@dr_analog's banner p



1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 14:10:31 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 583



1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 14:10:31 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 583

Verified Email

I'm aware of Botox and collagen implants, but what on Earth is this stuff about?

His eyes were half-shut or open very wide. They appeared darker than they once had, his pupils dilated. He did not blink at regular intervals.

sex pest who was showering with his daughter according to her diary...


All good points, though it certainly seemed like Trump couldn't get his agenda done. He was good at talking politics but not really at the details of enacting policy. Of course, not wanting your President to do anything is a valid desire I think.

OTOH, though, Biden has gotten a lot of important agenda items done.

Well, I think you vote for the person and his orbit of family, friends and trusted advisors. That's kind of sort of like a vote in your government.

I actually think it is the opposite. President is there to lead and communicate policies of his team toward the public. If his staff members are the writers, president is the actor or comedian delivering the lines and bits. Presidents are supposed to debate, they represent their administration while giving State of the Union, they should represent the state behind closed doors meetings with other world leaders, they should inspire in times of need and be the face of the administration and above all else they should provide legitimacy for the government they represent as they are the person that people get to vote as opposed to their PR managers or analysts.

That's a fair point. If Biden was a much better orator and could speak non-stop about Israel, Ukraine, and opposing China and denying them semiconductors, he might be able to better persuade the public about the importance of these causes. Strategists have expressed regular frustration that the economic indicators are really good under Biden's administration but the public hasn't heard any messaging about this.

Although his State of the Union performance looked good, didn't it? I mean, he didn't seem like a tired corpse.

This take that person of POTUS is just unimportant position and that a corpse remotely controlled by unnamed staffers could do as good of a job, and that people really should just vote opaque party machinery and believe in the best is absolutely surreal to me. If the politicians can no longer be bothered to even pretend that they care, the legitimacy of the power is gone. It is incredibly dangerous direction imho.

I don't think he's a corpse with no agency. I think he still has judgment and isn't insane and can act like a reasonable person that's aligned with Americans. It seems like he tires easily and is probably tedious to keep up with and you have you have to remind him to stop going off on tangents. Doesn't look good, and we deserve better, but I don't think it means Trump is therefore the answer.

I'm going to be contrarian and say I thought Biden's debate performance was horrifying but I think it's still fine to run him if voters were like me and not like normal people.

I realize he looks terrible but is the President not being in peak fitness actually that important? Biden doesn't strike me as insane, or malevolent, or like he's so completely out of it that he'll launch nukes because he mistook the big red button for the toilet handle.

I'm probably too cynical but I think the President's job is probably a lot like a doctor's job in a hospital: the nurses all know more or less what the patient needs but they need the MD to make decisions. Sure you'd like a brilliant doctor like House for the truly difficult problems but any doctor that just did what the nurses told him to would probably make for an okay hospital. Biden probably spends his days picking from a set of reasonable proposals offered by his handlers. If he makes too many batshit decisions in a row too often he'll eventually get replaced.

I also don't think Trump has any edge on the mental side that would make up for the fact that he's him. Also his edge isn't great anyway, he's also incoherent, except he presents with speed freak energy. I wouldn't expect his judgment to be any better and he could just as likely start sundowning any day now as well.

It'd be sweet if they ran a Biden that was 20 years younger, but I still think he's better than Trump.

I agree with the SCOTUS majority that this is pretty weak 8th amendment claim but to get to the direct question:

...or leave

leave to where?

what if your county is so big you can't walk out of it in one day and pass out on the road and thusly get busted for sleeping in public? what if everywhere in every direction has criminalized sleeping in public?

you eventually have no choice but to go to jail, yes?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a class of people exploiting the law who prefer to be fulltime druggists living in a tents in the park despite homeless shelters having space for them, but am slightly horrified that you could end up in a situation where if you lose enough resources you have no choice but to stay awake until you sort your shit out or you go to jail.

The guy on the right who looks like a monk knows what the intended expected midwit answer is though.

They refuse to interpret it based on the author's portrayal and instead substitute their own. As a human living in 2024, I find the thought of making beads, baskets, hunting and growing corn dull and dreary and who are you to say it's not? That's the best fit. Final answer. As you can see I have now proven the question is dumb and we are unfairly giving kids low marks.

Wow. That sounds incredibly devastating.

Wait what. How does an EMP ruin the wiring in a house?

Hmm, if it were me, I would be worried that this scenario question would get leaked online. But perhaps your company isn't famous enough that people collect interview questions on forums.

It's still a disappointing result, don't get me wrong, but my prior was pretty low for MPs.

I'm in a pickle. I don't know what my comment implies. On first reading I'm defending the intelligence of Illinois 8th graders. They are not stupid, the question is bad. On second reading I'm trashing a question, chosen by a clever person, to illustrate a point. That is to say, chosen by a person who is clever compared to other people. But the question is still trash, so even "clever" people are smug and stupid and we as a species are ultra-doomed :-(

I think your comment says you are uneasy about questions that require so much human interpretation and you are, rightfully, distrustful of authorities who demand a precise answer.

They lived by hunting and by growing corn and squash.

In your reply, you focused on hunting but what about "growing corn and squash"?

Busy? Yes. But exciting? In what galaxy could you say growing corn and squash is exciting? That's a resounding no, to me. That significantly downgrades B as an answer, IMO.

