To keep this debate from collapsing into one of definitions, I'll offer some. In the retro-gaming community, an "emulator" simulates the operation of an entire computer, using an interpreter or dynamic recompiler to simulate the CPU. This emulator imposes a substantial performance penalty. For example, DOSBox and Bochs are emulators. Wine, on the other hand, is just a set of libraries that run on your existing machine; the application's code runs natively. VirtualBox and VMware are somewhere in the middle as "virtual machine monitors", which execute unprivileged code directly and recompile privileged code into the same instruction set but without use of privileged instructions.
Let me put it another way: If you think Wine is an emulator, then Qt is an emulator too if I install it on a GTK+ based distribution like Ubuntu or Xubuntu, and GTK+ is an emulator if I install it on Kubuntu.
To keep this debate from collapsing into one of definitions, you offered a specific definition of the term as used by a specific niche of people in a specific sector instead of the actual definition.
Emulator. Noun. One that emulates. See emulate. Emulate. Verb. To rival.
WINE emulates an implementation of the Win32 API. Whether you use the actual definition (rivals) or the typically-accepted incorrect definition (imitates) it holds true. Even when you use the sector-specific jargon of a computer system implementing the functionality of another computer system, there is no stipulation that an emulator must be software and the emulatee must be hardware. All computer systems are ultimately a combination of hardware and software - the line is irrelevant and often blurred (see firmware). WINE is an emulator.
Seems to me Mr Hiroshima was given some time. Why not give godaddy and the fbi a call? See if they can set up a trap for the hacker?
This. Call up GoDaddy and tell them what's going on. They'll lock shit down, you can provide the full credit card number, photos of your driver's license, etc. to confirm who you are.
he made one good movie and has been living on the name it got him since everything else has been crap but its been bloody so you know that gets it attention
He made a good movie? I guess I can send Satan a pair of ice skates now.
These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
Only in our case. A "hormone acting on the brain" is just a chemical process. An active brain is just a bundle of electrical impulses. It all adds up, somehow, to something we call consciousness, along with the attendant emotions. Why can't a solely electronic system do the same?
Because of that "somehow". We have absolutely no idea what constitutes consciousness or how to detect it, let alone what brings it about. If it is a physical phenomena, it is one with absolutely zero explanation.
Maybe my tin foil hat is too tight but it seems curious to me that Provo in Utah County is the first city to get this service from Google when just a little way up I-15, at the point of the mountain, is the largest NSA facility in the country. Just sounds like a match made in heaven.
Google is a front for the NSA. Can't believe there are people who still don't know this.
(Shrug) I use a "binary without sources" every time I start my car or heat up a donut in the microwave. This is just another case of Stallman's ideological purity doing more harm to his cause than good. It's not enough that he wins, somebody else has to lose.
You fucking disgust me. Doughnuts should be eaten fresh whenever possible. Any reheating should be done in a toaster oven or regular oven, not a microwave oven.
More like: "That's it, teeth have failed me once again. I'm going back to sucking schlongs!"
It's a false dichotomy -- A disservice to all the great cocksuckers of the world with full mouths of pearly white.
It's not a false dichotomy at all. Go suck some schlongs. Then go bite some schlongs. Tell me how many schlongs you have bitten will then let you suck on them.
Kill and rape when you've defeated your enemy in war. Keep all the virgins as wives for yourself.
Stone apostates
"Here's how to keep slaves".
(etc. I needn't go on, do I?)
You can't just pick out the good and ignore the bad stuff. If you're doing that, it is in fact you who are being the decider of morality.
Show me where Jesus told people to kill and rape and wage war. Or do you think that every line in the Bible somehow represents a tenet of Christianity?
Of course they are opposed, just as reason is the opposite of superstition.
The fact that you claim to be a believer in science show that you don't understand how at least one of those two things works.
They aren't opposed. There is no logical way to disprove the existence of the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural - be it leprechauns or a deity - exist outside the universe we are able to perceive / influence. Even if you "solve" the entire universe, there's the possibility that there's some supernatural entity one step removed from that.
It is impossible to rule out the possibility that some sort of god exists and is running things behind the scenes, just as it is impossible to rule out the possibility that you're dreaming right now. Not only is it impossible to rule these things out, it's impossible to gauge their likelihood at all.
The only logical conclusion is to accept the possibility (of an unknown likelihood) that a god may exist, that leprechauns might be hiding gold, and that this could all be a dream. Atheists are just as illogical and irrational as any theist believing a specific religion's stories and texts. Agnosticism is the only logical choice, just as the only winning move is not to play.
