Bitcoiners are old-school, serious people. They highly dislike such bullshit as they have seen the entire "crypto" shitshow, and the AI bullshit is similar in many ways
I am Indian myself, so I have a better understanding about the internet sub-culture intrinsic to my country. This is a neutral stereotype about 'WhatsApp Unkils'. It is a counter-reaction to ageism towards younger people, whose intelligence is mocked, simply because they're younger - the Asian culture of "elders are always right" snubs Gen-Y, Z and younger folks. Now that internet has blown up in India, old people who are literate and take pride in this sort of elitism are embarrassing themselves with their "confidently incorrect" takes on the internet.
Basically the same is happening to boomers, e. g. in Europe, too. Also ageism is happening here too. I don't know, how much worse it is over on your part of the planet, but here you're also not taken seriously when you're young
I paid to watch it! Hey, wait a second... Do you think Mr. XTalk could be just trying to take our money while building a disinformation platform built on unchecked greed?
(MC^2 + C√P)^2 wouldn't give you that result though, because you have to FOIL.
Instead you'd get M^(2) C^4 + 2MC^(3)√P + PC^2
And that's not even the correct formula. It's
E^2 = (mc^(2))^2 + (pc)^2
You can't just naively apply a square root unless one of the terms is vanishing (momentum for a stationary mass, giving E = mc^2, or rest mass for a massless particle, giving E = pc = hf).
The way to remember this is that it's equivalent to the Pythagorean theorem, A^2 + B^2 = C^(2).
In my experience, when E=mc² is written, physicists generally mean relativistic mass, making the formula extract, whereas m_0 is used for rest mass, as seen in the expansion E = m_0c² + m_0v²/2 + O(v⁴)
Where does that expansion come from? As far as I can tell, m0v^(2)/2 only gives you the kinetic energy of the object where v << c, in which case the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass is negligible?
As I said in another thread where this was posted, that original post has the distinctive voice of ChatGPT. Could be another similar model, but I'd bet money that was written by an LLM.
This doesn't look right since you've written the equation for very slow movement (sub-relativistic) and including the AI term should increase all the velocities in your ensemble exponentially.
