I know it's phonology and spelling rather than phonetics you're mainly talking about in this post, but you talk about allophones anyway, so I feel I may ask this. Will tone / pitch or stress play a role in the language?

Do you intend Sekko to be as expressive as natlangs? Where are you envisioning Sekko will get its vocabulary from?

Is the order (pseudo-)random? Does it have a hidden meaning I might not be aware of? What's your purpose sharing this?

Fixed. Thank you.

(Formato edited) There could also be effects of decreasing demand for non-AI-generated analogues, because of potential consumers of this kind of content being satisfied with these virtual, AI-generated, no-one-was-harmed analogues, hence reducing harm. I can see how sex with real children leads to moral condemnation and to legal punishment. But if no real child is ever involved in this it seems to me that it's an instance of "disgust leads to moral condemnation leads to legal punishment / prohibition of the material".

I can confirm that my maths teachers at primary school were terrible: if you stepped a little bit outside what's in the book, they were absolutely lost.

They were a lot better in secondary school, possibly because they had a much stronger mathematical education (secondary school teachers usually have a university degree in the subject they teach or in a closely related field, at least in my country).

I also absolutely agree with what you say about overconfidence and the need to revisit a subject / layer instead of thinking "it's over for good".

If 'what are you doing?' generalises, I'd say people would end up answering just the same way people answer to 'how are you?' or 'how are you doing?'. In fact, in Spanish '¿qué haces?' or in Greek 'Τι κάνεις;' (both literally meaning 'what are you doing?') can be used, depending on formality and closeness, as greetings, and the usual answers are as shallow as 'fine'. In other languages, 'where are you going?' is a customary greeting and again it's not expected to be answered with an honest description of where you're physically going to, but rather with another more or less fixed expression similar to 'fine'.

Here's one article which shows a different view on this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school

FWIW, my experience is that I learn better going up and down the different layers, rather than exhausting and completely "automating" the lower layers before attempting to go to the advanced material on the upper layers.

Plus, some experience with something what you're learning is useful for is a great motivator and can help focus.

You have an idea of how likely something is to happen, or an estimate of a figure, or a model of something in the real world (e.g: Peter is a guy who loves cats). You happen to get new information about this something (e.g: you see Peter viciously killing a cute kitten). You'd most likely update, with both epistemical consequences (you'd probably stop believing Peter is the cat-loving guy you thought) and instrumental or practical consequences (you wouldn't ask him to look after your cats while you are away on holiday). The way I see it, Bayes' Theorem tells you how much you should update your beliefs to take into account all the evidence you have, to be right as much of the time as possible, given the limited information you have. Obviously, as they say about information systems in general, "garbage in garbage out", which means you should worry about getting reliable information on the things you care most about, because even with the best possible update algorithm, if the information you get is biased, your beliefs and actions will not be right. I don't know if your criticism of the importance attached to Bayes' Theorem is because you feel other aspects are neglected or what exactly is your rant. Could you please elaborate a bit?

I'd be curious to know if you kept on doing that and, if so, what the results were.