cheatercheater
https://bitbucket.org/cheater/us_split.
It's just like us qwerty, just more ergonomic.
Let's analyze this for a second.
The resolution by the OS is ostensibly 1920x1200. This is what apps see and what they render bitmaps for.
This is then upscaled twice in each direction to 3840x2400.
Then, this finally somehow gets put on 2880x1800. As I understand it, it gets downscaled from 3840x2400 directly to 2880x1800.
LOL, it just dawned on me. You guys have been taken for such a fucking ride. I've just checked the numbers, I hadn't noticed it before.
The physical resolution of the monitor is 2880x1800. This is exactly 1.5x more in each direction than 1920x1200, which is the original input format.
Now you must understand two things: 1. scaling is a DSP process. 2. You never use floating point operations in digital signal processing if you can get away with integers, because integer operations are so much cheaper and because the result is always more precise. (The only reason to use floats is to get more headroom, but that's a detail you don't need to worry with because it is in no way applicable to resolution scaling. You could use floats for pixel colour, and many systems do that already)
So what does this mean? How do you multiply by 1.5 if you can only use integers?
--> YOU MULTIPLY BY THREE AND DIVIDE BY TWO. <--
The intermediate resolution of 3840x2400 exists solely as a tiny step in the rescaling algorithm, a step which in itself does not add any information that wasn't there in the original 1920x1200 image. Similarly, some of you audio people may realize that most of your VST or AU plugins have 64x oversampling. Does this mean that your project is working at 12 MHz sampling rate? NO!!! Your recorded material is still at 192k, and your project still does not contain any useful information above 96 kHz. Don't be silly. There's being tricked when not knowing, but given that a majority of the people commenting on mac hardware here seem to have some idea of audio processing, that's just fundamentalist hypocrisy.
You've fallen prey to sensationalist marketing and measurement of e-penis. Except your e-penis is completely made up and never actually happened.
Wow, some people in this thread are so, extremely, gullible. I had really come to expect more from HN, and am truly disappointed and dismayed.
u so smaht
Observational bias. Rationality of thought process in non-technical situations is rarely externalized; unless you talk of scientists, you're highly unlikely to remark on how highly rational he is being. In fact, the only way I can come up with to make such a statement fit in literary fashion is when you're making a quip on someone:
"It was highly rational of Nixon to start the Vietnam War."
There's a group of people doing them theatre exercises, they rent a hall down the corridor from me periodically. I've always known there was something really fishy about them. Are you saying they might be scientologists? Becuase that would really fit to the group's MO.
You've never tried tutoring kids who get kickbacks for good scores then. Absolute fucking nightmare. Motivation to study must come from within for it to be successful in any way.
Why do you assume that type 2 people have greater capacity to overcome bias?
Have you read the article (rather than skimming)? It says exactly the opposite.
Sounds interesting; care to summarize what those things are?
Bear in mind that 50 years ago the SAT was still in flux and a lot of it was being experimented with and new. Given that it was one of the biggest, and most repeatedly renewed concerns for researchers like Kahneman, there's little to doubt he's not only an expert on the SAT, but also knows as many of its downsides as anyone.
Therefore, I believe this paper is a sort of "lessons learned" story which shows that his approach is better than the form of education being undertaken by schools.
โ
I find it ESPECIALLY curious that neither the article nor anyone in this whole thread (and have I tried reading most of it) has commented on the process, and consequences, of being caught on trick questions like bat and ball.
It is my understanding that our intelligence has evolved through use in situations where its impact was more or less immediately visible, and where this feedback could be acted upon.
Example: shaping tools. Is the flint stone sharp? No. Mash it against rocks. Is it sharp now? It's a bit sharper, but not sharp enough. Mash it against rocks some more. Is it sharp enough now? OK, you're done shaping your spear head.
Example: hunting. Approach the prey. It runs away. You don't notice why, you hadn't taken wind into account when looking for clues. No feedback, therefore you couldn't act upon it.
Example: hunting. Approach the prey. It runs away. You notice it did after wind turned and gave away your position. You got feedback from the grass and leaves moving in the wind. Next time you'll be able to act upon this.
Example: trying to shake fruit off a tree. You find a low-hanging branch and try to shake it. First you try this way, then that way, and finally you find the best way to get fruit without making too much fall down.
The last example extends to any sort of experimenting, tinkering, happy-hacking.
It is however notable that the bat and ball question does not test that. There's a question, and you give an answer. There's no feedback before it becomes final, and once it does that is the clear cut-off. This represents the stone-cold, immovable, monolithic machinery displayed by many technical subjects, such as science, mathematics, and some forms of computer programming, but also strategy, and some forms of art. There is no iterative process, you get one try, based on which you can in no way build a tangible mental model of how something works and what parameters of your thinking you need to adjust in order to better yourself. One very stupid example is when someone in a job interview asks you about standard library function names and argument orders. Either you remember, or you don't. I'll call this feedback the feedback gap.
