Are you certain? A second is a measure of duration of time, which is standardized via the oscillations of a caeseium atom. There's no reference to length involved as far as I know.
With the proliferation of Astrology apps like Co-Star and The Pattern, it feels like there’s a growing, underlying need for self understanding and guidance. My friend and I have combined 16 years experience in psychometrics/bio-psychology, and during the pandemic we set out to create an app that would help people
(1) Take a suite of personality assessments (like Big5, Attachment Styles etc.)
(2) Connect with friends to better understand them
(3) Get insights into their relationships based on their personality signatures
Would love feedback. Happy to answer any questions.
Respectfully, isn’t personality testing pseudoscience? I’ve done MBTI and was always a bit skeptical of how well they really know me from just those simple questions (sent from an ENTJ)
I have so much to say on the topic that I probably can't fit it in an HN comment but some key points
1. Some personality testing is definitely pseudo-science. Some (big5, attachment styles, etc.) are empirically supported.
2. Often personality tests are used incorrectly. For instance, MBTI gets criticized for not being valid, but what does valid mean? If you're talking about a predictive validation study for something like hiring, then yes, it's not valid, but the authors would never have wanted it to be used for hiring/selection.
3. We see value of personality testing mostly in being (1) a framework to understand people and (2) a vocabulary to be able to describe ourselves and our intrapsychic experiences (3) a way to feel less alone/alienated in our suffering. For instance, if you understand that your attachment style (which is causing you suffering in your relationships) is common and mostly not your choice, it might make you feel less defective/alone.
I doubt that. Try shooting an arrow at a crow (obviously not killing it) or throw a stone at a group of monkeys the next time chance presents it self. Not a good idea. One of my childhood nemesis were a group of crows from a tree nearby at which I shot an arrow with a home made toy bow (none were even hit). Those things harassed me for months before eventually forgetting (forgiving?) the incident :)
> throw a stone at a group of monkeys the next time chance presents it self
In places like the Monkey Temple in Bali that's exactly how you keep them at bay. In our local zoo where you can interact with lemurs, they can be chased away with a small water spray.
How would humans experience revenge differently? What makes you think revenge isn’t an instinct in humans?
I recall reading (the book escapes me), that just about all animals employ a Tit-for-Tat mechanism for dealing with other animals of the same species that cheat.
Revenge is a very useful social tool, especially against other species threatening their offspring.
> What makes you think revenge isn’t an instinct in humans?
An instinct is something you have no choice over, it's automatic.
Humans very clearly have a choice as to whether they pursue revenge or not. If someone wrongs me in a given way, I can choose how to respond, or to not respond at all; and I can spend as much time as I like (decades if I choose to) pondering on that. It's doubtful these monkeys function quite at that level.
It's unknown whether, for example, these monkeys have any choice in the matter. Their programming may be purely instinctual when it comes to a revenge response.
> An instinct is something you have no choice over, it's automatic.
I think this is a common but entirely wrong model, and I'm not sure why people hold it.
Do you think humans have no instincts? I would argue exactly the opposite, humans, like all animals, are driven almost entirely by instinct, whether it's prosocial instincts causing you to have a moral code much like those around you, inspiring guilt and shame when you break it, or causing you to feel a need to talk to people and comment on Internet stories, reproductive instincts driving you to seek a mate, or survival instincts to ensure a regular food supply.
I think it works exactly the same way in all animals. They are equally capable of making choices, because choice is a preconscious thing, not something that occurs as a result of careful, reasoned intellect. Obviously, humans are capable of making more informed choices, but "reason" is mostly a post-hoc rationalization engine.
My great grand uncle is known in my mother's family side for getting killed by a camel that he mistreated years earlier. He apparently was usually very gentle with his camel herd but at some point that particular male didn't want to move so he hit him with a cane, and years later when he was working behind that male again he just got stomped to death.
I'm sure the story has been "embellished" a bit though and there's probably tons of confounding factor but I've heard a lot of similar stories about camels and their famous penchant for revenge :).
Most animals are capable of revenge. Story: A family in Palestine were doing a routine cleaning of the house. They had a snake nest in the house and it was no pet snake. So to clean better they put the nest and eggs in a different corner.
The snake came back looking for the nest and could not find it. It looked around with no luck. It went to the family water vase (because there was no piped water supply) and spit inside. The mother saw this and told the other to put the nest back.
The snake saw the nest, went immediately back to the vase, coiled it and flipped the water over over to empty it.
It had spit poison in the supply to hurt the family for revenge of its nest. And then sought to undo that act.
I know a member of the family first hand through my workplace who told me and a few others. The guy was about 55 years old at the time (7-8 years ago) when he narrated the story. He was a Palestinian but in Jordan at the time it happened and was there before he reached age 18. (I should not have stated he was in Palestine.) I am not sure what other details I can provide beyond name for this narration.
