skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, from a public policy perspective, the important question is what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible. The current environment, from prenatal care to availability, cost and quality of higher education is something that is created by public policy. It is certainly not anything given.
70% is actually on the low side of today’s results. Observed heritability is lower in early childhood (meaning the amount of variance in intelligence among children explained by genes is “only” 20%-50%, “only” in quotes because it’s still large amount, as far as phenotypical traits are concerned), but grows to 80%+ in adulthood, even higher than that if you correct for attenuation (i.e. measurement error, which will always push the heritability down), and consider g factor instead of IQ scores (which is how intelligence is usually operationalized). IQ has been found to be exceedingly good vehicle to study the notion of intelligence, as the (most replicated finding in psychology) existence of positive manifold (google it) and g factor means that all non-contrived ways of measuring what humans usually understand intelligence is, yield pretty much the same thing, especially once you perform factor analysis.

Here is an overview paper by one of the leading researchers in the field (and one of the most distinguished researchers in psychology at large) Robert Plomin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

Unlike the rest of psychology, psychometry as a field does not have any kind of replication problem: all major results have been replicated many, many times on many different data sets. You can go to Google Scholar and find probably hundreds of replications (keyword is “heritability of intelligence”). Here is for example one from Japan: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01067719 which finds heritability to be 50% among 12 year olds, here is one from Norway https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/On-the-quest... finding 70% among military recruits, you can go on and on.

> I also think we can only accept that we're born different, but human. If we should aspire to anything, it should be to make life good for every individual, taking their capacities into account, not to give everyone an academic degree.

Clearly, but if the society denies reality, the result is expansion of higher education among people who can’t benefit from it, bullshit degrees, student debt, and general misery.
"Narrative" makes it sound like there's nothing behind. The extreme cost of college - and living in general, rents/home ownership, etc - and the decreasing edge it gives to owners of degrees isn't a fabrication by any stretch.

It's easier to think people are being misled than to think people are taking different decisions because their reality is actually different.
I was continuing the example the OP gave. Calculus is just a placeholder for something that requires a particular level of intelligence.
In this day and age, it is easy to get the actual degree and be called a 'scientist'.

In these Internet days, it is even easier to claim you are a scientist when you are anonymous online, and make all sort of claims.
With the default firmware. Most mice with avago image sensors have a little 8080 CPU that you can load new code into to do whatever you like, including global positioning.
Saying "there is no essential difference between genetics and other causative factors" is arbitrarily different from saying "all is one, separateness is an illusion". That is, it differs in connotations and not in the essential content of the statement.

Which is exactly what you said, except that you chose to ignore that connotations conduct meaning, when you asked your rhetorical question. This is not e-prime, it is a plain old adverb answering the question "how?" like adverbs normally do.
I was a little hyperbolic in my original answer. In all honesty, I think it's probably best to continue research in this area. However, in the current state of the world I don't see how that research is especially beneficial. Every finding would have to be taken with such a massive grain of salt that I have a hard time imagining we would find practical applications for it.
The assumption is your environment is pretty similar to everyone else's environment, which means you don't die of hunger or get boiled in acid.

But you raise a very important point, and you're right: as far as I'm aware, latest evidence says that being malnourished as a child does significantly impact intelligence as it does height (stunting). Though I believe the last piece of work I read on it claimed the effect was smaller than previously believed. That was ~2 years ago.
Vote for what?

Two parties = lack of people, ideas to vote FOR.

There are no easy answers here.
I do think something similar is applicable - for any subject. I was/am a math teacher and what I've found is those who couldn't learn algebra often didn't understand the 'language' or have a good grasp of what math means (like what is a fraction, what does it represent in real life, etc). Taking time to go over these basic concepts with them vastly improved their mathematical abilities, and eventually most got to the point where they could easily do algebra.

I don't think the issue is necessarily that they're incapable, it's more that they don't have the necessary background intuition or knowledge. At least in the state i taught in, this is not surprising as elementary school teachers often dread math and fail their standardized teaching test math portion several times sometimes. It's the blind leading the blind.

I've also noticed it in reading, when they have teachers who aren't readers themselves trying to teach it to them.
First, can the entire political spectrum learn what "environmentally vs. genetically determined" actually means?
> you can still fundamentally never leave Ohio.

God forbid. Think of all the experiences you and your family will miss out on!

