Thule, if you think it over… (Friday AI-Day series #3)

Two distinct prehistoric Arctic groups—Dorset and Thule Inuit—cooperate around a wide ice hole on a frozen landscape. The Dorset figures wear simpler pale furs and use older tools, while the Thule group wears layered parkas and stands with sleds, dogs, and advanced harpoons. Both groups gesture toward a live beluga whale surfacing in the ice hole, which remains alert and able to dive. Multiple polar bears appear as tiny silhouettes on the far horizon, observing from a safe distance. The scene is set under low winter light with long shadows and distant ridges, evoking a rare moment of peaceful interaction.
Two distinct prehistoric Arctic groups—Dorset and Thule Inuit—cooperate around a wide ice hole on a frozen landscape. The Dorset figures wear simpler pale furs and use older tools, while the Thule group wears layered parkas and stands with sleds, dogs, and advanced harpoons. Both groups gesture toward a live beluga whale surfacing in the ice hole, which remains alert and able to dive. Multiple polar bears appear as tiny silhouettes on the far horizon, observing from a safe distance. The scene is set under low winter light with long shadows and distant ridges, evoking a rare moment of peaceful interaction.

This is the first post of this year 2026, and of the second quarter-century of the 21st Century, as I view it at any rate, although few people seem to be focusing on that, maybe they are not accountants.

I obviously intended more posting this year, but the year did kick off in a predictably busy way.

Thankfully there is always AI.  Thanks, or maybe rather “due” to which, whereas before we were all crying out for content, it now seems that the boot is on the other foot and content is crying out for us, like in the Russian reversal jokes. (“In Post-AI internet, content creates you”, etc.)

Clearly not all my exchanges with AI would necessarily interest my readers, so I do need to be selective but in this “Friday AI day” series, of which this is now the third, we at least have the chance to look together with AI (I mainly use Copilot) at some topics.

The topic for today is indeed topical as we are mainly focussing on Greenland, which dominates the news. The aim here is to try and understand better the country and its people but also a little bit a couple of aspects of its wildlife, we do meander off into that at one point, do keep scrolling if that is not your bag, we come back firmly into the linguistic topic and explore a little bit the mystery of Paleo-Eskimos such as the Dorset peoples and their possible intercations with the Thules who are the ancestors of modern Greenlanders.

The main aspect we are going to be exploring below is the area of language. We won’t be learning any Greenlandic, not today anyway, but we are going to be trying to understand what the linguistic landscape looks like and how it fits with other Northern countries.

I will be adopting the simple convention that my questions are in Italics and the AI’s answers the way it gives them, which has sparse use of Italics thankfully.

If you want to find out more, then you can always ask your own AI.  Sometimes minor variations on a question can produce different answers, or the same one, in defiance of Einstein’s maxim, rather different answers depending on the mood the AI is in on a given day, it would seem.

Please respond and let me know what you think.

Continue reading “Thule, if you think it over… (Friday AI-Day series #3)”

Jak mówić po polsku, żeby brzmieć jak z Doliny Krzemowej (ale nie być rozumianym ani tu, ani tam)

How to Speak Polish Like You’re from Silicon Valley (But Be Misunderstood Everywhere)

By David J. James |

Witajcie w świecie pseudoanglicyzmów—językowej krainie, gdzie „zrobić upload” brzmi jak operacja chirurgiczna, „być na callu” to stan egzystencjalny, a „deadlineować” to nowa forma cierpienia. W tym słowniczku pokazujemy, jak polski biznes i młodzieżowy slang tworzą hybrydy, które brzmią światowo, ale są zrozumiałe tylko dla wtajemniczonych.

📘 Słowniczek Pseudoanglicyzmów | Glossary of Pseudo-English Polishisms

🇵🇱 Wyrażenie Znaczenie w polskim kontekście 🇬🇧 Jak to brzmi po angielsku? 🧠 Komentarz
O co kaman? „O co chodzi?”, „Co tu się dzieje?” What’s going on? (but “come on” doesn’t fit) Brzmi jak angielski, ale nim nie jest
Zrobić research Poszukać informacji, przeanalizować Do research (not “make a research”) „Zrobić” wszystko to polska specjalność
Być na callu Uczestniczyć w rozmowie online Be on a call Korpo-slang w pełnej krasie
Zrobić feedback Dać informację zwrotną Give feedback Feedback jako rzeczownik, „zrobić” jako czasownik
Deadlineować Ustalać lub pilnować terminu Doesn’t exist in English Brzmi jak kara boska
Zrobić upload Wgrać plik Upload a file Technicznie brzmi, ale to kalka
Zrobić meeting Zorganizować spotkanie Set up a meeting / Have a meeting Brzmi jak „zrobić obiad”
Zrobić target Osiągnąć cel sprzedażowy Hit the target / Reach the goal Agresywna metafora łowiecka
Zrobić follow-up Wrócić do tematu, przypomnieć Follow up (verb, not noun) Często używane jako rzeczownik, co jest błędem
Zrobić deal Dogadać się, zawrzeć umowę Make a deal / Close a deal Brzmi jak Wall Street, ale to kalka

Continue reading “Jak mówić po polsku, żeby brzmieć jak z Doliny Krzemowej (ale nie być rozumianym ani tu, ani tam)”

Exploring Roman Catholicism with AI

 

 

Loraine Boettner wrote a book about about Roman Catholicism…

Yes, Loraine Boettner wrote a book titled Roman Catholicism, first published in 1962. This work is a detailed critique of Roman Catholic doctrine from a Reformed Protestant perspective. Boettner examines various aspects of Catholic teachings, such as the authority of the pope, the veneration of Mary, the sacraments, and the concept of salvation, contrasting them with Protestant beliefs. The book has been both influential and controversial, sparking discussions and debates among readers2.

