cakealert

Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch:

> Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?

You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.

That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible.

Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense?

> A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.

Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.

The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.

> If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.

But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.

> move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating

So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.

When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.

> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen.

Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account?

They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?

Instead of a mouth tape get one of those moldable plastic mouth guard things from amazon. And mold the hole shut.

> No, based on cURL's history, it really seems like they would love to have found a really novel bug.

You just confirmed that you didn't read the article.

"Eventually, I was instead offered that someone else, who has access to the model, could run a scan and analysis on curl for me using Mythos and send me a report."

The purpose of IQ tests is to derive a value that would predict other values. The inverse is also true.

Given a multitude of such values it would even be possible to get back to a precise IQ value.

IQ tests are just factor analysis artifacts. You can dream up 100 questions that you conjecture may have something to do with intelligence and not even know the answers and have 10,000 people answer them. Product of the factor analysis of the answers will yield a normal distribution which you can then center on 100. Calibration can be more complicated than that but you get the point.

The natural circumstances people find themselves in are also just noisy questions.

Why the focus on Lynn?

Focusing on his critics is more illuminating and damaging to your presumed position:

Systematic review by Wicherts et al: "In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African testtakers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80."

They of course follow it with the conjecture: "Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans."

It's always curious how "common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans" don't carry over to economics and other things. Wouldn't you expect them to have similar problems with other western "ideas"? Also interesting how Easterners adapted to western IQ tests so well they are better at them than the West.