The math used by engineers was developed through scientific means. To use it to to implicitly have faith in science.
The $X used by $Y is also developed through scientific means, doesn't mean that the entire population who does $Y have faith in science. For example, "math used by carpenters does nto mean carpenters have faith in science", "IVs used by nurses dos not mean that nurses have faith in science".
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science. He says he's got the math worked out and I'm inclined to believe him.
WTF.
The math used by engineers IS science.
So? The math used by carpenters is science too; doesn't mean that carpenters are doing science.
I meant the "prove his hypothesis" bit. If he doesn't believe in science then why would he be using the scientific method of proposing a hypothesis and then trying to prove it?
That's a good point; he actually *is* using a scientific approach. However the orginal sentiment I addressed was that Engineering is not Science. It's fundamentally different, in the same way that the practice of medicine is not science either.
It's perfectly possible to use observational evidence and rules derived from scientific endeavours while simultaneously disbelieving the majority of the (other) evidence from scientific endeavours.
See TempleOS for well-known example of an engineer (someone engineering a solution) who also does not believe in much of science.
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science.
This seems a quite inaccurate statement as far engineering is basically applied science
I think it's pretty accurate. You don't need to form falsifiable hypotheses and construct controlled tests to eliminate support for the hypothesis just to build a bridge, but you *do* need to be able to do the math required to ensure that the correct materials are used in the correct way.
Being a whizz at the numbers and having a thorough materials reference does not make someone a scientist.
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science. He says he's got the math worked out and I'm inclined to believe him.
WTF.
The math used by engineers IS science.
Nice snippage there, avoiding all the context... Why did you ignore this bit:
After all, the attack on the twin towers (9/11) was planned and executed by engineers, not scientists.
???
Significant numbers of terrorist attacks are performed by engineers. Almost none are performed by scientists.
Well at least he is trying to prove his hypothesis
He claims not to believe in science, so... It's not at all clear what he is doing.
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science. He says he's got the math worked out and I'm inclined to believe him.
After all, the attack on the twin towers (9/11) was planned and executed by engineers, not scientists.
We've posted and solicited all over, websites LinkedIn, colleges, etc. We just can't get very many American applications.
This is a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for making it. In a just world people would surround you, point and laugh.
In this world all that's gonna happen is someone (me, in this case) will point out that anyone with skill and talent is already employed!. So, inquiring minds want to know, exactly how much of a raise are you offering these already employed people to encourage them to move?
(We all already know your answer, but if I can't join a crowd in surrounding you, pointing and laughing, then I'm going to have to settle for questions that expose you for the equivocating cockroach that you are).
I'm starting to think the same thing as well. He seems unaware of both the last 100 years of research on the subject and that people would assume that not addressing it is a deliberate attempt to misdirect the reader, in the way that anti-diversity activists have also been doing for the last 100 years.
The initial assumption was that he must have done it deliberately, but perhaps it is possible that he really didn't mean to.
You constantly call all the egalitarians "anti-diversity", "racist", "misogynist", etc.
It doesn't take much for an idea to take off. People read something that makes sense and they repeat it - my constant assertions that there is a correlation between weak rights for women and high female CS enrollment is getting repeated everywhere (saw it repeatedly on Quora, for example). Another thought that got repeated a lot was the list of objective "privileges" enjoyed by western women (higher avg salary, better health, etc)
Here's another idea that I wish to gain traction: there are two separate concepts -
1. We must treat everyone equally
2. We must fix the injustices of the past (affirmative action)
You, and people like you, are trying to convince the rest of the world that those two separate concepts are the same. That is not true. For example, most people will get behind the concept of "Lets treat everyone equally", but not support affirmative action.
What you are doing, and what you (and the rest of the peanut gallery) always do is try to convince us that ignoring injustices of the past is the same as not treating everyone equally.. That is not true.
We all agree to treat everyone equally. We do not agree with affirmative action.
Disagreeing with affirmative action is not agreement with bigotry!
Disagreeing with affirmative action is not support for racism!
Disagreeing with affirmative action is not support for sexism!