Lately all I want is to get as far away from people as possible. The internet has negated every advantage of these regions and of money broadly. You cannot buy a nuclear family.
CDE exists, is open source and has had commits only a month ago:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
https://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/activity/
https://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/code/ci/master/log/
Why shouldn't intelligence be inherited while other traits are? It makes little sense to me, especially because intelligence is so important for survival.
I don't understand why we should let some countries get away with horrible things just because they call themselves democracy...
That doesn’t mean “all theories are eventually correct”.
Would COVID being airborne mean that one should wear an N95 mask rather than just surgical masks? Analogous to when doctors perform procedures on patients that may produce aerosols?
> Why are progressive think tanks not totally on board with this already?!

Possibly because they'd have to completely rewrite their ideological framework. Right now, it's based on active influences (racism, sexism, discrimination against the poor), and with genetics playing a (larger) role, it would shift to more passive influences (fewer women are in tech because they don't care as much for tech as men, not because they're oppressed) that you can't change via revolution + labor camps.
That's right, the Realtek RTL8367RB-VB-CG is an ethernet switch chip, and so it certainly will allow for full speed switching, entirely internally.

It's not nearly as rare as all that, your basic OpenWRT-running 5-port router has the same setup. But those cheap SOHO routers aren't going to do really fast routing, because they typically come with very slow CPUs.

This board's Rockchip RK3568 looks pretty capable though.
This is a big problem imo. In my experience teaching high school, a lot of elementary school teachers struggle with basic math... And that's where the problems arise that we have to try to fix later on.
>Ask yourself: if notation was genuinely confusing, why would mathematicians make themselves suffer needlessly?

I think its pretty clear that momentum causes a lot of nomenclature pain. You can't just redesign entire fields of understanding every couple decades. For instance, what other fields use single greek characters to label concepts in a seemingly unpredictable arrangement? Often, local maxima are found because concepts are added in the context of the field as it already existed.

And its not just math. Most sciences have this problem. It is what it is but its silly to say we're in the best of all possible worlds just because math has been around a long time.
Your are right about your last point as in real world there is no such thing as inelastic demand.

Food definitely is not as in that case there will be no need to pour the milk into the river during the Great Depression. Basic medication such NSAID are cheap because there's no patent and can be mass produced and things like Novartis’ Zolgensma is apparently a different story. For electricity, don't get me started with Texas... I agree it probably a problem that is it is not controlled there.

The point is, yes there will be more variables in the real world, but the most basic rules still applies.
Alibaba rape allegations through Chinese lens
Edit: and here's his musings on the OP article

https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/impossible-silenc...
>In this day and age, it is easy to get the actual degree and be called a 'scientist'.

>

>In these Internet days, it is even easier to claim you are a scientist when you are anonymous online, and make all sort of claims.

OK, but what about their comment do you disagree with or find in error?
I made this to contain a bunch of graphical apps used for gameboy-development: https://github.com/konsumer/docker-gb-dev

It has wine and some old windows-only apps. I took a different approach, and used a VNC server. Not quite as fast, but doesn't require the host to have an Xserver. I even include a little web-based VNC client, so no install is needed.
Forgive me, but my understanding is that the heritability of IQ at ~70% is limited to those of higher socioeconomic status, and that it's closer to ~10% for those of lower socioeconomic status.

http://ibg.colorado.edu/cdrom2016/franic/Moderation/Lit/Turk...

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97802038...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761348839...

(I should note that beyond an undergraduate degree in linguistics I have essentially no professional qualifications in anything related to neuroscience. Most of my understanding comes from having read some Sapolsky and Steinberg cover to cover a few times, with a limited deep dive into late adolescent risk calculation and risk-taking related to a homicide case I was on.)

Is my understanding mistaken? Why?
No biochem, but from what I read, it was highly doubtful that the product could even theoretically work because blood is not a completely homogeneous fluid. Concentrations of the things you want to test for vary by quite a lot if you take tiny samples from different places (esp. blood from small capillaries like in the finger tip).

That's (at least one reason) why "normal" blood draws are quite a lot of blood. By thoroughly mixing the drawn blood, you get a much better approximation of the average concentration throughout the body.
Genetics has a huge influence on what someone is predisposed to and what they can achieve. Certain ethnic groups and families, on average, are more likely to have certain traits and less likely to have others.

But genetics doesn't matter, in that just because you have "bad" genetics doesn't mean you'll suck, whether it comes to weightlifting, intelligence, temperment, etc. Maybe you won't be in the top 0.0001%, but except for some very specific circumstances, you can defy the average. If you want to know if someone's bad at something, actually testing them is much more accurate than looking at their genetics.

If you look at the top 10 distance runners, they're all from Ethiopia and Kenya. But as you look further down the list into the top 100, you start to see Americans and others. Furthermore, the Americans' times are really close to the Ethiopians and Kenyans.