Would you like to know more about its themes or reception?

How was Boettner’s book received by critics and scholars?

Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism has been met with mixed reactions since its publication in 1962. Among Protestant readers, the book has been praised for its detailed critique of Roman Catholic doctrines and its defense of Reformed Protestant principles. However, it has also faced criticism for its polemical tone and perceived bias against Catholic teachings1. Some scholars and Catholic critics have argued that Boettner’s interpretations of Catholic doctrine are oversimplified or inaccurate.

The book remains influential in Protestant circles but continues to be a source of debate and discussion. Would you like to explore specific critiques or themes from the book?

I recommended it to a friend and he came back stating it needs to be fact-checked.

That’s a thoughtful observation from your friend! Roman Catholicism has been a polarizing book, and some critics have pointed out issues with its accuracy and representation of Catholic doctrine. In particular, scholars have noted that Loraine Boettner often relies on secondary sources and interpretations, which might not always provide a fully accurate or nuanced view of Catholic teachings. Some of his claims have been challenged as misrepresentations or oversimplifications.

If your friend is interested in understanding both perspectives, they could compare Boettner’s critiques with official Catholic sources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or writings from respected Catholic theologians. Fact-checking in this way could provide a more balanced understanding.

It’s great that you both are open to diving deeper—discussions like these can be incredibly enriching! Does this help?

Can you give an example of an inaccurate statement he makes about Roman Catholicism?

One notable example of an inaccuracy in Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism is his reference to a speech allegedly given by Bishop Strossmayer during the First Vatican Council in 1870. Boettner cites this speech to argue against the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. However, the speech is widely recognized as a forgery. Bishop Strossmayer himself publicly denied making such a speech, and historical records confirm that it was falsely attributed to him.

This is one of several instances where critics have pointed out that Boettner relied on questionable sources or failed to verify claims. It’s a reminder of the importance of cross-referencing and fact-checking, especially with controversial topics.

Do Roman Catholics believe in venerating Mary?

 

Continue reading “Exploring Roman Catholicism with AI”

A discussion about mathematics and Esperanto productive suffixes and wordbuilding

Sometimes when I talk to AI I feel like I am channeling Philomena Cunk, but occasionallu you get the odd moment when you wonder who is trolling whom…

As usual, my questions are in the headers and the repetitive part where the AI alsways asks if it can do anything else I have edited out.

I would like to be reminded how to calculate a correlation coefficient

Of course! The correlation coefficient, often denoted as r, measures the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables. Here’s a step-by-step guide to calculate it:

  1. Collect Data: Gather your paired data points, which are your two sets of variables (e.g., X and Y).
  2. Calculate the Mean: Find the mean (average) of both X and Y.
  3. Subtract the Mean: Subtract the mean of X from each X value to get the deviations from the mean (X – mean of X). Do the same for Y.
  4. Multiply Deviations: Multiply the deviations for each pair (i.e., (X – mean of X) * (Y – mean of Y)).
  5. Square Deviations: Square the deviations for each variable (i.e., (X – mean of X)² and (Y – mean of Y)²).
  6. Sum Up: Sum the multiplied deviations and the squared deviations:
    • Sum of (X – mean of X) * (Y – mean of Y)
    • Sum of (X – mean of X)²
    • Sum of (Y – mean of Y)²
  7. Calculate the Correlation Coefficient: Use the formula:

Where:

  • XiX_i and YiY_i are the individual data points
  • Xˉ\bar{X} and Yˉ\bar{Y} are the means of X and Y
  • The numerator is the sum of the product of the deviations of X and Y
  • The denominator is the square root of the product of the sum of squared deviations for X and Y

The value of r ranges from -1 to 1:

  • 1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship.
  • -1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship.
  • 0 indicates no linear relationship.

 

Which part of a fraction is the numerator, top or bottom? Top, right?

That’s right! The numerator is the top part of a fraction. It represents how many parts of the whole are being considered. The bottom part of the fraction is called the denominator, and it indicates the total number of equal parts the whole is divided into.

For example, in the fraction 34\frac{3}{4}:

  • 3 is the numerator (top part)
  • 4 is the denominator (bottom part)

 

And product is if you add something together or muliply it?

The product is the result of multiplying two or more numbers together. For example, the product of 3 and 4 is 3×4=123 \times 4 = 12.

If you add numbers together, the result is called the sum. For example, the sum of 3 and 4 is 3+4=73 + 4 = 7.