We disagree with your methods because they are discriminatory.
That's 80 fill-ups per hour. Truly, we are ready for a population using 90% electric cars.
Not sure if you're actively trolling or ignorant, but 80 fill-ups per hour is well overkill for 90% electric cars. The vast majority of electric charging will not be done mid trip.
I frequently travel to a popular holiday destination (660km between centres) that has a fuel station midway for people to fill up. Off-peak it sees 1200 cars per hour (some fill-up, some don't). Peak vacation time it gets 2500 cars per hour, and it handles this because filling up a tank with dead dinosaurs takes about 2 minutes.
Whether we like it or not families will drive to their vacations simply due to cost. The fact that they can charge up at home is irrelevant when they have to charge up mid-trip. Right now there really isn't a problem (too few electrics on the road). When almost everyone has an electric the mid-point station won't be handle to simultaneously charge 2500 cars per hour.
The average user doesn't care about tree style tabs, won't notice a performance difference, doesn't know what memory is and doesn't even know Firefox exists. Or Chrome, for that matter. It's just "the icon on the desktop that opens Facebook",
Isn't performance pretty much the *only* thing the average user will notice? (Well, that, and whether or the browser works on Facebook).
You're confusing Performance with Performance difference. A performance difference can often be imperceptible, while performance is perceptible, always.
If that's where it gets it search results from, then it is garbage too, and I wouldn't use it.
Google dominates search because they have the best search engine.
Sure. Until you search for torrents. Try the following (with quotes) in Google, and then in Bing.
+magnet +torrent +"Oz the great and powerful"
I tried that last night on google and bing. Google returned 3 results, none of which were a link to a page that had the torrent. Bing's first 5 results were all valid.
Unless you want to argue that all individuals are equally valuable to society, you have to face the fact that some groups are not as valuable as other groups. High-IQ groups are a great deal more valuable than low-IQ groups. That does not mean that we need to bar low-IQ groups from attempting anything. It just means that their chance of success is small (which is why I proposed the gambling approach in a previous thread).
I'm not sure what kind of response you want... I don't want to argue that everyone is equally valuable to society, no, and the rest follows. But that's not why I dislike IQ tests, or the conclusions people draw from that number.
TBH the clear majority of conclusions I'm aware off are of the form "high-IQ = smarter, low-IQ=stupider", which is true anyway.
"At the same time this could well be the death spell for corporations like EA. "
They aren't worried. They'll pay a bunch of sycophantic game journos to write another "Gamers are Dead" series that will turn the heat off them a little and bring in a few more gamers in the form of ideological sheep who want to support their cause by buying a few games here and there.
Are we talking about the same IQ tests? Most take 60-90 minutes, with the Mensa one taking a little over 2 hours.
A 2 hour (by your account) test is hardly a guesttimate.
And in the US the eugenics movement advocated forced sterilization of people with low scores, so I'd say those numbers have been used to people's detriment at times.
The movement advocating culling based on IQ score is tiny - it's not even a rounding error. IOW, they are no threat at all to society, so why are you using *their* arguments to demonstrate your position on IQ scores? Do you base your position on any given arguments only on the the most extreme, most fringe adversaries?
At any rate, I was hoping to see your position in response to this: Unless you want to argue that all individuals are equally valuable to society, you have to face the fact that some groups are not as valuable as other groups. High-IQ groups are a great deal more valuable than low-IQ groups. That does not mean that we need to bar low-IQ groups from attempting anything. It just means that their chance of success is small (which is why I proposed the gambling approach in a previous thread).
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time.
That's the same thing. If you rely on IQ as an indicator of intelligence you must have some purpose in doing so, e.g. filtering job applicants or provision of schooling to children. And if IQ is a flawed measure then some people will be denied opportunities that they should have access to.
But a) IQ isn't a flawed measure, and b) we aren't relying on IQ for filtering purposes.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose?
I like intelligence, I just don't think you can encapsulate it in a single number determined by a written test.
You make a 6-hour test sound like a thumb-suck. The IQ test isn't a social science, you understand; it's an actual science.
