Hacker News Reader

Exactly. If you subsidize the abundance for everyone, the effect will just be raised expectations floor.

xyzzyzon New method turns ocean water into drinking water, without waste

If you read the article you sent me, you'll learn that, just as I said, you don't use sodium chloride, aka table salt, aka sea salt, for these purposes.

xyzzyzon New method turns ocean water into drinking water, without waste

It’s about thermal storage, you don’t use table/sea salt for that, and you don’t need a lot of salt, because the salt is in a closed loop; it’s not being consumed.

xyzzyzon New method turns ocean water into drinking water, without waste

Brine might be bad to the place you dump into, but crystalline salt is even worse.

Overall though, it’s just such a tiny concern. Ocean is huge. If we kill everything in a 100 foot radius, that’s 0.0000000008% of the ocean being destroyed. Less than a drop in a bucket.

xyzzyzon New method turns ocean water into drinking water, without waste

Maybe, but dumping crystalline salt is even worse to the spot you’re dumping it on.

xyzzyzon New method turns ocean water into drinking water, without waste

Brine is very easy to dispose of: you just pump it back to where it came from. Solid crystalline salt, on the other hand, is a hassle.

xyzzyzon Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation

How are they “not obligated to be truthful”? Lying to investors is literally a crime.

xyzzyzon I manage teams without a single call

It's very easy today to transcribe and summarize every call that you have.

xyzzyzon Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

Yes, and by shifting the labor supply curve you can make the laborers worse off, because it will often shift the supply curve of the product they’re making. If labor unions make you pay your workers more, you might need to raise the prices, which will make you less competitive, and reduce your sales, which can result in layoffs, or in preventing new workers from gaining employment.

xyzzyzon Supreme Court Limits Voting Rights Act

None of what you said responds in any way to the arguments made in the post you are responding to.

xyzzyzon US Supreme Court reviews police use of cell location data

Sorry, I’m not chilled at all by the prospect that the court can subpoena my data from Goole. It can already issue a warrant to arrest me, and to search my actual home.

xyzzyzon US Supreme Court reviews police use of cell location data

I hate this change. I loved how the original Timeline worked, and now it's unusable. I don't care about courts subpoeaning my data. I'd love to opt in to previous status quo. I don't care about the loss of "privacy" in the context that was never important to me.

Most people are like me: they don't care about being protected from the courts, because the courts don't pose risk to them, and as a matter of statistical fact, they are correct.

xyzzyzon ML promises to be profoundly weird

No, they totally grew enough calories for themselves. My grandparents lived like that. They farmed around 15 hectares, which was actually quite a lot. You can easily grew enough calories for your family on 5 hectares, or even less if you have access to modern cultivars and artificial fertilizer. It’s just even poor people like variety, and will trade some of their crops for stuff they cannot make at home efficiently, like sugar, fish, or candy.

xyzzyzon ML promises to be profoundly weird

Prior to Industrial Revolution, nobody could go hunt in the woods, because the woods were King’s, and poaching King’s game carried death penalty. Situation was similar on the continent: the tiny slivers of remaining wood lands were off limits.

Granted, things were different in the New World, as a result of mass depopulation event following the Columbian exchange. But even there, the megafauna was hunted to extinction soon after the humans first appeared there.

Anyway, the point is that no, prior to Industrial Revolution, the world was of full of scarcity, not abundance.

xyzzyzon Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

The research shows that the tests are predictive almost precisely to the extent they test “meta skills”. We can even measure how much individual questions test meta skills vs specific skills. You can learn about this by searching for the terms “factor analysis” and “g-loading”.

xyzzyzon Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

Obviously, yes. This is not circular: it is by no means tautological that people who did well on test X will do well on a completely different test Y that tests different knowledge and skills. The fact fact that it does gives strong evidence to the value of using these tests for admission.

xyzzyzon Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

All scientific research on this topic points to the conclusion that standardized test results are the single best predictor of subsequent academic performance. Some studies suggest that using GPA in addition to test results improves the prediction accuracy, but the marginal increase is very small, and it increases variance.

Everyone is well familiar with the downsides of standardized tests, but so far, nobody has proposed any alternative that better. Learning to the test is not great, but what’s the alternative? It’s not like anyone knows how to teach things that results in more actual knowledge and skills being attained despite lower test results.

xyzzyzon Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

If this is the case, then why doesn’t everyone get the top a score? The answer is, of course, that it’s not so simple, and you can’t just learn to the test.

That’s just like with sports: anyone can learn how to train himself, and anyone can improve with training, but in the end, some people will end up faster, and some people will end up slower.

xyzzyzon Nasdaq's Shame

Traditional defense contractors have low profit margin because of the cost plus pricing on the contracts. They literally are only allowed to charge the cost they incur plus some fixed profit percentage. As such, they have incentive to drive up the costs, so that their profit, while low percentage, is on high base.

