ST. JOSEPH - Spartans' Parker Fitch goes after a loose ball during SJO's home game against Bloomington Central Catholic on Friday. The Saints defeated the St. Joseph-Ogden in Illini Prairie Conference play, 57-50. Fitch led SJO with 15 points.
Photo Gallery
More SJO Sports Articles
TAGS: St. Joseph-Ogden basketball, SJO Cheer, Ryker Lockhart, Three-sport athlete Tim Blackburn-Kelley, Nolan Franzen defense, Senior Asher Pruemer, 2006
George Washington was indispensable in the Revolution. Washington, the "father of our country" was a father to no one. He died peacefully in Mount Vernon.
BRANDPOINT - As the United States celebrates its 250th birthday this year, award-winning author Stephen Yoch's research has revealed several interesting facts about President George Washington.
1. Washington was strong in stature, weak in voice
There are many well-known paintings of Washington. The museum at Mount Vernon displays a painstakingly accurate facial reconstruction to definitively show his appearance during his lifetime. He was quite tall at 6 foot 3 inches (which makes him equivalent to 6 foot 9 inches today), but he lacked the commanding voice one might expect from a military leader.
"We all imagine Washington as a strapping guy who had a voice to match," said Yoch. "But Washington suffered from pleurisy - a viral infection that causes an inflammation in the lining of the lungs - as a child and because of this he spoke in a high, weak and breathy voice."
Washington's contemporaries often described him as soft-spoken. Yoch says this undoubtedly came from this high voice and his teeth, which gave him the habit of keeping his mouth closed to hide their appearance and the bad breath that comes with tooth decay.
As is often the case with past presidents, Washington would have struggled in the modern era. "Certainly his dental problems could be corrected," said Yoch, "but his quiet demeanor and high voice would not have played well in our modern 24/7 news cycle."
2. Is it a fact that Washington couldn't tell a lie?
One of the great legends of the nation's first president was created by biographer Parson Weems. In his account, George Washington chops down a cherry tree and later admits the act to his father, claiming he "cannot tell a lie." According to author Stephen Yoch, not only is this story made up, but it's also in direct contrast to young Washington's behavior.
Yoch says there's a pattern throughout Washington's life of claiming victory but blaming others for defeat. "It's difficult for many people to accept this reality given the legend concocted by Parson Weems relating to the Cherry Tree," says Yoch. "But the truth that Washington lied and blamed others for his own failure is irrefutable. His lies and willingness to blame others moved his military career forward."
3. Washington's worst decision nearly spelled disaster for the Revolution
George Washington was indispensable in the Revolution. Without him, the army may not have achieved victory. His willingness to repeatedly give up power - including the return of his commission to Congress and later stepping down as President - makes him one of the most laudable figures in world history.
Yet, Washington made a catastrophic blunder, appointing Benedict Arnold as the commander of American forces in Philadelphia. Arnold was placed in charge of a city locked in turmoil and led by radicals that opposed the Continental Army. This act, as much as any other, could have meant the failure of the Revolution and Washington's death, if not for Washington's luck.
Washington would say "the hand of providence" saved him from his worst mistake and Arnold's plot was foiled.
4. The father of our country had no children of his own
By the time the Revolution ended, the "father of our country" was father to no one. In a draft of Washington's first inaugural address, he wrote: "Divine providence hath not seen fit that my blood should be transmitted, or my name perpetuated by the enduring, though sometimes seducing, channel of immediate offspring. I have no child for whom I could wish to make a provision - no family to build in greatness upon my country's ruins."
As Yoch notes, "This may have been a fortunate happenstance, as many called for him to be America's new king. His lack of children allowed him to truly act in the country's best interests and sealed his legacy as 'first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.'"
I have no child for whom I could wish to make a provision - no family to build in greatness upon my country's ruins.- George Washington
5. Did Washington die peacefully?
After a life of action and harrowing battles, George Washington died peacefully in his bed at Mount Vernon. Or so many school children are taught. In reality, the nation's first president died a slow and bloody death that was far from a pleasant end of life.