So, even if we know for a solid fact that some ethnic group is on average dumber than another, or more violent, it doesn't mean anything. Because it doesn't say anything about the individual people, who vary much more than the difference in averages.
Linux virtio without the “virt” (2019)
People like me would be more convinced by your rant/flamebait if you provided sources for your claims. You claimed that the "broad strokes here are not up for debate" so it should be trivial for you to provide sources. Since you don't, it's hard to take your arguments seriously. Everyone can make unsubstantiated claims, providing evidence is the difficult part. I'm sure you understand that the "trust me, I'm a scientist" argument doesn't fly around here. :)
If I google for “age encryption” (no quotes), it comes out on top for me.
Htmlq: like jq, but for html
It wouldnt matter what subject was picked, the point they are making that 70% of your ability in a domain is going to be genetic. It could be distance running, calculus or marble sculpting.
Many manga fans have a love/hate relationship with mangadex. On one hand, it's provided hosting for countless hours of entertainment over the years. Their "v3" version of the site was basically perfect from a usability point of view, to the point that the entire community chose to unite itself under its flag.

On the other hand, directly because of the above, their hasty self-inflicted take down earlier this year nearly killed the entire hobby. Many series essentially stopped updating for the ~5 months the site was down, and many more are likely never coming back again.

The decision to suddenly take the site down for a full site rewrite feels completely inexplicable from the outside. (A writeup the above or the previous one[1], both of which read like they were written by a Google Product Manager, especially don't help as they conspicuously avoid any comment to the one question on everyone's mind: "leaving aside the supposed security issues with the backend, why on earth also rewrite and redesign the entire front end from scratch at the same time?")

[1] https://mangadex.dev/why-rebuild/
Nothing of consequence has been happening since https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
If that were true the CCP would have nothing to fear from democratic elections or free media.

Not rebelling against the heavily armed PLA is a pretty low bar for legitimacy.
I don’t think you’ll move anyone away with a simple feature such as profile pics or whatever.

There is so much goodwill and history and HN attracts great people. Also say you built something better than HN - people won’t leave HN for that they’ll probably use both.
The benefit of course is that without "genetics", and being able to discount "luck" as unmeasurable, one can still cling to "merit" as the single factor that justifies one's elevated station and privileges (once we've stamped out all the -isms). "Merit" is the last Progressive bastion of the modern world's social structure. Even the slogan "Land of opportunity" implies that your own slothfulness is the only thing holding you back from taking your seat among the elites. To lose the meritocracy is to lose the faith (and the country), so it's no wonder that people fight back so fiercely.

But avoiding scientific inquiry puts one at a disadvantage, because the research WILL happen with or without you. And if it's without you, you won't have any say in how it's used, or how society restructures itself (because it will). Without your voice, we could end up with Gattaca or Brave New World. With your voice we could have something better.

But take note: The world WILL change. You can't stop it, but you can guide it.
Awk: The Power and Promise of a 40-Year-Old Language
In the current state of the world, most scientific research will be co-opted by some violent apparatus or another. Does that mean we should lose hope and stop doing any research altogether?
I've had some experience with running applications without an operating system. First and foremost I like the simplicity. Instead of having state distributed between the kernel and the application all the state is in your application. No longer having this dance where an application and the kernel interacts there is only one place where state is kept.

This can lead to some spectacular results for things like TCP. Having the ability to serialize a TCP connection and sending it over the network means you're able to transfer a TCP connection from one host to another, even with SSL on top.

Now, this can be done with a POSIX kernel as well, as long as you move the networking from the kernel into the application. But if you're doing this you're eroding away the benefits of the kernel, basically turning your OS into a bootloader. Same thing with scheduling.

Another benefit is that, at least on compiled languages, code that isn't used isn't there. So the linker can strip away everything that is never called.

This still feels like utopia. The average development environment is pretty complex and ripping out and replacing all the layers below your language runtime is too much effort.
Can conservatives be convinced that individual choices and education matter more? God i hate those dissent-sew-click-bait titles.

In feudalism, being poor, is your fault. You are morally suspicious, of lower blood and any theory that fits will be used to justify this world order before itself. Thus why national-socialist attracted so many nobles. Thus why "differences" written in stone are so abhorrent to the left. Cause nothing should be written in stone, in a enlightened world.

Then, there are differences. But to my mind, the differences are quite universal. Cause those differences were shaped by the environment and the environment was for the last 10.000 - 200 years pretty universal for the species. We have neuro sub-types everywhere, adapted to the ebb and flow of resources and the rise and fall of overpopulation. Somebody optimized to survive a civil-war, might not be optimal for calculus, but might be better at improvisation than someone born into the calm waters of post-(civil-war/genocide) societies. We might even one day learn to suppress the epi-genetic stress triggers that make this wheel go round.