But then wouldn't the similar brain structure between monkeys and humans point towards monkeys' qualitative experience being more similar than humans than the other way around?
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but a matter such as this seems plagued by uncertainty and it seems rash to me to be making such presumptions.
> But then wouldn't the similar brain structure between monkeys and humans point towards monkeys' qualitative experience being more similar than humans than the other way around?
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you forget a word?
The original post presumes that monkeys' experience of revenge is "just a survival instinct". I find it quite odd to make such a strong assumption about something as unknowable about conscious experience (perhaps wrongly if there is evidence to that effect I am not aware of).
Your reply pointed out that mammals have similar brain structures. To me, this would imply that humans and other mammals (particularly monkeys) should have more similar experiences of the world as a base assumption, rather than leading us to dismiss similar behaviours as survival instinct etc. Perhaps I missed your point?
I can see that this is quite hand-wavy topic, but hopefully this helps to clarify a little.
Social mobility is really hard to measure, but all else equal, I think America is the best place in the world for a poor person to become filthy rich (top 0.1%) but not the best place in the world for a poor person to simply transition to middle/upper class.
I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education. Because both of those things have a big chance of impacting your poor person's career lastingly if they don't have luck.
Most of the 0.1% inherited their wealth or at least came from an well educated background.
I almost accepted this and went on my way, but it only tells like 7% of the story. The first thing is that your eligibility stops as soon as you start making more money (i.e. single earner > $17,000). But that increase in money does not cover the new costs for healthcare.
Aha! But at such a low income you get the ACA subsidy! But the insurance plans you can get have really high deductibles. If you're making $20,000 a year and have a $17,000 deductible... that's life ruining if you actually get sick. That's not to mention all the other oddities that go with having these higher-deductible lower premium plans like having to work around non-formulary medications, getting referrals to covered providers (you will be really lucky to have a PCP that does the homework to make sure you are referred in-network), and general insurance fuckery.
I think it's just a little bit more complex than filling out a few forms.
> you will be really lucky to have a PCP that does the home work to make sure you are referred in-network
They have whole databases on their computers that do this for them. Maybe they refer you to someone across town, or the next town over. But they're going to try hard to keep you in-network. This is also why Canadians are constantly paying out-of-pocket to come to USA to get their knee surgeries and back surgeries.
The accuracy of those databases is questionable as evidenced by $InsuranceCompany calling around to providers asking if they accept $InsuranceCompany. Of course, the better the insurance you have, the easier this problem is to solve because more providers are in-network.
How does that part work in practise? Are these forms something someone from a poor uneducated background can actually realistically fill out?
The way I see it many Americans I had the chance to talk with either take a gamble on their health or they spend not unsignificant time and energy to find their ways through the system. The first choice can turn out just fine, or (in many cases) completely catastrophic. The second choice takes away time and resources that could have been spent somewhere else.
Any poor person can walk into an urgent care or go to some place like ZocDoc and get help signing-up for Medicaid or Obamacare.
Likewise, any poor person can go to the local community college and tell the person at the desk that they want to enroll in some classes and they will be directed to the financial aide office where they will receive help to sign up for FAFSA [0] and Pell Grants [1].
All of these forms are printed in about 5 languages. There are people in the offices there to literally help the poor people write their own names on the forms.
It works pretty well. 23% of Americans use Medicaid. (which means it surprisingly covers more people than UK's NHS) About half of all births in the US are paid for by Medicaid.
The Americans you hear about on the news that don't have healthcare are people who have incomes above the eligibility threshold to qualify for Medicaid, or are too young to qualify for Medicare. It's the people in the middle who fall through the cracks in the US.
I don’t understand your comment. I’m referring to people who have incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but do not have a high enough income to afford good health insurance.
>How does that part work in practice? Are these forms something someone from a poor uneducated background can actually realistically fill out?
Yes, at least in the 3 states where I know anything about how the systems work. It's all the same information you fill out to get your driver's license, kid's school lunch which, contrary to the prevailing trope around here, being poor does not make you too stupid to do. It's way less arcane than reporting loan interest on your taxes or trying to register a used car last registered by a dead guy.
It could definitely be better, but I think there are more opportunities than most people realize. Joining the military is a big one; you get paid to learn a marketable skill, usually have your college tuition paid for, and you get to move out of your hometown. I knew a few people who joined because it was a quick way to get out of their shitty hometown where the options were sell drugs, or be poor.
Knowledge of what's available would probably go a long way towards helping people move up. My wife grew up in a small rural area with no job options besides Wal-Mart and fast food joints, and she hated it so much that she ended up getting enough scholarships to make money earning her undergrad. She's the first person in her family to go to college, and most of the rest think college is super expensive, and don't know about scholarships to help poor people go.