> they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into > Google apps.
Google can decide who to sell their apps to. If they decide to only sell, say, Maps for use in Android, then that's that, as far as I can tell. Google is the piper.
Wrong. That can be easily considered anticompetitive. MS can decide who to sell their OS to and how to price it. MS can decide to bundle a media player in their own OS. MS can decide what browser to include in their own OS.
Imagine if MS said that they were going to charge for the Xbox Smartglass app, and Widnows Phone OEMs had to paid $.01 for it, but Apple and Android OEMs had to pay $.01 for it plus $.50 for a license to use Windows Phone even though they're not using it and the app has already been demonstrated to be separate from Windows Phone.
Why do I have this sneaking suspicion it runs in exponential time, varying as the size of the data set...
It's actually pretty nifty how findimagedupes works. It creates a 16x16 thumbnail of each image (it's a little more complicated than that -- read more on the manpage), and uses this as a fingerprint. Fingerprints are then compared using an algorithm that looks like O(n^2).
I doubt the difference between O(2^n) and O(n^2) would make a huge impact anyway: the biggest bottleneck is going to be disk read and seek time, not comparing fingerprints. It's akin to running compression on a filesystem: read speed is an order of magnitude slower than the compression.
O(n^2) vs O(2^n) is a huge difference eve for very small datasets (hundreds of pictures). You have to read all the images and generate the hashes, but that's Theta(n). Comparing one hash to every other has is Theta(n^2).
If the hashes are small enough to all live in memory (or enough of them that you can intelligently juggle your comparisons without having to wait on the disk too much), then you'll be fine for tens of thousands of pictures. But photographers can take thousands of pictures per shoot, hundreds of thousands in a year, and have millions of photos to dedupe. When you're at that level, comparisons have to be 6 orders of magnitude faster than your disk read to avoid being the bottleneck. With large hard drives shitting out 60-120 MBps (we'll ignore SSDs because they can't hold that many photos, and we'll ignore RAID just because), that's not going to be the case.
I thought they were already charging for access to the Google Play store and Google Apps like Maps. I thought that was why Android based devices like the Nook, Kindle; and Cyanogenmod releases didn't include access to Google Apps and the Store. Is that just a licensing restriction?
Is a 75 cent fee really significant to anyone that wants their Android device to have access to the Google Apps and Play store? It's not like there aren't alternatives (though the Google Maps alternatives are lacking).
AOSP is free. Android is not. OEMs pay unknown amounts of money (lots) for access to Android. The earlier you want access, the more you pay. If you want to launch a flagship product as the first wave of products with the latest Android version, you pay a lot for the privilege. Google is now also charging for their "apps", which used to be free (or buried in other costs related to the overall Android agreement).
Since we don't know the specifics of the pricing structure between Google and any given OEM, we don't know if this will end up costing them more or not. It may now be possible for an OEM to pay for Android without the Google apps and end up paying less than they were before for Android bundled with the Google apps. It may be the same. Or it may cost more.
The interesting thing about this is that given Google's position in the market, and the separate nature of the Google apps from Android, they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into Google apps. This would then open up the possibility for other OEMs to buy the Google apps and NOT Android. Anything running off of AOSP or some fork of it (such as the Kindle) may be able to be bundled with the Google apps if they pay the piper.
Samsung can't (realistically) fork. They've agreed not to as part of their membership in the OHA. To fork they would have to leave Android compatibility behind. Meaning whatever OS they create cannot be Android compatible. Its not going to happen. Nor can Google get rid of Samsung as they have become the dominant player in Android. I think both companies would prefer the relationship were different, but neither is in a position to do anything about it.
AOSP is freely available for anyone, including Samsung, to take and fork. It's what Amazon did. Unless you know of specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to, Samsung is free to do what they want. If you do know of specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to, please post them, read them, then realize that Samsung is still free to do what they want - they'd just have to pay any penalties stipulated in the contract if they breach it. Hint: You don't know of any specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to.
Exactly my point. Go isn't complex, it just has a deep tree that gets very wide at the middle.
Naively walking that tree based on the board's current score is computationally insane, but it's the approach most "Go is more complex than chess!!!" zealots and dumb algorithms take.
When you actually analyze a given board beyond simply scoring that board as-is, you can develop a much more accurate score for each branch. For a fixed amount of time/storage, this means your decisions as to what the best move is will be more accurate. The trick is identifying advantageous boards.
