My personal view is that trying to find one single measure of cognitive capacity is a fool's errand. Modern IQ tests are battery tests (ie multiple tests in one), but still end up mapping to a single dimension in a normally distributed manner. That is my major problem. In my opinion IQ tests tell us something but I have not seen compelling evidence that particular thing is in fact intelligence.
So short answer: no; long answer: we shouldn't be looking for one single measure.
Fucking "dysgenics"? What in the actual scientific racist eugenicist 1920s bullshit is this?!
I mean there's the fact that he's attempting to use IQ as his response variable without acknowledging that it is pretty flawed and heavily environmentally influenced.
Secondly... I mean come on, he's trying to relate intelligence to population genetics via admixture. It's kinda paradoxical to try and make a non-racist argument for intelligence differing significantly and across populations by genetics.
Thirdly specifically the phrasing "human biodiversity" is often used as a pretty strong dogwhistle by current scientific racists alongside ranting about replacement. We are really not at the risk of major genetic bottlenecks across the world right now. (Also biodiversity is a term used specifically to mean the richness and abundance of disparate species, it's fairly nonsensical when applied to a single species)
Bonus point for the quantitative biologists around: if you're resorting to pcas, you probably either don't understand the mechanisms behind what you're trying to show, or it is an effect only visible by considering the small effects of many other variables. Usually it's first worth some plotting followed by a glm (in this case a spatially explicit glm).
I mean aside from the obvious, they also try to show that insertion sort is better that bubble or selection sort by... Showing that their worst and average time complexities are the same? Just utter crap and anyone who should be writing things like this should have spotted that it's shit.
Edit: on closer inspection that entire comparison section is utterly dire. Completely nonsensical.
What? How in the world is that your conclusion from my point? Are you seriously advocating for mob vigilante justice systems? I agree in essence that these crimes are abhorrent and must stop, but what are you proposing as a functional justice system?
The question really is what do they need to be protected from? If they must be heavily protected from physical harm that certainly implies that there is a threat of grave physical harm to them on a regular basis. That doesn't sound like a sweet life to me.
So here's the rationale that is generally used: If you are in a country that utilises the death sentence then the only system that can decide that is the legal system. Vigilante justice, even when morally justified in the immediate, is not a rigorous or systematically moral justice system. Ergo if anyone is in danger of being killed then they must be protected, even if they are a terrible person, as they have not been sentenced to death (or even if they have, that sentence is not to be meted down by just some other random person).
If you are in a country with no death penalty, you as a society believe that no-one should ever be killed as retribution or as an example to others, thus the argument for protecting people from serious harm is obvious.
These same basic arguments apply for corporeal punishment.
Those who are believed to have committed horrific crimes such as those you mentioned will be in extreme danger because their crimes are fairly universally considered reprehensible (because they... You know... Are). The danger is that there is no perfect justice system. Miscarriages of justice do occur and whilst you may believe that actual perpetrators should be killed or maimed in prison, the risk is that innocent people may be subjected to a horrific and irreversible punishment for no crime at all. That is not acceptable to most people within most justice systems.
Oh man, as someone who worked directly with the finance side of TFS alongside many other car finance houses (and manufacturers and dealers) this amuses and traumatises me in equal measure. This ain't the letter you get from TFS, those do not gave grammar errors in them. They also would likely say the VIN or reg of the car that was coming off finance alongside likely your finance plan number.
Fucking sovcits.
Even as a Brit that'd be fast. Here you're funded for 3.5y with 6mo unfunded "writing up time".
Yeah I think flat enough is the right phrase. Their bass is definitely lacking but with a well configured sub (I set the crossover at about 80Hz I think) you can compensate. My only feeling about producing with a sub is unless you're in a very well acoustically treated room, it's worth checking your mix on good headphones and a few sets of speakers to make sure your interesting sub bass parts are actually coming through nicely. They are good though to really work out what's going on in the sub frequencies of your mix. Also makes it really obvious when those areas are getting muddy.
Honestly as far as cheap small monitors go, I really don't mind the Eries. They're not perfect for sure but they give a generally balanced sound and I paired them with a nice mackie sub to get pretty decent frequency coverage. Certainly perfectly decent for producing a variety of music and generally for listening to things.
I do love that tidal power is actually just moon power. I think we should call it that more often.
It was mostly to accentuate the stupidity of the whole situation, rather than directly being a bastard :)
Yup, it depends on the person but at least in my life many male friends are physically affectionate. Admittedly some of these are affectionate via general sparring, which started in our teens and never went away.