Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-10, 19:49 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #381 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
If there are "a ton of scientific studies," then how come you haven't linked a single one? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-12, 15:16 in I still HATE smartdevices
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #382 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
1.1.0/1.1.3 of what? You can get what I think is a Chinese localization of jp.co.sega.PuyoFeverT from this URL: http://www.mdpda.com/app/apk101807.html
Do you have terminal? If so, it's simple. Set up a SOCKS proxy, forward the port, and you're done. If not, it's a bit harder. Download/make an app that hosts a SOCKS proxy, or if there isn't one gut an existing app (e.g. Orbot) and replace the tor executable with a socks server. Then forward the port. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-12, 18:35 in Something about cheese! (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #383 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by BearOso The WAIS and WISC tests do not. I strongly doubt any serious tests would. There is such a thing as a practice effect (~5-7 points), but this doesn't change the nature of the quantity the test measures, it only decrease its accuracy. This does not just go for IQ tests, for what it's worth. With weight lifting, you get the same thing: people who in isolation practice one exercise will improve rapidly on it, but this owes to learning the movement better rather than an actual increase in strength. Asking someone to lift X heavy object is still a decent way to find out how strong they are. Missing the point? The framing article is about how to proceed with revelation of results given that correlation is not causation. What is the measure used for "intelligence", anyway? IQ like above? Then it's meaningless. In this case, it must be. We are dealing with a genetic correlation, remember? The measure of intelligence is their intelligence phenotype, and the measure of household income is their household income phenotype. It probably comes from the fact that you're advocating social darwinism. How and when? Careful, there. Your capitalization implies something you shouldn't go into. Not quite sure what you're getting at. Aren't ethnicities capitalized in English? It looks utterly jarring to write white, but then write Black, Arab, Castizo, and Jew. Posted by wertigon These are 174 articles, which one in particular are you talking about? Maybe I don't get it, but Spearman's hypothesis seems like common sense provided there are racial differences in intelligence. It just seems like a convoluted way to restate the original claim that there are cognitive differences in intelligence. Because if it is, then it's common sense that a good test for cognitive ability would be good at measuring differences in cognitive ability, no? >The only thing that proves is that low SES correlates to low education. Which is hardly news. No, it doesn't even prove that. It was an estimate of a lower bound for the relative unlikeliness of people of the lower middle class having high IQs, showing it was not at all impossible. If the SAT differences are caused by SES, it only serves to weaken your strawman further. >A ton of scientific studies have proven IQ is affected by so much more than just genes, and environment plays a very large part in how your IQ is shaped. Scientists have had little success so far in identifying which specific genes are responsible for intelligence, but intelligence being genetic has not been falsified, and appears very likely not to say proven considering identical twins reared apart display similar levels of it, and the adopted's do not correlate well to their adoptive parents. Posted by wareya Is this your personal opinion, or have you actually taken IQ tests and received a slightly above average result? The reason I ask is because this pathology is common among sufferers of, for instance, autism and ADHD, and the Wechsler tests are designed taking it into account. If the greatest difference between the subtests is above 1.5 SD, no FSIQ will be computed, or it will be computed but specifically marked as useless. The GAI index may still be able to be computed, unless the differences between its constituents too exceed 1.5 SD. For people without these pathologies, what you describe very rarely happens. The average deviance for each subtest score against FSIQ is just under 7 IQ points, with an IQ test standard error of around 3 points. Since I don't have the raw data, there is no way to compute an intrasubject standard deviation, but a reasonable guess should be 4 points based on this. The intersubject standard deviation is of course by definition 15 points. As for demographic groups, of course it depends on what you compare. But it's certainly possible to take two demographic groups who vary on average by more than four points. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-12, 22:20 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #384 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wertigon It would be sufficient with any type of twins, as long as they were separated at birth. You would get a smaller effect (e.g. requiring a larger sample size), but you could still observe the genetic component plainly. Likewise, there isn't a very great need for control of the SES. It's enough that they vary, and then that variable can be observed later on. Furthermore, since there aren't any meaningful traits to distinguish the newborns on, who gets placed where doesn't matter either. It would also suffice to compare the correlations of monozygotic twins reared together to either non-twin siblings or dizygotic twins reared together. Then the shared environment would be the same, but the non-twin siblings and dizygotic twins would have lower correlations with their respective siblings (50%, since they share 50% of alleles) than the monozygotic such (100%, in theory) provided the trait was genetic in nature. If the trait weren't, the sibling correlations for all three these groups should be equal, since the genetic contribution would be 0%, and all three of these would have as much shared environment. Wikipedia does refer to studies done in that way, but it's through the way of books (through Google Books, so with some pages missing) which just make oblique references to "a study in France" and such. However, there is this 1973 metastudy from the book "The Measurement of Intelligence". They cut it off early, but on page 278, they have the actual numbers:
