This is also going to derail politicians in a big way, especially if it sticks to facts. Politicians hate facts.
Politicians love facts. Just about any policy has been justified with science and facts: tariffs, free trade, eugenics, forced sterilizations, segregation, integration, low taxes, high taxes, etc. Oh, sure, sometimes politicians get facts wrong, but that's more sloppiness than inability to find facts that support them. The usual error is in the application of the facts, not the facts themselves.
The "AI debater" mainly seems to search for possibly relevant statements in a large library and then inject them into the debate. Throwing factoids at each other is clearly how debates happen these days take place and how many "decision makers" operate.
But that isn't how debates ought to take place. Debates should start with premises and mutually agreed facts and then reach conclusions via reason and logic.
I've lived in so-called 'socialist'** countries that hit #1 on some of these measures.
No OECD member is socialist. Socialists are totalitarian mass murderers, and I would thank you to stop referring to Western democracies that way.
but not so much when you only focus on 'like' nations
Yes: the US is about average among OECD nations, which is what you would expect for the biggest OECD member. (WIthout 10-20 million illegals and without Democrats f*cking up the lives of African Americans, the US would do even better.)
In any case, how does that support your view that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist"?
I assume that Google will be reluctant to fire productive workers
Google doesn't need to fire anybody; there is a lot of competition for skilled workers. Google has made it clear that they have racial and gender preferences in hiring and promotions, so if you're not a member of their preferred groups, the natural thing to do is to leave the company.
The US population is 62% white. Google's employee population is 53.1% white and new hires are 45.2% white. That seems like a pretty serious bias to me, but it's a private business and they can do what they want. What I don't understand is what "better outcome" they actually want to achieve. Dose Google want to become a "majority minority" company?
Most of these have higher standards of living and lower crime rates than the US. Cognitive dissonance much?
Why would I have "cognitive dissonance"? I can go live anywhere in Europe any time I want. Europe is great for rich folks and conservatives: lower taxes, less regulations, great real estate, government support for churches and healthcare, etc. I may buy a retirement home in Europe. I just happen to think that Europe is not as good as the US if you're young and want to succeed in life.
You just said the US was socialist because it spends the most public money on health. You can't have it both ways.
Where did I say that?
What I said is Try answering the question again: In what sense is the US "very rightwing and right extremist"?
Am I to understand you to say that you consider any country that isn't "socialist" to be "very rightwing and right extremist"?
My thesis is simply that "the US is NOT very rightwing and right extremist". I think the US and Western Europe are politically and economically pretty similar: they are highly developed democracies with massive social welfare systems, highly educated workers, low crime rates, and good social services.
He hasn't achieved a single objective that wasn't going to be achieved if he had not become president... he's just continuing the trends from the Obama era.
He lowered my taxes, he lowered my corporation's taxes, he appointed conservative justices, he's locking up illegal migrants, he's withdrawn from TPP and the Paris accords, he's repealed net neutrality and environmental regulations, and best of all, he's annoying the hell out of Europeans, socialists, and progressives. Are you saying those are just continuations of Obama's policies? Who knew!
And dopes like you are lapping it up because he's sufficiently racist to make you comfortable
Are you kidding? As an evil unfeeling capitalist one percenter, the only color I care about is green. As long as my workers polish my monocles quickly and cheaply, I couldn't care less what color their skin is. I do make it a point, however, to discriminate against socialists, fascists, and progressives, no matter how cheap or desperate you are: you people are evil.
Second, we know Trump has a high IQ because he tells us so.
You'd be amazed at all the things Trump tells you that aren't true yet still somehow help him achieve his objectives. It's almost like the guy knows something about marketing and branding!
Since he's considered by many to be the highest-IQ president ever, I assume this would have been an easy task for him.
Is there any actual evidence that Obama has unusually high IQ? I mean, he clearly was popular and successful, but that is rather different from high IQ.
This flies in the face of the facts. The best healthcare systems (ie the ones that deliver the most health to as much of the population as possible) are socialist.
The best healthcare systems in the world are in the US, Europe, Japan, and Singapore. None of those are "socialist". Some of them are nationalized, others are mixed, yet others are fully private. Most of them are far less redistributive than the US system. Even the nationalized health care systems in the advanced countries only manage to exist because they are financed by market economies and have private components. Socialist healthcare systems (Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc.) suck badly.
If it's simply a facade for diverting public money to your rich friends then it isn't. This is my point.
Socialists have been making that point for more than a century; it's bullshit. Socialism results in massive corruption, economic failure, dictatorships, and eventually mass murder, each and every time. Those consequences are clearly unintended, but they are inevitable.
And yes, I'm able to speak those languages almost natively (grew up multi-lingual).
You speak "Czech, Polish, Dutch, and German" "almost natively"? My, my, what a little achiever! And yet, you still mistakenly believe that those countries are socialist.