We can learn to detect those differences, and learn to work around those differences and it might even benefit us. Or we can shun the "other" - like we already shun those optimized for conflict - and watch the world go down the drain. Cooperation yields higher reward, so research away, but the endgoal should be here to stay.
I used to think this too.

/. had this back in the day (I guess still does?).
Lobste.rs has this too.

The problem is people just substitute "downvote without a reason" with "downvote as 'trolling'" for any opinion they disagree with.
> Ask yourself: if notation was genuinely confusing, why would mathematicians make themselves suffer needlessly?

Sometimes notation elides 'obvious details'. The details are obvious to those that have already gone through the learning curve, which is easier if one is strongly connected to other working mathematicians than for outsiders. Mathematicians barely notice inadequate or unusual notation. Outsiders struggle and spend significant energy just deciphering the notation.

Anecdote 1: Sometimes notation is too terse: single letters. Granted, efficient for whiteboard scribbling. Would be really nice to standardize an appendix for notation. E[X] = <expr>. Hmmm, what could E be? By the fifth paper, somebody bothers to write 'expected value' in plain English and the mystery in unambiguously clarified. In a voice-based interaction this is a non-issue, not so for those that only have text to deal with. This compounds as a novice has to juggle a set of mysterious symbols with tens of elements.

Anecdote 2: Long long time ago (before ubiquitous email or http:// took off) a young student spent some time working through a handful of type theory academic papers that somehow trickled into his corner of the Universe. The type inference rule notation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rule), which is rather straightforward in retrospect, ate up more time that he's willing to admit. Γ is just a set of judgments and Γ |- expr is just a notation for 'Γ includes the judgement expr'? Then why don't they use the standard expr ∈ Γ, this is confusing? Are there some examples? Is there some code that one could possibly run through a debugger? The questions remained unanswered, as there was noone he knew in the same linguistic sphere interested in the topic. And the papers themselves never detailed such obvious notation details.

PS. I agree that the bigger obstacle is the lack of proper big picture 'why do we even bother with these concepts / theorems'. At an extreme, there is (used to be?) a certain style of math books consisting exclusively of a dry litany of 'Definition 1.2.3', 'Theorem 3.2.4', 'Corollary 2.3.1'. Very rigorous and very difficult to ascertain what problems they were trying to solve.
ok i agree there is some tech transfer with NASA, so is with CERN for instance. this is however national space programs.

my question was more towards commercial space programs, will the tech they invent be open? if so is it worth letting it expand basically out of any regulations?
I've also used it on occasion and would agree the documentation is patchy in some areas thought getting a running example is fairly trivial.

e.g. when a TLS cert is renewed/replaced, how to deal with that in an already running websocket.
Union survey alleges culture of mistreatment at Paradox Interactive
The C64c should have shipped with GEOS in ROM. That, plus Berkeley Softworks or Commodore shipping GEOS on cartridge, would have greatly extended the computer's viable lifespan.
> I don't know anyone who believes this.

Anyone who actually knows what adjectives are and how they work believes this.

Or people familiar enough with the substance of the discussion to know it includes discussion of what healthy masculinity is. Here's an easy-to-digest example:

https://ifunny.co/picture/if-you-ever-find-yourself-confused...

> Do you think I could get away with calling it "toxic femininity" instead? Nobody would let that pass.

Oh, yes. Nobody would dare talk use the phrase toxic femininity. /s

https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/women-vs-women-toxic-femini...

https://thoughtcatalog.com/january-nelson/2020/07/15-example...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-sexuality-and-ro...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drnancydoyle/2021/07/13/we-need...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanschocket2/toxic-femininity-exam...

https://www.yesweekly.com/opinion/toxic-femininity-the-under...

If you really think that femininity doesn't come under the microscope, then one can only assume you have no substantial familiarity with feminism.
So it could be interesting to look at the environment side then?

Edit:
Also, what do you call intelligence?
Sure. That almost became the mandatory policy where I live.
To address your question about "universal education advocates", they were not the reason that we got it.

Their argument was purely an philosophical one, stating that a well informed society operates better, makes better decisions, ect. And a well educated person can make better decisions for themselves and have a higher quality of life.

The reason that universal education caught on was because large businesses realised that could have more efficient factories if they didn't have to teach everyone to read. Thus college and university because the place where the 'universal education' dream could be realised. Where every person could go and receive an education that would afford them a higher quality of life and allow them to better engage with the world.

Then, factories became more specialised and 90% of universities became slaves to some "industry"

Many universities "computer science" programs are hardly that. Rather they've turned into a coding bootcamp with slightly more math.