On page 275, they discuss when they were separated:
On page 279, they attempt to evaluate the SES of the homes they were assigned to: The one study which classified subjects in terms of SES, Unfortunately, the PDF is not freely available, and I don't think I can directly link to it. So you'll either have to take my word for it, or go looking for it online. Rumor has it that the Russian website Library Genesis has a copy. Anyway, I think that is close enough to your ideal. The only things these twins have in common are the prenatal environment (non-shared influences, e.g. completely random), first six months postnatal environment (shared influences, e.g. SES), and genetics. The other way to study it is done on page 13:  As you might see, the intelligence measurements' correlations resemble the physical measurements' far more than they do the scholastic. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-12, 23:07 in Blackouts
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #385 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
What in tarnation? The website is HTTP-only. If you go there with HTTPS, it uses a self-signed cert and then redirects you to the HTTP site anyway. What's going on here anyway? In particular, why are they randomly double-spacing their press releases? Why do they call it the Monetary Cone? Why are they using WhatsApp to transmit their official press photos? http://bcv.org.ve/sites/default/files/whatsapp_image_2019-06-12_at_11.20.30_am.jpeg There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-13, 15:59 in I still HATE smartdevices
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #386 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Try Lucky Patcher. Might help for other other one too. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-13, 19:05 in I still HATE smartdevices
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #387 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by tomman No, you can use Lucky Patcher to generate custom .APKs on a non-rooted device. I'm fairly certain luckypatchers.com is the official website, see for instance https://4pda.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=298302. The APKs uploaded on GitHub link to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsZs50kuf6SGvwtziCQFM8A, which links to it in turn. Sure, they could have spent several years impersonating an obscure app developer to earn pennies infecting people with malware, but I really don't think so. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-13, 21:11 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #388 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
SES is a function of IQ and education though. And education being a function of IQ is the hypothesis. So here you find yourself in a bit of a pickle. But it can be solved if you attack it from a different angle: intelligence isn't caused by shared environment. In other words, education levels can never cause intelligence, so if there is a correlation between them the intelligence should cause the educational levels and not the other way around. You can look at this graph to see if such is the case:  (source) As you can see, educational attainment correlates by 0.57 with ASVAB (military intelligence test), while only correlating by 0.34 with income. However, that's income of the subject, not parental income. You can also try and separate out the influence of parental education and parental income. Then you get this analysis. As you can see, there is very little predictive value added (R2 goes from .625 to .631, an increase of just under 1%, and I think that might be spurious) by including parental income after already including parental education, and parental income alone (.449) is a far worse predictor of child education than parental education alone is. I don't think abuse is a very big factor here. It's terrible, sure, but the prevalence is <1%. As for your claim of everyone being able to learn fundamental calculus, I don't think it holds true. Take retarded people, for instance. They can hardly learn to read and write. Could they really learn fundamental calculus? And if you assume that fundamental calculus is harder to learn than reading/writing, that would imply some non-retarded people would also fail to learn it. And while it's intuitively apparent that a lower aptitude can to some degree be compensated for with a higher conscientiousness, there is obviously a limit for how much you can give. If nothing else, you have the absolute hard cap of ~18 hours a day, which gives 6600 hours a year (and can probably be sustained for about that long). Even assuming everyone theoretically could learn everything, a sufficiently slow person would eventually run into time constraints, just as a very bright person would make very quick work of an education. And anyone can work on improving their conscientiousness (it's not an innate trait like IQ is, to my knowledge), which means that whatever benefits it has would (or at least could) apply equally across the spectrum. In other words, intelligence is still very important for education. I'd say the only reasonable way to look at it is to assume conscientiousness is constant, because taking the position that all individual differences