Indeed, though I was just rephrasing the question from the person you were replying to.

Responded to the wrong comment, apologies.

You can not measure intelligence as it is an abstract concept that doesn’t have a clear definition to begin with. Even if you could, there is zero possibility of it changing in a meaningful way as humans are still humans.

You are arguing against yourself here, if it's fundamentally not possible to measure it then speculation around what a measured value could and could not be used for is useless, especially in such absolutist terms.

If it is measurable then variation could and would exist, based on the external interactions with whatever phenomenon would affect this variable.

With the exception, of course, of it being some fundamental constant, which would be unusual in a scientific sense.

The rest i mostly agree with, though i might move around the cause and effect a bit on some of those, but it doesn't really change the outcome.

Subjectively?

I wish I could say I've never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*

Yeah...

Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You're right they aren't the same thing, but they're clearly tied.

Not really....to any of that.

There's no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.

Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I'm not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that's within a fixed system or not.

Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it's not a given.

The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth's gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn't mean gravity stopped existing for them.

Yep, that's why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.

It's absolutely fine at some stuff, provided you know enough to spot any mistakes it might make.

Just because you can do it with an LLM, doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

It’s not an argument. It’s a fact.

That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.

My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That’s literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.

Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you're not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it's the only evaluation mechanism.

If it were , there'd be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.

Reading a chart and understanding it are different things, a further different thing is understanding what it means in context.

This is a good book for learning the ins and outs of how to understanding statistical data in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

It does come at it through the lens of intentionally deceptive practices but It's a good general introduction as well.

Nobody said autism is bad (in the chain im replying to), but here we are.

Two statements that never happened with two corrections that aren't needed apparently.

Not that i disagree with you, but coherence is one of those things that highly subjective and context dependent.

A non-science inclined person reading most scientific papers would think it was incoherent.

Not because it couldn't be written in a way more comprehensible to the non-science person, but because that's not the target audience.

The audience that is targeted will have a lot of the same shared context/knowledge and thus would be able to decipher the content.

It could well be that he's talking using context, knowledge and language/phrasing that's not in the normal lexicon.

I don't think that's what's happening here, but it's not impossible.

In fairness is was full jank on release, the initial patches got it to "bethesda jank" where it was fun with the bugs (provided you could actually play it) but still bug ridden.

It got better over time, until just before the "big patch" came in that fully changed how it all worked skills and mechanics wise (gameplay was mostly the same).

Honestly i prefer, pre-"big patch" but the fully patched game is considerably smoother and more coherent.

So, aside from the years of post release development, completely missing features that are never actually coming (looking at you full transit system), it's actually pretty good.

An absolutely dogshit way of releasing a game, but if you waited for a few years and bought it on discount , it's actually a really fun game (provided you like that sort of thing).

TBC I'm not justifying anything about this process , it was a major fuckup and many other dev houses would have gone under from the weight of how badly they fucked it up, but they had that witcher money, so.

I don't exactly disagree, but i think my stance is that the money is the reason and the morals/ethics are a byproduct of having to do what it takes to get that money, in certain markets.

What if the life I'm imagining I'm protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn't scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That's a win win right?