Although Moissanite isn't mentioned twice, everything after "Synthetic Alexandrite" inclusively is mentioned twice. That means this was procedurally copy-pasted. Someone writing on their own would either CTRL+A then CTRL+C and make no mistakes, or not repeat themself at all.
Of course, we can also look at the half-formalized format that indicates something was copied from raw text and pasted into markdown, rather than formatted with markdown first.
Colon:
words words Colon:
words words Colon:
copy-paster spotted
Second, we cast doubt that a human wrote the source.
AI-isms vs. non AI-isms
Non-reused acronym definitions.
Garnets like... yttrium iron garnet (YIG)
This is probably taken straight from the Wikipedia's site description for YIG. Usually humans don't define an acronym only to never use it, unless they're making a mistake, especially not for just making repeated structure. So either Wikipedia was in the training corpus or this was Googled.
5/23 sentences start with "While" (weak ai indicator)
no three-em dashes or obvious tricolons are overused (non ai-indicator)
no filler bullshit introduction or conclusion (non ai-indicator)
obvious repeated structure that you can feel (strong ai indicator)
"These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out." (emphasis added)
Repetition of "unusual" and "rare" rather than more flavorful or useful adjectives (AI indicator)
We're talking synthetic stuff. Would a human write about rarity?
Superficial, neutral-positive voice despite length and possible source. If this was pasted from a technical blog, I'd expect it to have more "I" and personal experiences, or more deep anecdotal flavor (AI indicator)
e.g. use of "fascinating" but doesn't go deeper into any positivities
Third... let's take a guess
So it was copy-pasted from somewhere, but I can't imagine it being from a blog or website, and it isn't directly from Wikipedia. It has some nonhuman mistakes, but is otherwise grammatical, neutral-positive, and repetitively structured. And it lacks that deeper flavor. So.... it was an AI, but likely not openAI.
At least there aren't any very "committal" facts, so the length but lack of depth suggests that everything's maaaaaaybe true...
Not sure about the latter, but NZT was the focal "smart" drug in Limitless (a show on the premise "this drug makes u smart but if u stop taking it bad stuff happens")
less $(which zcat) shows us a gzip wrapper. So we look through gzip options and see:
-f --force
Force compression or decompression. If the input data is not in a format recognized by gzip, and if the option --stdout is also given, copy the input data without change to the standard output: let zcat behave as cat.
Is this font's only purpose to be variable-width tunable?
The website has this interesting showcase:
"[Student fluency] is measured in Words Correct Per Minute... Each student read out loud a passage set in a control of Times New Roman, then four of the Lexend Series — Deca, Exa, Giga, and Mega."
They even give example text for the viewer in both fonts. Of course, Times New Roman was blown out of the water, and the viewer can feel it.
But... this is apples to oranges. Of course the viewer can feel it, Times New Roman is a freakin' serif, and there are a quinquagintillion sans serifs for small digital text, for good reason! Then what does this font have over other sans fonts? I couldn't find the "Stanford study" or any other comparisons, but if I were to surmise a guess:
"Variable font technology allows for continuous selection of the Lexend Series to find the specific setting for an individual student."
It's to be able to adapt for a student reader's preferences.
I dunno, the site's framing of "changing the way the world reads" feels disingenuous -- it's a nice sans tho.
By proportional slab serif do you mean unmonospacing the monospace like what Ubuntu does? I guess that's why Go Proportional wouldn't work being a sans serif
Soooooooo! How'd the exam go?