SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
You must adjust high African scores down to increase their accuracy, and you must adjust low European scores up.
I've no education in statistics, but isn't this double counting? The average score for Africans is calculated including the high-achievers and low-achievers. If Africans score an average of say 85, and you then apply a penalty to the high achievers, by doing so you move the average down below 85, in which case a stronger penalty must be applied to future tests and so on, right?. You would improve the average accuracy of any individual test, but you'd skew the whole. I guess it's probably resolvable by keeping nominal and adjusted scores separate.
But really, how much of a concern is the precise accuracy here anyway? An IQ test takes what, an hour? Make people take one every year, or every time they apply for a job, or whatever. If the collective accuracy of 10+ IQ tests isn't good enough for society, then God knows how we've made it this long.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Don't have any genetic tests, but I have unusually large amounts of exposure to both the Sioux and the Navajo reservations through work.
Pure-blood natives are rare, but they do exist. Somewhere around 1/100 maybe. They're usually easy to spot in that they speak very differently (not sure how to describe this, it's like they struggle with making certain sounds and so replace them with similar but different sounds) and look quite different (similar to the Aboriginal examples above)
Additionally, they're all quite old, and will be gone within a few decades. None I've known were married to a pure native.
Unlike with whites, no one I've met seems to care about this racial mixing. Most see it as a cultural identity more than a blood identity (though non-zero blood relation is typically a requirement, and some have stricter rules)
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
With sufficiently good AI art, it won't be possible to tell the difference. If nothing else, it craters the value for anyone who would create the real deal for money. People would still exchange verifiably older images sure, but crushing the creation of new stuff is the goal.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Testing, testing, testing. Unless it's too late, that is?
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Is there any school of legal interpretation that is explicitly outcome-blind? It's really the only thing I want in a judge, but none of the main schools seem to believe in it.
By outcome-blind I specifically mean that there is no sense that a ruling should be decided differently just because the 'correct' legal reading would result in something absurd or horrible. It seems like there's always this tendency to say "but if we rule the way that is obviously correct, it causes problems xyz and we can't have that" even among textualists and literalists.
I'm thinking of the "An AR-15 is not technically a gun" kind of ruling, or the "EPA gets to regulate every puddle" kind of ruling, or any of the various "such a precedent would eliminate most of the executive branch" kind of rulings. Though I can't link specific examples as I'm in a hurry and on my phone.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
which is absolutely howl-worthy when you consider how convenient it was that there were clear and obvious miracles right up till the point we could properly document and examine them.
Well yes, because if they're not documentable, they don't eliminate the need for faith. If they are, then they would, so they don't happen.
I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but this is just a terrible point. It's countered by the very argument it's trying to address.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Admittedly it's been years since my experience with it, but I don't recall that being an option at the time. Could've just missed it though. Thank you for mentioning it, it'll likely help me out in the future.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Good to know, and I'll take your word for it over random-poster-on-other-forum.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Now unlike the above, this is merely "something I read somewhere at some point" and not official, but:
I've read that it's worse than that. They've frequently messed around with search function, and how they evaluate the changes is how many searches a user makes. I.e, if you type in a search, immediately find what you need, and leave Google, that's bad, while you search 4 or 5 times to get Google to finally show what you wanted, that's good.
The A/B testing is specifically trying to make the experience worse for users.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I’ll continue following the law, but to place the onus of “don’t be suspicious” while following the law onto the citizenry is exactly the sort of infringement on rights that I’m talking about. The state has no right to arrest citizens for doing things that aren’t illegal, even if they look bad. If staring through a wall is arrestable, make it a crime.
There’s so much low hanging fruit for police to deal with it’s absurd that this should even be an issue. This was in a major city where I saw shoplifting on a daily basis! A car in front of me got shot up in a drive-by shooting! Entire sections of the city were defacto no-go zones! The fact they took time to arrest me, at the time college student working two jobs, was absurd.
I live my life in an upstanding manner and do not involve myself in situations that could lead to me being suspected of criminal activity.
Sounds terrible. I’ve been ticketed for things as simple as picking up a rock in the wrong jurisdiction. I can’t imagine how little you must do for this to be possible.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
short of being a person who lacks good judgment?
This is most people in stressful situations.
taking a plea deal strikes me as a very poor choice.
Depends on the details. For example, I once took a deal to have something I didn’t do negotiated down to a fine. If I had been found guilty in court, 1/2 year in prison was the minimum. This seems to me like demanding money with the threat of prison if I exercise my rights.
Even if I had been found innocent, I likely would have been jailed for an unspecified amount of time, which would have been a larger hassle, and more costly, than the fine anyway.
Additionally, things which are a poor choice but alleviating in-the-moment stressors basically make up half the economy, and most people partake in them. The government should not be participating in such predatory behavior against its own citizens.
there’s no murky questions of intent, evidence that could be interpreted either way, etc.
This describes effectively 0 cases. If someone actually is totally innocent of the crimes in question. Any situation where you don’t have video evidence of you being somewhere other than the crime scene comes down to he-said-she-said, but one of you is a cop.
For example, in my trespassing case: - I was found on the sidewalk adjacent to the property I was supposedly trespassing on (I was going for a walk for no particular reason, far from my home)
- I had been seen peering through the slots in the walls surrounding the property (it was a cool building and I am a curious soul).