SpaceX wouldn’t need to so that. Companies like Anduril already are trying to win contracts on fixed price model, and if they succeed, they’ll have much higher profit margins than Raytheon et al.

xyzzyzon MoD sources warn Palantir role at heart of government is threat to UK security

His political goals seem to align pretty well with the goals of the democratically elected governments, which are perfectly happy to buy products and services from him. You might not agree with their goals, but it’s absurd to suggest that this should make him ineligible for clearance. Clearance is not some kind of a “good boy with right politics” certification, it’s rather “is this person trustworthy enough to depend on in the matters of national security”.

xyzzyzon Even faster asin() was staring right at me

On modern machines, looking things up can be slower than recomputing it, when the computation is simple. This is because the memory is much slower than the CPU, which means you can often compute something many times over before the answer from memory arrives.

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

That’s exactly how it works in the standard additive model of heritability, and we have lots of empirical evidence that heritability of intelligence matches that model very well.

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

I’m really struggling to understand what your point is. The person I replied to was wrong as to where the current debate is among experts, so I pointed it out, and gave an example of where the debate currently is. Is that really so strange thing to say?

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

And why do you think Congress has passed this law? What prompted them to micromanage the military in this manner? I encourage you to research this topic, “McNamara’s folly” will serve as a good starting keyword. Spoiler: it has everything to do with unsuitability of low IQ enlisted.

FWIW, ASVAB is an IQ test. Any intelligence researcher will tell you so, because it exhibits the usual positive manifold, you find the usual g factor in it, and it shows high correlation with other IQ test. The military doesn’t usually call it as such for political reasons, but will happily admit in private that ASVAB and WAIS measure the same thing: https://web.archive.org/web/20200425230037/https://www.rand....

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

Yes, I could have left off the last comment. I added it to illustrate where the debate currently lies. I am not sure what your point is.

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

One can take n number of positively correlated but independent things, and there will always be a some factor that can be derived from it.

I hope you understand that your vague question cannot be seen as equivalent to this rather more concrete statement. That’s why I asked for clarification, and your patronizing comments were really not called for.

In any case, Shalizi is very wrong, probably because he is entirely unfamiliar with the literature. He is wrong on multiple accounts.

First, yes, any number positively correlated measurements will yield a common factor. However, when talking about g, this is not an artifact of how we constructed IQ tests. Shalizi says:

What psychologists sometimes call the “positive manifold” condition is enough, in and of itself, to guarantee that there will appear to be a general factor. Since intelligence tests are made to correlate with each other, it follows trivially that there must appear to be a general factor of intelligence.

But this is just not true. Tests are not made to correlated with each other. Any time anyone attempts to construct a test of general mental ability, we always find the same g factor, even if they explicitly attempt to make a battery that tries to measure distinct, uncorrelated mental aptitudes. Observe how Shalizi fails to provide a single example of a test that does not exhibit the positive manifold with other tests.

Second, unlike Shalizi, we know that g is the predictive component of the IQ tests. IQ predicts real world outcomes very well, but what is really interesting is that the predictive power of individual subtests of an IQ test is practically perfectly correlated with g-loadings of the subtest. This would be very surprising if g was just a statistical artifact.

Shalizi says

So far as I can tell, however, nobody has presented a case for g apart from thoroughly invalid arguments from factor analysis; that is, the myth.

But this is just baffling if you have any familiarity with the literature.

Whether g be true or false -- the result wouldn't look any different. The methodology being used cannot determine what is true nor false, and that is the crux of this entire problem.

That’s just not true. For example, if g was a statistical artifact, one of the hundreds of intelligence tests devised would have not exhibited the positive manifold with all the others. It would not be correlated with heritability. It would not be correlated with phenotype features like reaction time. The world where g is a statistical artifact looks much different than our world.

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by "is representative of general intelligence"? This is a very abstract statement. What does this mean in scientific, empirical terms? What kind of facts we would observe in the world where this is true? What empirical observations we'd make in the world where it's false?

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

There's no debate on construct validity of IQ among the experts in the field. The consensus position is that IQ tests measure something real, that the tests enjoy extremely high measurement invariance (which implies construct validity), and that the results have extremely high predictive validity (relative to literally anything else in the entire field of psychology). The current debate is more along the lines, whether the contribution of genes to variance in IQ is closer to 30% or to 80%.

xyzzyzon Harold and George Destroy the World

Yes, but since the heritability is high, the average IQ of the children will be close to the average IQ of the parents, despite the fact that it will tend to regress towards the mean.

xyzzyzon Faster asin() was hiding in plain sight

Not quite. The point of Taylor’s theorem is that the n-th degree Taylor polynomial around a is the best n-th degree polynomial approximation around a. However, it doesn’t say anything about how good of an approximation it is further away from the point a. In fact, in math, when you use Taylor approximation, you don’t usually care about the infinite Taylor series, only the finite component.