Hacker News: jagoff

New comment by jagoff in "Signaling in the Age of AI: Evidence from Cover Letters"

jagoff — Sun, 21 Dec 2025 15:10:56 +0000

>In response, employers shifted toward alternative signals, including workers' prior work histories.

I see no issue here, in this case.

New comment by jagoff in "Two kinds of vibe coding"

jagoff — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:15:21 +0000

>With no humans thinking, no advances in code will be possible.

What? Coding is like the one thing that RL can do without any further human input because there is a testable provable ground truth; run the code.

New comment by jagoff in "'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them"

jagoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:28:37 +0000

[flagged]

New comment by jagoff in "There Has to Be a Way"

jagoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:08:30 +0000

I could not, in good conscience, continue reading after there was an implied statement that the current state of Los Angeles was in some way connected to "AI". Go away, now.

New comment by jagoff in "'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them"

jagoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:42:26 +0000

[flagged]

New comment by jagoff in "'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them"

jagoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:40:33 +0000

[flagged]

New comment by jagoff in "'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them"

jagoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:22:09 +0000

You seem to underestimate their pool of applicants

New comment by jagoff in "'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them"

jagoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:18:43 +0000

Spotted the HR worker posting ghost jobs

New comment by jagoff in "Trump's new visa fee inhibits hiring teachers in California – CalMatters"

jagoff — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:48:55 +0000

Bilingual education, ok I get that. Literally anything else, no.

New comment by jagoff in "Being There: On Working in Person"

jagoff — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:44:25 +0000

Is anyone actually here to read people's misguided asshole blogs? "As we drifted into a 996 schedule" uh, fuck off?

New comment by jagoff in "Why isn't online age verification just like showing your ID in person?"

jagoff — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 13:46:03 +0000

It's not about age verification and it never was, that is a distraction at best and a delusion at worst. This is about tying your real name to all of your online activities, and about getting the current generation of children used to it and accepting of it before they reach voting age.

New comment by jagoff in "US seizes oil tanker off coast of Venezuela"

jagoff — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 23:00:13 +0000

So, to be very clear, what do you believe were in those 55 gallon drums on that multiple engined long hull speed boat?

New comment by jagoff in "Twins reared apart do not exist"

jagoff — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 15:41:06 +0000

I, and clearly many others based directly on your comment assertion, clearly disagree.

Whether or not you like MISTRA, “they left out the non-identical twins” is a side issue, and the broader evidence that IQ is substantially heritable is extremely strong.

Even if DZA were excluded, MZA alone provides a solid heritability estimate. The DZA sample was small and noisy, and MISTRA uses other twin and family data. Plus, meta-analyses confirm high IQ heritability, typically 0.5-0.8; Later structural-equation models applied to the full MISTRA cognitive dataset (MZA + DZA) estimated the heritability of general intelligence around 0.77, essentially the same ballpark as the original simple estimate. laplab.ucsd.edu. Intelligence is highly heritable, potentially reaching 80% in adulthood, supported by further studies like the Haworth et al. meta-analysis, showing age-related increases in heritability.

Strong evidence for polygenic and SNP heritability is shown from Plomin & von Stumm's 2018 research, showing how polygenic scores predict general intelligence.

Adoption studies further support the genetic influence, as adoptive siblings show weaker correlations compared to biological ones.

Environment is certainly NOT outweighed entirely or beyond merit, but evidence clearly shows the "uncomfortable" result having strong support despite desperate attempts to debunk.

In short; the op's story only works if including the DZA data actually drags the heritability estimate down into trivial territory. It does not.

Later analyses of the MISTRA sample that explicitly include both MZA and DZA twins and use full structural-equation models estimate heritability of general intelligence (g) at about 0.77 in adults. https://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

That is higher, if anything, than the original approximate 0.70. In other words:

The alleged “suppressed control group” does not turn the result into “no heritability”.

The more sophisticated models using that very same DZA data still say “IQ differences in this adult sample are heavily genetic.”

You just don't like this data, and don't want to accept it, because of the implications.