can be surmounted given sufficient effort turns any discussion about the matter into nonsense, and feels somewhat dishonest since it disregards the possibility of smarter people putting in effort. Learning French in one year instead of ten is clearly a better outcome, and more learning can be done in a given time period. This whole discussion makes me think of Monster. Twins, intelligence, conscientiousness, There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-14, 13:19 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #389 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wertigon And what is education a function of? Solely conscientiousness? That can't be the case, since it correlates with IQ which is an innate and immutable trait. And education today is pretty much "Hey snake, sloth, dog, monkey and fish, climb that tree over there! Fastest one gets the best grade!" then we call the fastest one smart, except had the competition been water based the fish would have won over them all. Not sure what you mean. I've seen the poster, but it makes very little sense. For instance, in language learning, it's true that you could do it in different ways. But some of these ways are just objectively more efficient than others. For instance, if you look at the Mormons' legendary language classes, how do they do it? Immersion, strong focus on oral performance. If you look at the Japanese's infamously poor English classes, how do they do it? Rote memorization of grammar and vocabulary, almost no oral production or reception, perfectionism valued higher than actual performance. There are some very apparent patterns here. I've yet to meet a single person who learned a foreign language in the latter way and reached much success doing so. Sure, they might have found it more pleasant and thus had lower requirements of conscientiousness, but it doesn't seem like different styles are actually more appropriate for different people. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the matter: Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles Just what are these learning styles? Because I've never seen anyone actually argue for what they'd look like. The purpose of the theory always appears to be to provide a convenient unfalsifiable escape hatch - "oh no they're not stupid they just have a different learning style" - without wishing to investigate it further. Just like the "multiple intelligences" bunk. Case in point: the various kooks in the Wikipedia article all have different ideas, and there isn't much of a backing for any one of them. They just write random nonsense that sounds good without bothering to check. Very little if anything of it is backed by empirical evidence. For instance, the first theory claims that engineers and philosophers have different learning styles. How? This isn't explained. Instead, we get to hear that engineers are "strong in practical 'hands-on' application of theories," while philosophers are "strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories". It's just feel-good nonsense. SRS/flash cards is the most efficient way to learn vocabulary, it's also boring as hell. This isn't any evidence for learning styles, just that some people have stated in surveys that they prefer to do things in various ways. If you'd apply it to any other subject (e.g. physical exercise) it'd fall apart in a matter of seconds. For education, success is much harder to measure because the good measures are all politically incorrect. This is also why they can just make stuff up as they go along. I have worked with a ton of math students and helped many students that failed three math exams and then succeeded. It's not that their intelligence was faulty, it's that they had not a strong base form. After I sat and reviewed the basics and told them where to strengthen their game, most did pass Calculus the exam after. Without lowering any standards. But these students would have passed the courses needed to get into calculus class, no? As in, they probably weren't retarded. If they were, they'd have been going to spec ed, which I wouldn't think offers calculus. Also, "most" passing (achieving lowest non-failing grade?) is still far worse than the performance of a regular class, where people achieve way higher than passing grades without special coaching. I stand by that statement. Everyone motivated enough. Even people suffering from dyscalcia. Even mentally disabled people. But not everyone will do it on the first try. And not everyone will need to. But everyone motivated enough can do it. Not extremely familiar with dyscalculia, but isn't it like dyslexia? As in, they'll have some issues with numbers/spelling, but they're not actually dumb and they have no trouble with grammar. Then it would make sense that they'd eventually manage to learn math like everyone else, but with some idiosyncratic methods. But mentally disabled people? Aren't you thinking of something else, like learning disabilities or brain disorders? Because the definition of intellectual disability ("retarded") is literally an IQ below 70, which does make you extremely dumb. People with mild [intellectual disability] are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged nine to twelve. If you can't even learn how to read, then how are you supposed to learn advanced maths? It's true that motivation is important, but you can't use it to compensate infinitely. If you could, then how come there are hardly no Down syndrome people with university degrees? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-14, 13:30 in Web Browser Discussion
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #390 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
