Law and medicine are advanced degrees.

Engineering is not.

Engineering is the most lucrative bachelor's degree.

Those who continue to law school, medical school, or an MBA are most successful when their undergrad degree was engineering.

I can see the difference. The Trumpist populist wing of the party has done a lot more for the middle class - that expanded child tax credit alone... than DemoRATs have in decades.

That is not say every policy choice they make is great but still 100X better people that are not on the dole already. Basically if you actually work and earn a living, Trump is good for you, he may be even better for you if are 1%er and enjoy a bunch of investment income but that still waaay better than higher taxes and more expensive health care democrats CONSISTENTLY deliver to the middle class.

Let's do a study! No, on second thought, sounds like a lot of work. Instead, let's institute a eugenics program based on astrology and blood type.

I think it is more the derivative, smarter people are better at modeling or training.

Look at the contributions that have really shaped science. Observations are important but the really high IQ individuals (sometimes the same making the observations sometimes not) are the ones that have given us models that fit those observations and of course prove their correctness and usefulness by correctly predicting future observations.

Think about atomic models, obviously this is a case of refinement vs pure insight but Dalton's recognition of the greek atomic model took us from what was really more alchemy to basic chemistry. It explained a lot of things about distillation etc and really enable a lot of industrial process. By the time you get to the Bohr model you can explain most ordinary chemistry and create a lot of industrial process without having to 'just try it'.

The more complex model produces better predictions. The neurosciences people have long thought there is a limit to the number of 'propositions' we can think about at once. Our slower whited friends might be limited to four things, many people around five, really smart people more like 7. We 'tokenize' ideas, your wife's phone number starts out as 7 digits or things, but you eventually combine them into "Jenna's number". Perhaps after some intermediate steps of 'the local code' and these 4 digits, (five things). What that means though is a smarter person is going to be able to model faster, because they can reason about situations they understand less well. The smarter person can immediately work with a more complex model that has larger quant of inputs. Where as the 'rest of us' need either to develop a lot of familiarity with the subject first to abstract certain ideas or simple discard the smaller drivers, leading to poorer results.

This experiment had people answering questions about subjects they were just researching. I wonder if we found experienced members of a professions, bucketed them by IQ and asked them make estimates related to their work, if we would see as much stratification in the various vs actual calculated results. My guess is still some but significantly less.

I don't much care for measuring people's "intelligence".

First of all, what does that even mean? All your definitions end up circular. The intelligent people are the people who scored higher on the test that measures intelligence. The score doesn't predict, in any meaningful way, whether people will behave wisely in everyday life, or make significant artistic contributions. It doesn't even predict if they'll be able to beat you at chess.

Second, the mostly meaningless conclusions that you do draw are always misused to promote some system of gender-based or racial hierarchy, sometimes by the researchers themselves, but always by the kind of shitheads who are out combing the web for more hate fodder. And of course the shitheads always end up on top.

I kind of wish we could just stop it. Some people act dumb. Maybe humanity would be better served by spending our time and resources teaching them to act smarter.

I feel you need to elaborate a little further on that. The book lays out sources, equations and testable hypothesis. Interestingly it rarely suggests actual policy. Page 5 of the Motivations sections also laws out why - it is as scathing of campaigners as it is of incumbents.

That aspects are outdated 17 years after its last update does not surprise me. That it is fundamentally incorrect however...given the sources and calculations, I think you'll need a to provide a little more reasoning than "you should fee bad" (sic.).

Fair point, but there are a lot of large and influential companies that don't pay any dividends, because they invest their profits directly into growth and development. For example Nvidia.... well, they seem to pay 0.03 % of the current stock price, so essentially zero. The only economically sensible reason to invest in them is speculation; if there's some "useful economic activity" involved, the only way you'll get a piece of it is by buying low and selling high.

Cryptocurrencies have the same utility as banks, and many banks have been working on their own blockchains for years, for example JP Morgan: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffintechmagazine.com%2Far...