Yoch says the founding father was a lifelong believer in "bleeding" (removing blood) as a medical treatment to balance body humors. "Because of this, Washington and his physicians virtually guaranteed his death by excessive bleeding," explained Yoch.
Historical fiction writer Stephen Yoch is based in Minneapolis/St. Paul. He is the author of "Becoming George Washington" and "Becoming Benedict Arnold." For more information on George Washington's life as well as the life of other historical figures like Benedict Arnold, visit Yoch.com.
CP3O, also called consensus prompting or multi-model synthesis, treats AI systems as parallel sources of analysis. Responses are compared to identify shared facts, disagreements and unique insights. Users synthesize these outputs into a stronger final answer.
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks
Journalists, researchers and developers are turning to multi-model AI strategies to improve results and reduce risk of sharing inaccurate information. Using more than one AI model can dramatically improve accuracy, reduce bias and strengthen research outcomes.
by Clark Brooks Sentinel News Service
In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) have become powerful tools for generating text, answering questions and solving problems. While you can use a single AI platform like DeepSeek or ChatGPT for a desired task, using a cross-platform prompt processing operation (CP3O) is the way to go.
CP3O, more commonly referred to as Cross-Model Synthesis, multi-model or consensus prompting, is the practice of using more than one artificial intelligence system to respond to the same question, task or workflow, then comparing or synthesizing the outputs using the same or slightly altered prompt.
Instead of relying on a single model’s reasoning, data exposure or stylistic tendencies, the user treats multiple systems as parallel sources of analysis. The CP3O approach is increasingly common in research, journalism, software development and knowledge work where accuracy, coverage and perspective matter.
While even the most advanced AI can sometimes produce inaccurate, biased or inconsistent information, a phenomenon often called "hallucination," CP3O mitigates this risk and has emerged as one of the best ways to utilize artificial intelligence in problem-solving, content creation and more.
What is a cross-platform prompt processing operation?
At a functional level, multi-platform prompt processing works by entering the same or slightly tailored prompt into multiple independent AI models, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and others.
The goal is not simply to collect multiple answers but to analyze them to identify common themes, consistent facts and points of agreement. Each model generates a response based on its training data, architecture and alignment rules.
The user then evaluates those outputs for agreement, discrepancies, missing context or unique insights. By triangulating the responses, the user can synthesize a final answer that is more robust, accurate and trustworthy than what any single model might provide. It treats each AI model as a distinct "expert" whose opinion gains weight when corroborated by others.
Photo: Matheus Bertelli/PEXELS
Using just one AI chatbot may not be ideal. Discrepancies, missing context or unique insights, and "AI hullicinations" can generate different answers to questions on the various AI platforms. Prompting two or more models and combining the output yields higher quality responses to a question or task.
In some workflows, the responses are manually combined into a final answer. In more advanced setups, one model may be used to critique or refine another model’s output, creating a layered reasoning process. This method resembles source triangulation in research: Multiple independent inputs reduce reliance on any single authority.
AI systems vary in how they prioritize facts, structure explanations, interpret ambiguity and handle uncertainty. Some excel at structured reasoning, others at synthesis or language clarity. Because there are differences among the models in training data and output protocols, using a CP3O method produces higher-quality results.
By prompting across systems, users capture a wider distribution of possible interpretations and solutions. The result is not simply redundancy; it is a comparative analysis that exposes assumptions, blind spots and alternative framings.
Five key benefits of using a cross-platform prompt processing operation
1. Higher accuracy through consensus
When multiple independent models converge on the same answer, the agreement acts as a natural error filter. Hallucinations become easier to spot, and discrepancies highlight where additional verification is needed.
2. Reduced bias through cross-model contrast
Each model carries its own training biases. CP3O exposes these differences by comparing outputs, making it easier to identify skewed framing, omissions or overconfident claims. The result is a more balanced and representative synthesis.
