RelativeDelta

This is true at the global level, and especially in the 3rd world, but not in the developed societies most of us are living in.

The Flynn effect reversed sometime in the mid 80s. The pattern is currently for less educated people and people in worse financial situations to have more children than those more well off.

That's significantly concerning given we have extensive evidence genes matter more than environment does in humans:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

It is far more efficient in the long run for that trend to invert, and the average intelligence of the population plays a huge role in facing the challenges of the future successfully.

Pretending this is not a significant and increasingly dire problem does nothing but avoid confrontation with hard truths.

The bifurcation of response to this is telling.

Nobody has free will therefore:

-We have an obligation to be kind.

-Kindness doesn't 'work' at scale.

Please, by any means necessary, do this.

The more we learn about heritability and environment the stronger genetic determinism (at scale) gets.

If you are smart and relatively well off (as is your partner) have as many kids as you can.

The challenges we face in the coming century require as many of the best and brightest of us as possible.

GPS is a passive system. The satellites in orbit emit a constant location and identifier signal perceivable from the ground.

A GPS positioning device looks for and reads those signals and then performs a triangulation calculation.

Spoofing these signals means outputting identical but incorrect ones either from your own constellation of satellites or from ground-based arrays/emitters.

Typically military hardware expects a certain level of spoofing and has it's own built-in countermeasures/security checks so effective jamming/spoofing means successfully navigating these countermeasures either through brute force or accurate intelligence.

Sure.

There's two major baskets:

1. Paternity. Sometimes it's tragic when an otherwise good father learns he's not the father. The truth was very inconvenient to the established narrative.

2. Heritability of 'problem' genes in patients/families who request sequencing. You can't really tell a wealthy family that they're both MAOA2/4R carriers and explain what that means without ruffling a ton of feathers.

Talk to anyone working in genealogy about that exact problem and be ready for hours and hours of stories.

Great discussion. Worrying implications for western society though.

If Caplan is right, and the data says he is, the declining birth rate among the wests richest and smartest is a death knell.

Also, it would suggest we radically re-evaluate the usefulness of almost all redistribution programs. If outcomes are almost entirely genetic, we get far more efficient results by getting the rich/smart to have more kids than by trying to uplift the downtrodden.

The intent is rather irrelevant.

DNA and whole-life outcomes have been an extremely contentious conversation, but one that's worth having, and any actor with more data is going to be able to make more fruitful insights.

A person (or, let's be honest here, nation state) with a large collection of DNA sequences tied to real-life persons has two major advantages:

1. They can draw statistical correlations between what individual genes and gene clusters are associated with economic performance and which are not.

2. They can identify genetic susceptibility/vulnerability. More benignly to things like chronic addiction, gambling, alcohol, nutrient deficiency, susceptibility to environmental effects etc. In a more conspiratorial direction it can form targeting data for weaponized/tailored bioweapons once those make their way onto the public stage.

It's impossible to cure.

The 'ringing' sound people hear isn't actually a sound. It is how the brain processes signals produced by damaged Stereocilia.

If the 'ringing' is constant it means the cilia are permanently damaged. While it would, in theory, be possible to use surgery on the ear and some sort of lazer to completely remove all damaged cilia to avoid them outputting a damaged signal, this procedure would be incredibly invasive and risky. I don't believe it's ever been done and i would find it hard to believe any Otolaryngologist willing to try.

You'd have to ask the bill's authors to know for sure.

If I had to bet though it was a security thing. They want caste named explicitly because a good deal of Indian immigrants are dealing with it despite it supposedly being illegal.

Kinda feels like the author is just talking about productivity as assessed via correlation.

It's because they're only trying to prove a single thing:

At scale, perpetually buying into a stock across a period beats mass buying into a stock at any one point in a period where future results are unknown.

That's it. That's all they're proving.

Cool, but how are we going to get there?

When in doubt fall back on ol' reliable: The military industrial complex. Power is the only guarantee.

They consider caste an ethnicity.

They likely shot it down because 'caste' carries a very different meaning in American parlance. It mostly relates to wealth and they absolutely DO want to discriminate on that basis.

It's also an apt closer for his thoughts on his own space in the history of man.

He doesn't grow food. He doesn't produce profound technology. He doesn't save lives. He is entirely dependent. But he made the iPad.

Somewhat. It's a novelty factor response. If you're not used to hearing background noise then every little thing sort of 'pops'. Individual key clicks sound more distinct, you pay more attention to the sound of footsteps etc.

It's just your brain being unaccustomed to the sounds and reintroducing them.