In Chess, we use the values of the different pieces to determine a board's score for the deepest move searched, with an end-game board being absolute. In Go, you look at the perimeters of territories for the deepest move searched.
Saying Go is complex because some people employ a naive algorithm is like saying calculating Fibonacci numbers is complex because some people use a recursive algorithm to calculate it instead of a simple loop.
Go is a perimeter game and is really no more complex than Othello. A simple neural net (I hate that fucking term) algorithm trained against average Go-playing humans will end up being average at playing Go.
How impressive that you can know that without having tried. How do I know you haven't tried it? Because it's totally wrong...
Please tell me which of those facts is wrong, and explain why. Remember to show your work.
I was lucky enough to have a lecturer at university who was actively working on solving Go. Professor Wilfred Hodges at QMW, University of London.
It was his talk about the complexity of the game of Go on my induction day that convinced me to go to that university, and I was able to have him as a course lecturer for certain related courses later on (graph theory).
He is a typical, mad-haired, Einsteinian-looking sandals-in-winter professor, and he gave a marvellous intro to Go, complexity and the work he was doing.
All everyone else took away was that he showed photos of himself at a Go convention (on 35mm film). But I thought it was brilliant, and it made me teach myself Go.
I hope he's still working on it. Judging by the website I've found for him, he's busy with a LOT of other areas of mathematics than Game Theory, though.
But I'll never forget the mental "Woah" I got when he explained how much more complicated 19x19 Go was than Chess, even though the rules are vastly simpler.
Apparently there is no decent Go computer player in the world that can beat more than an average Go human player.
Go isn't complex. Go is very simple. It's just large. Go is a perimeter game and is really no more complex than Othello. A simple neural net (I hate that fucking term) algorithm trained against average Go-playing humans will end up being average at playing Go. The people who are fascinated by Go's "complexity" are only trying to solve it in bulk with traditional alpha-beta minimax schemes. Such approaches are not well-suited to Go because the score of any given board means very little since it can be completely flipped in a few moves. A game like Chess, on the other hand, is somewhat suited to alpha-beta minimax because pieces are removed as the game goes on and we can weight the pieces. A king is the end-game, a queen is always more important than a bishop, almost always more important than a rook or pawn, usually more important than a knight, etc.
Better better idea: Don't live in New York. Not only will you avoid the rats, but you'll also avoid the pretentious shits and you'll be able to get a decent slice of pizza for once.
The real question is: why do browser still allow windows to pop under? There's literally no legitimate use for it.
Site satisfaction surveys typically pop under so that when you close the main window you see the site satisfaction survey, it refreshes, and asks you shit about your visit. Same for a ton of those "eLearning" shits that make you sit through a video, click through pages of shit you're pretending to read, etc. while timing you, tracking your clicks and progress, etc. Often used for employer-mandated training sessions on shit like how not to rape people at work or how to properly walk so you don't trip and sue.
If that were false, then why do people end up congregating in that way? Your just expressing an opinion. Some hate crowds some don't. You obviously don't.
Because most people are incapable of providing for themselves and so cluster around established infrastructure for food, water, shelter, power, clothing, transportation, etc. Said infrastructure is expensive - time, money, space, labor, materials, etc. - so it makes sense for the infrastructure to be clustered. The dependent people follow the infrastructure.
Independent people are more likely to live away from the masses, choose property with other criteria as a priority (view, weather, etc.) This is why the wealthy live in gated communities, try to prevent the public from accessing the beach in front of their house, live in the hills outside the cities, etc. They want to get away from the masses of poor, stupid, ugly, dirty, sick, etc. people. This is why royalty and titled people built castles and moats. It's why artists live cloistered lives. It's why the religious figures, the rabbis, the wise men, the medicine men, etc. had a space to themselves and people trekked to them for guidance and assistance.
This has been true for all of human history. The intelligent seek to shed the husk of ineptitude that is the rest of humanity. Of course, this doesn't mean some dumb people don't do the same thing, or that everyone with the means to live on a private island is intelligent (often they're merely benefiting from the legacy of someone who was). But the general drive of the intelligent is separation, privacy, and introspection. Extroversion is the noise of the insipid masses. A desire to cluster in numbers is the behavior of prey animals. Desire for attention is a sign of insecurity.
Slashdot Mirror
To keep this debate from collapsing into one of definitions, I'll offer some. In the retro-gaming community, an "emulator" simulates the operation of an entire computer, using an interpreter or dynamic recompiler to simulate the CPU. This emulator imposes a substantial performance penalty. For example, DOSBox and Bochs are emulators. Wine, on the other hand, is just a set of libraries that run on your existing machine; the application's code runs natively. VirtualBox and VMware are somewhere in the middle as "virtual machine monitors", which execute unprivileged code directly and recompile privileged code into the same instruction set but without use of privileged instructions.
