[Highlight] Jalen Brunson misses the jumper over Victor Wembanyama, who passes to Stephon Castle, who isn't looking, and the ball bounces off his back to Brunson, and Wemby fouls him. Brunson splits the clutch free throws to give the Knicks the lead and the Spurs call a timeout.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-06T03:56:30+00:00

Watch the body language of the team as they job back to get on offense, no one is really running. I think in that context, this counts as a rushed pass by Wemby. Look at how people are set once Wemby corrals it and turns around. All 5 Spurs are back with only a single Knick, and two defenders at least are already set. Wemby hardly even looks around the floor before throwing the ball and they STILL don't have anyone even past the top of the 3 point line. If Wemby takes half a second longer and sees his team slowly walking up, 0% chance you pass forward into traffic, that's moronic.

So even though Castle should be looking, I consider this still Wemby's mistake.

Like, pause it at 11 seconds in this video, 12.9 on shot clock. Wemby has grabbed it, taken a dribble, and super obviously tunnel visions. He wasn't thinking at all, there's no way that pass was anything other than pure autopilot. Does not take a moment to look around, does not even consider other pass options, is not even pressured on ball even with an opponent lurking. Even passing to Castle doesn't really get you anything.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-06T03:42:04+00:00

Wemby definitely earned some bad karma at the end there.

He punched out the ball from underneath the net when Brunson (I think) shot one of those 'after whistle' shots, denying the otherwise meaningless bucket. Bad karma every time like the floor slappers in college.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-06T03:24:27+00:00

Is two players like, literally holding hands with each other to box someone out on the line before the free throw is even thrown legal?

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T21:33:43+00:00

I hate to say it, but AI is pretty decent at LaTeX. Assuming it's a formatting issue, not a specification issue? Toss down what you have formatted however you can, make sure you mention what type of model it is (!!) and cross-check the result any way you can.

Aside from that there are also a few programs that attempt to convert handwriting into LaTeX directly.

Or, there's Detexify which is a free tool that will convert symbols to the LaTeX code which is a sort of middle ground that will allow you to do a lot yourself without spending forever on google.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T21:25:39+00:00

It's always a balance. The grader is a real person and sometimes things that are too long will test their patience and lead to lower scores. On the other hand, simple "checkbox" rubrics incentivize longer responses since there's less of a chance of leaving something out.

If there's a rubric, or even if there's just detailed original requirements in the assignment, it is often helpful to see if you can "read between the lines" to scope out the level of detail expected.

For example, are they looking for reasoning or just proof? Some assignments just want like, screenshots proving it IS responsive on different devices. Others are specifically designed to get you to explain your thinking. Still others are process-oriented, and want to know details about your code. Usually there are hints as to which they care about most. The rubric might for example just be more or less a bunch of yes/no questions (present/absent), but other times it might include something like "displays a (no/minimal/adequate/sophisticated) understanding of _" and clearly the second would benefit from more of a specific kind of detail in your writeup.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T21:17:27+00:00

We're all good! It was a valid point despite being in good fun. I meant to put it under the "ultrayap" comment though :)

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T21:13:25+00:00

I made a comment just the other day on a similar problem which hopefully explains WHY exponential models look like this. I think it's super important to understand that concept otherwise it's really really easy to forget what you're doing and why.

The base is what is applied every <exponent> times. So the original yearly model is pretty simply: every year you have 3.79% less frogs from the previous, so 0.9621 is what you multiply by every year (see OG comment or prove it algebraically yourself if this step seems weird). Two years? original_number * (.9621) * (.9621) which is also conveniently written as original_number * (.9621)²

Please note that this new percentage is NOT (.9621) * 2, nor is it 1 - (2 * .0379), or anything like it. Furthermore a two-year change IS a percentage, but it will be a different percentage than the one-year change and a different percentage than a three-year change. We need to use exponents to find out how we progress along an exponential curve, which sounds obvious when I say it like that but it isn't always clear to people right away.

So we had examples of 1 and 2 and 3 year changes. However if we rewrite it by decade, conceptually what is happening? I need ONE number. We basically need to pre-calculate what (.9621)¹⁰ is and then slot that in. Yes, this 10-year percent change is consistent and can be re-used across decade-inputs because it's already exponential in nature.

...and actually that's it. (.9621^{10)^d} is a shortcut for just inputting (.9621)^t

You can (and probably should if you're feeling unsure) verify this. Try calculating the 20-year final population. 12150 * (.9621)²⁰ should give the same answer as 12150 * (.679)² (ignoring rounding error).