What this is though, is productive. (We even call it "produce" in stores)

Some of these things sound dull or dreary, but I'm just not seeing how you can call doing all of these things dull and dreary. Beautiful pottery? Fine sashes? Turquoise jewelry? The picture the author is painting does not really communicate dull and dreary to me. I can see how they might be painstaking and hard, but they're still describing fashionable and pretty things. "Dull" is very much downgraded as a choice to me. What about hunting? Really hard to think dull and dreary here as well.

What all of these things have in best common is they involve producing. Fine jewelry, container chotchkas, or hunting or growing food to eat.

You are productive when you pour a sack of polyethylene pellets into the hopper of your injection molding machine and produce a thousand water bottles an hour. You are unproductive when you spend a week or two weaving a basket so tightly that it just about holds water.

Sure, but "they continued this way until 1200 AD". That should put you in an old timey frame of reference. I don't know much about the time before 1200 AD but I bet baskets that hold water would be hella clutch.

Then again, I don't think that solving this sort of complex problem with a timer over your head is empathetic or reasonable. In reality, when I come across a system constraint I have to engineer around, I at least have hours (if not days). My gut feeling was that many people failed because of the pressure and nerve aspect as opposed to the ability to solve the problem in a reasonable timeframe.

I've been doing hiring off and on for about 20 years so I feel confident offering two quick thoughts.

  1. Have you done mock interviews with the rest of the team to try these questions out? How do your own people do?

  2. Is failing to complete the problem in time that big a deal? In general I find the journey of problem solving more important than reaching the end in the allotted time. You usually know after an hour if someone is too much of a dick to work with, or if they could finish if you gave them another 15 minutes. OTOH, if you and the candidate spend an entire hour struggling with what you thought would take ten minutes, that's probably bad.

We have 4 children. They're all smart, but my middle son has tested as > 99.9% in math and taught himself to read somewhere between ages 3 and 4. Despite being in one of the more affluent districts in our state in the Northeast there are no services for gifted children. As long as children are performing at grade level asking for more academic rigor is met with shrugs. This is partially why we're homeschooling now.

One of my kids is like this. He taught himself to read at age 5 and he's about 3 grades ahead in math ability. He's supposed to start first grade in the fall but we're homeschooling him instead because, among other things, the public schools have no resources for gifted kids. We're in the PNW and not the Northeast. I'd try a private school here but they're all either religious or some woo woo hippie shit.

(I also think he'd go through a misanthrope period if he was forced to hang out with kids that much slower than him, like I did)

... switch out the variable names? E.g. "Every time the server reboots, it has to pull down a 450MB file over a 30MBPS connection before it can start serving requests. The server drops any requests that come in before it finishes booting. Assuming the system gets 3 requests per second, how many requests are dropped every time the server reboots?"

Okay I needed to write this one down, but only because you said megabits.

I can't really say. I've changed industries a few times the last 20 years. It certainly seems like more people are replying to job openings now. Like hundreds at a time. 2 years ago it would be tens. I don't have a read yet if the quality is higher though. E.g. a lot of these numbers could be blown up from layoffs, and the laid off people are probably not the cream of the crop.

How many UK politicians do you think can get the right answer? 52%, sample size of 101

That's actually so much better than I was expecting. Whew.

But broadly you're right. Talent is rarest resource in the universe and you can't make people smarter. But you only need one Newton or Haber to advance the frontier.

The frontier advancement is obviously important stuff, but still, having worked in orgs full of, say, approx 140+ IQ people and orgs that must be approx 115 IQ people, I can tell you the former is insanely productive and refreshing and the latter is almost oppressive and gets mired in stupid shit. I can't help but extrapolate to all of society and think how much harder better faster stronger the rest of the world would be if we brought the average up.

That suggests one approach might be to try to get a large group of IQ>130 people together in one location for the purposes of advancing the state of knowledge of the universe, maybe in a small city that is specifically focused on supporting those people. Since it's a city dedicated to the study of the universe, I propose calling it a "universe city".

Sounds sexy af.

How many motteizeans played sports?

Awhile ago there was a thread here, or perhaps on /r/themotte, where a parent observed that their smart kids were a lot more prosocial and did a lot more sportsy things than they did when they were kids and other parents chimed in and observed this as well. Just all around sports, social activity, video games and also good grades and deep nerd shit in their cohorts.

(I pretty much suck at sports myself though)

If you're a smart person, how do you find this work that needs doing? I consider myself a smart person. I inevitably find myself working for companies where I do tons of work that it only a really smart person could do, but that work is ultimately pretty meaningless and has little impact on society.


Give me something meaningful to do, where I really can make an impact. I'd love to do it. But everyone tells you they're working on meaningful stuff, and it always ends up being the same operational crap.

Your first instinct is probably to run screaming from these meaningful environments because, besides the principal investigators or chief scientist being big swinging dicks and fairly competent most of the team is mid, the bureaucracy is soul crushing, or both.

Aside from academic labs or pharma departments doing meaningful work, there are many startups out there that have the same form. Started by a few scientists writing Python, they got funded, and now they're trying to scale their operation and it's a fucking nightmare between bad platforms and bad dependency management and spaghetti code bases and otherwise mid dev teams. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to come in and shine it up while also fighting intense resistance to change. Also they're paying low six figures at best and there's 10+ meetings a week.

A few more OOMs of smart people would help a lot.


and sometimes athletically talented at least as much as they want them to be smart

A very large fraction of public is in denial of genes having substantial effect on intelligence with few exceptions.

Interestingly, another point Murray makes in Real Education is that IQ and other talents appear correlated. Despite the dumb football player stereotype, or the nerd who trips over their own feet stereotype, in the aggregate people with high athletic skill also have higher IQs.