reliv3

joined 2 years ago
[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Gotta think a little further, CmdrShepard49. If the DOJ brings California to court, then whatever decision the court makes will also set a precedent for what happened in Texas. You best believe that if the courts strike down California's attempt at redistricting, then Texas will be next.

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is such a silly technical argument that I've seen twice now in this thread. Watts is just Joules/second. It's entirely valid to wonder "what rate am I 'consuming' energy when I do X" rather than ask "how much energy did I 'consume' when I do X"

Making this correction is similar to telling someone that asking how fast they moved is wrong, and they should only ask how far they moved.

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago (1 children)

collapsed inline media

The irony of a Republican lawmaker trying to make this point is unbelievable...

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

4790k was among the fastest per-core performance for many, many generations, even long after CPUs with 4x as many cores that could do 2x as much work total, 4790k could still beat them on single-core performance.

Tbh, this is testament for Intel's CPU stagnation more than anything else. Hence, why they are getting cooked financially today.

Even today it's still a great CPU and I'm still running one of my gaming machines with it.

Idk if I would call it a great CPU today when you can achieve roughly double the performance with a budget tier ryzen 5 7600. Not to mention that a 7600 will get to use ddr5 rather than ddr3 memory.

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

BeliefPropagator posted a link above which possibly verifies the screenshot: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I get that we need to be wary of AI slop, I really do; but If speaking academic English with decent grammar becomes associated with talking "like a bot", then we are cooked.

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is a good point to bring up, but this correlation is still being debated: the causal connection between the IQ test and the correlation is unclear, and there is debate on whether the correlation is being constructed through bad data or analysis techniques. Because of this, no one can confidently claim whether IQ tests predicts good job performance, employment, etc.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/

[Skip to the conclusion at the end to get the tldr, since this is a long scientific publication]

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

Good point. Ultimately this leads me to question the existence of some fixed quality of intelligence. People are growing, adapting, and learning through their lives, so a fixed number defining general intelligence is likely a moot concept.

On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.

This being said, It is likely impossible to test all forms of intelligence in one test; and even if we could create this test, how would this test handle differently abled people. For example, a completely blind person would fail the visual intelligence portion every time (for obvious reasons).

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are a waste of time

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

collapsed inline media

I used the higher level 3-dimensional definition of work, and you told my I was wrong and provided my the high school level 1-dimensional definition of work. Then you hang it over my head and try to correct me as if my definition is incorrect.

The fact is your knowledge of physics is so low that you didn't even know this nuance; and you are not arguing in good faith because this is something you easily could have looked up and realized if all you cared about wasn't "being right".

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

It's very apparent that you are not a good faith discusser and your knowledge of physics is very low.

I'm checking out of this discussion

view more: next ›