As we all know, Google are deeply concerned with the privacy of their It sounds a lot like a classic Microsoft stategy. [x] embrace [x] extend [ ] extinguish There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-14, 16:41 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #391 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wertigon The first video is just comically absurd, worse than a TED talk. Modern education being bad for creativity is probably true, but he classroom example is just goofy. He asserts the same things about "varying strengths," but provides no evidence to back his claims up. The only evidence provided is a loose quote from "the inventor of standardized testing" describing standardized tests as "too crude to be used". He also claims Finland's educational system is better. But Finland employs standardized testing extensively. He also mentions Singapore, which if I recall correctly is extremely similar to China's - hardcore Prussian education, and far more stifling of creativity than American education. He presumably brought those examples up because they rank highly in PISA rankings. But this is just a function of demographics. After disconsidering ethnic minorities, the US is something like top 5, varying slightly based on subject. The second video just groundlessly asserts poor people get shafted. It doesn't deal with the alleged individual differences in learning styles in the slightest. What exactly is explained by these videos? Fact of the matter is, SES is a function of education. BUT. Education is a function of, among other things, SES. Untrue. Parental income has next to no incremental predictive value when coupled with parental education. Education is mostly a function of intelligence:  As you can see, there is next to no difference by income. If educational outcomes aren't caused by intelligence, how would you explain their strong correlation with it? And sure a person way behind in the race will need time to catch up. But here is the thing; education keeps explaining stuff in one way, but we all learn differently. Math can be explained in a thousand different ways, and a mentally disabled can get math if put in the context of something they understand. Yet we teach only in a couple different ways. The bolded part is what I object to. There is no empirical evidence for this claim. Another article. And here's the thing I do not understand... It wouldn't be. I assume you're talking about the renorming of IQ tests and the Flynn effect. But the Flynn effect only deals with a mean. The median hasn't increased by 3 points per decade, only the mean. Posted by sureanem In other words, a person with 100 IQ in 1960 would probably have about the same IQ today, or at the very least not much lower. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-14, 22:32 in Web Browser Discussion
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #392 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
It's very expensive to make a rendering engine, and with all the HTML5 stuff Trident/Presto are practically back at square one. There's not much profit to it anymore. Microsoft did it to get an advantage for their platform, this motive is out. Opera got money from shareware, ads, etc. Later on from propping up Google's monopoly. Firefox also gets their money from propping up Google's monopoly. That's the only revenue source nowadays, unless you want to get real creative (see: Brave, Hola) But to do this in the first place, you need a user base. You're not going to get any investments to develop a browser because Google later on might want to pay you for the search engine spot. Most importantly, Google will make sure to eliminate any competitors that pose a serious risk to them. If your project is indeed a commercial one, they can just kill it in one fell swoop whenever you start acting up. This is also why Mozilla are doing such stupid shit: if they didn't, Google would dry up the funding, and then their pet projects (which are what they really care about) would die. And when you've secured your user base, you might as well cut your expenses by switching over to Blink and externalize development costs to Google. It's a closed loop. Google makes browsers, pays money to license the usage of brands and create the illusion of competition, and in return they get a monopoly in the search engine field. Mozilla are kind of a special case, in that they for reasons of pride need to keep developing their engine (and also because it's a pet project), but a profit-driven corporation would obviously not care about this. So your only option is a FOSS third-party browser project to create that alternative you want and cater to the <0.1% of the population that actually cares. However, it has a few issues: 1) you'd need several years of work until you reached any results of note 2) nobody in their right mind who isn't a web developer would want to work on such a project for free 2b) it is at least a commonly accepted truism that web developers only do FOSS projects to pad their resumés and are actually unhelpful and do not care about FOSS much at all, but them if anyone 2c) web developers are not suited for this kind of low-level, difficult work You'd probably be making the GNU Hurd of browser engines. I think the fatal flaw is that you'd never reach feature escape velocity. A small but dedicated core of developers wouldn't be big enough to implement features faster than W3C adds them. So at best, you would be making the TempleOS of browser engines. At the end of the day, it's far easier to just deal with a blob of a few hundred megabytes, hope it doesn't get worse, and realize that there are far greater threats to freedom and security. Because at the end of the day, the question remains: why waste your time fixing a platform you don't actually like? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-14, 23:49 in Web Browser Discussion
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #393 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
