Trouble is, we already have data. Lots of it. So is there some algebraic trick which lets us add that new layer to the hypothesis without going back to evidential square one?

Bayesian updating is timeless. It doesn't care whether you observed the data before or after you wrote the hypothesis.

Selecting a random English sentence will introduce a bias towards concepts that are easy to express in English.

There is no way to kill those groups if white is trying to save them and does not make any mistakes. This is the usual meaning of "alive" in Go.

I don't understand this comment.

[EDIT: Also, I agree with the GP: figure 1 is dead, figures 2 and 3 are alive.]

That sounds (to me) better than having children, but not as good as living longer.

Thanks for the game. In accordance with our bet, I'll be donating $20 to KIPP.

There has not yet been a truly benevolent dictator and it would be delusional at best to believe that you will be the first.

This is true approximately to the extent that there has never been a truly benevolent person. Power anti-corrupts.

Lightning was the weapon of Zeus. Now it can be controlled by electrical engineers.

The Aztecs thought the sun was a god. Now plasma physicists can produce light via similar means.

I posted without having thought of any examples, still confident that the statement is true.

It does, and it is.