Ardon

Yeah, /your/ nation maybe. I wonder if there's any other reasons that could explain this, especially given the pretty uniform distribution of video games, and the extremely uneven distribution of violence.

Oh, and everywhere in your nation? At the same time?

Sorry, I think I have a button.

This isn't necessarily true, especially with consumer GPUs. Some actually can clock higher with less voltage. It's pretty rare, and mostly comes from factory overclocked cards. For it to help you need a card that 1. Thermal throttles 2. can sustain its max OC with less voltage than set at the factory. In that rare case you are removing thermal pressure which allows you to clock higher for longer. It's the silicon lottery though, and (often) lazy board partners just smashing the voltage up as high as the chip maker allows. You definitely won't get more performance from a datacenter GPU this way.

No one at high levels is capitalist, in ideology or action. An ideological capitalist would be in favor of competition, but these people disdain it and collude regularly. The only 'capitalist' actions they take are by accident, the real goal is as much power/money as possible as fast as possible.

We don't even expect companies to plan long-term anymore, it's just moving wealth as fast as possible.

That isn't really a change, very few people could ever have been said to be ideological capitalists. (capitalist is not a word with a hard definition, but I'm considering it a different thing than the more modern pure libertarian zero-regulation ideology)

No no, you see, for a government 'leading in AI' is just spending the most money on it.

As far as I can tell, people are getting blitzed. People I know are incredibly deep in their personalized bubble and genuinely aren't even hearing about it. It's genuinely distressing. In general and for the future of democracy.

I agree with your point that attempts at cheating are inevitable, the rest is confusing though:

We have a long and storied history of coming up with extremely disturbing capitol punishments performed in public, and yet those punishments coexisted with much higher rates of criminality then now.

Stealing from the church in history carried some pretty gruesome deaths, and yet plenty of people still stole from the church, etc.

People are chronically bad at transferring future risk to their current decision making. Any consequence that relies on people being able to model a future problem against their current desires/needs is always going to have a lot of transmission losses. You end up trying to make ever more horrible punishments to overcome the losses in transmission.

I think the goal should be the smallest possible functioning consequence, which is possible by being close to the 'crime'. The very best way is when community can do it immediately. Like if someone does something fucked up, but then their buddies go 'that was fucked up dude', I am very confident this will prevent then from doing it again much more efficiently then a distant jail sentence. (among all the other ways too, there's never one clean action to take to solve problems on a societal level)

Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?

It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)

Then the real question emerges: How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence? What percentage?

Relationships? Seems like no. Work? Also seems like no, lots of work doesn't make use of a high IQ that people enjoy nonetheless. Accomplishment? Strikes me as most likely of the three, but it's also very relative.

And another thought,

Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions. Like: someone who can jump high is fitter > fitter people are healthier > healthier people have more mental time to be empathetic with > people who can jump high are more empathetic. For intelligence, we say smart people are happier. Same thing, happiness is not directly correlated. Instead: Smart people are better able to create the outcomes they want > They select outcomes that make them happy > Their environment makes them happy > Smart people are happier. (These are illustrations of the idea, not actual logical chains or claims.)

The only well-reviewed DisplayPort KVMs I'm aware of are from Level1Techs: https://www.store.level1techs.com/products/kvm

Not cheap though. And also not 100% caveat-free.

Yeah that's true.

I was thinking more long term though, deserts see much faster yearly degradation than places with more normal temps. (up to 2-3% compared to the standard 0.5-0.8%)

That's just an economic factor rather than a blocker. PVs are cheap as right now, and could be even cheaper if they weren't tariffed. I wouldn't be surprised if PVs in the desert is nonetheless the right approach right now, and not concentrators.

The solar panels would overheat (and lose efficiency), since ~80% of the solar energy hitting it is absorbed as (mostly) heat.

Generating solar energy in deserts is often done with a mirror based heating system for this reason.

Backing this one up with my own experience of ADD (I was never hyperactive):

I've tried all the distraction reducing techniques, and the distraction reducing techniques have been tried on me.

In school, I was, at least 70 percent of the time, sent to the isolation desk, facing a wall, only a pencil. This didn't help.

I've tried going to remote cabins, no internet. I've tried no devices. This did not help.

The problem (so far as I've come to understand) is not that I am unusually susceptible to distractions, it's that it's unusually difficult to convert 'needing to do something' into 'focus'.

The problem is not that something derails the train, but that there's no tracks. Starting something does not make it more likely that I'll continue it. Going in a direction doesn't have 'momentum'.