They had it coming. They could definitely have fixed it, just like all respectable C libraries have hand-tuned assembly implementations of memcpy et al. for any CPU architecture of note. You already have Decentraleyes, so why not take it a step further? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-15, 13:18 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #394 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wertigon This is very rare. I'll assume that if you have time to watch TV, you'd have time to do homework. Since low-income people watch a lot of TV, they should have time to do homework too. Since IQ is the big predetermining factor, no matter how much time you put into something you will always succeed if you have a high IQ. Why you could play video games all day long, head to the tests and ace every one of them if your IQ is higher than 190. IQ > 190 would make you one of the seven smartest people on Earth, that's way unrealistic. But sure, something like IQ 130 would probably be enough for that. You never met one of those people in school who didn't have to study at all? Sorry, don't buy it. At all. Please interview a social worker about the problems in the lowest quartile of the SES, truly horrifying. No, you are free to tell me about them. I don't associate with social workers. Second, if you use a test that tests on similar things as an IQ test then of course IQ will have a strong correlation. It's a given. But we just established IQ was genetic. I don't know what you're referring to. Do you mean the graph with HS GPA? That's Grade Point Average, or your average grade. Because my whole thesis is that schools by necessity test on the same things as IQ tests do, which is the driving cause of the differences in educational outcomes by social class. And, no. A person with 100 IQ 1960 would have an IQ score of 80 today. And even further back, 70. He mixes the two up. The average was by current norms 82 back then and 100 now, but no such statement is made about the median. It's possible (and indeed likely) the same could go for the median, but it's not given by the Flynn effect directly. More importantly, the Flynn effect gets weaker the more g-loaded the test gets. In other words, this increase in test scores is more an artefact of test unreliability than any actual changes. Since IQ is constant, according to you, people in the 1960s were borderline retarded by today standards. Again, if a person with an IQ of 80 today could do Calculus in 1960, why can they not do that today? What has changed? Even if that which you say is true, it's not inconsistent with my hypothesis: far more people go to college today than they did in the 1960's. And as we have seen, the Flynn effect has little to no effect for the upper echelons of ability, e.g. those who'd be going to college. What about those learning styles? Do you have any evidence for them, other than the bizarre video with the Black guy in a suit? Or any retards graduating from university? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-15, 14:24 in Web Browser Discussion
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #395 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by Screwtape Chrome is embracing ad blocking and "extending" the platform, from the ABP filter lists to a crippled implementation. It sounds a lot like EEE to me. It's one thing to have a hand-tuned implementation of memcpy for people to call. It's another thing to find chunks of code that *look* like memcpy so you can silently swap them out for your own implementation, and it's yet another thing when programs deliberately obfuscate their memcpy implementations so that you won't be able to swap them out. GCC does both, or at least it should. The goal is to produce fast programs/websites. Only results matter, or as the Italian philosopher and politician put it: The means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on. I'm suggesting that they should have done something like Decentraleyes but for the whole domain. As in, a request for youtube.com/watch?v=asdasd should be treated separately to asdasd.com/watch?v=asdasd, and instead get served a static implementation of YouTube, just like about:config or similar does. And this should be done for, say, the top 500 websites. That would make it impossible for them to mess up their performance by making slight changes to the layout, and it would make them win benchmarks handily, since it could skip the HTTP request and large chunks of rendering. The downside is that design changes might take a bit more time to propagate, but this is hardly something users would be upset about or even notice. Another downside is of course that it would make browsers even more arcane pieces of software and break with lots of standards. Then again, standards are descriptive and not prescriptive, so if enough people start doing it, it will become standards-compliant behavior again. Obviously, Mozilla would never have done this, Microsoft apparently didn't have the guts, and Google won't bother now that the competition is out of the way. So it won't ever happen. But it should have. It's the next logical step in the development of web browsers. Currently, all adblockers are based on big lists of Bad URLs. Once a URL is added to the list, there's very little incentive to remove it: if a user sees an ad, they blame the adblocker, but if the user's browser is slow, they'll blame the browser (and checking a million useless URLs might still be faster than loading the ad). Manifest V3 seems specifically designed to prevent blockers from using the "big list of Bad URLs" approach, so yeah, I imagine all those extensions will need to be at least redesigned. Surely, they can't be using a linear scan? This is Google, a company which makes money off of advertising and has a nigh-monopoly on browsers. Do you really think they're doing this to save ad blocking? Also, if the 30k URL hard cap becomes put into practice, websites could just use a large enough variation that it wouldn't be possible to block. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-15, 16:01 in Something about cheese!
