The bottom axis is standard deviations where that ~3.6 result matches an individual scoring top among 10k individuals.

Not sure how often high IQ embryos are produced with relation to high IQ births. I'd suspect that there are more high IQ embryos than high IQ births just given the sheer quantity of unborn embryos. That's the point of the screening, I'd imagine. If you really want a high IQ baby, and we can test for that, you'll have a higher chance if you use one of the embryos that test to the right of curve.

If 60% of people are getting a "full A" are they all truly equally capable? Clearly not, right?

Especially for less structured things like essays. Imagine reading your friends paper and finding issues with it that are left wholly unaddressed and then finding out they got an A just like you.

Consider AP. Sure, everyone taking an AP test is more academically engaged than those who don't, but why would that ever indicate that 60% of AP testers get 5s? In fact, looking at last years results, most tests seem to have populations centered around 3, with only a few (or maybe just the CompSci one) having populations where 5 is the most common.

The whole scale's wonky anyway. My sister worked extremely hard to be first in her class, and I made almost no effort to drop out and get my GED before my class graduated because my state didn't allow early graduation. We both know which of us is more intelligent and which is the harder worker, but our grades don't tell the story.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175894

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Most school boards have public information on their constituents and meeting minutes.

If you've built this product it should be trivial for you to manually find potential clients. There's no magical "get clients for free".

If you're not willing or capable of paying for sales/marketting, you'll have to get good at pitching (spending your time on the phone). You could attend local school board meetings to meet the right people (spending your time in person), you could offer existing clients (or future clients) referral incentives for onboarding others (spending or portion of revenue).

The number of times I have ordered an item and recieved texts confirming both that the item was unavailable and recently delivered is extremely high. It almost always goes "thank you for your order" "we do not have any X but will replace it with X.1" "we can't deliver your order" "your order has been delivered" with no interaction from me other than to accept replacements when I placed the order.

https://files.catbox.moe/z7p2x2.png

No one's wearing clothes their mothers' spun because mothers' see that their children prefer the "higher quality" that is manufactured in factories.

Few choose to spend their time engaged in walking about in nature and choose instead to gaze endlessly at their factory built device that provides them content ground out in other sorts of factories. (content farms etc).

Something made in nature can be more appealing, but it seems to me that the modern preference is not at all for natural things. Hell, even in the diamonds we're talking about. No one's proposing with a natural diamond. People propose with carefully curated, carefully manipulated, and carefully presented diamonds. There's nothing natural about it, really.

³⁵⁵⁄₁₁₃ Unicode characters seem to work, no?

firefox 150 here.

Although, I'm not sure I can think of any genuine adversity that one could simply walk away from as you seem to claim to be able to do.

How do you quit a major illness? Systemic prejudice? Homelessness? Imprisonment? War? Famine? Runaway inflation? Depression? Suicidal Ideation? Eating Disorders? Dementia/alzheimers/parkinsons/etc?

Sure, you can sometimes work your way through the situations to the other end, but that's what OP is asking about, isn't it? Where do you get whatever it is you need to make it through? What if there is no way through and the best possible outcome is just dealing with it as in the medical/mental instances?

Huh, a person thinks they've seen everything, and then...wow...

Clicking on an article it reveals that I am correct:

>Gangstalking Us > >A place for victims of gangstalking

It's a place for targeted people. People who have been targeted.

Seems to be a support group for people struggling with public doxxing and the like.

What if I don't disclose that I'm playing a role?

What if I did originally disclose that I was roleplaying but that was thousands of incredibly convincing highly detailed comments ago and only the one time?

What if I'm literally just WebMD but presented in such a fashion as "because you are experiencing X there is a high likelihood that you have $disease and should implement $cure immediately" without the traditional hedging and qualifying?

What if most of the audience seeing an advertisment for a medical intervention hearing "symptoms include x, y, z, death, godhood, and the ability to commune with the devil" truly believe that they themselves are very likely or certain to experience not just one but all of the listed symptoms every single time they are exposed to said intervention?

Should the rule of law protect the vulnerable (those susceptible to influence), or not?

I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. I'd rather software didn't have superficial culturally influenced laws attached to them, but it is easy to see the harm even if I am rather comfortable with darwinian selection. My being okay with people selecting themselves out of the pool does not preclude me from being able to see that they might want some outside protection from doing so.

To me, the mentioned McDonald's case is pure nonsense. There is no world in which I pay anyone for damages resulting from their interaction with coffee I served them. I do not believe that there are any people who are going to ask me for a coffee, receive it, spill it upon themselves by tampering with the vessel I provided it in, and then be mad to find out that it was indeed quite hot and that there was a reason I put a lid on it. But it is also instructive in the relevant mechanism. My understanding that hot liquids are dangerous is apparently not enough in that context. There is a reality in which I was supposed to somehow prevent the user from harming themselves with the dangerous item they asked for. As if I could be blamed for someone who died from shooting themselves when I sold them a gun, or cutting themselves when I sold them a knife.

We learn from the case that laws, the "court of public opinion", and genuine morality, bear only passing resemblance. See the recent ongoing case in which an LLM provider is being sued for providing advice on how to carry out a shooting as if the same information is not available on countless websites. See the relatively recent outrage over video games causing an increase in violence.

I feel as if open weight models are equivalent to open source software. They might be better, they might be worse. They are frequently "worse" in many terms, but at least we, the user, know what is going on.

There is no telling what weird analysis and exfiltration is going on in a closed source/closed weight model, or what's been censored/deleted/disabled from what otherwise could have been possible.

Open weight models will continue to exist for exactly as long as open source software continues to exist which is likely to be exactly as long as software in general continues to exist.

Let's see...if I linked to a lobsters post that links to tumblr post that links to a personal blog that links to a substack that links an arxive of a blog that mentions an arxiv that...

It just feels as if there can be only one reason to link to the lobsters discussion instead of the content at hand, no?

depends on the context, really.