Yep, and there are like 2 dozen python wikis where no one would mind a write-up, and links. Sometimes things just aren't really encyclopedia topics. And that's fine.
Wikipedia, in spite of all odds, somehow manages to hold onto a tiny reputation for informational quality. Part of that is not having more information than the users can reliably fact-check. And I've never held it against wikipedia if I look something up and it just doesn't have an article. I fall back to the whole rest of the internet right away.
Wikipedia has rules. While those rules exist for good reasons, by nature of being rules they are most easily navigated by bureaucratically minded, officious mindset.
People have this false mindset where wikipedia, by virtue of their "anyone can edit" policy is an infinite bastion of free expression. When really, it's just a whole lot of people disagreeing and squabbling and working and editing to make and upkeep an encyclopedia.
At some point there will be an article on Wikipedia, that only meets Wikipedia's notability requirements due to media spillover complaining about the notability requirements.
That's not what quantum tunneling is. Tunneling has to do with the phase-state of particles, and how it implicates their ability to cross force barriers that should reverse them under classical understanding.
It's a bit like if your car blinked into and out of existence every couple seconds, you could sometimes drive through a brick wall.
Because you only have to mathematically prove the model, then you can run arbitrarily complex pragmatic experiments on it. Rather than proving the arbitrarily complex thing you're testing.
Eh, it's the kinda thing any physics department at a doctorate granting university would have. As opposed to a cyclotron, or other sorts of high-energy physics tools.
It's like how zero gravity isn't possible on earth, but if you take a plane, and fly it in a parabolic curve matching G, the inside operates a lot like zero gravity.
This is like that, but for arbitrarily curved space-time, instead of zero G.
can it have life? We know life on earth adapted to survive on sulfur vents, which means sunlight based energy isn't necessary for life to continue.
But what about abiogenesis? Miller-Urey showed us that lightning was a very important component in amino acids first appearing. Is there a tidal or geothermal way to cause the same thing?
I'm pretty interested in the possibility of liquid water alone being enough.
You seem to think I'm asserting something more complex than I was. Fear response isn't the same as cowardice. There have even been studies establishing exactly that point. It's essentially just a measure of the connectedness of the amygdala to the rest of the brain.
Here's my argument: experiments that depend on measuring problem solving and it's interaction with the brain have never really been better from smarter creatures. What's most useful is behavioral consistency. Between members of the species, and with one individual's performance. The more predictable the baseline is, the more useful results you can extract from fewer tests against your control group.
Sure some thins are too complicated to hope to model so simplistically, like cultural learning, empathy, and most of the other things we use primate models for.
No, the concern of Piketty, at least the main one is that our current system causes the return on capital investment to be proportionally greater than the growth of the economy, expanding the percentage of the economy that goes to people who don't work. This is extremely problematic in a culture that socially equates work with success.
Literally impossible. Even if you calibrated the scale to the worldwide average instead of the national average, the US population couldn't fit inside the 135+(2.3 standard deviations) arm of the IQ scale for 7 billion people.
(Also 65 on our current scale is low enough to be considered mentally disabled)
It's the result of a lot of things, really. Income inequality was the result of unchecked feudalism, unchecked mercantilism, unchecked slavery, unchecked command economies, and even a lot of "traditional" economies.
Unfortunately, income equality is not a natural state of societies. It can be a goal for a system, but even that's not a guarantee.
There only idea that matters is the core thesis that r>g.
Everything else comes down to framing that. And Gates' consumption tax idea kinda does the opposite of addressing that. It's regressive as hell to tax the people who need things more than those who can just sit on their money and let it grow. You buy the land, and eat marginal gains on laborer/robot creation. And those laborers are going to lose out since their own budget is mostly going to things that are consumption taxed, leaving them with very little to invest in their own capital.
Every long-term 21st century economic policy needs to look at r>g and find a healthy stabilization point where r=g that allows free flow from labor to investor and back and work towards it.
There's tons of information on the adult observation. I just can't find the one that links it back to childhood. Sorry. I do have this one that says that the traits they're measuring do go back to childhood, which is still not the source I'm remembering, which actually tested infants and waited years for the final test of political stance. I just can't do much better.
I knew someone would ask. All the sources I do have have links that are now broken to the studies(STOP REDESIGNING YOUR WEBSITES, YOU JERKS). Which is annoying.
I've tried searching google scholar on the various things I'm certain the study's properties: they measured galvanic skin response, eye movement, and used control groups with no threatening images, and evolutionary fears for the test group(spiders, snakes, large predators).
Considering how the IQ is calibrated, and "genius" is a set number of of standard deviations on that scale, no, there wouldn't be.
But the argument that you're trying to make, that there'd be more people capable of more impressive intellectual achievements, is a bit like predicting it'll rain sometime in the future. The "standing on the shoulders of giants" principle will see to it being true.
Past about IQ 130, further increases in IQ don't predict much about your life outcomes, but up to that point, it's a pretty good indicator of your chances of ending up in a higher economic class than your parents, lifespan, and educational achievement.
To treat a single predictor as an end-all be-all is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot for any sort of policy system, and we wouldn't want our governments(or really anyone with power over others) making simplistic choices based on it, but that isn't the same as not having a meaningful difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, and there are like 2 dozen python wikis where no one would mind a write-up, and links. Sometimes things just aren't really encyclopedia topics. And that's fine.
Wikipedia, in spite of all odds, somehow manages to hold onto a tiny reputation for informational quality. Part of that is not having more information than the users can reliably fact-check. And I've never held it against wikipedia if I look something up and it just doesn't have an article. I fall back to the whole rest of the internet right away.
Wikipedia has rules. While those rules exist for good reasons, by nature of being rules they are most easily navigated by bureaucratically minded, officious mindset.