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #396 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by funkyass I don't see how it changes anything. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-15, 22:31 in Something about cheese! (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #397 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wertigon Well, education is mostly a function of IQ, but deficiencies in IQ can be compensated for by increased conscientiousness up to a point. Or if you wish infinitely, but then there is a limit to conscientiousness. In other words, you do get this threshold under the assumption that conscientiousness is held constant. This seems like a reasonable enough assumption, so I'll go with it. If anything, the standards for calculus have decreased. So I'm willing to go with the assumption that it's pretty much the same. Now: I'm not sure about your third point. Would someone with 100 1960 IQ handle college? From 1962 to 2018, the share of men holding degrees increased from 5.5% to 34.6, an increase of over six times. Also consider that ethnic minorities has increased, and disconsidering them the increase would be even higher. At any rate, it's more than sextupled. If we assume for a moment that education is solely a function of intelligence, we can compute the IQ score that exactly 34.6% of the population exceeds respectively, then determine what mean we would require provided the same value and SD to get a probability of 5.5%. We get an IQ score of 106 as the answer to our first question, and then a required mean of 82 to get the aforementioned 5.5% probability of exceeding that. In other words, the data is not inconsistent with the hypothesis. Also consider Teasdale and Owen (1989). Almost no Flynn effect for the 80th percentile and above. 80th percentile is ~113 IQ, for reference. Also consider that this is the share of the population holding degrees, and there is a large lag. You'd ideally want to have something like 25-29 year olds. Then maybe you'd get only a 10 point increase, or something along those lines. Don't have the data, so I can't check. There is also the issue of IQ tests only being 95% reliable. On longer timescales, this might pose an issue if not renorming, while still making them perfectly suitable for all the other applications. And indeed, there is less and less of a Flynn effect the more g-loaded a test gets. So I would be prepared to chalk this supposedly enormous gap up to successive renormings. Sure, and why not let the peasants eat cake instead of bread, too. Doesn't quite work that way in real life. Cake is a scarce good, unlike homework, as any kid who's went to school would tell you. It shows clearly that it's not a matter of time, which was my point. On the topic of homework: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659160/ Higher income students gain more knowledge from their homework time than their counterparts in all grades and all subjects except history, with greater group differences for math than for science and reading. Maths have a higher g-loading than science and reading, which in turn have a higher g-loading than history. And my hypothesis is that higher income students simply are more intelligent. However, there is no strong linear relationship between parental SES and time spent on homework. So it can't be the time being spent having some non-linear relationship either. More importantly, there is no need to speculate in why poor kids fare worse; after controlling for IQ (a genetic trait), the educational value of income disappears. (CTRL-F "which doesn’t necessarily means these tests are biased as there are also average differences in GPA controlling for IQ, not to mention regression to the mean, etc") In other words, we can completely discount SES as a causative factor of educational outcomes. So what is it then that causes the inequality of outcomes, if not intelligence? EDIT: Fixed link (also, am I allowed to link to Sci-Hub? I can't find anything in the FAQ about it, so I'll assume I am unless someone tells me to stop) There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-16, 20:21 in Something about cheese! (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #398 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wertigon Right, but the issue isn't that they don't have enough time. They spend as much time doing homework as the richer kids do. Did a quick google search, three links that seems to disprove your claims: Regarding the Israeli study, I don't see why you need such an error-prone method to estimate the heritability of education. If I'm reading their convoluted study correctly, the effect sizes are tiny. And the parent dying after taking the exam has almost the same effect? What? I mean, try hashing it out yourself: https://sci-hub.tw/10.3386/w25495 I'll disregard the second link, since it's literal advertising and doesn't seem to be written by someone trying to be very honest (" The third article seems almost honest, albeit with a bit shoddy understanding of the concepts (IQ is not on a scale of 0-200, nor is it true that modern IQ tests don't test for social skills). But more importantly, they claim "emotional intelligence" and "grit" (conscientiousness) are more important. The article they link to to explain what "emotional intelligence" is (19 Signs You're Emotionally Intelligent (And Why It Matters for Your Career)) is seems to include conscientiousness ("grit"). However, they link to a (poorly written) study. It's the kind of study which claims the MBTI is legitimate. But there's a bit of