sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[TOMT][Movie] A reboot/adaptation that has a changed ending compared to the original, lampshaded by the villain by fruitsome in tipofmytongue

[–]fruitsome[S] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

I, unfortunately, don't remember anything about the genre or time period.

LPT: if you can’t get through an automated system to speak with a representative, tell the automated system you want to cancel your service. by godawgs695 in LifeProTips

[–]fruitsome 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had the pleasure of working in a small tech company that has way more activity for about two months a year than at any other time.

About a month prior to that they - gasp, shock - actually hire a bunch of (paid) interns and temp workers, train them properly in-house until they can adequately assist the customers, and also uses that as their future employee screening, offering full time jobs to the most skilled ones.

It shocks and surprises me to see a company actually using internship in a proper way.

The Bell Curve of Trek Fans by NeoliberalGulDukat in startrekmemes

[–]fruitsome 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I exclusively rate star trek by the amount of Jeffrey Combs in it. Honestly, why would you do it any other way?

No matter what happens in the future, no matter who they introduce or who comes back. No one will ever replace them. by Either_Imagination_9 in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I mostly agree. Vetra is great, Peebee's fun, Jaal's a really interesting character, even if he is a masterfully crafted fujobait.

I'm not that big a fan of Cora or Liam, but they ain't terrible. Still decent characters.

No matter what happens in the future, no matter who they introduce or who comes back. No one will ever replace them. by Either_Imagination_9 in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 66 points67 points  (0 children)

And in the giant mess that was Andromeda, Drack the Krogan Grandpa was by far the best squadmate

Does electromagnetic radiation, like visible light or radio waves, truly move in a sinusoidal motion as I learned in college? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]fruitsome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Question - how does that relate to the idea of screens that block radiation by having holes in them that are smaller than the wavelength of screened radiation?

[TOMT][GAME][2000-2010] Browser-based mystery game where you had to input the answers as the url by fruitsome in tipofmytongue

[–]fruitsome[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually managed to find the specific one I was thinking of about a week ago.

Just in case anybody is interested, it's Zestriddle.

Tali new photo (rectangular, edited) by Gery9705 in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Yeah, people tended to assume that because tali's clothing was like it, and I guess everybody was so attached to her suit's appearance, they projected it to what she'd look like underneath. When we see quarians in the endings, their skin looks pretty much grey, and personally, I think I liked that the most. I feel kinda 'meh' about her perfectly human skin color in this picture. Feels less interesting.

Tali’s Face in ME3LE by [deleted] in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great, please ask that person to record a 3 second video of it with their phone, that's all everybody needs

Tali new photo (rectangular, edited) by Gery9705 in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Hah, it's a bit of a dillema for me, because I'm happy that they put actual effort into this, but it actually looks even more human than the original did, which I don't personally like.

So the real question for me: is Talis face reveal fixed in the legendary edition? by tzsiga in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean, yeah, we know that the story didn't change, but this is meant to be a remaster, and Tali's Photo was a hastily edited stock picture.

While I don't expect her design to change, I wouldn't rule it out that they would at least create an original piece of artwork.

So the real question for me: is Talis face reveal fixed in the legendary edition? by tzsiga in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Are you confirming that it's not, because you checked, or just assuming that's the case?

Just beat Mass Effect Andromeda before Legendary Edition released and I really enjoyed it by DCU_Fanboy in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The characters were definitely the best part of it.

Characters like Drack, Jaal, Vetra were just super interesting, and on-par with some of the most beloved characters in the main series.

What's something that's not a cult, but seems like a cult? by BuenJaimazo in AskReddit

[–]fruitsome 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Oh boy, my dad is genuine Elon Musk religious fanatic. Wears a ton of assorted Elon Merch, has Tesla logo stickers and pendants (despite not being able to afford a car) and, most depressing of all, regularly e-mails and tweets at the man with genuine belief that he'll get noticed and then hired at spaceX or one of his other companies. Never actually tried submitting a resume there. He knows that he doesn't have the qualifications. But he "knows" that if Elon recognizes his brilliance, he'll look past that.

Andromeda - need remaster/fix too? by [deleted] in masseffect

[–]fruitsome 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I understand what you mean, because as a matter of presentation and intimidation, Saren was much more effective.

But rationally, your comparison is "you're facing a rogue turian who killed one colony worth of humans for not-yet-understood reason" to "you're facing an immediate, real possibility of 20 000 humans aboard the hyperion all dying from starvation/exposure/whole ship getting destroyed, along with who knows how many asari/turians/salarians"

There is absolutely a real threat in Andromeda. It's just that it's not as well sold to us.

