No, there’s an actual paper where that term originated that goes into great deal explaining what it means and what it applies to. It answers those questions and addresses potential objections people might respond with.

There’s no need for–and, frankly, nothing interesting about–“but, what is truth, really?” vibes-based takes on the term.

Of course, in this case, the older folks are talking with AI characters who are not real.

Pitching talking to nonexistent people as a fix for dementia, as opposed to the problem you’re trying to solve, is, uh, innovative. Among other things.

As a complimentary service, it is accessible to anyone with a landline or mobile phone and bridges the technological divide by not requiring an internet connection or even a computer. Critically, this promotes equitable access to cutting-edge technology that can benefit older Americans.

Kind of seems like actually providing the things people can’t readily access would be more valuable than lotus-eating-as-a-service, but I guess that’s why I’m not pulling down big VC bucks.

For concerned family members and friends, the service can call individuals on certain days and times to check in on them and provide telephone-based companionship.

“concerned”

The company has 60 people.

Who could actually talk to the older Americans in question, but are instead tasked with simulating conversations for them instead.

Look, I’m not going to pretend I call my relatives as often as I ought to. But I truly cannot imagine being one of those 60 people. I can’t put myself in the mindset of someone who would want this job, who would want this effort to have been a part of their life and career.

Biblically-accurate Ace Combat aircraft.

A turret toss does seem like it would be effective as reactive armor. Is this how tanks evolve to survive drone predation? Main turret autotomy to give the smaller turret buds a chance to flee?

The microwave thing? I couldn’t even guess, though I personally wouldn’t want to stand next to it even if it works. A big microwave emitter on the battlefield is just asking to catch a HARM.

It really doesn’t seem like anyone knows for sure what to do about drones right now.

Large, non-nuclear EMPs mostly use explosives. Covering a large battlefield means you’re essentially bringing a massive, single-use explosive charge to the battlefield, staying uncomfortably close enough to benefit from it, and trying to set it off at exactly the right time, because they’re not reloadable. And your enemy is probably thrilled you’re doing this, because it saves them from hauling their own explosives there. (On that note, why are you sitting on this thing instead of dropping it on the enemy?)

This is in addition to whatever shielding you brought, which is likely bulky and conspicuous. And you’re probably not doing combined arms, because shielding infantry and light vehicles from massive explosions is, it is fair to say, something of an unsolved problem.

But wait, you might be thinking. I know there are non-explosive ways to generate EMPs. Yes, there are, but you need a power source for those, and if you have a really good, portable one of those and a consistent supply of fuel to run it, you probably have better uses for it, like powering a modest laser. Oh, also, you’re 100% sure your shielding works perfectly, right? You’ll find out quick if you don’t.

I’ll preface this by noting that the sin of sloth has traditionally been understood to be a sin of omission, not just commission, i.e., you are insufficiently devoted to the things you ought to be.

Which means you could, in theory, have a (reflavored tiefling) devil paladin so devoted to sloth he works against evil causes. He’s not interested in good per se, it’s just that advancing the interests of good and traveling with a good adventuring party has the best ROI for failing to carry out his evil responsibilities.

Naturally, this has caused a fair amount of controversy among sloth devils, and there is a multi-century trial going on in the Hells about whether this ought to be allowed. This is not expected to be resolved in the foreseeable future because the advocates for both parties keep filing their responses well after petition deadlines expire.