This is very difficult to understand, since it's not really 'a tendency that everyone has but more', it's a different brain. You aren't going to understand it by going 'oh like when I'm distracted', you have to try and create a picture from scratch, not based on your experience, but by listening to people.

Not that what people tell you should be just immediately imported into your worldview, people sure can be wrong about themselves. But you can't necessarily check other people's experiences against your own.

(The word "you" in this comment is referring to the general non-ADHD person)

Definitely not ruling it out, it's not 0% for sure. Though as a Canadian I don't think we got it as bad here, so I wouldn't say I really have any idea how big a factor it is. Especially in the USA.

Interesting framing, I've seen a similar 'If it's a meal, then where's the meat?' attitude from my own family, I've had some thoughts on where it came from, but I think part of it was escaping poverty in my grandparent's generation, and seeing 'success' as being able to afford meat in the first place.

Meat was then a part of every meal, because doing otherwise would be socially... embarrassing? Not necessarily in a conscious way, but in a way it would be like giving you kids gruel. (Not that I have a problem with savoury oatmeal now :P)

Then my parents grew up in that environment, and it was just part of the landscape of life. Meals have a meat ingredient. Or meat is the meal.

There's a similar resistance to breakfasts that aren't egg-based. (honorable mention oatmeal again for breaking through) Or a similar resistance to eggs as the protein source for dinners, notice it just doesn't happen in north american cooking very much. Happens in other cuisines all the time though.

I don't think it needs to be some deep seated gene-based flaw (at risk of putting words in your mouth) it only needs to be 'normal', and there's massive resistance to changing what's 'normal' when diverging from 'normal' isn't immediately more emotionally or physically comfortable than staying. Sometimes even then, if it makes you an outlier in the social landscape.

I mean Costco kept theirs, and in a lot of cases federal grant money is now contingent on removing it, so this seems like a hasty conclusion.

That being said I'm sure a lot of companies just threw up a statement, maybe a meaningless committee or whatever with no interest in actually changing anything.

I wonder which way the causal arrow goes? I'm confident more complex (and also excellent) music is being made now than ever before so it wouldn't be a supply problem. Could be a demand problem, or a transit problem, maybe.

It wouldn't be terribly surprising if it's the audience that has dragged things towards simplicity.

Could also be the homogenizing effect of recommendation algorithms that select for mass appeal, a song that everyone likes at an average of 7/10 is selected for way harder than a song that 50% of people like at an average of 9/10.

I thought so too, tried putting a max width on the body and centering it. Ended up looking substantially better to my eye.

I wonder how much this generalizes to other sugar alcohols, I've got some erythritol in the cupboard...

Also you can mix a tiny bit of xanthan gum in on your initial stir and then it stays mixed. I've never noticed a textural difference.

True, but the causal link is hard to demonstrate. There's also a drop in friends, especially close friends. In-person social activity is down across the board.

Not that porn definitely isn't a factor, but I'm pretty certain there's larger factors at play.

For anyone who's game to run another service for audiobooks, I've found Audiobookshelf to be pretty good: https://github.com/advplyr/audiobookshelf

It doesn't really need to be them doing the studying, making the code viewable allows end-users to choose who to trust or to get second opinions, instead of only having the word of the company producing the software.

One or multiple people who can study the software, even in small numbers, are still adding more information, and so more potential trust, than the alternative.

I think it it's a reference to the media landscape, Facebook and OpenAI inclusive.

I know what you mean, it starts to feel like software, instead of a game if that makes sense.

I mean to call her ineffective we'd need to know how hard the task is. Given the FTC has been a regular target of budget gutting and having hostile chairs appointed for decades, we don't have that information.

Tricky, since even if we assume the IQ test is producing a relevant metric there's significant run-to-run variation in test results. A lot of people would get retired prematurely if they happen to roll those dice low.

Hunh, I thought smoking introduced nitrates to meat on it's own.

They're actually a great example, they have a defined amount of financial runway they maintain, and they don't exceed it. You might notice they don't leave the fundraising banners up all year.

That's not what nonprofit means. You can still make money to cover expenses, you just don't go past that.

It's also a forward-looking move, if everything moves to Vulkan than open-source driver efforts can focus on Vulkan instead of trying to do both Vulkan and OpenGL.

If OpenGL is maintained as a fallback, then how does adding Vulkan and keeping OpenGL simplify the code?

Well it doesn't right now, but can in the future because it opens the door to dropping OpenGL entirely.

I've never noticed climate scientists having any particular control over the narrative at all. I've only ever seen them being realistic and focusing on solutions when they're trying to communicate.

I don't think the coverage is the climate scientists fault.