Let me put it another way: If you think Wine is an emulator, then Qt is an emulator too if I install it on a GTK+ based distribution like Ubuntu or Xubuntu, and GTK+ is an emulator if I install it on Kubuntu.
To keep this debate from collapsing into one of definitions, you offered a specific definition of the term as used by a specific niche of people in a specific sector instead of the actual definition.
Emulator. Noun. One that emulates. See emulate.
Emulate. Verb. To rival.
WINE emulates an implementation of the Win32 API. Whether you use the actual definition (rivals) or the typically-accepted incorrect definition (imitates) it holds true. Even when you use the sector-specific jargon of a computer system implementing the functionality of another computer system, there is no stipulation that an emulator must be software and the emulatee must be hardware. All computer systems are ultimately a combination of hardware and software - the line is irrelevant and often blurred (see firmware).
WINE is an emulator.
Seems to me Mr Hiroshima was given some time. Why not give godaddy and the fbi a call? See if they can set up a trap for the hacker?
This.
Call up GoDaddy and tell them what's going on. They'll lock shit down, you can provide the full credit card number, photos of your driver's license, etc. to confirm who you are.
he made one good movie and has been living on the name it got him since everything else has been crap but its been bloody so you know that gets it attention
He made a good movie? I guess I can send Satan a pair of ice skates now.
These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
Only in our case. A "hormone acting on the brain" is just a chemical process. An active brain is just a bundle of electrical impulses. It all adds up, somehow, to something we call consciousness, along with the attendant emotions. Why can't a solely electronic system do the same?
Because of that "somehow".
We have absolutely no idea what constitutes consciousness or how to detect it, let alone what brings it about. If it is a physical phenomena, it is one with absolutely zero explanation.
I don't think you know what the term "front" means.
Maybe my tin foil hat is too tight but it seems curious to me that Provo in Utah County is the first city to get this service from Google when just a little way up I-15, at the point of the mountain, is the largest NSA facility in the country. Just sounds like a match made in heaven.
Google is a front for the NSA. Can't believe there are people who still don't know this.
(Shrug) I use a "binary without sources" every time I start my car or heat up a donut in the microwave. This is just another case of Stallman's ideological purity doing more harm to his cause than good. It's not enough that he wins, somebody else has to lose.
You fucking disgust me. Doughnuts should be eaten fresh whenever possible. Any reheating should be done in a toaster oven or regular oven, not a microwave oven.
More like: "That's it, teeth have failed me once again. I'm going back to sucking schlongs!"
It's a false dichotomy -- A disservice to all the great cocksuckers of the world with full mouths of pearly white.
It's not a false dichotomy at all.
Go suck some schlongs. Then go bite some schlongs. Tell me how many schlongs you have bitten will then let you suck on them.
Yes, but it's not the case anymore. All common religion rely on superstition today, even buddhism.
Buddhism isn't a damned religion, that was the entire point of its teachings.
... also,
You can't just pick out the good and ignore the bad stuff. If you're doing that, it is in fact you who are being the decider of morality.
Show me where Jesus told people to kill and rape and wage war.
Or do you think that every line in the Bible somehow represents a tenet of Christianity?
Of course they are opposed, just as reason is the opposite of superstition.
The fact that you claim to be a believer in science show that you don't understand how at least one of those two things works.
They aren't opposed.
There is no logical way to disprove the existence of the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural - be it leprechauns or a deity - exist outside the universe we are able to perceive / influence. Even if you "solve" the entire universe, there's the possibility that there's some supernatural entity one step removed from that.
It is impossible to rule out the possibility that some sort of god exists and is running things behind the scenes, just as it is impossible to rule out the possibility that you're dreaming right now. Not only is it impossible to rule these things out, it's impossible to gauge their likelihood at all.
The only logical conclusion is to accept the possibility (of an unknown likelihood) that a god may exist, that leprechauns might be hiding gold, and that this could all be a dream. Atheists are just as illogical and irrational as any theist believing a specific religion's stories and texts. Agnosticism is the only logical choice, just as the only winning move is not to play.
There was cake in the first fucking Portal. It wasn't a damned lie.
> they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into
> Google apps.
Google can decide who to sell their apps to. If they decide to only sell, say, Maps for use in Android, then that's that, as far as I can tell. Google is the piper.
