walkhour
Joined 5 years ago
Joined 5 years ago
> I want affordable housing. Affordable healthcare. High speed rail. Better zoning laws. New subway lines.
Are you saying we only need 12% of the budget to fix these things? Note that coincidentally medicare is already accounting for ~12% of the total.
Say the military budget goes to zero (which it can't), and we spend half of that on medicare (it would be 18%). Will it fix the problem?
I think the problem is much deeper than wasting this 12%.
The truth is we don't know. People that will lose their jobs may find other jobs or not. Maybe it's harder to reinvent oneself now. Maybe a lot of people will truly suffer because of AI.
I find very hard to know with certainty what will happen, who will remain unharmed, and who will struggle but make it through, but change is coming.
So much reliance on a potential enemy was a huge mistake. Germany should've foreseen that in the span of say 40 years it was likely there would be a major conflict with Russia.
All prediction markets were estimating at fairly high this possibility and the fact that Germany didn't realize this and course-corrected is surprising to say the least.
Apparently he didn't voluntarily give away he's secrets, they were found around his place.
Hundreds of thousands for eight years in jail, decades of angst, and a broken family ...
Meanwhile finding out the number of deaths caused by extra caution and delaying the experiment requires a calculation, and then a very lengthy blog post to be communicated.
Bureaucrats don't care about the second kind of deaths because they can hardly be linked to their actions. Now the first kind of deaths are directly their responsibility. And guess what, they can be avoided with a flick of a pen.
> Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component ...
You have written both statements ...
This is just madness, house prices are guaranteed to go up and affordability is likely to increase zero.
Sure, but this is not the claim I originally quoted. I was taking about heritability, and you're taking now about disparities between groups.
Nevertheless it seems you agree the heritability of IQ is well established, which you were denying originally.
Doesn't this author have a terrible reputation? And he's known for standing by disproven theories? I'm surprised you didn't find a better example.
> How about a video essay which summarizes other critiques:
Sorry, I haven't watched these 2 hours and 40 minutes, can I read the summary somewhere? Hopefully it's better than Nassim's article.
> Or a peer reviewed summary which got published in an academic journal with over a 100 citations
What is a peer reviewed summary? Is it like a meta-analysis? But honest questions: how much weight do you think this has? Are the citations supporting it or criticising it?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Looks like an example of bad science that was caught and exposed? Why do you think this reflects badly on the rest of the research?
> To date, the literature does not support any consensus around the theory of general intelligence nor the efficacy of IQ as a theory for intelligence.
You are asking for consensus. Do you mean an ultra majority? There's no consensus even on whether climate change is real, only 97% of scientist think so. Could you give percentages of who supports what on the science of IQ.
Overall I'd recommend not taking a single article and using it as something that can refute a whole science.
This is the crux of your comment and its a huge statement. Do you have evidence supporting this claim?