Even if they were physically separated you’d want them to pump in sync, to maximize the pressure. So having them share electrical signals is just the optimal setup for two hearts.

It’s better, which is why we already do.

Mammals have a double circulatory system, with the left and right ventricles effectively acting as separate hearts that happen to be physically connected.

No one can really know what GNU stands for unless they can perform an infinite recursion in constant time.

Yes (if you change the wording to “if I accelerate toward it until I’m moving near the speed of light relative to my original reference frame”).

And preceded by “it’s worse than that”.

So… a superego?

Scientists construct models from reality; engineers construct reality from models.

Seems more like engineers than scientists (strictly speaking).

Are there any games that accurately depict the activities of any kind of scientist?

Yeah—I was basing that claim on Joseph Henrich’s survey of expeditions in The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter.

The world is littered with the unmarked graves of explorers from the Age of Exploration who had: D) every piece of equipment that money could buy and experience could suggest.

The ones who survived being stranded in remote environments did so not by virtue of their possessions or preparations, but by throwing themselves on the mercy of the local inhabitants.

Theseus’ ship hasn’t been the same since they replaced the rudder with an AI.

Unless you have dental fillings or other implants.

Life insurance.

Do most public libraries have holocaust denial works?

Legally, you could buy a used copy if you could find one.

Any “people” talking about simple ways to detect AI are actually AI bots trying to throw us off.

Little Red Riding Hood could become a fable about identity theft and the need for public-key cryptography.

Or white robes instead of colorful ones. And a “fancy hat” with a point and two eye holes.

The contact lens technology uses nanoparticles that absorb infrared light and convert it into wavelengths that are visible to mammalian eyes

Sounds like florescence—but with florescence, the light is re-emitted in all directions, not the same direction as the incident light. So the contact would glow in the presence of infrared light, but it wouldn’t maintain an image.

when the mice were given the choice of a dark box and an infrared-illuminated box, contact-wearing mice chose the dark box whereas contact-less mice showed no preference.

That’s consistent with the mice seeing a glow but not an image.

the pupils of contact-wearing mice constricted in the presence of infrared light, and brain imaging revealed that infrared light caused their visual processing centers to light up.

That still doesn’t imply that the mice are seeing an image.

In humans, the infrared contact lenses enabled participants to accurately detect flashing morse code-like signals and to perceive the direction of incoming infrared light.

Hmm, the directionality is suggestive—but is it just a result of turning their eyes or head?

Because the contact lenses have limited ability to capture fine details (due to their close proximity to the retina, which causes the converted light particles to scatter), the team also developed a wearable glass system using the same nanoparticle technology, which enabled participants to perceive higher-resolution infrared information.

Ok, now they admit the limitation, but I don’t understand how glasses would help… unless you used a lens in front to focus light on a translucent film that would act as a retina which you’d then look at from behind. But that would be more like holding a pinhole camera in front of your face than like using conventional glasses.