YMMV, but I was too horny to actually make use of my superior fluid intelligence in my 20s, so I’m content with the tradeoff here.
I guess it depends on your definition of "fluid" intelligence, though I was bad with both of them in my 20s.
Readit NewsSketchySeaBeast commented on Humans peak in midlife: A combined cognitive and personality trait perspective sciencedirect.com/science... · Posted by u/Brajeshwar
SketchySeaBeast commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell
You're right in a strict sense. But in my experience such strictness is only useful in hard sciences and (maybe) legalese. There are exceedingly few things we can claim to apply everywhere, and even fewer we can "prove" to each other.
Give it a try if you don't believe me. Even categories we take for granted, like trees and fish, are not perfectly crisp, and "obvious" facts like "humans need a heart to live" have surprising exceptions.
> Pointing out that penguins can't fly doesn't make the case that birds can fly stronger in any way.
I disagree. It's such a common rule that there's a long Wikipedia page for the exceptions[1], and the first photo is of penguins, labelled "penguins are a well-known example of flightless birds.".
If I knew nothing else about the topic, I would take it as evidence that it's common for birds to fly, otherwise that fact would have been unremarkable. Not hard proof of a universal quantifier, but a useful rule nonetheless.
> There are exceedingly few things we can claim to apply everywhere, and even fewer we can "prove" to each other.
Yes, this is why hard and fast rules don't make sense, and why they should have "generally", "normally", or "mostly" attached to them.
If you have two categories of birds, one with those that fly and one that doesn't, having that second list doesn't make the first stronger. At some point that second list dilutes that first one so much that it doesn't make sense anymore.
If my rule is that "white guys are named Dave" does my building a list of every example of a Dave and non-Dave make my rule stronger? When does the "strong" nature of the rule get watered down sufficiently? Honestly, a list of hundreds of birds tells me that it's a weak rule and that the "birds fly" rule is wrong.
SketchySeaBeast commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell
I think it's also appropriate to use it when the rule is so strong that exceptions are famous because they are exceptions. "Birds are capable of flight" is strong enough that penguins and ostriches are famous for being counterexamples.
But that's not following the saying - it's still not proving, it's modifying the rule. It shifts the rule from "birds can fly" to "most birds can fly". Pointing out that penguins can't fly doesn't make the case that birds can fly stronger in any way.
SketchySeaBeast commented on Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes bitsaboutmoney.com/archiv... · Posted by u/dangrossman
The alternative explanation that he is against cryptocurrency actually is true.
Seems to be a bad use of "racist".
SketchySeaBeast commented on The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein scottaaronson.blog/?p=953... · Posted by u/pfdietz
If that happened, it would be classed as assault in the UK - is it the same in America? And, if so, is Gates likely to be investigated by the police?
> And, if so, is Gates likely to be investigated by the police?
What a bizarre turn of events that would be if THIS was the thing that got investigated.
SketchySeaBeast commented on Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes bitsaboutmoney.com/archiv... · Posted by u/dangrossman
>cryptoracist
He hates cryptographers?
The man has nothing nice to say about Bigfoot.
SketchySeaBeast commented on Recreating Epstein PDFs from raw encoded attachments neosmart.net/blog/recreat... · Posted by u/ComputerGuru
The emails are bizarrely sloppy with spelling and punctuation, perhaps many usages of "don't" ended up being typed as "don t", triggering an automated find-and-replace.
The export itself is also sloppy, with characters like equal signs being added in weird places. Seems like they have it set to cast a wide and poorly set up net.
SketchySeaBeast commented on Recreating Epstein PDFs from raw encoded attachments neosmart.net/blog/recreat... · Posted by u/ComputerGuru
Or it's distraction. Leave nudity in to use up attention that should be turning to analysis of what's been redacted.
There's redaction to protect victims and there's redaction to protect specific co-conspirators in Epstein's spy ring
It's hilariously revealing that it keeps redacting "Don't".
It’s a shame we don’t have physical bodies and a means to share the human experience with other humans without intermediaries.
What's your plan, be present at all major events?
What is going on?
This will not/hardly save any money. And this was a source of US soft power (deciding which facts to list, how to report on them, etc, allowed to shape an opinion.)
This administration doesn't seem to see value in soft power.