People have this false mindset where wikipedia, by virtue of their "anyone can edit" policy is an infinite bastion of free expression. When really, it's just a whole lot of people disagreeing and squabbling and working and editing to make and upkeep an encyclopedia.
At some point there will be an article on Wikipedia, that only meets Wikipedia's notability requirements due to media spillover complaining about the notability requirements.
I've calculated it's precisely the day after you die, which is also when immortality is invented. Tough break, duder.
Argh, it's like I've been sucked into Star Trek, and everyone just uses science terms for whatever, as if they're all related.
No. Not the zero point field. Not at all.
That's not what quantum tunneling is. Tunneling has to do with the phase-state of particles, and how it implicates their ability to cross force barriers that should reverse them under classical understanding.
It's a bit like if your car blinked into and out of existence every couple seconds, you could sometimes drive through a brick wall.
Because you only have to mathematically prove the model, then you can run arbitrarily complex pragmatic experiments on it. Rather than proving the arbitrarily complex thing you're testing.
Eh, it's the kinda thing any physics department at a doctorate granting university would have. As opposed to a cyclotron, or other sorts of high-energy physics tools.
It's not meant to be brain hurting territory.
It's like how zero gravity isn't possible on earth, but if you take a plane, and fly it in a parabolic curve matching G, the inside operates a lot like zero gravity.
This is like that, but for arbitrarily curved space-time, instead of zero G.
I'm pretty sure I like payroll to deliver every 2 weeks.
can it have life? We know life on earth adapted to survive on sulfur vents, which means sunlight based energy isn't necessary for life to continue.
But what about abiogenesis? Miller-Urey showed us that lightning was a very important component in amino acids first appearing. Is there a tidal or geothermal way to cause the same thing?
I'm pretty interested in the possibility of liquid water alone being enough.
You seem to think I'm asserting something more complex than I was. Fear response isn't the same as cowardice. There have even been studies establishing exactly that point. It's essentially just a measure of the connectedness of the amygdala to the rest of the brain.
Feudalism was moderately frequently checked by peasant revolts.
Here's my argument: experiments that depend on measuring problem solving and it's interaction with the brain have never really been better from smarter creatures. What's most useful is behavioral consistency. Between members of the species, and with one individual's performance. The more predictable the baseline is, the more useful results you can extract from fewer tests against your control group.
Sure some thins are too complicated to hope to model so simplistically, like cultural learning, empathy, and most of the other things we use primate models for.
Equating observational science you don't like with long-outdated pseudoscience: a favorite tactic of actual psuedoscientists since forever.
Derp. No one has ever mitigated risk by investing in multiple things.
We're talking about the average of R versus the total of G. If you are diversified, that risk you're whining about is essentially zero.
No, the concern of Piketty, at least the main one is that our current system causes the return on capital investment to be proportionally greater than the growth of the economy, expanding the percentage of the economy that goes to people who don't work. This is extremely problematic in a culture that socially equates work with success.
nation full of 135 IQ people
Literally impossible. Even if you calibrated the scale to the worldwide average instead of the national average, the US population couldn't fit inside the 135+(2.3 standard deviations) arm of the IQ scale for 7 billion people.
(Also 65 on our current scale is low enough to be considered mentally disabled)
It's the result of a lot of things, really. Income inequality was the result of unchecked feudalism, unchecked mercantilism, unchecked slavery, unchecked command economies, and even a lot of "traditional" economies.
Unfortunately, income equality is not a natural state of societies. It can be a goal for a system, but even that's not a guarantee.
There only idea that matters is the core thesis that r>g.
Everything else comes down to framing that. And Gates' consumption tax idea kinda does the opposite of addressing that. It's regressive as hell to tax the people who need things more than those who can just sit on their money and let it grow. You buy the land, and eat marginal gains on laborer/robot creation. And those laborers are going to lose out since their own budget is mostly going to things that are consumption taxed, leaving them with very little to invest in their own capital.
Every long-term 21st century economic policy needs to look at r>g and find a healthy stabilization point where r=g that allows free flow from labor to investor and back and work towards it.
Multiple got redesigned, such that links lead to their homepage instead of the articles I was interested in.
An example
There's tons of information on the adult observation. I just can't find the one that links it back to childhood. Sorry. I do have this one that says that the traits they're measuring do go back to childhood, which is still not the source I'm remembering, which actually tested infants and waited years for the final test of political stance. I just can't do much better.
That's why we all have flashblock, right?
I knew someone would ask. All the sources I do have have links that are now broken to the studies(STOP REDESIGNING YOUR WEBSITES, YOU JERKS). Which is annoying.
I've tried searching google scholar on the various things I'm certain the study's properties: they measured galvanic skin response, eye movement, and used control groups with no threatening images, and evolutionary fears for the test group(spiders, snakes, large predators).
But the best I can do for an actual cite is a huffpo article buy a guy most would find to be pretty biased. Not exactly the level of quality I wanted
Here's one that establishes the same mechanisms in adults, but that's not what I promsied
Considering how the IQ is calibrated, and "genius" is a set number of of standard deviations on that scale, no, there wouldn't be.
But the argument that you're trying to make, that there'd be more people capable of more impressive intellectual achievements, is a bit like predicting it'll rain sometime in the future. The "standing on the shoulders of giants" principle will see to it being true.
Is the answer "it depends" unsatisfactory?
Past about IQ 130, further increases in IQ don't predict much about your life outcomes, but up to that point, it's a pretty good indicator of your chances of ending up in a higher economic class than your parents, lifespan, and educational achievement.
To treat a single predictor as an end-all be-all is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot for any sort of policy system, and we wouldn't want our governments(or really anyone with power over others) making simplistic choices based on it, but that isn't the same as not having a meaningful difference.