It largely does away with the need for a lot of work and thus workers.

Don't worry, the coming rise of the welfare dependency state will provide.

Do you have a hard % of certainly you can apply to your estimates in backtested data?

Starting with the price of energy is a great idea. Everyone benefits from cheaper power.

That said, it should probably be adjusted to exclude public subsidy as that distorts the true cost.

I mean, people are certainly being replaced.

Maybe they don't want to be?

The conspiracy elements of it are entirely unnecessary.

I've added the USA ones as I had some time between clients. I have some Canadian ones and if memory serves a UK one as well.

I will add them shortly.

Is immigration actually meaningfully impacting party demographics?

Yes. I will edit in a few examples from several countries in a moment.

It's worth noting, however, that interest displacement/dilution is still an issue even if it doesn't force/induce party clustering. Individual parties shifting policy priorities/implementations/strategies to cater to new voter bases to win power results in a relative deprioritization of citizens.

The fundamental dynamics at play still apply.

If the largest demo in a nation only occupied, say, 40% of it's voter base, a coalition of the other demos can override them and (if the competition is polarized enough) will eventually realize the dominant strategy is to actively reduce that groups numbers and power to secure the position of the coalition and the individual power of each of it's members.

Its entry level conflict theory in practice.

Edit: Sources.

Overall trends in party affiliation(USA): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-...

Immigration trends in party loyalty (USA): https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...

Trends in immigration settlement patterns: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/20/key-findi...

Trends in voting patterns by settlement region: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-...

The takeaway here is that immigration flows to areas with shared want/need profiles and elevate the national power of those demand slates, displacing power from alternative slates. Whether this good or not depends on if the demands of immigrants overlap with your own demands. If they do, you are empowered. If they do not, you are disempowered.

That kind of presupposes that anger is bad, no?

That seems like an assertion more than something that can be proven.

Surely it is right to be angry about threats as anger motivates action to eliminate the threat.

The kinds of studies this article is based on are less useful until their findings are disaggregated by both degree and attainment/performance within the degree.

How do extremely highly graded english majors stack up (ideologically and monetarily) against middle-of-the-pack business majors?

How do accelerated program grads fare compared to lowest quintile medical school post-grads? Etc.

How does course choice WITHIN degrees correlate with outcomes?

How does performance between professors and departments correlate?

Not all degrees are equal, not all courses are equal, not all professors are equal, and not all students are equal.

Lumping it all together as a single marker is borderline useless.

There's also a degree of ideological warfare to consider.

An idea that might sway others to join your enemy's team is a threat to you. If you can, you probably want to prevent others from hearing it.

Blocking, shadow-banning, de-federating and de-platforming all functionally do this.

When the difference between opinion A and opinion B on topic Y is largely determined by how the topic is framed and discussed, you can see why people have a vested interest in denying their opponents the opportunity to speak and be heard.

That's polarization for you.

When politics becomes less about swaying a vulnerable middle and more about growing your base/shrinking your opponent's base, you eventually realize the best tactics are to take from those who will never vote for you and give to those who will.

Historically that ends in civil war or genocide.

Agree on the last point, but the net zero strategy is a losing game. We can't reduce fast enough to avoid the multiplier effects (slowing heat exchanges in atmosphere and ocean currents, loss of polar reflectance, thawing of sea floor and boreal methane deposits, etc.).

The only way out at this point is fusion/fission and using excess power to decarbonize.

Population reductions in the developing world would help too, since that's where the majority of global carbon will be emitted over the next 50 years.

It's a deliberate muddying of terms.

The entire idea of 'trans' from the GC lens implies that there is no such strict thing as 'man' or 'woman', rather just individuals with common behaviors that roughly clump into two camps.

If you like one camp more than the other you can freely walk over. Start your own camp if you'd like.

To deny that ideological construction validity is to invalidate the entire basis of modern trans identity, and thus to deny the (social) 'right' of trans people to inhabit their constructed identities. Their 'right' to exist as the person they see themselves as.

To make a literature analogy, the claim is that by telling the Emperor that he is naked, you're invalidating his self-concept as a clothed person and thus challenging the right of his identity to exist.

Because they're aware they're being scapegoated under the intersectional model.

Non-white = you get special treatment and attention. Non-straight = you get special treatment and attention. Non-male = you get special treatment and attention.

And they're being taught they deserve this.

And as their demographics collapse they lose any chance of reversing the trend non-violently.

It's astonishingly clear and predictable.

The question is, will they die a slow erosion death or make a last-ditch play? Both options are bad.