3. More comprehensive and multi-dimensional insights
Different systems excel in different domains: historical context, numerical reasoning, causal explanation and narrative clarity. CP3O captures these complementary strengths, producing richer, more complete answers than any single model can deliver.
4. Stronger reasoning quality through combined strengths
One model may provide a structured chain of logic while another surfaces counterarguments or alternative perspectives. CP3O blends these reasoning styles into a more robust, well-supported final explanation.
5. Greater reliability and workflow resilience
Relying on a single model makes you vulnerable to outages, updates or degraded performance. CP3O distributes that risk. If one system falters, others compensate, stabilizing research, editorial or production pipelines.
Putting CP3O to work for you
So, how does an average person actually put this idea into practice? You don't need to be a programmer or have any special software. The process is surprisingly simple and logical, similar to how a good journalist verifies a story by checking with multiple sources before publishing.
Photo: Matheus Bertelli/PEXELS
It starts with a clear question. If you just ask an AI, "Tell me about climate change," you'll get a massive, unfocused essay. For consensus prompting to work, you need a sharp, specific question, like, "What are the two main ways cutting down forests affects local rainfall patterns?" The more precise the question, the easier it is to compare the answers you get.
Once you have your question locked in, the next step is to go to the web and open up a few different AI chatbots in separate browser tabs. The key here is variety. You want to use models made by different companies, like opening tabs for ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and Anthropic's Claude. Because they were all trained on slightly different information and built with different rules, they each have their own strengths and blind spots.
Now comes the hands-on part. You paste your exact same question into each of those open tabs. It’s important that the question doesn't change, otherwise your "poll" won't be fair. After you hit enter on each one, you'll have three (or more) separate answers sitting in front of you.
This is where you play detective. Read the answers side by side and look for the details that show up in more than one place. For example, if all three AIs mention that forests help create clouds by releasing water vapor, that's a solid fact you can likely trust. It’s a point of consensus.
But you should also pay close attention to the details that don't match. Maybe one answer goes deep into the science of soil erosion, while another focuses only on the atmosphere. The one-off detail isn't necessarily wrong, but it's a flag. It tells you that this is an area you might need to double-check with a quick online search or by looking at a trusted book or website.
The faster method to break it all down is to copy each response into a text editor. Then copy the combined responses back into each of the AI chatbots and ask something like, "From the three (or more) queries below, list the top three recurring ways cutting down forest affects local rainfall patterns."
Now you can build an answer on your own, stitching together the facts from the three (or more) responses to form the core of your understanding.
You can take it a step further by repeating the previous step, copying each of the summaries into another text document. Then copy the text into each chatbot (or your favorite) and ask it to write a summary from the information provided. The result is a final answer that's been filtered through a process of comparison and critical thinking, giving you a much better product than any single chatbot could have provided on its own.
TAGS: cross-platform prompt processing workflow, consensus prompting in artificial intelligence, multi-model AI comparison methods, how to use multiple AI chatbots together, improving accuracy with large language models
TAGS: Covid Testing in 2022, preparing for a healthy pregnancy, Unity & SJO wrestlers qualify for IHSA state tournament, Unity boys basketball team eye conference title, using multiple AI platforms gives you better results, Parker Fitch leads SJO again
According to Souvik Das, love is not a highlight reel nor constant fireworks and theatrical declarations. It is two individuals evolving side by side, allowing room for imperfection without weaponizing it.
Image: Monika/Pixabay
bySouvik Das Guest Viewpoint
Every Valentine’s Day, we are reminded of what love is supposed to look like.
It arrives as red roses and candlelit dinners, as carefully worded captions, and smiling photographs framed by perfect lighting and even more perfect declarations. Scroll through social media long enough and love begins to look effortless — beautiful, polished, almost cinematic.
But somewhere beyond the filters and hashtags, an uncomfortable question lingers: When did love become something we perform?
In today’s culture — especially among young adults navigating college campuses, careers, and digital lives — relationships often begin with excitement and promise. Yet many dissolve just as quickly. We blame busy schedules, shifting priorities, or “incompatibility.” But perhaps there is another reason we rarely admit: We are trying too hard to be perfect in love instead of being present in it.
