4 ms·
This article reads like it was AI generated rambling. It mixes up units, meanders back and forth between points, provides no citations, and comes to no conclusi
by solardev 2y ago
This article reads like it was AI generated rambling. It mixes up units, meanders back and forth between points, provides no citations, and comes to no conclusions.
It should be a statistically answerable question, but instead of looking at past races of various depths, it randomly discusses athletes not getting enough food or air conditioning (OK, but if those were real issues, they probably deserve a separate investigation too?)
I walked away from this more confused than before. It's hard to believe an expert consulting firm actually wrote this...
- tivert 2y ago> This article reads like it was AI generated rambling. Honestly, it didn't seem that bad to me. And it has one bad keyboarding typo "visual oerception," which is evidence to me against it being all AI generated. > it randomly discusses athletes not getting enough food or air conditioning I think that might just be bad writing, since that point doesn't seem random. Basically, the point seemed highlight alternate causes besides pool depth for swimmer under-performance in the 2024 Olympics.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]