Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 02:08:58 +0000
Subject: Re: The Joy of *small* business
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
References: <o4ucnYo2YLqmZ876nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <1248675b-e38a-04a7-93b3-6fa527725858@example.net>
 <vjrjnh$1mjo7$7@dont-email.me> <lse9fqF5ikfU10@mid.individual.net>
 <WsOcnaUN_rSgxf_6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vju6fv$2832d$2@dont-email.me>
 <J02dnXgXafNlPf76nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vk0rob$2q5m4$8@dont-email.me>
 <DF-dnRQm_J3MtPj6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <wwv7c7upv9j.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <rZOdnUROG7pLw_v6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <wwvplllmkdo.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <hLycnXYJh5xBHPr6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lspnd5Fpd5U1@mid.individual.net>
 <QuydnT2QrdBxJvr6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lsq4iuF2ubgU2@mid.individual.net> <vk8nib$ie68$3@dont-email.me>
 <fd79319f-61cb-9c03-df4c-7fdd06cc6247@example.net>
 <O3idneQuNpEXbPX6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <ec2d57af-557e-a13b-415b-0514749afc70@example.net>
 <Mu2cnVeNVcTSxvf6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <a9307563-9097-81a8-2e6d-6396e880fbb3@example.net>
From: "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: wokiesux
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 21:08:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a9307563-9097-81a8-2e6d-6396e880fbb3@example.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <rhidnaarnJun9Pb6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 83
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-olqFXXYe95aiM4ADE9RiToPnN8SDUkPsDJeLMw/NeH1aTalKiHY1Vt1epZuOKVt0KjzoxJRS6NxzCSj!HWto4CWlt1+LAIW1Qsx+aYaQ2oqrLPH4u5kC/BGm6LmcTw4evweK05OH+WPi5TIQMLP28d/jMvdv!mXx9aB/nJxEFHRZylMR2
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5239

On 12/24/24 9:28 AM, D wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> 
>>> Ahh... but let's wait and see...
>>>
>>> "The findings, posted on the preprint server arXiv but not yet 
>>> published in a
>>> peer-reviewed journal, have attracted both global attention and 
>>> skepticism".
>>
>>  Oh, I agree there ... but one of the main points was
>>  that the instrumentation/methods were much improved
>>  yet STILL showed the mysterious effect (just in better
>>  detail).
>>
>>  So, downstream, I expect this is gonna be deemed REAL.
>>
>>  And it's REALLY weird.
>>
>>  Seems like every time instrumentation improves by even
>>  2X then The Science has to leap ahead 10X.
> 
> This is the truth! It almost feels like Moores law kind of. The further 
> we go,
> the more time and money needs to be invested to reach the next level.
> 
> I wonder how many paradigm shifts and quantum leaps remain to be 
> exploited? I'd
> like to have anti-gravity!! And in computing, I'd like to see a shift to 
> a new
> paradigm during my time left on the planet.

   I have doubts on 'anti-gravity'. It'd require 'un-bending'
   spacetime. If it doesn't require as much energy to unbend
   then 'perpetual motion' machines become possible.

   As for paradigms ... we're still kinda using Babbage's
   machine - nice orderly distinct steps at a time. Going
   parallel, well, it's just multiple Babbage approaches
   stapled together. 'Quantum', if they can ever deal
   with the error issues, may be a glimpse at that
   'next paradigm'.


>>>>  Better find a way, quick, to push up human IQ into
>>>>  the 500 range, WITHOUT causing insanity.
>>>
>>> What is IQ? What is intelligence? We are fumbling around in the dark. 
>>> Is a human
>>> + a computer a 200 IQ person? Stanislaw Lem writes in one of his 
>>> books about
>>> knowledge factories. It was a long time I read it, but it kind of 
>>> gave me the
>>> impression he is thinking about AI-farms churning out theories and 
>>> science.
>>
>>  Beyond a certain point nobody is SURE what "IQ" means.
>>  It's kind of the problem where you're trying to describe
>>  yourself - but the very attempt at description ALTERS
>>  the equation. Very quantum  :-)
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>  I've met a few people with EXTREME 'IQ' over the years.
>>  One seemed kinda 'normal', but just had kinda superhuman
>>  math abilities/perspective. The other two were, well,
>>  NOT so 'normal' - skittish, borderline autistic,
>>  'borderline' in general.
>>
>>  But we're still talking IQ-200 max here. What the hell
>>  would 300 or 500 look like ??? Note effective intellectual
>>  ability is not proportional to the IQ score. 120 is MUCH
>>  more capable than 100.
> 
> I imagine that our IQ scales (as bad as they might be) start to break down
> beyond a certain level.

   The practical limit for "IQ" measurement is
   around 200 - and even that's getting up into
   error territory. "IQ" is ok for maybe 70 to
   140. That fits for MOST people.