a flaw: instead of tables/graphs, it just says "insert Table X about here". In other words, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from this study. The article is not very helpful either. To be blunt, it gives off the impression of content without much of a relationship to reality written for people without much of a relationship to reality, or in other words middle management. Vitriol aside, the concept of emotional intelligence has been thoroughly debunked. Here is a well done study. Highlights: * "Emotional intelligence" correlates 0.35 with intelligence (p < 0.01) * Transformational leadership and managerial performance correlate 0.46 and 0.36 respectively with intelligence, but only 0.22 and 0.29 (p < 0.01 for all except EI/TL, which had p < 0.05) * "Emotional intelligence" correlated 0.01 (statistically insignificant, but men'd have it more) with gender - WTF? * "Emotional intelligence" had no additional predictive value after controlling for Gender, Team Size, Managerial experience, Openness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Intelligence. * If "emotional intelligence" did have an effect, and the data does not support this, it was negative. Conscientiousness does play a role, definitely. They find that too. I'm not going to dispute that, it's common sense. But this doesn't mean you can just throw more conscientiousness at the problem ad infinitum. I mean, at some point there's got to be a limit, and most likely it's not 16h/day - very few people have the willpower to manage that in the long run. But more importantly, it is not immutable. A person can build it up by putting themselves through more and more difficult tasks, and the genetic correlations are quite low compared to IQ. This is not the case for IQ, as you might remember. If you do not happen to know what a dog or a puppy is... Well, you would fail on this test. This could be from a number of reasons, ranging from being six years old and not a native english speaker (because of spanish immigrant people) for instance. If you don't know what a dog or a puppy is, you're probably not the sharpest tool in the shed. Six-year olds aren't usually very bright, but I still would think they know what a bloody puppy is. Maybe a retarded one wouldn't, but then we're kind of back at square one. It would be a bad idea to give the test in someone's non-native language for sure. Immigrants should take it in their native tongue. Furthermore, it is possible to improve your intelligence according to a study done in 2008. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.abstract Motivational effects. Metastudy. The closest to a smoking gun is the lack of a dose-response effect. Nothing you have shown me has disproven this. The only thing you have shown is that there is a correlation between high IQ and high income. No, I've also shown you that IQ is mostly genetic, and not at all shared environment (e.g. it's impossible for IQ to be caused by income), and that poorer students do not have worse grades than richer students after adjusting for IQ. These two factors combined don't admit any other explanation than IQ -> educational outcome -> income. It could be that income too is contingent upon parental income, and I wouldn't even find it unlikely, but that doesn't prevent Herrnstein's syllogism from holding provided the impact of intelligence is sufficiently large. Legacies do not last that long (if nothing else, they get diluted since women inherit property too nowadays, giving an exponential decay), while genes last literally forever. A quick refresher: Posted by Richard Herrnstein Also consider that assortative mating proceeds directly on verbal IQ. So in a society where 2 and 3 do not take place, there will still be a genetic stratification taking place in the quiet. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-16, 21:31 in Web Browser Discussion
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #399 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by Screwtape Isn't that what they're doing, though? You introduce this, and some obscure add-on maintainers nobody cares about whine for a bit and ABP goes along with it, and then when the noise's died down you turn the screws another quarter turn, and so on and so forth? Google has always had the power to extinguish adblockers, this is just standard PR where they're trying to find a compromise between what they want and what their customers will accept. No, I don't think that sounds reasonable. On mobile, Google has complete vertical integration. On desktop, Google competes with Firefox. To me, it just looks like they're moving into the final stages of "leverage Chrome monopoly". I can guess two possible reasons: one is that they judge that they've outmaneuvered Mozilla and will soon have complete control, the other one is that they judge that the desktop will soon fade into irrelevance and it's important to kill ad blocking to set the stage for ads delivered via DRM. To outright kill adblockers might be illegal (cf. Microsoft antitrust case) and at any rate garner immense backlash, but to cripple them for "performance reasons" (again, cf. Microsoft antitrust case) is not. Keep in mind that there's otherwise little to no reason for them to do this, since Chrome beats Firefox in benchmarks and those are done without ad blockers enabled anyway. The real conspiracy-minded observers might say the timing is "interesting" considering they've just managed to kill off the last non-Firefox competitor. They might also speculate that Google had something to do with Mozilla's decline. Corporate