deleted by creator

at the time, they honestly did.

you guys are fucking crazy. ukrainian government knows there’s a very tangible and real possibility of defeat, or at the least concessions to russia during negotiations. do you really think it is in their best interests to let the kremlin make claims about ukrainian acts of terror during that stage?? like it or not, the world isnt some fucking equitable, fair fairy tale. russia has significantly more bargaining power here. they can afford ukraine making such claims, that doesn’t matter. on the flip side, ukraine cannot.

Threevens and throdds?

not to double reply to you but the issue here isn’t training versus not training for the test; the issue is that psychiatrist and psychologist can’t rotely sort out what influences “training” and other activities actually had on the results of the test versus what a theoretical, “pure” test result would’ve been. frankly i’d imagine different psychologist in different context would want to control for this in a variety of ways. maybe in one experiment, telling the population not to train is the best way to get at the data you want. but for the most part? no. absolutely not. the claim that telling people to not train or study for an IQ test somehow is a be all end all control for wanton influences & noise in IQ results is total bunk. think about this. what even qualifies as studying for an IQ test? is the teenage boy incidentally studying for his ACT’s at the same time as a population IQ test, who consequently scored higher than the median average for his age range, cheating or invalid in his results? most people and psychology studies would likely say no, not really. this demonstrates some of the fundamental flaws in IQ and g-factor that psychologists have to recognize while working with them. there’s truly no real way to sort out what is “cheating/invalidating” on an IQ test versus what data is potentially legitimate. because objectively speaking, what IQ measures is incredibly subjective. on top of all that, either way, it’s impossible and impractical to try and control for every single thing people do in their daily lives.

EDIT: stray “a” removed

the video annoys you because you’re not the target audience. you clearly already see validity in IQ as a metric and have use cases for it. most STEM people (veritasium’s audience writ large) do not traditionally view IQ favorably, and at worst consider it a worthless bunk metric. the video isn’t intended to say “hey! here’s how psychiatrist and psychologist view and use IQ in statistical analysis and their work (bc remember, STEM people know about this legitimate use in these fields, they just typically discount or look down upon it due to IQ’s reputation),” it’s intended to say “hey! i know you don’t think IQ is real/valid, but here is a video essay exploring the concept through a very STEM lense.” of course he talks about taking the test and studying for it. he talks about taking the test blind too. he’s a fucking engineer, physicist, and doctor. the exact kind of person to recognize what tools like IQ metrics actually are, and that there is no single one way to measure, use, or quantify this data that’s more “correct” than others, when divorced from context. veritasium demonstrated a very thorough understanding of the actual concepts and theoretical principles that underlie IQ, and I thought his video was a very fresh perspective. it certainly demonstrated a mastery of the concept that i believe is absent from someone who might hold the opinions you’re espousing here (genuinely don’t mean to come off as rude here sorry for having autism energy)

yeah i mean idk i have no idea lmao. i just googled slot light and saw lights that looked vaguely similar to some local theatres i’ve seen around my country

i’m pretty sure he’s referring to those physical lights embedded below/around the projector screen in some theatres that’re sometimes left still on, but very dimmed. i’m not a cam guy but i’d imagine if you do watch cams it’d be kind of annoying the whole entire time to have them on screen.

What makes you so confident users won’t by and large accept the charges and boot from large social media platforms? Debatably piracy and a home media server have a lot of the same pros as Lemmy and the Fediverse. For the most part, however, people tend to cough up the 10-25 dollars for a streaming service. It’s not because of any practical reasons, at least directly. The true decider is cultural and societal attitudes towards the platforms providing a service. People practically don’t pirate because of the learning curve, but realistically don’t pirate because of their preconceived notions surrounding the practice. Maybe they think it’s wrong. Maybe they think it’s too hard. Maybe it just feels like too much work to set up. Maybe the communities feel too insular. Whatever the reason, it’s fundamentally because of some idea or feeling they have surrounding the medium. Who’s to say these big tech companies won’t successfully execute their goal, and push a larger cultural shift to make the idea of subscription social media more appealing to the average user than the idea of a clunky service using ActivityPub. Maybe the narrative of these spaces being too techbro-y gets pushed, and they garner a similar reputation in the public eye that piracy communities have. It could be seen just like streaming services and piracy. The public could be convinced of the value of familiarity and convenience. Has great work been done to fight against this corpo push lately? Absolutely. But don’t look at these “blatant missteps” that places like reddit and twitter have experienced as of late as omens of an imminent downfall of centralized, capitalist social media. Rather, look at it as a warning sign. A warning sign that heralds the first in a long, deliberate line of many who will follow in those footsteps, gradually pushing the Overton Window surrounding these prices towards their goal. Today Reddit and Twitter are the bad guys so that tomorrow Meta and others can make the same moves, with the added benefit of “it’s just not our choice, we must make these changes to remain viable in the current market.” In the eyes of many, not all, but the majority; this is an absolution. They will be able to succeed. They know this, that’s why they’re doing it and it’s happening now. The Fediverse and a free net will not survive unless the battle can be won in the public consciousness. We must overcome the significant hurdles between federated software design and mass adoption. We must take a direct, meaningful, and effective course of action to directly fight against this, it will not passively be won.

EDIT: Typo; missing word “Rather, look at it [as] a warning sign.”