Honestly, the SC ruling on homelessness is at least #3 on the list of things they should be ashamed of. Below making bribing judges and presidential criminality legal.
The most basic way to measure movement is with an accelerometer. It's a little component inside your phone that has a small weight with a known mass connected to springs. When the phone moves or rotates, the weight moves, and the tension on the springs changes. The tension is either constant (you rotated your phone and are now holding it in the new position) or temporary (you moved in a direction and stopped). There are other ways this can be done, but this is the most conceptually simple.
Steps, length of step, distance moved, and heart rate can be estimated from analyzing the movement in various ways.
For example, to detect a step, your phone might see movement slightly up and forward, then down, then a jarring impact. Heart rate can be estimated based on your entered weight in an app, your speed of movement, how long you've been moving, and averages for people of your weight moving in those ways. This is a very inaccurate way to measure your heart rate, however. A better way would be by a sensor located on your wrist, arm, or chest, which is what smart watches often do.
Movement measured by an accelerometer can quickly become inaccurate, because small errors add up over time, so for movement over longer distances, phones generally use GPS (communication with a satellite positioning system) which is accurate to within about 5 meters.
If GPS isn't available, but the phone is connected to multiple cell phone towers, then it's possible to triangulate the position of the phone given the tower locations. If we know the distance and direction to the towers, and the position of the towers, then we can find the location of the phone by basically adding an offset to one of the tower locations.
There are other, more niche ways to measure positions without triangulation or GPS, but they're generally used for autonomous robotics - laser positioning with reflectors, ultra-wide-band positioning with special sensors, or visual positioning with cameras surrounding the region in which the robot will be working.
When I deconverted, I found it to be really hard to get past the fear. The thing that finally did it for me was the idea that a truly benevolent God wouldn't have an issue with inquiry, and a malevolent God wasn't one I wanted to follow. Fear is definitely a factor that keeps people in the church.
There was a time when I thought that the arrival of easy global communication and information would lead to the decline of religion, but I don't anymore. Christianity may have declined to some extent, but a lot of the people leaving the church(s) have just replaced it with vague spirituality, homebrew beliefs, or other looser faiths.
These days I'm much more inclined to take seriously the idea that supernatural belief is instinctual. Materialist atheism will, unfortunately, probably remain a fringe belief.
Many religious people do argue that there is an instinct toward religious belief - the "God shaped hole", if you've heard the expression. There are stories of people feeling an intense sense that there must be some higher power, or something more than their daily life, although obviously they won't fixate on Christianity without prior exposure.
I doubt that a potential future reward is going to allow a person to hold up under torture in the now. I think some Christians probably refuse to recant under torture because their sense of self is rooted in their religion, rather than because they expect a reward. Of course, paradise is part of those religious beliefs, so it's hard to tell.
Religious people have been tortured horribly and killed for their religion while refusing to recant their beliefs, and religion is very much a choice. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this argument isn't great.
I have near-zero hope this happens, but I hope it does. At least someone is worried about presidents with immunity- even leftist commentators seem to be just shrugging it off.
Assuming that creatives can be replaced by AI (meaning there isn't some soft cap on how good it can get for technical reasons) then creatives will be replaced with AI. The only difference striking makes is whether it happens in 5-10 years or 10-20.
It was a lame joke. Glad you figured it out.