Technically, you’re both correct. Plutocracy is a type of Oligarchy.

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

Given the random nature of the universe, point 1 is the only one I am pretty confident is true. The universe is a basically a massive probability function.

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.

Hehe, yeah, it’s a bit harsh to call it science fiction, especially this day in age when a lot of new physics lives in theoretical physics.

Cosmological models are very difficult to test given their nature. In many cases they are tested in massive physics simulations. The general test is to simulate the cosmological theory and see if it produces a universe that has the same observable qualities as our current universe once the simulation reaches our present epoch.

Nevertheless, Hawkins had his own reserves regarding his theory due to it not being experimentally falsifiable; but one must understand that rejecting the multiverse theory = rejecting the big bang theory since they are currently coupled.

I’m pretty sure the multiverse theory is baked into the big bang theory and cosmological theories, so I wouldn’t necessarily call it mostly science fiction.

Cosmological hypotheses suggest universes with different initial conditions are possible (different space-time geometries, different elementary particle masses, etc.). The big bang theory suggests multiple universes (not just ours) with different initial conditions were formed due to eternal inflation. As the multiverse continues to undergo this eternal inflation, there forms pockets where the inflation has ended and is “hospitable”. Our observable universe would be an example of such pockets, but since inflation is eternal, there should be many of these pockets.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/taming-the-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang

Not exactly germ theory, but the early concepts of contamination which ultimately led to germ theory.

The Native Americans at the time did not postulate the concept of bacteria and viruses, but they understood that sickness was not supernatural and that it was important to sterilize in order to prevent further sickness.

Native American medicine was in many ways more advanced when compared to European medicine at the time. They also introduced things like sun screen, painkillers, and dental hygiene to Europeans.

Some Major Issues:

1. The industrial revolution started almost a century and a half after 1600 (in 1760) which was well after European colonization.

2. You are assuming that Europe would have developed the same way if they remained isolated. For example, the fundamental ideas which ultimately led to the modern concept of disease (bacteria and virus causing infection) was introduced to Europeans via the Native Americans. Beforehand, Europeans thought sickness was caused by religious superstition. This is why sterilization between surgeries wasn’t really a thing in Europe beforehand. European medicine involved reusing bloody knives to perform surgerys on different people because they didn’t understand the concept of cross contamination.

The knowledge today is not purely the result of European thinkers. Your prediction grossly discounts the contributions to science and technology from other cultures in world.

Make sure we read table 2 in the paper. The reality is the people behind this study is urging folks to not draw strong conclusions from this study.

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

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.

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]

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).

It depends on the state. Oklahoma is ranked 49 of 50 for its k-12 public education system, and we are seeing evidence of this here.

I am a physics teacher in a New Jersey high school (and not even a high ranked school) and I would say that a majority of the teachers are true professionals with masters degrees in education. New Jersey is ranked 2 of 50 though (just behind Massachusetts). We also see teachers salaries around and over $100,000 in New Jersey so it entices more people to become teachers and treat the job very seriously.

You are a waste of time

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”.

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

Not AI. I’m in academia, so I write academically.

I specify “physics work” to mean physic’s definition of work (dot product between Force and Displacement).

And to not connect the importance between the electric and magnetic field as it pertains to the the electrostatic force and magnetic force reveals your basic understanding of the physics. Hence, why your prior comment was so problematic…

Oh boy, this is very incorrect, because it sounds like you are attempting to explain magnetism with electrostatic forces. Here is a basic model which separates the difference between the two:

1. Electrostatic forces are caused by the electric field. Something produces an electric field simply by having an unbalanced charge. Positive attracts negative, negative repels negative, positive repels positive.

2. Magnetic forces are caused by the magnetic field. Something produces a magnetic field by having an unbalanced charge AND is moving.

This is why when trying to explain how solid magnets work, we focus on the electrons because electrons are charged particles that are always moving. So they produce both an electric field (being charged) and a magnetic field (being a moving charged system).

Rhaedas is sorta correct. Any solid system has the capability of being a magnet, but this takes an incredible amount of physics work where iron is special. Iron’s electrons are able to easily maintain a synchronous orbit with each other which results in magnetic forces being observable at a macroscopic scale (seeing iron magnets pull on each other). In most other materials, the electrons orbits are chaotic, so even though magnetic fields are still being produced by their electrons, the lack of order results in no magnetic force being observable on the macroscopic scale; but if you place this non-iron material within a very strong magnetic field, you may be able to align their electrons orbits so that it becomes magnetic on the macroscopic scale (like iron).

The correct method is to actually articulate the irrelevancy; but that takes real work… Either that or perhaps the teacher doesn’t understand what the irrelevancy is, so instead, they resort to just repeating the same thing: not internalizing that perhaps the math isn’t as simple as they think.