Money is a bunch of poker chips. If you hand out similar amounts to everyone, then everyone is happy. Socialism is great!
Print money. Borrow money. Money is just ultimately a social construct. A grand illusion which banksters tell us is real. Defaulting isn't a crime, it's a heroic act of telling the bankers to go shove it.
"Money is just a grand illusion, but income inequality is the worst thing evah!"
Unemployment? Czech, Polish, Dutch, and German rates are similar or lower than the US...
And how are your Czech, Polish, Dutch, or German language skills and cultural knowledge? Like a native? Because that's who you will be competing with.
France is about 2x higher, but skilled workers can still find jobs.
And what skills do you have? You're still hoping to get a low-cost degree in Europe, you don't want to work hard, and you'll be competing against millions of desperate Europeans who know their languages and cultures.
No it's claimed to be that not defined to be that. You can't simply define something to achive a near impossible task and pretend it actually does so.
Near impossible task? How about a century old statistical technique. Every reasonable IQ test contains g-loadings, and the only thing you can meaningfully compare between IQ tests is the g-factor.
One important thing about this study - it shows that there is not a strong genetic correlation with any of these findings.
No, it merely fails to find a strong genetic component; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are many genetic and non-environmental effects that they simply wouldn't have been able to measure in this study.
Education comes into play in the first two, and the third one is more about figuring it out as you go.
IQ is actually defined as the common component of mental performance that is independent of domain and education. There are IQ tests that are independent of education and culture, but such tests are lengthy, costly, and tedious. That's why mass testing uses simpler tests that are calibrated for particular populations and are dependent on education, age, and culture.
Your test is calibrated for Norwegian 18 year olds; a Norwegian 18 year old that has more education than average would score better on the test, but the fact that he has more education than average would also strongly correlate with a higher IQ. If you give the same test to a Norwegian 30 year old, the results would be meaningless.
IQ is pretty much fixed within the first few years of life, so "we" aren't getting dumber. Younger generations are less intelligent than older generations according to this research.
I want to work 35-40 hour weeks at a semi-governmental job, get my 4-5 weeks off mandated by law, spend time with family, live a bit. I don't want my work to be the focus of my entire life.
And you think that you, an inexperienced and unambitious American, are just going to stroll into Europe and get yourself a low cost education and then such a cozy little job while many millions of educated European youths are out of work?
Even if you could land such a job, Europe is a ticking demographic time bomb and migrants aren't going to solve the problem, so there is no money to finance those nice traditional benefits And Europe already has shifted massively to the right and towards a dismantling of its social welfare states over the last decade because Europeans have no choice.
Parents shouldn't have the right to ruin their kids' future by sending their kids to a school that doesn't educate them. Creationism isn't education, it's bullshit.
How does teaching creationism ruin anybody's future? Does teaching creationism in high school prevent people from becoming plumbers, accountants, or secretaries? What percentage of adults who were taught evolution in high school do you think can actually explain it correctly and get the time scales right?
What disastrous consequences of cohabitation?
Disastrous demographics and dysfunctional children.
Slashdot Mirror
And it no doubt censors content that Google management, their political cronies, or their specially trained AI disapprove of.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Indeed!
Woman: "How dare you argue for higher taxes? You don't pay taxes!"
Computer: "You talk too fast!"
Just like every high level debate on TV.
Politicians love facts. Just about any policy has been justified with science and facts: tariffs, free trade, eugenics, forced sterilizations, segregation, integration, low taxes, high taxes, etc. Oh, sure, sometimes politicians get facts wrong, but that's more sloppiness than inability to find facts that support them. The usual error is in the application of the facts, not the facts themselves.
The "AI debater" mainly seems to search for possibly relevant statements in a large library and then inject them into the debate. Throwing factoids at each other is clearly how debates happen these days take place and how many "decision makers" operate.
But that isn't how debates ought to take place. Debates should start with premises and mutually agreed facts and then reach conclusions via reason and logic.
No OECD member is socialist. Socialists are totalitarian mass murderers, and I would thank you to stop referring to Western democracies that way.
Yes: the US is about average among OECD nations, which is what you would expect for the biggest OECD member. (WIthout 10-20 million illegals and without Democrats f*cking up the lives of African Americans, the US would do even better.)
In any case, how does that support your view that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist"?
Google doesn't need to fire anybody; there is a lot of competition for skilled workers. Google has made it clear that they have racial and gender preferences in hiring and promotions, so if you're not a member of their preferred groups, the natural thing to do is to leave the company.
The US population is 62% white. Google's employee population is 53.1% white and new hires are 45.2% white. That seems like a pretty serious bias to me, but it's a private business and they can do what they want. What I don't understand is what "better outcome" they actually want to achieve. Dose Google want to become a "majority minority" company?