espionage just isn't that expensive, you know. And Mozilla's decline does look awfully similar not to say identical to what I'd expect Google to engineer if they indeed did have engineered it, with Firefox looking an awful lot like Google Reader ca. 2010. Most of the other products Google bought up died, so why shouldn't Firefox? I think you missed the bit where websites want to control how they're presented to the user. The only reason Decentraleyes works is because such a small fraction of users use it that it's not worth the effort it would take to undermine. If a major browser started matching "https://youtube.com/watch?v=" and replacing it with some other content, I guarantee YouTube videos would start being served from "youtube.io" or "media.google.com" or something within hours. That's a cat-and-mouse game. Youtube-dl isn't blocked, and is most likely significantly harder to block. They could just implement that in the browser with fast updates. They could also recoup their performance loss by blocking all ads by default, and announce their displeasure with YouTube's idiosyncrasies through informal channels. Also, most websites would probably not mind if you still let them update their layouts. I can't imagine many websites explicitly wishing to block Decentraleyes, for instance. Android already has a system where apps can register themselves as handling particular URLs, so when you browse to youtube.com on your mobile browser, you get a prompt to open the page in the YouTube app. Fair enough. You still need the app though, and often it's faster to load the website. The point is not that a particular adblocker is inefficient, the point (from Google's point of view) is that if/when an adblocker does such a thing, Google gets the blame, and that's unfair. When has Google ever gotten the blame for this though? Very few people discuss switching browsers (they all use Chrome), and the few who do would consult benchmarks and not real life performance. Unless there is a significant difference, nobody would bother. And even then, ad blockers are likely to be as slow in Firefox as in Chrome. Google have presented a list of reasons why their proposal benefits end-users. Anyone with two brain-cells to rub together can come up with other, less-altruistic motivations, but that doesn't make those original reasons wrong or misleading, they're just not the whole picture. Well, their reasons don't sound very plausible. And if they're not the real motivations, then certainly they're wrong or misleading. The next step would be for some independent group to try and measure things like "how much time and battery does an adblocker take" versus "how much time and battery does advertising take", and maybe experiment with reducing the complexity of adblocking lists to see how much affect that has on adblocking costs, and how far you can trim down the list while still being a net benefit over not using an adblocker. You know, actual *information*. Lining up to yell at Google for being oppressive or adblockers for being wasteful might be cathartic, but it doesn't actually improve the situation. I don't see what problem it'd solve. Google now knows exactly how much to cripple ad blockers rate to be a net benefit in terms of battery? I don't care a particular lot about battery, nor about the 0.1s or whatever longer page load times, however seeing the disgusting and repulsive ads does certainly bother me. This goes for the supposedly non-intrusive and SFW text ads too. It's like the physically repulsive beggars who couldn't even be bothered to learn the language properly hassling you for money. Just piss off! It's not a matter of hygiene or tax laws or whatever, that's just the government's way of politely saying they don't like you. (the crucial difference being that ads are ostensibly needed for websites to survive) There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| sureanem |
Posted on 19-06-16, 23:41 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #400 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.winbrick.de/* Isn't everything here? Just search for "application" Regarding Cyber Pinball: I thought it'd be good practice so I gave it a stab. Unfortunately, OllyDbg is painful under Wine (I'm amazed it even runs!), so I gave up. But the packing is just a red herring it seems, since the DRM kicks in before running the packer. The actual game is packed via a Bit-Arts Cruncher-type packer, and can be unpacked with "The Bit-Arts Solution v1.2," but there's not much point to it. It crashes on execution, but you can look at strings and stuff. It looks like the actual DRM is in an EXE file named insXXXX.tmp with a corresponding DLL file named DW2XXXX.tmp, in the temp folder, since it has strings related to unlocking. XXXX is a short, not zero-padded. XXXX isn't the same for the two but it's close. DW2 is always higher than ins and always later. Removes ins but not DW2 on shutdown/game start. Always the same MD5 hash, although it might vary by machine so I won't post mine. Computing DW2-ins and comparing to file time shows that the difference is the same as the millisecond difference in creation time, ±2 ms or so. So I suppose you could just set a breakpoint on the time APIs, unless they're used too often. Anyway, all this is unimportant. If some researcher in 2100 wants to analyze WinBrick96, he'll just have to fire up his Electron-powered cloud debugger and do it himself. The important thing is to preserve the artifacts, since those are the only things at risk of getting lost. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
