I don't think we have to hash this out, because "marker of intelligence" and "ranking of intelligence" are not the same thing. A rank implies a reliable scale, which IQ doesn't provide.
(It's also just fine if we disagree about this --- researchers do too!)
Wasn't pedophilia much more widespread throughout the ages than it is now? I think the real "solution" to the problem of child abuse back in time was not to view it as a problem at all!
Whatever it was, it was highly context dependent and distributed thus more resilient to the whims of a single commercial entity. Roblox is like centralized daycare. If you are fine with that, sign your kids up.
But I didn't say anything about roblox, why do you think I'm fine with whatever they are doing? I just think you are wrong to think that anti-pedophilia guardrails thorough the ages were good and should be example for us. If you are fine with how things were done, sign your kids up for marriage and pregnancy at 13 years old.
> Polymarket, a cryptoscam-based prediction market
How is this "reporting" even real? Awful article. The interview was so bad that painting roblox in the bad light was the right and objective thing to do, yet they somehow managed to make it look biased.
It absolutely helps - people who move to high end housing free up other, cheaper apartments (recent economic paper has clearly showed that this works, you can easily find it)
The rabies vaccine is not usually used unless the person is at risk. This vaccine can be administered after a bite if the animal is suspected to be infected.
Vaccines made of inactivated (killed) or attenuated (alive, but defective) pathogens are usually more dangerous. Inactivation may not be effective and a virulent pathogen may survive and attenuated pathogens may pick up virulence factors and become fully functional from a different (related) patogen that happes to infect the patient at the same time. Also, when vaccines are prepared from infected animals, manufacturing accidents may happen, such as contamination with something else infectious.
These types of vaccines were mostly replaced by fully synthetic vaccines.
For the overwhelming majority of "young" (which can be interpreted rather generously) people who had significantly negative responses to COVID, there were severe preexisting conditions. By contrast vaccine induced myocarditis and similar side effects occurred at a frequency much higher in these age groups, particularly those in the male + younger side of young, than would be accepted for a "normal" vaccine.
Major side effects from typical vaccines run in the 1:100k to 1:1000k range, while COVID vaccine myocarditis alone was somewhere in the 1:10k range for young males, and much higher with proactive testing for such as opposed to the 1:10k figures which relied on data from people showing up at the ER with heart issues.
And obviously speaking of vaccine "OR" COVID is misleading because it turned out that the vaccines didn't stop people from getting COVID - repeatedly, spreading COVID, and even dying of COVID. It, ideally, reduced the probability of severe outcomes, in exchange for a relatively high frequency of side effects, and that was it. But lots of people got really rich off the whole thing, so there's that at least.
Haha, well not quite 90% but many do. And I think a responsible, and transparent, government response to COVID would have been centered around this. Make it clear that there are many uncertainties but so far it seems that the people most negatively affected by the disease are those with major preexisting conditions, or the elderly. And that the ability of the vaccines to stop transmission or even infection are not clear.
Instead so much of the rhetoric was based on complete lies. I think people forget just how completely dishonest "we" were. [1] And why do montages like the one I just linked to get removed from YouTube? It's not fake or fabricated in any way, shape, or fashion. Nor are those comments even taken out of context. It's simply a record of the statements made by public figures and politicians. Apparently that's against YouTube's terms of service.
Not true at all: 1) more intelligent people are happier (author of the blogpost cherrypicked 2 studies, one of which in fact showed that iq is positively correlated with hapiness. 2) IQ negatively correlates with neuroticism. 3) In fact IQ correlates positively with almost every positive facet of human experience - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2212794120
Being on the tail can make you feel very alone. Especially as a child you can end up having only sparse, if any, access to anyone that can meet you in conversation. If you happen to be adopted then you can be alone in your family too. In some cases they are not only unmet but ostracized, vilified, or attacked for being "weird", able to see things that make people uncomfortable, or ask questions that break people's ways of thinking and unintentionally leaving them adrift. Teachers and other adults that are responsible for fostering your success commonly cheer your failures, root against you, and sabotage your efforts. Because everything must be so good for you, you don't need support and can be safely ignored. Over time you become a target for control and manipulation by people that believe your agency is their disadvantage and will use violence, subterfuge, and social arrangement to subdue you.
There are many benefits but it can be a real liability.
Your reply reminds me of a work situation at a prior start up.
CEO seen as brilliant. On the tail in your words.
I was talking to head of sales about the CEO and his statement was this: these types of people are the easiest to manipulate.
Not exactly what you said but similar idea. It’s stuck with me that the smartest person in the room might also be the most vulnerable in numerous situations. That doesn’t mean I prefer lower IQ. But it’s helped me normalize how I communicate with people.
There are high correlations of intelligence between parents and their offspring. Adoption can break the correlation, statistically giving you "normal" parents. Thus, intelligent adopted children can be systemically isolated inside as well as outside their homes.
One thing I really love about that is that since correlation goes both ways, a happy non neurotic person is more likely to solve puzzles, which seems stupidly obvious in hindsight.
Aren’t extremely wealthy people that wealthy due to the valuation of their stock? IIRC generally the higher the networth, the higher share is kept in stocks
And they don't spend money, they take debt against their existing assets to fund projects and investments. So long as they can service the loans across economic downturns, they don't particularly have to feel the effects of a recession, outside of the mentioned opportunities to buy the market at a discount.
I suspect $$ is just a number for them. Being able to control more resources is the ultimate game. You gotta have zillions of $$ to join the tournament, though.
Person A has a net worth of 2B
Person A has a loan at 500M backed by their holdings
Stocks drop 50%, Net worth is now 1B
Person A buys $500m of stocks
Market Recovers 100%
Person A now has 2B original holdings and 1B gains, $500m owned = 2.5B
Very simple example, and not the only way to do it - but people need to remember net worth being 500B is not 500B in the bank, and at some point the number doesnt matter
More importantly you keep the portfolio semi-balanced.
Just using Google / Gold as a comparison [1].
Assume you have 100 units of each.
In late 2021, Googs gone up ~100% so you have to rebalance because you have $200 in Goog and $92 in Gold. So lets say you rebalance to 80 Goog (160$) and 144 Gold ($130).
In late 2022, Googs gone down ~40% so you have to rebalance because you have $96 in Goog and $141 in Gold. So lets say you rebalance to 100 Goog ($120) and 118 Gold ($112).
So over the course of 2 years Goog has gone up 20% and Golds gown down 5% but your investments are overall up 16%. Obviously a 100% Goog investment is higher but with more risk.
If you didn't do any rebalancing then you have a gain of 7.5% (100*1.2 + 100*0.95 = 215)
reply