks kid you might just do it because it's funny.

It's not quite another correlate of wealth. What they found was that resisting the marshmallow was correlated not to being distracted from thinking about it, but to doing something that helps with the frustration.
Later data review showed a correlation with certain life outcomes, and further study showed that nurture played a bigger factor than biology and finally that the marshmallow isn't a predictor of life outcomes.

Money and the things you mentioned are one of the factors for better ability to lessen feelings of frustration. But so is coming from an Asian household, but only if the marshmallow isn't in a box. People from European cultural upbringing do better when the treat is in a gift box.

Getting dismissive of the study makes you miss out on what they were primarily trying to learn about: how do you successfully resist temptation?
All the rest was just a side effect of normal number crunching after the fact. They knew they had a biased sample of kids from the beginning since they were all sourced from the Stanford on prem daycare. They didn't expect that to have much impact on what they were actually studying. And then it took ~20 years for follow up studies to finish, since the kids need to grow up after eating their marshmallows.

(Asian heritage households reported that they tended to have food visible to children that they had to wait to eat more often than European heritage. European tended to have gifts be a special occasion where the norm was to wait to open them, where Asian had more instances of common, small gifts given and immediately opened. So one set simply had more practice not feeling frustrated about seeing food they couldn't eat, and the other with waiting for permission to unwrap a gift)

I not sure how my logic is wrong when you then described exactly what I said.

We both understand how objects move. It's a semantics question, not kinematics.
"Caught up" implies moving fast enough to close the distance in a persuit like fashion, to me at least.

It's not catching up with someone if you take a shortcut and wait for them to arrive.

You don't actually need to be ahead of them on the horizontal plane. The plane just needs to be able to cover the distance the bullet travels as it slows from drag before the bullet falls to the intercept point.

I doesn't seem like catching up to me because catching up implies speed was increased to intercept, not distances were different followed by intercept.

If I fire a gun nearly perfectly straight up, run forward 10 feet and catch the bullet in my shoulder it wouldn't feel right to say that I fired, ran fast enough to catch up to my bullet and shot myself.

You fire a bullet and it accelerates downward at 9.8m/s2 until it gets to some terminal velocity. It moves forward at some velocity with a braking acceleration that's non-linear and gross. Result is a downward motion in a basically parabolic arc.
The plane, however, is accelerating downward faster than the bullet because of thrust, and also accelerating forward.
By the time drag has essentially stopped the bullet the plane is underneath it.

When phrased as "caught up" it makes it sound like the plane went as fast as the bullet, when the plane had a top speed of mach 1 and the bullet ~mach 3. They just took different paths.

• nice
• so it didn't do much "outrun" the bullets, but moved under them as they fell? Still funny and impressive either way.
• "survived with a broken leg and multiple broken vertebrae" - okay, so maybe "funny" in a different way.

neither technology nor biology can do that right now

Yes, that was the point. If we focus purely on the math to the exclusion of reality you get results that don't apply to reality.

If you only look at thermodynamics when discussing weight loss you get the best possible weight loss advice: "eat less".
It happens to ignore the reality of biology, how the body reacts to changing nutrition, or how it reacts towards changing your desires when nutrition changes, but it is technically correct.

Just like it's technically correct to say that a sugar cube has enough energy to power your home for a long time. It may be a useless observation, but it's technically true.

Modern cars bend and flex during a crash, and they do it in such a way to keep occupants safer. Bench seats can't do that as well. They also don't work as well with modern air bags and seatbelts, and they often lack headrests.
Without a headrest a relatively low speed impact basically snaps your neck and whips your head into the dashboard.

You want your seat to basically hug you and lock you into place. There's a reason racecar seats look like they do.

People always underestimate the endocrine system. Your frontal cortex and everything that you are is basically just a tool for your endocrine system to use to get food and sex.
It's why eating less is so hard for some people. If the endocrine system is being pushy, it can just make you not care about your goal, and not many people can do something uncomfortable that they don't want to do in furtherance of a goal they don't care about.

Healthy, stable eating habits need to come before weight loss eating habits, and that needs to be paired with light excercise as you build up.
Like taming a wild animal. Some people just have a capybara, and others have some sort of ocelot that's addicted to meth. Most people have dogs. Gotta ease in, but once you get started it's fine as long as you don't traumatize the poor beastie.

Nope. It's usually people, like in this thread, not understanding what "bad genes" means.

You're a thermodynamic machine, not magic. If you eat less then you burn you'll loose weight.
You are also an extremely complicated machine, with complex chemical processes that govern long and short term behaviors.
"You" are a little slice of protein and fat the size of an avocado glued to the front of a more complicated machine. "You" are responsible for solving problems. The rest of your brain and endocrine system is responsible for managing most desires as well as most other things.

Some people have genetics where they run a mile and their body says "oh shit, this would be easier if I turned the energy fountain up to full wouldn't it?" And now they're burning more energy when they're asleep than they were before.
Other people have genetics that gives them a body that says "oh my God, you just ran nearly 2 blocks. Clearly you're in danger, so I'm going to increase the hormones that tell you to eat a lot more food. Don't worry, the pizza will be gone before you actually feel how much food that is".

You can override the endocrine system, but it's hard. The frontal cortex can change what you do, but the endocrine can change what you want.

Your body is a machine, just like a car. And different cars will start to ding and nag the driver for fuel or maintenance tasks at different points, with different levels of intensity. If your car is built for the Australian outback it might be way more aggressive about fuel warnings, and have a significantly larger tank.

All that's why excercise is a terrible way to lose weight. You lose weight by getting your eating under control and convincing the medieval peasant in your endocrine system that you're not in a famine. Excercise makes your body feel better, more capable, and healthier.
You can excercise all you want, but you can eat your way through any excercise routine in minutes.
A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is more than an hour of vigorous time on a rowing machine.