dnautics
Joined 16 years ago
Karma
18,767
Submissions
9,468
Member since
Aug 23
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 day ago
The thing is you're cherry picking dumb events, so there's observation bias. I'm sure in the last year I would have done something on your list, even if they aren't things I regularly do. And besides that's not what idiocracy is representing.
Comment · 1 day ago
> I have not been impressed overall with their intellectual capacity for learning important and lifesaving knowledge in preparation for life-changing natural survival conditions which are outside of their daily routine
Sounds like you are vastly overestimating the intelligence of the median.
Comment · 1 day ago
you're not the only one.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-something-is-wro...
Comment · 1 day ago
Net worth. It's a pretty good proxy. Unless you think there's some reason to think among the rich smart people are anti-selected for reproduction.
> This does not appear, at least to my mind, to have direct bearing on observable trends in general population IQ in the short term, nor does it appear to be addressing future outcomes
No but the proposed mechanism in Idiocracy is clear, and that is not happening. We may still head towards an dumb future, but it's not Idiocracy.
Comment · 1 day ago
No its not, not in America. Since this decade the highest IQ is on trend to having higher TFR than the lowest, since children are expensive
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-babies-for-the-rich-the-rela...
Comment · 4 days ago
that's why I wrote "feel more likely" in quotes. Emphasis on feel
Comment · 4 days ago
Seems not? Just good old gpu allocations colliding
Comment · 4 days ago
thanks for the correction. Corrected.
Comment · 4 days ago
the language around complexity domains is really confusing.
P means "this problem can be solved in polynomial # of steps relative to the problem size"
NP means "we don't know if the problem can be solved in polynomial # of steps relative to problem size, but we know we can check if the result is correct in a polynomial # of steps relative to the problem size"
!ETH: it was widely suspected that the flagship problem in NP, 3SAT, requires an exponential # of steps relative to problem size. We now know that 3SAT requires AT MOST something more than polynomial but strictly less than exponential to solve.
"P = NP" means "if you can check it in polynomial time, there's some way to solve it in polynomial time". "P != NP" means "there are some problems checkable in polynomial time for which there is no polynomial way to obtain the result"
Today's new proof makes "P = NP" "feel more likely", because we know that the flagship problem in NP is not exponential.
Comment · 4 days ago
but you're telling me.... there's a chance
Comment · 5 days ago
sure. It's less likely let's say. More opportunity for competition to arise per business cycle when growth is still there but has natural drag due to money not being cheap.
Currently Open-Source projects: memory safety for zig. (https://github.com/ityonemo/clr/ and inline zig for elixir (https://github.com/ityonemo/zigler)
yt code channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLf5mA1y1vDNlydJ8d5CmSteyr6Zmp4rjS
isaac dot yonemoto at the only other useful "alphabet" service