Bear in mind I have mentioned "happy-hacking" above and "computer programming" below. In fact, they're both computer programming. The difference? If I'm presented with a python program where I can use an iterative process, a repl, and its help() command that immediately gives me access to documentation, then I can very easily build up a mental model of what's going on. Exceptions and errors give me constant, constructive feedback which comes immediately. This immediacy is extremely important and even a slight delay makes the learning process slower. Additionally, if some things aren't available as immediate feedback, I can find out. For example, when trying to get at the fruit, I saw immediately where the fruit was in the tree branches. When typing out python, I don't have this, I don't see what the functions are, so I need to use help(). That works well enough. Some people like intellisense for that. Works well too. It all fills the feedback gap.
There's a similar difference in ease of progress between experimental mechanics and similar physics, versus branches where experimentation cannot happen. That's feedback gap again.
It is my belief that this sort of immediate feedback is needed in other technical subjects, especially mathematics and physics. Approaches such as theorem provers are helpful in mathematics, but they're nowhere near being complete, and nowhere near the utility and immediacy of a repl. I am fairly sure there are other ways in which the feedback gap can be filled. Perhaps different methodology, or differently structured theories, can give us more immediate feedback? Perhaps mathematical systems in which theorems are easier to tentatively prove or disprove can become more successful in breeding new results?
Or perhaps the theories are not to blame, but we need more tools. For example, my abstract geometry teacher kept reminding us that we needed to come up with such quick checks. Non-linearities were always useful. His favourite was the binary distance function, which was 0 for two identical points and 1 for different points. A lot of stupid theorems can be disproved by checking some examples with this.
Can someone else comment on any such tools?
Writing this comment definitely came with an insight or two for me. If you read it, thanks for going on this trip with me.
> all standardized test are socially constructed concepts that ATTEMPT a method of measuring intelligence
as opposed to ones that don't attempt and have not been constructed by a society? What are we hoping for here, exactly: some ray of light shone upon us by god almighty which will let us know that, without doubt, those men are smart and those other ones are stupid?
> The idea that "smarter people... were slightly more vulnerable to common mental mistakes" is a nonsensical conclusion. These findings are completely worthless.
> Intelligence (in the real world) reaches far beyond one's abilities to answer multiple choice reading comprehension, basic math and writing.
Good thing I'm in La-La-Land, then, so I can answer multiple-choice reading comprehension all day long.
> Beethoven would not have gotten a perfect score on his SAT's
And you know this because you dug up his skeleton and it wouldn't mark answers? I'm not sure what to make of your assertion.
You hadn't quoted any passages from the original study that would display inadequate methodology or statistical error. Your findings are completely worthless.
Can it help identify candidates who have little experience but will make good programmers once they're taught how to code?
Let me just take a second to call bullshit on that.
> Do you really think that is OK
Yeah. In fact, I wouldn't only say "OK" but "highly usual" to see such a report. Why? Because 1) at least one thirteen year old killed themselves 2) telegraph, being the rag they are, obviously picked it up and made it into a tearful story, or maybe even made it up (which wouldn't be beyond their reach). Someone didn't seek help and therefore killed themselves. Who cares? Are you next going to grief us about the fact that someone drove too fast and killed themselves? That someone ate a razor and killed themselves? That someone touched a live electrical wire and killed themselves? Rest assured more people die and become crippled in traffic accidents than in effect of bullying, yet metropolitan areas in the US do not even have an investigative unit responsible for ascertaining the identity of a hit and run car driver unless the person dies. Crippled for life? Yup, fine with us, just go home. Dead? We might investigate. There's one guy in our metro area handling those. For millions of drivers.
When predicting things, sometimes you feel like there's an itch and you follow up on it and it turns out you notice a pattern which lets you reason about the nature of the world as a whole. Here's the tip: if there were a trend with people being bullied killing themselves, I might be able to agree. If it were additionally undoubtedly correlated, in that bullying meant a rise in suicide rates across people with all sorts of psychological backgrounds, and the raise is well above what happens under other conditions when mental illnesses are accounted for, i might even be compelled to agree. But posting a story of one person, out of millions in Los Angeles alone, is nothing. It's not an indicator, it's not even an itch on a fly's butt.
But to answer your question:
> Here's an example of a 13 year old girl who commited suicide after being bullied online. Do you really think that is OK
True answer? I don't give a shit, and I'm not going to start walking like on broken glass, turning my whole world upside down, and assuming inane and unnatural behaviours because of someone else's unique and unusual deficiency. Get real.