After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunities
That's exactly what happens. Job applicants are filtered by IQ test scores, funding for education is diverted to children who score highly on IQ tests. And some people go even further, arguing that some skin colours are also mentally superior and should be supreme. It's that kind of thing that I object to.
I want everyone to be as intelligent as possible, which means having access to good education and opportunities to fix social problems like poverty. I don't accept the argument that "these people have a low IQ, therefore will always be poor and dumb and doing anything to change that is anti-intellectual and anti-science."
No one made that particular argument, and yet, even if they did you can argue against using a criteria (not just IQ score, any criteria) to prevent opportunities to people.
Right now, as things stand, the IQ score is an indicator. Sure there's outliers, but as far as "worth" goes, higher IQ people have given more to society than lower-IQ people, so they're objectively, empirically, worth more.
That assertion is not the same as "we must limit opportunities for individuals who fail to meet this bar *points at IQ chart*"
.
Unless you want to argue that all individuals are equally valuable to society, you have to face the fact that some groups are not as valuable as other groups. High-IQ groups are a great deal more valuable than low-IQ groups. That does not mean that we need to bar low-IQ groups from attempting anything. It just means that their chance of success is small (which is why I proposed the gambling approach in a previous thread).
Slashdot Mirror
The math used by engineers was developed through scientific means. To use it to to implicitly have faith in science.
The $X used by $Y is also developed through scientific means, doesn't mean that the entire population who does $Y have faith in science. For example, "math used by carpenters does nto mean carpenters have faith in science", "IVs used by nurses dos not mean that nurses have faith in science".
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science. He says he's got the math worked out and I'm inclined to believe him.
WTF. The math used by engineers IS science.
So? The math used by carpenters is science too; doesn't mean that carpenters are doing science.
I meant the "prove his hypothesis" bit. If he doesn't believe in science then why would he be using the scientific method of proposing a hypothesis and then trying to prove it?
That's a good point; he actually *is* using a scientific approach. However the orginal sentiment I addressed was that Engineering is not Science. It's fundamentally different, in the same way that the practice of medicine is not science either.
It's perfectly possible to use observational evidence and rules derived from scientific endeavours while simultaneously disbelieving the majority of the (other) evidence from scientific endeavours.
See TempleOS for well-known example of an engineer (someone engineering a solution) who also does not believe in much of science.
He's building something, predicting the what it will do, testing and evaluating the results, improve and repeat. Science.
That's not science.
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science.
This seems a quite inaccurate statement as far engineering is basically applied science
I think it's pretty accurate. You don't need to form falsifiable hypotheses and construct controlled tests to eliminate support for the hypothesis just to build a bridge, but you *do* need to be able to do the math required to ensure that the correct materials are used in the correct way.
Being a whizz at the numbers and having a thorough materials reference does not make someone a scientist.
WTF.
The math used by engineers IS science.
Nice snippage there, avoiding all the context... Why did you ignore this bit:
After all, the attack on the twin towers (9/11) was planned and executed by engineers, not scientists.
???
Significant numbers of terrorist attacks are performed by engineers. Almost none are performed by scientists.
Well at least he is trying to prove his hypothesis
He claims not to believe in science, so... It's not at all clear what he is doing.
You don't need a belief in science to be a good engineer - most engineers are pretty damn useless at science. He says he's got the math worked out and I'm inclined to believe him.
After all, the attack on the twin towers (9/11) was planned and executed by engineers, not scientists.
We've posted and solicited all over, websites LinkedIn, colleges, etc. We just can't get very many American applications.
This is a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for making it. In a just world people would surround you, point and laugh.
In this world all that's gonna happen is someone (me, in this case) will point out that anyone with skill and talent is already employed!. So, inquiring minds want to know, exactly how much of a raise are you offering these already employed people to encourage them to move?
(We all already know your answer, but if I can't join a crowd in surrounding you, pointing and laughing, then I'm going to have to settle for questions that expose you for the equivocating cockroach that you are).
pretty much what the voters expect
The voters (by a margin of 2.9 million) expected Hillary Clinton to be president. I guess neither of you are getting what you want today.