It really depends. Some jobs in the military don't gain you a lot of marketable skills. Infantry is a good example. If anything it shows you can complete a few years commitment. Then in some jobs, your military experience doesn't matter. Let take the example of a Navy Corpsman. Functionally, they are equivalent of a Medical Assistant, however when they get out, they don't have the necessary licensing requirements to be a Medical Assistant and may still have to pursue schooling before taking the licensing exam.
So, sometimes it leads to marketable skills, sometimes it doesnt. Sometimes it leads to skills that can transition out into the civilian world, but doesn't because of license and certifications constraints.
But yea, some people do join to get out of shitty small town. I did 5 years in the Navy because in my rural North Carolina town there were 2 other options, make the meth or consume the meth.
Maybe also depends on the background of the poor person. I grew up poor. Definitely in the bottom 20% of income or wealth. However my parents were both very educated (immigrants), valued education, and I had a stable family life. I did well in school, went to university and am now moderately successful financially.
But I can see someone with a similar financial background, but growing up in a family that didn't value education, perhaps single parent working all the time struggling much more to get ahead.
Note the denominator in this statement. The poor -> middle class transition is relevant for a huge amount of people, and the poor -> filthy rich is relevant to such a small number of people I don't even know a single soul alive who made that transition, despite billionaires being very public figures.
I'm the author. I'm not sure if the psychometrics of love is interesting to the the HN community but I'd love to get thoughts/feedback from those that are curious.
Couldn't agree more. Not only is it a feature, not a product, but it's a niche feature at that. The vast majority of people I know who have used Clubhouse find it fascinating at first and then within a day or two realize it's mostly boring content and never touch it again.
The thoughts of reviewers based on their claims is that likely you will get something that is competitive with current gen ryzen mobile (4900h on the high end) on power usage/perf and competitive with m1 on perf, but not power usage. However, I don't see them drawing even with Apple on power efficiency, and AMD have their Zen 3 mobile chips in the near future, so it's more a holding on in technical quality. Likely they will outsell both though, given the M1's Mac exclusivity and the limited range of AMD laptops (and limited stock of TSMC 7nm everything currently) - try buy a 4900H system vs a 108xxH, it's much harder.
Their perfromance claims will result in M1 multicore level probably with more cores but nowhere close in single core regardless of their shockingly false single core claims.
This specific announcement is an incredibly run of the mill "Intel produced a new larger variant of a chip they already make". It's still produced at 10nm, this is not any kind of big step forward to catching up with Apple.
So if I was gonna try to interpret tea leaves, did yields finally increase to where 8 cores on a die was viable or was it just limited to 4 cores before to maximize capacity?
I would put it more as "Intel didn't do poorly this round" if all holds true to the information we have so far. AMD still hasn't overtaken them in low core count performance in the laptop space and this should hold them off from doing that until at least Zen 4 (late Fall-ish or so) or open Intel up more time to continue changing its momentum if Zen 4 falters any. In this space the M1 is still miles ahead both (i.e. AMD/Intel can generally match the performance or the power budget with their latest designs but the M1 can do both at the same time). On the desktop side the Rocket Lake S should just eek out Zen 3 on single core performance albeit ~6 months (or about half a product cycle) later. Certainly good news for Intel as it keeps them from being steamrolled in a single year but that means AMD still has higher momentum, a time advantage on the next release, a guarantee that TSMCs new 5nm process they want to use works (as used in the M1), and a significantly better many core position.
AMD has their presentation shortly but I wouldn't expect more than news on Zen 3 mobiles (which may dampen Intel's presentation a bit but probably won't outdo them) and Zen 3 Epyc (server, likely to wipe the floor) this early into it on the CPU side.
2. Apple M1, though the Intel 10875H is pretty much the same perf (though at 3x the power usage)
3. Only Intel uses this, so whatever Intel's fastest chip on this process is.
That said, it varies by use cases, and M1 leans heavily on accelerators so has big wins in some and big losses in others when compared the 4900H or 10875H, which are closer to each other in single threaded benchmarks.
So per that the M1 is 8% faster in single-core than the 28W i7-1185G7 (side note: Intel fix your naming yeesh). It would not at all be surprising if Intel claws that back, that's well within "typical" generational IPC gains.
I assume some could actually answer your question with respect to designm but you would be asking the wrong question. Intel's main competitor is not ARM or AMD. It is TSMC's ecosystem. Which is ex-CEO Morris Chang calls it the Grand Alliance.
Does anyone know if this could be used to build high-rises? I imagine it has enough strength for a 10 story building, but the fire risk might be too high.
No need for densified wood to build midrises, structured timber products like CLT (basically, fancier plywood) are already being used to construct 5 - 10 story buildings with the tallest wooden skyscrapers being planned at 20 - 70 stories tall: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscraper-revo...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_time#:~:text=A%20unit%....