Valmar

Intelligence cannot exhibit a Gaussian distribution, not unless you make certain assumptions about what intelligence is.

Is the OP's definition of intelligence limited to academic or intellectual intelligence? If so, that's the problem.

There just isn't a single kind of intelligence. Nor is intellectual intelligence superior. It's just unique, like other forms of intelligence.

Also, different people excel naturally in certain fields, or even when it comes to learning in certain fields, or learning through certain methods, such as through watching something happening, doing it practically, listening to an explanation, or even just reading about it, and so on.

Because of this, I'm skeptical that there's even an element of randomness. There isn't, not when you take into account all of the life circumstances that shape individuals and their ability to cultivate and make proper use of their innate skills and abilities.

Many people are hampered by society from ever discovering their true calling in life, so to speak, in various ways, whether it be bias towards intellectual intelligence, bias towards what suits the needs of our corporation-dominated society consumed by the need to work for money almost all the time just to survive, etc.

In a work-orientated society that takes up the majority of people's time, stress them out, etc, most people never get the chance to discover their talents, to cultivate them, etc.

Just a bit of unstructured rant, because it's early in the morning and I haven't yet had my coffee, but had to type this while it was still fresh. :/

I didn't realize it was quite THAT bad back 18 years ago... :(

How arrogant.

It is philosophy that gave birth to science is it is today. In fact, "science" was once known as "natural philosophy".

Science is a practical philosophy based on experimentation via the scientific method. It is a philosophy, that is, a way of looking at the world.

> Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways.

What about Scientism, the religion that considers science to be the "One, True Way"? It usually incorporates the reductive materialist belief system quite heavily.

And it is Scientism that arrogantly dismisses philosophy as some outmoded system, when in fact, Scientism is ironically a philosophical position itself, a religious one at that.

Meanwhile, philosophy as a whole continues to explore different ways of looking at the world unabated, because it doesn't get side-tracked by ridiculous religious dogma.

Meanwhile, science and the scientific method, those practical philosophical tools that have been very useful in the hands of those who care about positive and beneficial progress for all of mankind, continue marching on proudly, unconcerned by ridiculous religious dogma.

"Carbohydrate accounted for only 15 to 20% of their calories, largely in the form of glycogen from the meat they consumed."

Yeah, this could make it slightly difficult. Good thing I asked the question, though, because this answers it in a way, unlike the other unhelpful commentor.

This does nothing to answer my question, which was sincere. I'm really just looking for statistics, but don't know where to start looking.

You're wrong. If you want to know why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A brilliant lecture by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. He knows his stuff. :)

I wonder... how common was heart disease before saturated fats were demonized, and ultra-processed plant oils were pushed as the "healthier" alternative? What about after?

Fructose is unhealthy... but glucose is healthy. How they are metabolized is key. :)

The Eskimos traditional diet is a good example of this. Their diet also includes organ meats, so they got all of their vitamins and minerals in good amounts.

300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

Fructose, maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Rich and prosperous corporations, and a trodden-on and money-deprived worker-class, not to mention the abused poor and homeless?

A meritocracy isn't unfair by definition. It is an ideology based around what people can achieve. These achievements don't have to be grand or anything. They can be small and incremental. It is an ideology about empowering people, no matter who they are.

Even those who don't have equal capability compared to others can contribute in small ways, and so, they can indeed achieve merit based on merely doing what they can do, even if it is small.

But, it is many small things that add up to massive changes, and that is what a meritocracy is ~ just chip in where you can contribute, and you can make a difference, no matter who you are.

However, there are issues where a meritocracy cannot be of use, and that is in a system designed deliberately to exclude merit, and instead empower those who prefer there be imbalance, injustice, and unfairness. SJW ideologies which seek to belittle and mute those they consider the "enemy" are like this.

The SJWs have no evidence for their broad and vague claims either, which are almost completely exaggerated for personal gain, and have nothing to do with actual social justice, which they seek to deny to those they hate, attack and defame.

Don't try and drag science into this, when this is a set of social issues based on a bunch of people's mental health issues and how they're taking it out on other people.

Good point. I'll revise:

It's not just the SJWs, but also companies and corporations that cooperate with the ridiculous bullshit of the utterly divisive and politically-correct gender/race insanity that's corroding various aspects of Western culture.

I've been verbose enough, because I'm quite fed up with how much this utter crap is infesting culture and causing so much trouble for innocent people who don't remotely deserve to have be treated like they have been.

> Some even state "meritocracy" is outright oppressive and should never be applied.

"Oppressive" only because they don't like to face reality, no matter whether it is told gently, supportively or bluntly. All they can do is self-deny, and then project their pain and self-blame onto others, because it is too much to accept, push through and go beyond, because that is the beginning of self-healing.

Men and women obviously aren't the same, no matter how much gnashing of teeth of matter occurs, because both have their strengths in different areas, according to their overall psychology.

Men and women are psychologically-different, and no amount of trying to force a desperate sameness will change that. In fact, it might even cause people to want to be even more different than before.

The SJWs campaign for "sameness" but act like the complete opposite.

Maybe they're just in denial of who they truly are, and are unconsciously asking for help and recognition that they truly matter, but cannot help but unconsciously portray this in a destructive manner for all to see, except themselves and their blind peer group.

> It's rules for how to work on code without bringing personal crap into it.

The previous CoC did fine at this.

This new CoC almost ensures that what it's attempting to curb will inevitably happen, because of it's existence.

Seems far worse, overall, than global warming.

Sure, we might be toast in a century, but this problem of industrial pollutants is far, far more urgent, because it is far more immediate in effect.

In comparison to said pollutants, carbon dioxide, is fucking tame. Might heat up the planet to whatever degree, but plants also consume excess amounts as food for photosynthesis.

This is why I sometimes suspect that the focus on global warming is something of a distraction from the far more immediate threat of chemical pollution by corporations. Well, the corporations probably pay enough in bribes to keep the politicians mostly silent about it... :(

The scorpion trick sounds like pure fun for those up for a challenge! :D

Also, these:

http://www.directedenergyweapons.net/p/patents.html

There's this, for a start:

https://www.google.com/patents/US4349898

If there are patents, one can be sure that these things exist.

And logically, the CIA and US military would love sonic weapons. They can target people and have others think they're just crazy and paranoid. Good way to take down your opponents and damage their credibility.

Arch has 6.0 in testing at the moment. :)

Zen is not anywhere quite as vulnerable to Spectre v2 as Intel's CPUs are, due to architectural differences, according to AMD, so that's something.

Spectre v2 affects AMD less drastically than it does with Intel, because of the architectural differences between Zen and Intel's processors.

Exactly. He's very intelligent about how he manages the kernel, which is precisely why it is preferred by a majority of businesses throughout the world, and is the absolute #1 in the supercomputer world, for the top 500:

https://www.top500.org/statistics/details/osfam/1

He generally is. His rants are almost always spot-on and pure gold. :)

> In a related development, there are proposed patches to the Linux kernel (not yet merged) to blacklist the broken microcode updates

Linus probably won't pull it until it's truly known to be stable, because of his attitude towards having decent quality code and not causing needless system instability.

Without Linus... who knows what would have happened by now.

kexec?