That's less than a 1% margin of the population, ya moron. What's the matter? You're with her, but she can't do math[1] either?
[1] Exhibit A: Their flawed polling.
I'm starting to think the same thing as well. He seems unaware of both the last 100 years of research on the subject and that people would assume that not addressing it is a deliberate attempt to misdirect the reader, in the way that anti-diversity activists have also been doing for the last 100 years.
The initial assumption was that he must have done it deliberately, but perhaps it is possible that he really didn't mean to.
You constantly call all the egalitarians "anti-diversity", "racist", "misogynist", etc.
It doesn't take much for an idea to take off. People read something that makes sense and they repeat it - my constant assertions that there is a correlation between weak rights for women and high female CS enrollment is getting repeated everywhere (saw it repeatedly on Quora, for example). Another thought that got repeated a lot was the list of objective "privileges" enjoyed by western women (higher avg salary, better health, etc)
Here's another idea that I wish to gain traction: there are two separate concepts -
1. We must treat everyone equally
2. We must fix the injustices of the past (affirmative action)
You, and people like you, are trying to convince the rest of the world that those two separate concepts are the same. That is not true. For example, most people will get behind the concept of "Lets treat everyone equally", but not support affirmative action.
What you are doing, and what you (and the rest of the peanut gallery) always do is try to convince us that ignoring injustices of the past is the same as not treating everyone equally.. That is not true.
We all agree to treat everyone equally. We do not agree with affirmative action.
Disagreeing with affirmative action is not agreement with bigotry!
Disagreeing with affirmative action is not support for racism!
Disagreeing with affirmative action is not support for sexism!
We disagree with your methods because they are discriminatory.
That's 80 fill-ups per hour. Truly, we are ready for a population using 90% electric cars.
Not sure if you're actively trolling or ignorant, but 80 fill-ups per hour is well overkill for 90% electric cars. The vast majority of electric charging will not be done mid trip.
I frequently travel to a popular holiday destination (660km between centres) that has a fuel station midway for people to fill up. Off-peak it sees 1200 cars per hour (some fill-up, some don't). Peak vacation time it gets 2500 cars per hour, and it handles this because filling up a tank with dead dinosaurs takes about 2 minutes.
Whether we like it or not families will drive to their vacations simply due to cost. The fact that they can charge up at home is irrelevant when they have to charge up mid-trip. Right now there really isn't a problem (too few electrics on the road). When almost everyone has an electric the mid-point station won't be handle to simultaneously charge 2500 cars per hour.
With a market cap of over $50B, Tesla basically can't "run out of money",
What are you talking about? Of course they can run out of money - their market cap is not income. Hell, it's not even what a company is worth.
That's 80 fill-ups per hour. Truly, we are ready for a population using 90% electric cars.
No it's not called campaigning, if it were Robert Mueller and his team wouldn't be investigating Trump for links to this activity.
Yep. An investigation is a sure sign of guilt!
So then you adjust the search term. That is what I did. I am not looking for sites that have the file. I am looking for the file itself.
I don't need to "adjust" the search term - my intention was clear and other search engines have no problem with it.
Slashdot: ignoring the HTML 2.0 standard and it's incorporation of unicode since the late 90s.
The problem isn't Apple, the problem is Slashdot hasn't bothered to support Unicode in the literally 20 years it's been part of the HTML standard.
You realise it's only the Apple devices that result in illegible postings?
The average user doesn't care about tree style tabs, won't notice a performance difference, doesn't know what memory is and doesn't even know Firefox exists. Or Chrome, for that matter. It's just "the icon on the desktop that opens Facebook",
Isn't performance pretty much the *only* thing the average user will notice? (Well, that, and whether or the browser works on Facebook).
You're confusing Performance with Performance difference. A performance difference can often be imperceptible, while performance is perceptible, always.
filetype:torrent +"Oz the great and powerful" 6020 results.
I'm genuinely curious... how many results do *you* get with my search term? 'cos I just did it again and still only got four.
If that's where it gets it search results from, then it is garbage too, and I wouldn't use it.
