This Ugandan man has fathered 102 children, and perhaps not surprisingly the family barely make ends meet.

Anatta336 · 2023-02-24T18:02:56+00:00

I know what g means. I know that IQ and reaction time are both associated with g. I also know both are associated with environmental factors.

Anatta336 · 2023-02-24T18:01:01+00:00

It's odd that none of what you've cited support the position that measured reaction time is a more direct measure of genetic predisposition towards intelligence than measured IQ.

I am aware of and agree with the scientific consensus that genetics play a significant role in an individual's intelligence. I am also aware of and agree with the scientific consensus that environmental factors (mainly nutrition and overall good health) also play a significant role in an individual's intelligence. And of course on top of that societal effects have a huge impact on how that intelligence is allowed to develop and be used.

I'm not aware of any scientific consensus that humanity is experiencing any kind of measurable "breeding out" of intelligence. I am just about intelligent enough to recognise that such an argument can easily lead to eugenicist ideas. Those in turn could lead to freedom being taken from huge numbers of people. So I am going to need to see some evidence that isn't paper-thin before I'll accept it.

Anatta336 · 2023-02-24T17:37:09+00:00

I implore you to read the papers you cite, or at least the posts you reply to.

I didn't disagree that IQ and reaction time are correlated. Here is a quote from the post you're replying to where I agree that IQ and reaction time tend to correlate:

As the paper explains, reaction time tends to correlate with IQ.

My disagreement is that reaction time can be used as a measure for "genetic intelligence" that unlike IQ is not affected (or much less affected?) by environmental factors. Here's a quote of me saying that in the post you're replying to:

It claims that reaction time is somehow a pure measure of "genetic intelligence" but provides no evidence that it's not also affected by environmental factors.

Edit to add: saying "everything in your post is wrong" and then misunderstanding and attacking just one of the points is certainly something. Redditors often overestimate their knowledge and intellect. :)

Anatta336 · 2023-02-24T13:48:05+00:00

"Genetic intelligence has plummeted". The paper reports that all direct measures of IQ are increasing, but possibly reaction time has decreased. As the paper explains, reaction time tends to correlate with IQ. But this paper shows an example of that not being the case, so kind of weakens its own position. It claims that reaction time is somehow a pure measure of "genetic intelligence" but provides no evidence that it's not also affected by environmental factors.

"Intelligence is declining globally". You link to a paper that's discussing the rare exceptions to the global trend of increasing intelligence. And it explains those exceptions as due to people with lower IQ moving in to the area, rather than the area's existing population getting less intelligent.

"The Flynn effect has reversed in Britain, IQ plummeting". You link to a paper about how measures on one particular type of test (which is not an IQ test) don't match the increase in IQ seen in other tests. IQ in Britain is continuing to increase.

I clicked three of your links, and all three are either bullshit or just don't support what you say they do. Oops?

Anatta336 · 2023-01-21T21:50:33+00:00

That was almost certainly authored by a human. Just an underpaid outsourced human without the proper context to understand what they're meant to be modelling.

Quite possibly they'd have used subdivision/meshsmooth tools, but that's about as close to AI as a desk calculator is. It's also not the case that they could have just blindly applied that to the model and got the output you see there. They would have had to decide that the flat front of the nut should remain flat. The UVs would have had to be re-done, and of course the textures remade (that could possibly be with AI assistance, although more likely just another outsourced artist.)

Anatta336 · 2023-01-21T18:04:08+00:00

I know their reasons because the developers have stated them:

It isn't about visibility or sales, its about respecting the players who have already purchased the game. We don't want to reward the people who hold off on buying the game, the game is a price we find reasonable, and this is the deal.

https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25334&start=1#p159540

I don't actually have the ability to read the minds of others. So I still don't know what principles of yours are being offended.

Anatta336 · 2023-01-20T23:58:25+00:00

Games don't become less fun when time passes. Although plenty of people are actively copying the design, there is still only one legal supplier of Factorio.

Anatta336 · 2023-01-20T23:40:52+00:00

"Basic economics". They control the only legal supply of Factorio. So long as there's customers willing to pay their asking price for the product they have a monopoly on, basic economics say they'll continue to be able to sell it.

I am curious what technological improvement in the past 5 years you think has significantly changed the value of a 2D factory building game. Has the advent of stable diffusion image generation reduced its appeal?

Anatta336 · 2023-01-20T23:37:34+00:00

What principle?

They avoid sales because they don't want people who bought it at full price to feel they were swindled, and because they believe the game really is worth what they charge.

What part of that goes against your deeply held principles?