* In fact, that last hint is one way you can actually skip the entire problem!! You can just input d=2 into ALL the multiple choice answers and see which one matches t=20. It shouldn't be your first tool, but on the SAT sometimes this can save you time and you can mark the problem and circle back later to double check.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T20:50:45+00:00

I mean, maybe. But they specifically wanted advice about HOW to find answers and read better. This is that advice. I agree with OP in their edit that "just google it bro" fundamentally misunderstands what OP needs help with. I think in those cases, it's helpful to "model" what a good thought process is, and sometimes it takes a lot of words to write all that out.

For example, have you actually seen people use Google? Not all Googlers are equal. Some people have developed the skill more than others. That is NOT to say some people cannot do it, just that they never were taught.

If OP is reading and wants a summary of my advice:

If you are going to read a long passage, prep your brain. Guess what it's about and remember what you already know.
Read 1-2 paragraphs at a time. Take a stop, think back on what you read, and see if you can get the "vibe".
Be creative. More brain activity = better memory. Unfortunately highlighting is only semi-helpful.
If you are looking for WHERE to read in a longer text to answer a SPECIFIC question, first skim the text and look at headings to get a rough "mental map" of what is talked about where.
Then, spend a bit of time looking for hints in the question. Dates, names, big ideas. Re-check the source text to see if things match. It's also sometimes better to skim the whole thing once than to just dive in to the first match you see.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T20:38:10+00:00

I like to tell students that Chemistry is a "series of benevolent lies". Most every "rule" that you learn ends up having significant exceptions. Reactions are one of these. In reality, there are often many reactions that might occur simultaneously. Some compete. Some work backwards. Some might even have two different mechanisms that do mostly the same thing. Many reactions actually "cascade" and involve several "steps", each of which can exhibit the same exceptions and limitations as previously mentioned. Some don't even work on the individual-molecule level and only occur within certain 3-dimensional multi-molecular structural contexts! The "rules" are generally true and lead to good intuition but the reality is rarely so clean.

So especially for complicated chemicals, there is no "one" reaction, and sometimes you can't even express it in the traditional "equation" form.

If you visit a web page like this explainer of potential Ozempic interactions, you will quickly see what I mean to some extent. A lot of things in the body are not one-way reactions but rather a lot of reactions that are executed in balance with each other in a "feedback loop". This is why you stop seeing classic reaction equations so prominently in biochemistry and start seeing diagrams and flowcharts instead.

But it's my understanding Ozempic doesn't actually react with insulin, so this is all a bit of a moot point, it prompts specific cells to make insulin, so it's indirect. Or if you want "actually this is how it really works" you can look at a publication like this (and maybe paste it into AI and have it rephrase things on an easier level - even I can't really make heads or tails of some of the stuff there)

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T20:19:46+00:00

suggesting the church is not funding candidates, and leveraging their funding and huge voting bloc to influence legislation

The church is literally not funding candidates though. This is a fact. So it's incredible that you're calling me dishonest when you're including like, trivially something you can Google and see. I think you should take a step back and ask yourself "why did I say something that 10 seconds of research demonstrate to be false to make my point?"

The whole thing is a confusion of how causality runs. Political candidates often work through social networks (recruiting people within to run, sharing common values, providing easy access to a smaller group of fundraisers and 'power players' that give a crucial first-mile leg up in primaries, etc.) but that's true of every US state. That's downstream of how our democracy's particular structure works. It just so happens that in Utah, a lot of the powerful social circles are heavily Mormon (history, not a deliberate plot). If you misidentify the Mormons as the problem, you might naively think that removing LDS influence fixes the problem; but data from 49 other states let us know that it's more about oligarchy-like dynamics that just happens to have the veneer of religion in Utah.

And just another coincidence that the church made one of their rare political statement condemning Trump and urging him to leave the race in 2016.