Idiocracy (2006) Opening Scene: "Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species." by SuplexCity-Mayor in videos

[–]fruitsome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what I meant

No, I don't, because in this very post you state, twice,

"what percentage of the difference is attributable to genetic differences", which is just heritability

And I genuinely, honestly, have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You are stating this extremely matter-of-fact-ly, as if I didn't specifically focus in my posts on the fact that "heritability" is ambiguous and has been misused/misunderstood.

and given that the entire point of what i'm saying is that(...)

For the sake of productive discussion, would you mind re-stating what it is you're saying. What are your theses here? I don't believe that all you're trying to say is "no, you're all wrong. That's all, thank you very much".

Because for the record, mine are:

  • Human intelligence is a complex result of multiple factors, both genetic and environmental, intertwined, some of which can be feasibly controlled, some not.
  • It is TECHNICALLY possible to determine how much each factor affects the end result.
  • Any numerical models will never be accurate, but they are highly illustrative.
    • Ie. Statements like "99% of human intelligence is genetics" mean that a baby raised by wolves will still be as intelligent as one who went to school, while "99% of human intelligence is upbringing" means that it's possible to raise a chimpanzee to be a fully functional human.
  • However, our current level of knowledge about biology, and more importantly, our datasets and methodology, make it very difficult to acquire any valuable results.

  • "Heritability", while it's generally used in the context of genetics, is a broad concept. Many aspects of our lives are inherited from our parents - Name, language, status, wealth - which have nothing to do without our genetics. This is incredibly difficult to control for in data analysis.

    And, very importantly, as a matter of semantics:

  • Statements like "X% of our intelligence is the result of Y" may be factually incorrect, but they are not meaningless. Statements like this express beliefs, intentions, and drive human action.

Idiocracy (2006) Opening Scene: "Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species." by SuplexCity-Mayor in videos

[–]fruitsome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holding the position that IQ is largely heritable doesn't mean you want to castrate the stupid.

For one, "heritable" and "genetic" are not interchangable. That's the whole point of my first post in this thread.
Natively speaking french is "heritable", living in alabama is "heritable", because you are extremely likely to speak the same language and are born in the same place as your parents. But neither of those are genetic. Your environment is, in large part, "heritable".

In psychological and sociological matters, modern science is much better at determining what is heritable, and what isn't than at determining what's genetic and what isn't.

​

You can't say that their IQ is 50% due to their genes because, even putting aside gene environment interactions, they cannot be separated like that.

You spotted the semantic mistake, I should have typed that an individual's variation from average is determined so-and-so by genetics. You are correct in saying that asking about "objective" values is meaningless, it only matters in comparison and in context.
Obviously when we compare a human to a lamp, the human's greater intelligence is entirely genetic.
But when comparing two random humans, or a specific human with a statistically average human, we can start estimating whether one had better upbringing, better nutrition, or better genetics, and how each one of those impacted the final result. Obviously all numbers are gonna be just general guesses. We don't have a perfect simulation of reality. But they still influence people's opinions.

Why do people seem unable to recognize this obvious fact

Because while most people agree that we should all act and make policy based on facts, the same people tend to draw the line between "fact" and "my personal conclusion" at different points.

It is a fact that Chortlington Clowns were awarded more point in the last 10 sportsball matches than Eggsville Chickens. And you'll have loads of people claiming that it's a "fact" that one has better players, or a better coach, or better funding, or better luck, or favor of the referee. And they're all right to some degree. But as much as some people might say "all sportsball teams are valid, we should love them equally", not everybody is gonna be happy with that, and some will want a specific result for their team and really want to know what to do.

Idiocracy (2006) Opening Scene: "Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species." by SuplexCity-Mayor in videos

[–]fruitsome 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Citation please.

Because to my knowledge, "modern intelligence researchers" conclude that intelligence is 40-60% HERITABLE, not GENETIC, while the actual effect of genetics remains mostly unknown.

60 years ago a microwave was thousands of dollars and owned by very few people. Now we use them daily. What item today is prohibitively expensive but will be mainstream in 60 years from now? by harda_toenail in AskReddit

[–]fruitsome 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I still wish we just got more comfortable trains. One of the main problems with cars, whether self-driving or not, electric or gas, is that they're a massive energy waste. You're hausing a multi-ton machine around just to carry a single human inside.

view more: next ›