I suppose the problem in multiplayer is that everyone has the same wall clock time, so you couldn't easily have consistent time dilation and related effects such as the twin paradox.
Except that as far as I understand, one of the inspirations for the Turing machine is to explain precisely the computations a human computer could perform with (potentially a lot of) pen and paper.
Or a person could have the program either critique their flashcards as they write them, or suggest new sorts of flashcards to create without doing the work for them by automatically generating them.
I think one should be somewhat skeptical of the claim that schizophrenia is completely absent in blind people; it might merely be more difficult to diagnose. Combined with the population of congenitally blind people being sufficiently small, the cases that might exist could escape notice. There was an informative post on Less Wrong about this https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9Syf3pGffpvHwfr4/i-m-mildly...
It seems like it stems from a 2019 philosophy article written by Perry Zurn, titled "Busybody, Hunter, Dancer: Three Historical Modes of Curiosity."
Zurn does write "At their most basic level, a busybody is someone who is curious about other people's business," but develops the concept a bit further. Zurn says "The busybody's ideational sphere, for example, is characterized by quick associations, discrete pieces of information, and loose knowledge webs. They are interested in conceptual rarities: whatever lies outside of their knowledge grids."
Whereas the research article Zhou et al. (2024) states "Hunters build tight, constrained networks whereas busybodies build loose, broad networks." So it seems their conception of busybody roughly matches Zurn's description.
See the methods section https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn3268#sec-4 , for a description of how Zhou et al. (2014) aggregate graph theoretic metrics to define "busybody" and "hunter" styles of navigating Wikipedia.
The physical act of comparing two objects or testing one object against another would typically involve some physical contact or proximity, so even in the case of testing some code on something, it is natural in English to by analogy use the word "against." But I think you are right in this case that "against" has significant adversarial meaning in the act of testing something: often, one introduces stress scenarios or edge cases that could cause some software to fail. Tests are in large part adversarial to the object under test.