The stock market comparison is really just a side effect of what cryptocurrencies are all about, which is transferring money in ways that traditional banks can't do -- pseudonymously and independent of governments or businesses. Store of value and speculation is one thing, but you can't send NVDA shares (or gold, or tulips) across the globe with this kind of speed and freedom. Cryptocurrencies have value because they provide this service, you don't really pay just for the store of value.

As someone who has had a strong interest in this area for a while now, not professionally - just following along, it's been fascinating to watch almost every single prediction from the 1990s UK government advisor come true. These recommendations were, in 2015 this was put up as a web site - Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. This is not a political book, the "without the hot air" bit alludes to that. This is a quantitative book with the maths to back up all assumptions and recommendations.

In it, David McKay makes comments about future energy mix. If you look at the full PDF, the idea of a cable from northern Africa to elsewhere is explored starting page 178. Bear in mind this book was written late 90s/early 2000s with the last revision being 2008 (the author has sadly passed). Generating from Morocco appears on page 181.

Thoroughly good read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the mechanics and figures behind energy transitions. Clearly some will now be outdated...but it's surprising how little. A lot of what he suggested is now unfolding.

Inductive heating of gold nanoparticles is a thing in cancer research, e.g. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

So it's just like the regular stock market.

I guess all waste is hazardous if set it on fire in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

rsilvergun, even you know this wrong. Stop and think for moment. Let's imagine we do the 2k8 thing again, and people start getting foreclosed.

Who does that serve? -Maybe possibly would be real-estate barons looking to snap up property on cheap. Banks certainly don't want to be holding vacant property. Why would they want a bunch of depreciating assets, with high risk of being vandalized and further devalued.

So lets assume various property investment firms snap all them up. You think they can keep rents high? Not at all, they have same problem. Unoccupied rental property means expense and no revenue on it. Rents absolutely will come down to where people can afford them, but I am with you not a penny lower.

Which is why and I believe sincerely Democratic party policy is absolutely going to destroy the middle-class. We are going to see continued population pressure via both immigration and the generally higher fertility rates of immigrants coupled with high interest rates which will drag on residential build out. The affect is the asset values will continue grow faster than wages and returns in other markets. The rents on those assets will inflate to the maximum the market can support, and that will be the maximum people can pay because a place to live is fairly inelastic, people will give up on just about everything else before they become homeless. We might see more inferior housing options, smaller, former single-family homes carved up into multifamily units etc.

One thing we will not see is much growth in homeless, just the dream of home ownership being ripped away from the average man and handed to some large investors to generate passive income off of instead.

We need to stop illegal immigration, we need push rates back down until we actually see inflation tick back up.

But what I'm saying is that's all vocational. Computer science is basic information theory, patterns, HCI...all of that kind of thing. I'm a graduate of Comp. Sci myself, though in the UK from 1992. During that time we were taught a programming language as an abstract for various concepts (I was taught ADA, for instance) but it was assumed you would go and teach yourself any language you were interested in. I self-taught myself C for instance.

What you seem to be looking for isn't Computer Science grads, it's programmers. From your description I don't think you'd care if they new Huffman's Information Theory or deep graph theory, but would care if they didn't know Javascript. And this is what I mean - that's not a Computer Science thing, that's vocational

I think that's an industry fault rather than yours for instance. I think pushing Computer Science as the name but turning out average programming people is an educational failure.

Right, Bernie will have you believe that this means that the men loading trucks by hand became more productive, yet they are the ones who will not be working at all once their jobs are automated. It is always the company that becomes more productive, the people who own the company invest in new tools and by doing it they reduce their future expenses and improve throughput, this makes *them* more productive, not the people who used to do the work that is about to be automated. The company spends its capital, becomes more efficient. For whatever reason Bernie says that now, that the company is more productive, he will take the productivity gains away from the people who risked their capital to achieve it.

When the society discourages productivity, it loses productivity, this is why Americans lost their manufacturing sector.

When the society discourages capital formation, it loses capital, that is what America will find out as well.

In terms of serous reply, yes Democrats are traitors here. Look up the Hart-Celler Act.

Democrats absolutely lied to public about the demographic and with them cultural changes that was going to bring about. It got came to pass because Democrats lied to gain power.