- A police officer claimed to see me climb the wall. (Honestly no idea where this came from)
- There were scrapes on my arms/pants that looked like they were from climbing walls of that material. (They were, I regularly climbed over a wall of that same material that sat between my apartment and my apartment complexes pool/grill area so I didn’t have to walk around)
All this in a case where I was 100% factually innocent. The fact there even was a camera on the building is what saved me, or else I might have actually ended up in prison. This isn’t the only instance either. There have been at least 4 times in my relatively short life that I have been falsely accused by police, and one of those led to an arrest. I’m fairly good at navigating those situations, but there are many who I’m sure would fair worse
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
That's perfectly reasonable from an individual perspective. I suppose my concern is more with the "layabout poet son of a hedge fund manager" who ends up being handed a sinecure sort of job, or worse, one of actual importance. If that person gets paid $200,000 a year to be worthless, they have already had a worse impact on society than almost any petty criminal. The impact is double if their lineage somehow gets them into a position they're less-than-capable in.
I am much more okay with garbage humans living garbage lives than with mediocre ones rising above their deserved station unfairly, if only because I believe that "who sits at the top" has immense downstream effects on basically everything.
SophisticatedHillbilly
4mo ago
For this reason, conscription is ironically good because it allows meatgrinder-wars that eliminate the populations of “nations that don’t deserve to survive.” If we do this enough we might end up with some deserving nations coming up.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Currently that is the case, and my only response is "Yes, and if Conservatives cared enough they'd be stealing our money to fund pet causes too."
But it wasn't always true. The early progressive movements were largely funded by progressives, progressive sympathizers, and donations by those who supported the associated causes. Conservatives could do the same, but they don't. An expected counterpoint would be the funds seized from the trucker protest but 1. That's not America, and 2. You have to actually put money towards building power structures (like the Federalist Society), not just in response to a single politically hot event.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability"
I think it does currently in some circles, but generally uses a more all-encompassing definition of merit. The 120 IQ guy who can stay focused and always be on time has more merit than the 130 IQ guy who never shows up or gets anything done. The 100 IQ guy with masterful social charisma has more merit than the 105 IQ guy with anger issues. IQ is a big factor, but not the only one.
In this way, I think merit usually just means "tendency to produce value" in whatever way the institution produces value. Attractiveness for the porn stars, charisma for the salesmen etc. High IQ correlates with all other forms of merit yes, but not extremely strongly so, especially within the range 90% of people fall into. The average used car salesman is a whole lot more charismatic than the average programmer, while the programmer is much smarter.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Sometimes men and women behave the same, instead of differently - what then?
Now this is an honest question and not meant to be snarky: When?
I just genuinely cannot think of a single situation in which men and women behave the same. Not one. Not when studying in school, not when walking to the bathroom, not when sitting down for lunch, not when speaking in a business meeting. Maybe I'm just not thinking broadly enough?
Currently though, I'm liable to think the proper heuristic is "men and women literally never behave the same in any situation ever, and if anyone says they do they're either smoothing over differences or autistic." If there are some weird exceptions then those seem to fall more under the "exception that proves the rule" than anything else.
This doesn't give unlimited explanatory power, but it does require every single generalization about people to be split into two more specific generalizations, which I feel will cleave reality much closer to the joints.
SophisticatedHillbilly
4d ago
Is it safe in the two senses of:
-
Doesn’t cause any appreciable loss of strength, at least not beyond what losing that amount of weight would normally do via not eating (exercise held constant)
-
One can stop taking it without any negative consequences beyond just the loss of the benefits?
I’m interested in taking it but haven’t done a deep-dive into the subject yet. Any resources you’d recommend?
SophisticatedHillbilly
28d ago
if a model was right, you wouldn't give up and call it merely useful.
This is only true if a correct model is useful, which is certainly not always true. Even further: the most correct model isn’t necessarily the most useful model even when it is useful.
If I remember correctly evolutionary simulations consistently show a fully accurate perception of the world is generally actively harmful even when there’s no associated resource cost. Autistic analyzers often have more accurate models of social dynamics but do worse at socializing. Blind optimism, undeserved confidence unfounded worries etc are all extremely useful, and moving to a more accurate view is less useful.
It’s possible to have wrong and useless models of course, but that’s the point of the adage.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
I’ve heard from multiple people and personally seen one example where the following is true:
It’s basically just overly low risk tolerance around food safety, built in on an evolutionary level. The solution is having the whole family eat the same thing repeatedly (for like a week straight) and nothing else. That food will then be added to their ‘safe food’ registry and they’ll be fine with it forever. Rinse and repeat with each food.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
What are they, if you don’t mind sharing?
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
In that same vein: determine which presidential+congressional ballot is more likely to be split and vote for them. Seems like R president and D Senator? Perfect. Hate D president but think R senator can win? Vote for them. And so on.
SophisticatedHillbilly
11mo ago
Yeah the beauty of modern drone weapons is that pretty much any electronics hobbyist has more than enough skill and money to build and fly them. State-level weapons at individual-level prices.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Isn't this point basically just "yes you should be able to have contrarian views, but only when they're completely ignorable and useless." If the Opposition can't actually do anything, then there's really no point in having them. I understand if you just think the Anti-AI position is dumb, but your argument seems like a general argument against opposition.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
And Gold was slapped down pretty hard in the 60-70s, and God was dead by the 90's. That leaves conquest, which we've all decided is illegal for whatever reason. We need a new combo, and "Cash, Grass, and Ass" doesn't seem to be cutting it.
True, and I think conservatives are generally outclassed. On this we agree entirely.
More options
Context Copy link