So people hear the word, and react to the word at some toddler level "it's yucky!", and stop reasoning altogether.

Eugenics is not ethical, for a variety of very good reasons; that does not mean that it's unscientific.

We know that intelligence is heritable; we have observed epigenetic group trends like the Flynn effect to the point where they plateau...

The biggest unknown in my opinion is how stable the gains we have made are. If we have our education systems disrupted, or some nutrition crunch, does the population average drop to the point where the complex systems we depend on are not maintained?

I wonder if this speed was available everywhere, would more people self-host?

And that's at the peak of fitness; lower level competitions with juniors or not optimallyfit people exaggerate the strength difference.

But that's just the few I've looked through, not statistically significant.

In Melbourne I've never found a good source for this, only general averages; and my suspicions are that we just build shitboxes and claim the rent is lower on average, capturing something like shrinkflation rather than affordability.

Generally if the reviewer is not familiar with the content asynchronous line by line reviews are of limited value.

Or it didn't really matter that the function was complex if the structure of what's surrounding it was robust and testable; just let it be a refactor or bug ticket later.

The motivation to take on juniors to grow your long term capabilities equation is shifting, to the point where its harder to justify.

At least for publicly funded work, it was always an assumption that you would need students to hit some goal; so by funding it you would get both the outcome, and more people skilled in that field. If the scope of what one team/senior can handle has grown with ai, we will either need explicit staff numbers as a requirement or bigger scope to the point where the ai can't handle it.

Or we find that AI can do so much the whole system implodes...

You can write an equivalent article starting with "Gamergate was a movement reacting to the improper collusion between game developers and journalists" and find just as many sources, but the current article wants to promote the idea that it was a harrassment campaign first.

As soon as there is a plausible agenda for selecting a narrative the way Wikipedia works we should be sceptical.

For recent examples, everything to do with Biden and family, and Gamergate. These pages are still full of discussion; and what's written is more ideological than factual. You can follow these pages to see how an in-group selects a narrative.

And these topics are not nearly as controversial as race, feminism, or transgender topics.

I once had the chance to chatt with an old German colleague about the change in mentality over multiple decades. One thing he highlighted was the change from "lower error rate equals less waste, and higher final sale price" to "customer complaints or defect rates should be above a threshold, otherwise we are investing too much in the process control".

Particularly due to the desire to derisk the process; design by collaboration with the end user, and contracts with quality requirements, rather than the design being owned by the manufacturer.

Their explorer robotics are interesting, something I would be proud to work on; but a pretty different nitch.

So NASA is not drawing from the best people anymore.

Ultimately public transport that doesn't get its own infrastructure (lanes, rails, or tunnels), is just a economic compromise to move people for cheaper than a car... It's not better for the user in any way.

And if it does need special infrastructure to make sense, it gets harder and harder to justify at all once autonomy is in the mix.

Things like when to change lanes, do I need to yield for that ambulance, or what is that pedestrian going to do, are not really improved by point clouds.

I still want the massive point clouds for validation and ground truth, but not for driving.

If I was designing a robotaxi 10 years ago I would use lidar, designing consumer vehicles for near future L3 it's no longer the best use of resources. I prefer more compute and cameras for the money.

Our current issues are now scene understanding and navigation; followed by parking. We get very little value from LIDAR in the driving cases, so much so that we don't even use it for active nav even on cars that have it. Only for training and parking.