> Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
“Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used.
Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145).
Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds.
Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success.
All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
Yes they do. Not that it ever stopped people from making claims about having higher IQ.
IQ 160 means that you are 1 in 30,000 of your age group. That means that to calibrate a test that can measure that high, the authors had to test more than 30,000 people in each age group (depending on what statistical certainty you need, but it could be 10x the number for reasonable values). Not sure how large the age groups typically are, but the total number of people necessary for calibration is counted in millions. You have to pay them all for participating in the calibration, and that's not going to be cheap.
And with values greater than IQ 160, the numbers grow exponentially. So I am rolling to disbelieve than anyone actually calibrated tests for such large numbers. (Especially once the numbers start to exceed the total population of Earth, which is around IQ 190.)
There are separate tests for the extremes, but obviously less researched because the further out you go the less they have to work on.
Many years ago, while unemployed, I was sent for a intelligence and dyslexia test (because of the very same perceived waste of potential that the article talks about). I was not dyslexic but scored above the range that the intelligence test could measure. The professor(I believe he was moonlighting for research funding) performing the test talked about the upper range tests, but said they were very long, required specialists to conduct and there's seldom any reason to investigate where you are in the upper range.
Then we went on to waste a huge amount of time talking about human perception and I remember describing an idea that finally seems to be feasible because the new Steam VR headset does it and calls it Foveated rendering.
I can't specifically recall the date of this but the tester was recording results on his palm pilot, which was a flash new thing at the time.
Usually. There's diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 150 and 175 is much smaller than 125 and 150.
When you go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to solve a problem, that's noticeable. But when you go from half a second to a quarter of a second, the difference doesn't really matter.
So a lot of IQ tests have some sort of ceiling where the only thing they can tell you is "Yeah, it's more than this".
While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.
There is not judicial oversight. You never know there was an order.
If you get into that scenario, you suspect the government cut you off, but you go to a lawyer and have literally nothing. The court will not take the case.
>econd, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors,
They seized hundreds of accounts; later had the banks terminate the bank accounts.
In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized.
>as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.
Protesting the government, in front of parliament is mischief? Political prisoners.
>n general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.
Which was found to be unconstitutional.
But Bill C8 wont be abused by this same government? How about abuse in the future by other governments?
You have to go back to figure out how the government knew what bank accounts to seize. They didnt go up to each person and ask to see their debit card. Police dont have a ready list of bank accounts to seize.
The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the donor list and seized from there.
>The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since >been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. >Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the >donor list and seized from there.
That's not true, the fundraising platforms raising funds for the convoy had to register with FINTRAC and failing that, the banks can track who is sending money to those platforms for those accounts. It even says so in the article you linked. What's the source that the government used the leak to find the accounts?
Why is this question somehow a non-sequitor? Many court proceedings are now mandatory zoom meetings. How do you participate in a zoom meeting when the state has barred you. It's a clear catch-22 and the refusal to address it beyond "thats not the intention" is beyond galling.
> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors
Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were family/friends who were not even at the protest.
Court found:
> The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."
> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.
"There were arrests, therefore this was not a valid protest" is a very dangerous argument to be making, and I furthermore strongly doubt that you would apply this standard consistently to causes you endorse.
> There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented
In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?
> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.
Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?
> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged?
That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill.
> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?
Before, of course. That was one of the justifications for invoking the emergency powers, and it wouldn't have been controversial otherwise. This is a digression, though, as there is no mention of any legislative changes to bank account seizures in the article.
>It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over.
You misunderstand. After it's done, only then could you sue and get judicial review. But it's all in secrecy, so you dont know what or who you need to sue. So you cant get judicial review.
> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?
Umm,that's how court systems work in general. You sue when someone wrongs you. I'm not sure how else it could possibly work.
> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?
This is a different topic, but there were 2 different bank account freezes. Some were frozen due to a contempt of court order (this didn't involve the government, a private citizen brought the lawsuit). The more controversial was the emergency powers seizure. Arguably the protestors were engaging in manifestly illegal conduct. Personally i think its akin to how you can arrest someone before conviction, but opinions vary. As far as i know, the bank accounts were only frozen while the protestors were engaging in illegal action and were released once the situation was resolved.
Headline buries the lede, which is that the DOJ shut it down for being a "deep state" probe. Basically, officials working for this administration can now legally receive bribes.
Still wondering where the $50k went. Also why isn't this the biggest story out this weekend? At least on left/center news sites. I can see conservative news outlets participating in a coverup.
I bought one of the Iocrest ones from Aliexpress so I didn't block my gpu's intake, with the AQC113 chip, and it worked perfectly right out of the box - much better than the Asus XG-C100C which made me configure it to get max 2.5gbps. I thought it was windows. Note it gets super hot (like 90°C even with the heatsink).
I would caution applying our current understanding and limitations onto alien civilizations. I don't believe they will break the light barrier, but they may develop telescopes that can detect life from light-years away, and the stupendous travel times are possible with suspended animation or by stopping the aging process.
While we don't know everything, we do know what we don't know needs to be consistent with what we know. Relativity is well supported by experiments, so whatever this thing is we don't know will have all the things you don't like about relativity.
telestope limits exist in theory not just our manufacturing abilities.
This is something I don't get - solar system is say 5 billions years old (a bit less I know). Universe is roughly 13 billions, and our Milky way almost the same.
What this means is that there must have been quite a few collisions of such before solar system formed, to produce so much of heavy stuff we see in our planet, no? Stars can produce only up to Fe in normal way. Yet it seems such collisions are very rare, and its not like during collision half of the mass converts to a golden blob (or more like atomic mist spreading away at fraction of c).
I know 8 billions of years is a long time, and gold once fused ain't breaking apart to H or He anytime soon, but still it feels like our planet should have way more basic atoms and not all of those rare fused oned. What about super/hypernovae?
In what appears to be a fairly recent discovery, it seems that flares on magnetars can produce gold and other heavy elements, and these are likely more frequent than neutron star collisions.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the early universe was filled with giant stars, these stars don't last very long. Ironically, the more fuel you have, the quicker you burn through it for stars, so a lot of supernova have happened before our solar system formed.
For additional reading, google "Stellar Population" it's about the amount of metalicity in a star based on how many "generations" old it is
There's also a lot of open questions about how stars and galaxies form and our current models are known to be extremely incomplete based on the JWST data and our knowledge of the upper bound of how old the universe is from repeated measurements of the CMB & other data. So there's definitely a lot unknown about the state of stars in the early universe and how everyday elements we know & love actually came to be in the quantities they did.