Google dominates search because they have the best search engine.
Sure. Until you search for torrents. Try the following (with quotes) in Google, and then in Bing.
+magnet +torrent +"Oz the great and powerful"
I tried that last night on google and bing. Google returned 3 results, none of which were a link to a page that had the torrent. Bing's first 5 results were all valid.
George Takei?
Unless you want to argue that all individuals are equally valuable to society, you have to face the fact that some groups are not as valuable as other groups. High-IQ groups are a great deal more valuable than low-IQ groups. That does not mean that we need to bar low-IQ groups from attempting anything. It just means that their chance of success is small (which is why I proposed the gambling approach in a previous thread).
I'm not sure what kind of response you want... I don't want to argue that everyone is equally valuable to society, no, and the rest follows. But that's not why I dislike IQ tests, or the conclusions people draw from that number.
TBH the clear majority of conclusions I'm aware off are of the form "high-IQ = smarter, low-IQ=stupider", which is true anyway.
"At the same time this could well be the death spell for corporations like EA. "
They aren't worried. They'll pay a bunch of sycophantic game journos to write another "Gamers are Dead" series that will turn the heat off them a little and bring in a few more gamers in the form of ideological sheep who want to support their cause by buying a few games here and there.
Are we talking about the same IQ tests? Most take 60-90 minutes, with the Mensa one taking a little over 2 hours.
A 2 hour (by your account) test is hardly a guesttimate.
And in the US the eugenics movement advocated forced sterilization of people with low scores, so I'd say those numbers have been used to people's detriment at times.
The movement advocating culling based on IQ score is tiny - it's not even a rounding error. IOW, they are no threat at all to society, so why are you using *their* arguments to demonstrate your position on IQ scores? Do you base your position on any given arguments only on the the most extreme, most fringe adversaries?
At any rate, I was hoping to see your position in response to this: Unless you want to argue that all individuals are equally valuable to society, you have to face the fact that some groups are not as valuable as other groups. High-IQ groups are a great deal more valuable than low-IQ groups. That does not mean that we need to bar low-IQ groups from attempting anything. It just means that their chance of success is small (which is why I proposed the gambling approach in a previous thread).
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time.
That's the same thing. If you rely on IQ as an indicator of intelligence you must have some purpose in doing so, e.g. filtering job applicants or provision of schooling to children. And if IQ is a flawed measure then some people will be denied opportunities that they should have access to.
But a) IQ isn't a flawed measure, and b) we aren't relying on IQ for filtering purposes.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose?
I like intelligence, I just don't think you can encapsulate it in a single number determined by a written test.
You make a 6-hour test sound like a thumb-suck. The IQ test isn't a social science, you understand; it's an actual science.
After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunities
That's exactly what happens. Job applicants are filtered by IQ test scores, funding for education is diverted to children who score highly on IQ tests. And some people go even further, arguing that some skin colours are also mentally superior and should be supreme. It's that kind of thing that I object to.
I want everyone to be as intelligent as possible, which means having access to good education and opportunities to fix social problems like poverty. I don't accept the argument that "these people have a low IQ, therefore will always be poor and dumb and doing anything to change that is anti-intellectual and anti-science."
No one made that particular argument, and yet, even if they did you can argue against using a criteria (not just IQ score, any criteria) to prevent opportunities to people.
Right now, as things stand, the IQ score is an indicator. Sure there's outliers, but as far as "worth" goes, higher IQ people have given more to society than lower-IQ people, so they're objectively, empirically, worth more.
That assertion is not the same as "we must limit opportunities for individuals who fail to meet this bar *points at IQ chart*"
.
Unless you want to argue that all individuals are equally valuable to society, you have to face the fact that some groups are not as valuable as other groups. High-IQ groups are a great deal more valuable than low-IQ groups. That does not mean that we need to bar low-IQ groups from attempting anything. It just means that their chance of success is small (which is why I proposed the gambling approach in a previous thread).
Oh bullshit. The divorce rate is proof that marriage doesn't work.
No. The divorce rate is proof that highly incentivising one party to break a contract will cause that one party to break that contract.