ninthcat

Evolution happens even without any selection pressures, for example with genetic drift.

Another important factor is whether the place is monetizable. Places where you can't make money are less likely to be infested with AI.

> The natural equilibrium for a perfect ad market is for the ad spend to be exactly equal to increase in revenue

Not quite, the equilibrium is when marginal ad spend results in no change to profit. The ad spend at equilibrium should result in increased profit compared to no ad spend.

System Settings > Touch ID & Password > Use Touch ID for autofilling passwords. Turn this off on Macs with Touch ID and Safari will autofill without requiring Touch ID.

The probability is exactly zero by definition. The maximum score on a test is a raw score of 100%. Tests are normalized to have the reported scores fit a normal distribution. An out-of-distribution score indicates an error in normalizing the test.

In other words, the highest IQ of every living person has a defined upper bound that is dependent on the number of living people and it is definitionally impossible to exceed this value. Reports of higher values are mistakes or informal exaggerations, similar to a school saying a student is one that you would only encounter in a million years. By definition it is not possible to have evidence to support such a statement.

It's possible to do proportional representation with a ranked choice voting system where you vote for individuals rather than parties. Or you could allow voters to rank either parties or individual candidates based on their preference; an example of this is the Australian Senate election.

I don't think national elections need to have districts smaller than a state at all. If all of a state's seats in the House that are up for election were decided in a single state-wide election with multiple winners allocated with proportional representation, it is impossible to gerrymander. Many other countries have this kind of system.

"120" and "0.12%" both have 2 significant digits. "120." and "0.120%" have 3 significant digits.

I don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.

Protests don't need to change the minds of the public to work. For example, protests still work in non-democratic societies in which public opinion has no bearing on policy. They work by directly exerting pressure on people who make decisions.

7 and 49 look the same.

For those who believe that billionaires are a policy failure, the answer is they should be taxed more to the point that there are no more billionaires.

If you want to know whether a drug is more effective than placebo, the answer to that question depends on both the data collected in a study and the initial study design. There’s a reason why it’s meaningless to say “that was unlikely” after somebody says they were born on January 1, or after getting a two-factor code that is the same number six times. There’s nothing special about those particular events except for the fact that we noticed them. Since we live in a single instance of the universe where they have already happened, they have probability 1. At the same time, on any given instance they have probability 1/365ish or 1/10000. The difference between these two interpretations of the probability is the same difference as having a good experimental design vs a flawed experimental design where you repeat the experiment until you get the results you want to see.

Unlikely in what probability space? We only see one version of reality so the probabilities that we assign to any outcome are based on a prior choice of probability space. That is why the researchers' intent matters.