Strange

First, "in the public interest" is definitely not the same as "what the public is interested in" (despite the claims of some tabloid papers)! The general meaning is that it is something that is useful or important for the public to know (eg. where a political party gets its funding, what tariffs will be imposed after Brexit, etc). I doubt there are hard and fast rules; I guess a court would apply the "reasonable man" test.

This is a version of Theseus's Ship / Trigger's Broom. https://shaelum.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/sweeping-theseuss-ship-with-triggers-broom/

There have been some brilliant examples of people trolling "Nigerian 419" (advance fee) scammers. Getting the scammers to send them photos doing stupid things, and even send money.

And that led me to this: https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/ which discusses the number of Tweets that are possible and how long it would take to read them all. (Also a Dr Who episode, Heaven Sent)

Avoiding fibre is a challenge for something edible like this. Konjac has almost no nutritional value but is high in fibre.

Some people might think that a troll is the sort of person who starts dozens of threads with simplistic questions and then doesn't have any further discussion.

You could use the ASCII code and you would find your chosen string somewhere in the infinite list of numbers. If you choose another encoding (EBCDIC or Unicode) you will find the string somewhere else in the infinite sequence. I am surprised this seems like a difficult concept to grasp! (Just out of interest, do you think this somehow conflicts with your religious beliefs?) You do realise the monkeys are just metaphors?

What makes you think that people who don't believe in gods had to "stop" believing in gods?

What about it? It is one of dozens of equivalent interpretations; they all describe the same thing using different words.

Hopefully, we care about both the quality of ideas, and the feelings of the person!

It won't. It will continue typing and the rest of the text might be perfect or it might diverge further from the original text. But another monkey (or the same monkey, later) will type the first page perfectly, and then the second. Eventually, one of them will type the whole thing. (Again, remembering that these are Metaphorical Magic Monkeys.)

I'm going to guess pyrites, from my limited knowledge of rocks.

It is not an exceptional claim (people earn millions based on this claim). The truth value of the claim is something else!

It may also be important to note that the monkeys and typewriters are not meant to taken literally. I have seen at least one person argue against the concept on the basis that the monkeys would hammer at the keyboard with their fists, jam all the letters then get bored and go eat bananas. So the monkeys are purely a metaphor for random sequences such as these: https://www.random.org/sequences/

Even then I would be extremely sceptical...

What “false starting points”? Science is based on evidence. If you want to show that existing theories are wrong, you would need evidence. You don’t seem to have any. What mysteries? What discrepancies?

A machine learning system. But you carry on redefining words to suit you, and complaining about other people's use of words. I'm sure you will get along fine. It won't irritate anyone at all.

You really do need to get a handle on logic. This is another fallacy. Your argument is equivalent to: Anything with legs should be able to walk, because walking is a result of having legs. But tables cannot walk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

And you are obviously wrong. So your justification for it being arrogant is that other animals may be able to do the same thing. In other words, you think people are using "anthropomorphic" to mean something that only humans can do. You are very confused.

Netflix have made a documentary about flat-Earthers. It shows how they do two experiments in an attempt to prove the Earth is flat but instead (spoiler!) the results are consistent with the Earth being round. Which, of course, changes no ones' minds. https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

Why is arrogant to base metaphors on human capabilities? We say that a camera can "see" a scene. We say that a computer has "memory". We say that music "talks" to us. We say that "water wants to find its own level". Does this mean that we don't think other animals can see, remember, etc? Maybe I should start a thread about people misusing the word "arrogance".

I knew it was another "people use words different to me and they must stop" thread. You will just have to get over the fact that not everyone is going to use words the same way you do. Who said it is anything to do with fables? Memory is a human capability; by ascribing it to inanimate objects that is both a metaphor and anthropomorphic (even if other animals have memory).

Because she is evil?

Really? So if I say that humans have legs, does that mean that no other animals have legs? I think you need to study logic. What I meant was that it is not "obvious" that an AI is capable of achieving knowledge superior to a human. But feel free to provide some references. No. The use of "memory" in that context is itself an anthropomorphic metaphor.

You need to (a) learn to use the quote function and (b) be less cryptic. Not all plants are killed when they are used for food. It is not clear what point has been missed. And do you have any evidence that "most people who eat meat have a lot of respect for the life that keeps them alive"