 

What if you divide, is that productee?

When you divide, the result is called the quotient. For example, if you divide 12 by 3, the quotient is 4, because 12÷3=412 \div 3 = 4.

So, to summarize:

  • The result of addition is called the sum.
  • The result of multiplication is called the product.
  • The result of division is called the quotient.

 

What’s the word for subtracting, also sum?

The word you’re looking for is difference. When you subtract one number from another, the result is called the difference. For example, if you subtract 5 from 8, the difference is 3, because 8−5=38 – 5 = 3.

So to summarize:

  • The result of addition is called the sum.
  • The result of subtraction is called the difference.
  • The result of multiplication is called the product.
  • The result of division is called the quotient.

 

I wonder whether in an artificial language like esperanto they would use words for sum, difference, product and quotient which would be related to the verbal roots for adding, subtracting etc. Do you know?

Yes, in Esperanto, mathematical terms are often derived from their related verbs, making them easy to understand and remember. Here’s how it works:

  • Sumo (sum) comes from the verb sumigi (to sum/add).
  • Diferenco (difference) comes from the verb subtrahi (to subtract).
  • Produkto (product) comes from the verb multipliki (to multiply).
  • Kvociento (quotient) comes from the verb dividi (to divide).

This system makes Esperanto quite logical and consistent, as the names for mathematical operations are directly related to the actions they represent. It’s one of the many ways Esperanto strives to be an accessible and easy-to-learn language.

 

I’m surprised they didn’t say sumenco, subtrahenco, multiplikenco and dividenco to keep it the same, for example.

That’s an interesting point! Esperanto often aims for simplicity and regularity, but it also takes into account international usage and familiarity. By using terms like “sumo,” “diferenco,” “produkto,” and “kvociento,” it aligns with the international vocabulary that many speakers might already know, making it more intuitive for learners from different linguistic backgrounds.

Using “-enco” endings could have been another logical approach, but Esperanto sometimes opts for more familiar forms to ease learning and understanding. This balance between regularity and international familiarity is part of what makes Esperanto a unique and accessible language.

 

Is an -enco ending productive in Esperanto?

No, the “-enco” ending is not a productive suffix in Esperanto. In Esperanto, word formation is typically very regular, and suffixes like “-o,” “-a,” “-e,” and “-i” are commonly used to create nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, respectively.

Productive suffixes in Esperanto include:

  • -o: for nouns (e.g., “hundo” – dog)
  • -a: for adjectives (e.g., “bela” – beautiful)
  • -e: for adverbs (e.g., “rapide” – quickly)
  • -i: for infinitive verbs (e.g., “vidi” – to see)

There are also various affixes like:

  • -eco: for abstract nouns (e.g., “beleco” – beauty)
  • -ado: for action nouns (e.g., “parolado” – speech)
  • -ant: for present participles (e.g., “parolanta” – speaking)
  • -int: for past participles (e.g., “parolinta” – having spoken)
  • -ont: for future participles (e.g., “parolonta” – going to speak)

The Esperanto language maintains simplicity and consistency by using these productive suffixes, making it easier to learn and use.

 

I quite like using -enco for the abstract result of applying a verb.

That’s a creative idea! While “enco” isn’t a standard suffix in Esperanto, the beauty of artificial languages is their flexibility and adaptability. You could certainly use “enco” as a way to represent the abstract result of applying a verb in your own usage or within a specific community of speakers.

For example:

  • Sumenco: The result of adding (sum)
  • Subtrahenco: The result of subtracting (difference)
  • Multiplikenco: The result of multiplying (product)
  • Dividenco: The result of dividing (quotient)

Creating your own conventions can be a fun and effective way to explore the language and make it your own. If you find that it catches on with others, it might even become a recognized feature within your Esperanto-speaking community.

Is this allowed?

In the context of Esperanto, language evolution and creativity are highly valued. While “enco” isn’t a standard suffix for abstract results, Esperanto’s flexible nature allows for innovative usage, especially within specific communities or contexts. If you and others find “enco” useful and start using it consistently, it could gain traction.

Esperanto is known for its adaptability, and many speakers enjoy experimenting with new words and forms. Just be aware that if you introduce new terms, it’s a good idea to explain their meaning to ensure clear communication, especially with those less familiar with your innovations.

 

Puerto Rico’s Waste Management Situation

Recently, a comedian named Hinchcliffe took time off from tapping on Catherine Earnshaw’s window in order to come and sabotage Mr Trump’s presidential campaign with an off-colour joke about Puerto Rico being “a floating island of garbage”. Not exactly the sentiments ascribed to John of Gaunt about England, not saying we deserve it more, and resulted in Joe Biden overwhiteknighting the omelette by calling Trump supporters “garbage”.  This was a step in the too far direction, given that even the agent saboteur had not so condescended in the wuthering heights of his humour, as to accuse Puerto Ricans themselves as garbage, even Ocasio-Cretez, but rather to infer that they have a waste management challenge.

I have never been there so I decided to ask AI about whether there is any truth in there being Waste Management issues in Puerto Rico, and this is what the AI said:

Continue reading “Puerto Rico’s Waste Management Situation”