Modern dating often feels like an audition. We present the most polished versions of ourselves: agreeable but not too assertive, ambitious but not intimidating, attractive but never insecure. We edit our personalities the way we edit our photos. Flaws are concealed. Doubts are softened. Vulnerabilities are postponed.
But can love truly breathe behind a mask?
The philosopher Erich Fromm once wrote, “Love is not something natural. Rather, it requires discipline, concentration, patience, faith, and the overcoming of narcissism.” In other words, love is not a spontaneous miracle nor a search for perfection. It is a conscious practice — the quiet, daily, imperfect effort of showing up with honesty, humility, and care.
Illustration: Lumpi/Pixabay
The truth is simple, even if it sounds unfashionable: stable love is not flawless or dramatic — it is steady, grounded, and rooted in genuine feeling rather than fantasy.
Real love is not a highlight reel. It is not constant fireworks or theatrical declarations. It does not demand that two people agree on everything or exist in uninterrupted harmony. In fact, stability often grows not from avoiding disagreement, but from navigating it with respect.
A stable relationship includes ordinary days. It includes exam stress, work deadlines, financial anxieties, family expectations, and personal insecurities. It includes choosing communication when withdrawal feels easier. It includes apologizing when pride resists. It includes practicing patience when frustration rises.
Perfection is exhausting. Authenticity is sustainable.
When two people feel safe enough to stop pretending, something powerful happens. Conversations deepen. Laughter becomes unforced. Even conflict becomes constructive rather than destructive. The relationship shifts from performance to partnership.
Our culture often glorifies intensity over consistency. We admire grand gestures yet overlook the quiet loyalty that sustains love. We celebrate passion but underestimate perseverance. The early thrill of romance — the butterflies — is undeniably beautiful, but fleeting. What endures is character — the steady choice to care and remain long after the excitement softens into something quieter and real.
As Søren Kierkegaard observed, “Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself.” Mature love does not insist on perfection; it refines itself through adaptation, forgiveness, and growth.
Stable love is built less on chemistry and more on courage — the courage to be fully known and still choose to stay.
This does not mean settling. It does not mean tolerating disrespect or abandoning self-worth. Healthy stability is not endurance of toxicity; it is mutual growth. It is two individuals evolving side by side, allowing room for imperfection without weaponizing it.
In transitional spaces — college towns, early careers, uncertain futures — relationships can feel temporary by default. Many assume seriousness limits freedom. But perhaps stability is not the enemy of freedom. Perhaps it is the foundation that makes emotional security and personal growth possible.
Enduring love is not dramatic, and that is precisely its strength.
Photo: Apoorv Sharma/Pixabay
It does not need constant display to be validated. It does not rely on public approval. It survives awkward phases, shifting dreams, and personal change because it is rooted in something deeper than surface compatibility — it is rooted in acceptance.
Real love does not eliminate flaws; it makes them less frightening. It does not promise a life free of conflict; it promises a commitment to work through it. It is less about finding someone perfect and more about building something resilient.
In a world obsessed with appearances, choosing authenticity may be the most radical act of romance.
So, this Valentine’s Day, perhaps the greatest gesture is not an extravagant gift or a carefully staged photograph. Perhaps it is the quiet decision to remove the mask — and to love, and be loved, as we truly are.
Because stable love is not perfect. It is real.
Souvik Das is a Senior Research Fellow (SRF) in the Department of Physics at Tezpur University. He writes occasionally on social and ethical issues in a personal capacity.
Balanced scoring and ice-cold free throw shooting carried St. Joseph-Ogden past Bismarck-Henning 53-40 in Thursday's region...
On This Day
Discover the headlines published on each of these days from our news and sports coverage from Champaign‑Urbana and the wider community. From local news and sports to community events, politics, and opinion pieces, The Sentinel archives capture the stories that shaped life in Champaign County year after year.