Why would I have "cognitive dissonance"? I can go live anywhere in Europe any time I want. Europe is great for rich folks and conservatives: lower taxes, less regulations, great real estate, government support for churches and healthcare, etc. I may buy a retirement home in Europe. I just happen to think that Europe is not as good as the US if you're young and want to succeed in life.
Where did I say that?
What I said is Try answering the question again: In what sense is the US "very rightwing and right extremist"?
Am I to understand you to say that you consider any country that isn't "socialist" to be "very rightwing and right extremist"?
My thesis is simply that "the US is NOT very rightwing and right extremist". I think the US and Western Europe are politically and economically pretty similar: they are highly developed democracies with massive social welfare systems, highly educated workers, low crime rates, and good social services.
He lowered my taxes, he lowered my corporation's taxes, he appointed conservative justices, he's locking up illegal migrants, he's withdrawn from TPP and the Paris accords, he's repealed net neutrality and environmental regulations, and best of all, he's annoying the hell out of Europeans, socialists, and progressives. Are you saying those are just continuations of Obama's policies? Who knew!
Are you kidding? As an evil unfeeling capitalist one percenter, the only color I care about is green. As long as my workers polish my monocles quickly and cheaply, I couldn't care less what color their skin is. I do make it a point, however, to discriminate against socialists, fascists, and progressives, no matter how cheap or desperate you are: you people are evil.
You'd be amazed at all the things Trump tells you that aren't true yet still somehow help him achieve his objectives. It's almost like the guy knows something about marketing and branding!
Is there any actual evidence that Obama has unusually high IQ? I mean, he clearly was popular and successful, but that is rather different from high IQ.
The best healthcare systems in the world are in the US, Europe, Japan, and Singapore. None of those are "socialist". Some of them are nationalized, others are mixed, yet others are fully private. Most of them are far less redistributive than the US system. Even the nationalized health care systems in the advanced countries only manage to exist because they are financed by market economies and have private components. Socialist healthcare systems (Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc.) suck badly.
Socialists have been making that point for more than a century; it's bullshit. Socialism results in massive corruption, economic failure, dictatorships, and eventually mass murder, each and every time. Those consequences are clearly unintended, but they are inevitable.
Continental educational systems have a lot in common; the UK is the odd man out.
Well, yes, and unlike the article, the headline was ambiguous and misleading, something that needs pointing out.
You speak "Czech, Polish, Dutch, and German" "almost natively"? My, my, what a little achiever! And yet, you still mistakenly believe that those countries are socialist.
Ah, yes, that has worked so well when it was tried.
Yeah: cost of living is higher and benefits are worse in Europe.
"Money is just a grand illusion, but income inequality is the worst thing evah!"
And how are your Czech, Polish, Dutch, or German language skills and cultural knowledge? Like a native? Because that's who you will be competing with.
And what skills do you have? You're still hoping to get a low-cost degree in Europe, you don't want to work hard, and you'll be competing against millions of desperate Europeans who know their languages and cultures.
Near impossible task? How about a century old statistical technique. Every reasonable IQ test contains g-loadings, and the only thing you can meaningfully compare between IQ tests is the g-factor.
No, it merely fails to find a strong genetic component; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are many genetic and non-environmental effects that they simply wouldn't have been able to measure in this study.
IQ is actually defined as the common component of mental performance that is independent of domain and education. There are IQ tests that are independent of education and culture, but such tests are lengthy, costly, and tedious. That's why mass testing uses simpler tests that are calibrated for particular populations and are dependent on education, age, and culture.
Your test is calibrated for Norwegian 18 year olds; a Norwegian 18 year old that has more education than average would score better on the test, but the fact that he has more education than average would also strongly correlate with a higher IQ. If you give the same test to a Norwegian 30 year old, the results would be meaningless.
IQ is pretty much fixed within the first few years of life, so "we" aren't getting dumber. Younger generations are less intelligent than older generations according to this research.
Read more carefully next time. I didn't say "Europe doesn't do X", I said "Europe doesn't usually do X."
And you think that you, an inexperienced and unambitious American, are just going to stroll into Europe and get yourself a low cost education and then such a cozy little job while many millions of educated European youths are out of work?
Even if you could land such a job, Europe is a ticking demographic time bomb and migrants aren't going to solve the problem, so there is no money to finance those nice traditional benefits And Europe already has shifted massively to the right and towards a dismantling of its social welfare states over the last decade because Europeans have no choice.
Good luck!
How does teaching creationism ruin anybody's future? Does teaching creationism in high school prevent people from becoming plumbers, accountants, or secretaries? What percentage of adults who were taught evolution in high school do you think can actually explain it correctly and get the time scales right?
Disastrous demographics and dysfunctional children.
If you are "lower middle class" in Europe, you're below the poverty line in the US.