Wrong. That can be easily considered anticompetitive.
MS can decide who to sell their OS to and how to price it.
MS can decide to bundle a media player in their own OS.
MS can decide what browser to include in their own OS.
Imagine if MS said that they were going to charge for the Xbox Smartglass app, and Widnows Phone OEMs had to paid $.01 for it, but Apple and Android OEMs had to pay $.01 for it plus $.50 for a license to use Windows Phone even though they're not using it and the app has already been demonstrated to be separate from Windows Phone.
Why do I have this sneaking suspicion it runs in exponential time, varying as the size of the data set...
It's actually pretty nifty how findimagedupes works. It creates a 16x16 thumbnail of each image (it's a little more complicated than that -- read more on the manpage), and uses this as a fingerprint. Fingerprints are then compared using an algorithm that looks like O(n^2).
I doubt the difference between O(2^n) and O(n^2) would make a huge impact anyway: the biggest bottleneck is going to be disk read and seek time, not comparing fingerprints. It's akin to running compression on a filesystem: read speed is an order of magnitude slower than the compression.
O(n^2) vs O(2^n) is a huge difference eve for very small datasets (hundreds of pictures).
You have to read all the images and generate the hashes, but that's Theta(n).
Comparing one hash to every other has is Theta(n^2).
If the hashes are small enough to all live in memory (or enough of them that you can intelligently juggle your comparisons without having to wait on the disk too much), then you'll be fine for tens of thousands of pictures.
But photographers can take thousands of pictures per shoot, hundreds of thousands in a year, and have millions of photos to dedupe.
When you're at that level, comparisons have to be 6 orders of magnitude faster than your disk read to avoid being the bottleneck. With large hard drives shitting out 60-120 MBps (we'll ignore SSDs because they can't hold that many photos, and we'll ignore RAID just because), that's not going to be the case.
I thought they were already charging for access to the Google Play store and Google Apps like Maps. I thought that was why Android based devices like the Nook, Kindle; and Cyanogenmod releases didn't include access to Google Apps and the Store. Is that just a licensing restriction?
Is a 75 cent fee really significant to anyone that wants their Android device to have access to the Google Apps and Play store? It's not like there aren't alternatives (though the Google Maps alternatives are lacking).
AOSP is free.
Android is not. OEMs pay unknown amounts of money (lots) for access to Android. The earlier you want access, the more you pay. If you want to launch a flagship product as the first wave of products with the latest Android version, you pay a lot for the privilege.
Google is now also charging for their "apps", which used to be free (or buried in other costs related to the overall Android agreement).
Since we don't know the specifics of the pricing structure between Google and any given OEM, we don't know if this will end up costing them more or not. It may now be possible for an OEM to pay for Android without the Google apps and end up paying less than they were before for Android bundled with the Google apps. It may be the same. Or it may cost more.
The interesting thing about this is that given Google's position in the market, and the separate nature of the Google apps from Android, they may not be legally able to require OEMs to buy into Android in order to have the privilege of buying into Google apps. This would then open up the possibility for other OEMs to buy the Google apps and NOT Android. Anything running off of AOSP or some fork of it (such as the Kindle) may be able to be bundled with the Google apps if they pay the piper.
Samsung can't (realistically) fork. They've agreed not to as part of their membership in the OHA. To fork they would have to leave Android compatibility behind. Meaning whatever OS they create cannot be Android compatible. Its not going to happen. Nor can Google get rid of Samsung as they have become the dominant player in Android. I think both companies would prefer the relationship were different, but neither is in a position to do anything about it.
AOSP is freely available for anyone, including Samsung, to take and fork. It's what Amazon did.
Unless you know of specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to, Samsung is free to do what they want.
If you do know of specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to, please post them, read them, then realize that Samsung is still free to do what they want - they'd just have to pay any penalties stipulated in the contract if they breach it.
Hint: You don't know of any specific contractual terms Google and Samsung have agreed to.
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. --Carl Sagan
And if you wish to be a "security researcher" you must never do any useful research, programming, or learning.
Exactly my point. Go isn't complex, it just has a deep tree that gets very wide at the middle.
Naively walking that tree based on the board's current score is computationally insane, but it's the approach most "Go is more complex than chess!!!" zealots and dumb algorithms take.
When you actually analyze a given board beyond simply scoring that board as-is, you can develop a much more accurate score for each branch. For a fixed amount of time/storage, this means your decisions as to what the best move is will be more accurate. The trick is identifying advantageous boards.
