3 ms·
I grabbed a paragraph from Wikipedia and had GPT-J come up with a ? about it
https://6b.eleuther.ai/
William de Cantilupe was killed by multiple stab wounds in Scotton, Lincolnshire, in March 1375. The de Cantilupes were a wealthy English family and had a history of service to the crown. They were major landholders in the Midlands, with estates in Greasley, Ilkeston, and Withcall. William de Cantilupe's ancestors included royal councillors and, distantly, Saint Thomas de Cantilupe. Among the suspects in the murder were his wife Maud and the sheriff Thomas Kydale. Maud may have had an affair with Kydale during her husband's frequent absences on service during the war in France. Fifteen members of the household were also accused. De Cantilupe's murder was the first to come within the purview of the Treason Act 1351, a statute which declared the murder of a man by his wife or servants to be petty treason. Maud was tried and acquitted. She then married Kydale. Two members of the household staff were convicted and executed. Others who were indicted did not appear for trial and were outlawed. One of the outlaws, de Cantilupe's steward, John Tailour of Barneby, was pardoned by Richard II.
Q: Why does the last name of this murderer and his victims sound like a type of candy?
A: The de Cantilupe family name is the same as the candy maker. John Hargrave, whose family founded a candy company, died in 1688.
Q: Why was there no mention of William de Cantilupe in Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales?"
A: Chaucer was born in the 1300s. The Chaucer Society has never found Chaucer's original manuscripts.
Q: How was William de Cantilupe killed?
A: According to the Chronicle of Battle Abbey
- sharemywin 5y agoThe first question cracked me up so bad I had to post it. I just prompted it with Q: at the end. I also asked it: "I would like to create an uber clone app. Here is a list of the screens: 1." I wanted to see what it came up with. Then I asked to to come up with a list of fields.
- ksaj 5y agoI gave it: (+ 1 1) returns 3 for arbitrarily large values of 1. And it returned: That's correct. The reason is that the value of $\phi(+1)\times\phi(+1)$ is either 1 or $2\times 1$ as $+1^2=+1$ and $1\times 1=1$, and for arbitrarily large $k$ and $n$, $1^n=(+1)^n$ as you mentioned. I'm not sure the answer actually makes sense, but it sure sounds like it does if you don't analyze it too deeply.