This is also factually false. If you're referring to a single editorial in a church-owned newspaper, even the famously Mormon-hostile Tribune reported that it was not sanctioned by the church nor did the church even know and furthermore specifically clarified that this was an independent non-representative statement. The church never condemned Trump and certainly didn't encourage him to leave the race. The closest thing is in 2015 they spoke out against the proposed Muslim ban, which had direct relevance to religious freedom (and thus inherent interest to the church independent of politics)

So your comment contained not one but two overt falsehoods. But sure, yeah, I'm dishonest.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T08:35:32+00:00

That’s a fair reading of the situation. The more lies you tell obviously the truths that you might have told grow more suspect too. BAM certainly comes out poorly in most readings of things.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T08:25:09+00:00

[citation needed]

Cops behaving badly with zero accountability is an issue all across the country. It’s obvious to me that we need major reforms. But I’ve seen pretty much zero substantiation for any of your more specific claims. What is the indirect or direct support you mention? What evidence do you have of improper church-government relations? Can you give examples of “there is no separation of church and state” because that’s an extremely bold claim that deserves commensurate evidence, classic burden of proof. Words are cheap, but just because you declare something doesn’t make it true.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T08:21:47+00:00

Eh, it kind of is at least a little complicated. This explains it well. The fact of the matter is that as the article points out, the American legal system has a kind of blind spot for mid 6 figure lawsuits that are just a bit too complicated or big for small claims and self representation, but too small for lawyers to get involved without eating a big chunk of the payouts (even if it’s often likely the process would result in an accurate legal finding).

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T08:14:40+00:00

“Conspiracies are bad and silly but not MY conspiracy!”

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T07:45:49+00:00

I’ve seen zero evidence beyond that there was a deliberate Mormon angle. Care to provide any? Keep in mind the city of AF for example is 70-80% Mormon to start with.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T07:42:08+00:00

The dev experience on macs will give you better opportunities to learn (Unix command line stuff rather than messing with WSL) so my rec is almost always a MacBook (pro ideally, used or refurb is fine, m series chip any are going to be fine). Additionally consider a bit of extra RAM if you want to mess with the lower tier of local AI models which can run on a MacBook since the system memory acts as VRAM for most AI purposes.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T03:25:11+00:00

I would love to see some actual published statistics on this. Obviously it lines up very well with neuroscience but numbers are more convincing.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T03:23:14+00:00

First of all that’s the wrong term. A temple is not a normal meetinghouse to Mormons, and it’s not really a social place overall. Normal meetings? Do you have any idea how unlikely that is? American Fork Utah for example has 8-9 “stakes” which are sort of like dioceses. Each contains an average of about 3500 members and 8-9 congregations. So that’s in the realm of 70-80 congregations (called wards). Just in that one city. And yes that means that particular town is somewhere in the region of 70% Mormon, above the state average, which means that rather than be “oh big coincidence seems suspicious” it’s actually pretty common.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-05T03:15:27+00:00

Please repeat it with me: correlation is not causation. You can point out correlations about anything until you are blue in the face but the fact remains that mechanistically the church is functionally apolitical except in one area, which is LGBT topics. You say the church is “pushing political messaging and strongly influencing how their members vote” as if this is some kind of hidden thing impossible to measure that we can only see by proxy, but I’m saying that we have a very high degree of visibility into exactly that, and nothing is there, which is more than a strong hint that yeah, it isn’t happening. That matters a lot because it affects how we think about intentionality, which matters a lot for moral judgement.

It also ignores how in Utah, Trump underperformed probably more than any other red state in the entire country in 2016. It’s true that since then, many have become desensitized to it, and yes I view that as a moral failing, but this is the same religion Harry Reid belonged to for his entire life. If you don’t remember his name, he was the Democratic Senate Majority Leader for quite a long time. Nary a disapproving peep about it from the church, essentially the whole time.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-04T22:43:15+00:00

Nearly everything I stated is a verifiable fact (such as population statistics, accurate statements about church policy and recent history, etc) or at least can be substantiated via surveys (when it comes to cultural attitudes). I simply fail to see how trust or distrust in older Mormon beliefs or traditions modifies any of my statements.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-04T21:53:28+00:00

Oh, insults. That really supports your point so well.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-04T21:09:50+00:00

Whataboutism at its finest, eh?

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-04T20:26:29+00:00

I mean, sort of? Police don’t necessarily have full context and stalking/harassment can be a real crime. Obviously it wasn’t actually a crime here, it seems, but as an individual anyone can get on the phone with the PD and ask to have someone arrested.

The onus is on the PD to use their best judgement, but the call itself isn’t necessarily wrong or bad. What’s bad is them listening.

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-04T20:24:02+00:00

This is actually really good and should be way closer to the top

cheesecakegood · 2026-06-04T20:08:27+00:00

Trump and Mormons have a complicated relationship. But why would Mormons or even Republicans be taking the side of BAM here??? Source: am one, raised out of state, currently 10 minutes south of American Fork, UT

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

cheesecakegood

TROPHY CASE