I do like this comment, but I've gotten reprimanded for posting similar comments. It might have been dang that told me that for the purpose of keeping discussions serious, we should refrain from sarcastic posts. I've been posting and reading in that spirit ever since, and so when I first read your comment I assumed you were serious.
I'm not saying your wrong, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but when I read your comment, I uncontrollably began imagining I was reading one of those reader-submitted comments in a newspaper about the internet in the 90s. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I was somehow teleported to a future in which AI is ever-present in the same way the net is now and trying to reconcile your viewpoint, which was impossible.
Of course, my hallucination does not dismiss the possibility that we are in a bubble. Wasn't CSCO something like 200x PE during the dot com bubble? People see immense potential in an idea but don't know how to properly price it, and so we get what is seen as essentially infinite expected growth priced into companies and their products.
My $3k laptop has nearly the best components on the market right now. The problem is that it has a poor build (MSI) and is falling apart in a way that's not repairable. I looked into purchasing an equivalent-or-better laptop, and I couldn't find anything under $6 for essentially the same specs, and over $10k for a significant upgrade. Though I need my laptop for work, I decided just to ride it out till it's death.
You've made the mistake of thinking that if IQ were 50% genetic (it isn't - it's way more than that, but that's beside the point), then the remaining proportion is completely (non-shared) environmental.
Researchers in this field actually break down the non-genetic component into four major components:
1. Shared environment
2. Non-shared environment
3. Error
Shared environment accounts for so little variance that it might as well be ignored; while non-shared accounts for little more than error.
Note that including error in the non-genetic component, just as you've done in your post above, you are viscerally downplaying the otherwise undeniably predictive link from genes to IQ. In other words, whatever number you give is automatically deflated due to the way a psychometric is measured.
This has never been the source of debate. Back when I was going through grad school in intelligence, people didn't have to overthink how they presented the data. Intelligence was already a mature field, and we discussed the data openly. But in the past couple decades or so, a lot of people such as yourself popped up, attempting to craft irrelevant, statistically incorrect arguments against the results of certain well-established psychometrics that happen to not fit within whatever mental world your brand of politics ascribes.
If you really cared about the data, you'd be discussing the numbers. But your interest in this previously niche topic isn't in understanding reality; it's in justifying your worldview, which is why you deny the established data, immediately present a caveat stating that the data doesn't matter in the first place, appeal to emotions, and finish it all off by claiming those who disagree with you have been brainwashed. None of those four arguments have any merit in a genuine discussion on this topic.
I'm Booking.com's Genius Level 3, so perhaps this only applies to frequent users, but I've been refunded in full for a booking after the date of the booking without even giving the reason for the refund request.
I've shifted 100% away from AirBnb and to Booking and am still able to book whole apartments/houses. It used to be AirBnb=houses/apts, Booking=hotels. Now Booking covers both, is usually cheaper (especially considering the cleaning fees AirBnb listings usually charge), and has good customer support (in my experience).
That's no longer true and hasn't been for a long time. While the name comes from that concept, the "hedge fund" is now just any fund marketed to accredited investors.
His point was that a tax on unrealized gains can one day be applied to less wealthy people.
I can explain it to you with a simple example:
Imagine, for instance, you're making 50k a year and have a brokerage account that has appreciated by 100k and that you're being taxed 20% on unrealized gains in year x. In year x+1, say your account falls back to where it was before. You paid 20k plus another 10k, and you will need to set aside another 10k. In essence, your income has been reduced to 10k, which could make daily life impossible for many people making 50k annually, especially those with families.
I've seen this type of writing a lot, and I agree with you: It's an excuse to draw attention to the writer.
Anecdotes aren't bad if they lead into something more substantive. E.g., "My experience with my kids in Greece got me interested in [concept], and here is the data that I collected; my conclusion is that..."
But no, it's usually like: Check out this experience I had or quirky thing I do. Now let's talk about something tangentially related.
It's really a need to vent being displayed most prominently. Maybe covid/social media/WFM/inflation/whatever you want to blame has made people lonely to the point of trying to add water cooler talk into their publications.