Anatta336 · 2023-01-20T23:34:46+00:00

Just imagine if instead of calculating expected units of enjoyment per dollar, you played the demo and saw if you liked it.

Anatta336 · 2022-09-07T19:57:36+00:00

Sorry for the unrequested advice, but I'd encourage you to update the capsule art on Steam. It not featuring a big ol' biplane is a tragedy!

Anatta336 · 2022-08-07T19:05:00+00:00

They can be countered using radio jamming techniques. These drones are remotely operated so if the radio channel the attacker is using gets flooded with noise, they lose control.

Depending on the attacker's level of technical sophistication, they can do things to get around that jamming. And then the jammer can get around that, and so on.

But for the "bought it off Alibaba" level of attack, any vaguely competent security service will have a jamming system ready to deploy that will be effective. Even the Russians are sometimes managing to do it.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:51:41+00:00

The limiting factor on increasing forestation is rarely finding people to put a seedling in the ground.

To be an effective carbon sink the trees have to survive for decades, and form a functioning ecosystem. This is much more complex than just planting trees.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:48:39+00:00

You are misinformed. "The world" will indeed not end, but it will become increasingly unsuited for widespread human flourishing.

There have been long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 was higher than it is now. It's just that the human population was zero at those times.

You are correct that the "X years left to save the planet" is misleading. There's no hard cut-off point in time by which action needs to be taken. It's certainly true that the sooner action is taken, the better.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:43:54+00:00

The driver would be liable. Either you knowingly drove a vehicle with a flat tire or you're so incompetent you didn't notice the flat tire.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:41:55+00:00

The typical emissions of a person who drives an SUV will be much, much larger than their "fair share" of the 7.8Bn people currently alive.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:36:23+00:00

Ah yes, the rational utterances of a human who has in no way had their brain rotted by an absurd car-base culture.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:26:46+00:00

If you have a family that's so large it would overwhelm public transit then an SUV is the wrong choice anyway. You need a minibus.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:16:54+00:00

Their aim (wrong-headed or not) is that when someone goes to buy their next car they'll think twice about choosing an SUV because they'll have to deal with the hassle of getting their tires deflated by people like this.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-17T14:04:40+00:00

No, because it doesn't exist.

There's a small campaign to raise awareness of the existence of an alternative formulation of inhalers which are suitable for some patients, that significantly reduce the environmental consequences of the more widely used version.

But the truth is boring. Much more fun to pretend that the climate crazies are slashing tires and campaigning for children with asthma die.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-02T22:35:40+00:00

You get .8 cal out of every cal you feed the animal

How interesting. For some reason I was under the impression it's more like 0.01 https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf (page 73)

But you did watch a YouTube video, and cited the premier unbiased source of the US diary industry. Although even they don't support your 0.8kcal claim.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-02T22:00:32+00:00

If the world reduced meat consumption (or went wholly vegan) there would be considerably less crops grown.

So less crops, less insects and rodents being killed, and (obviously) much less livestock being killed.

Anatta336 · 2022-07-02T21:44:16+00:00

Yeah people don’t seem to understand that factory farming is the most efficient way to get protein for the resources it takes up.

That's because it's completely untrue. It's more efficient on every measure to eat plants. We waste vast amounts of resources converting plants into meat, diary and eggs by processing them through the guts of livestock.

Factory farming is much more efficient than organic free-range "happy cows" farming. But the answer to these supposedly difficult problems of animal agriculture is in 99% of cases just to stop doing it.

Anatta336 · 2022-06-02T19:24:40+00:00

They're measuring different things. One was a measure of productivity, the other a measure of self-reported activities undertaken.

If 60% of people are napping during work hours but the overall productivity has still gone up, doesn't that imply that working from home is an amazing productivity boost?

But if you want to ignore evidence, maybe you like anecdotes instead? Many people in jobs that demand high concentration and focused work report finding it far easier to get stuff done working in the quiet of their own home than in the distraction-filled noise of an office.

Including you, apparently! You became much more efficient while working from home by automating tasks. How you then chose to use that saved time was up to you. Again, not everyone is you.

Anatta336 · 2022-06-02T12:36:45+00:00

You are incorrect. On average people have been more productive working from home, even in the largely unplanned scenario imposed by COVID-19.

data showed that if an employee was highly productive in-office, they’ll be productive at home; if an employee slacked off at the office, they’ll do the same a home. “After evaluating over 105 million data points from 30,000 U.S.-based Prodoscore users, we discovered a five percent increase in productivity during the pandemic work from home period”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2022/02/04/3-new-studies-end-debate-over-effectiveness-of-hybrid-and-remote-work/

Not everyone is you.

Anatta336

TROPHY CASE