In Chess, we use the values of the different pieces to determine a board's score for the deepest move searched, with an end-game board being absolute.
In Go, you look at the perimeters of territories for the deepest move searched.
Saying Go is complex because some people employ a naive algorithm is like saying calculating Fibonacci numbers is complex because some people use a recursive algorithm to calculate it instead of a simple loop.
How impressive that you can know that without having tried. How do I know you haven't tried it? Because it's totally wrong...
Please tell me which of those facts is wrong, and explain why.
Remember to show your work.
This is perfectly ordinary game-theory terminology.
Most wouldn't even call it jargon; it's quite cromulent.
It may be a ""first-player wins" game", but it's not a "first-player win".
I was lucky enough to have a lecturer at university who was actively working on solving Go. Professor Wilfred Hodges at QMW, University of London.
It was his talk about the complexity of the game of Go on my induction day that convinced me to go to that university, and I was able to have him as a course lecturer for certain related courses later on (graph theory).
He is a typical, mad-haired, Einsteinian-looking sandals-in-winter professor, and he gave a marvellous intro to Go, complexity and the work he was doing.
All everyone else took away was that he showed photos of himself at a Go convention (on 35mm film). But I thought it was brilliant, and it made me teach myself Go.
I hope he's still working on it. Judging by the website I've found for him, he's busy with a LOT of other areas of mathematics than Game Theory, though.
But I'll never forget the mental "Woah" I got when he explained how much more complicated 19x19 Go was than Chess, even though the rules are vastly simpler.
Apparently there is no decent Go computer player in the world that can beat more than an average Go human player.
Go isn't complex. Go is very simple. It's just large. Go is a perimeter game and is really no more complex than Othello. A simple neural net (I hate that fucking term) algorithm trained against average Go-playing humans will end up being average at playing Go. The people who are fascinated by Go's "complexity" are only trying to solve it in bulk with traditional alpha-beta minimax schemes. Such approaches are not well-suited to Go because the score of any given board means very little since it can be completely flipped in a few moves. A game like Chess, on the other hand, is somewhat suited to alpha-beta minimax because pieces are removed as the game goes on and we can weight the pieces. A king is the end-game, a queen is always more important than a bishop, almost always more important than a rook or pawn, usually more important than a knight, etc.
Better better idea: Don't live in New York.
Not only will you avoid the rats, but you'll also avoid the pretentious shits and you'll be able to get a decent slice of pizza for once.
The real question is: why do browser still allow windows to pop under? There's literally no legitimate use for it.
Site satisfaction surveys typically pop under so that when you close the main window you see the site satisfaction survey, it refreshes, and asks you shit about your visit.
Same for a ton of those "eLearning" shits that make you sit through a video, click through pages of shit you're pretending to read, etc. while timing you, tracking your clicks and progress, etc. Often used for employer-mandated training sessions on shit like how not to rape people at work or how to properly walk so you don't trip and sue.
If that were false, then why do people end up congregating in that way? Your just expressing an opinion. Some hate crowds some don't. You obviously don't.
Because most people are incapable of providing for themselves and so cluster around established infrastructure for food, water, shelter, power, clothing, transportation, etc. Said infrastructure is expensive - time, money, space, labor, materials, etc. - so it makes sense for the infrastructure to be clustered. The dependent people follow the infrastructure.
Independent people are more likely to live away from the masses, choose property with other criteria as a priority (view, weather, etc.) This is why the wealthy live in gated communities, try to prevent the public from accessing the beach in front of their house, live in the hills outside the cities, etc. They want to get away from the masses of poor, stupid, ugly, dirty, sick, etc. people. This is why royalty and titled people built castles and moats. It's why artists live cloistered lives. It's why the religious figures, the rabbis, the wise men, the medicine men, etc. had a space to themselves and people trekked to them for guidance and assistance.
This has been true for all of human history. The intelligent seek to shed the husk of ineptitude that is the rest of humanity. Of course, this doesn't mean some dumb people don't do the same thing, or that everyone with the means to live on a private island is intelligent (often they're merely benefiting from the legacy of someone who was). But the general drive of the intelligent is separation, privacy, and introspection. Extroversion is the noise of the insipid masses. A desire to cluster in numbers is the behavior of prey animals. Desire for attention is a sign of insecurity.
And I fucking hate crowds.
False -smart people don't believe all smart people do the same thing.
False. Intelligent people know that on the whole, human behavior is very predictable and homogeneous. Only idiots believe they're special snowflakes.