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: <1248675b-e38a-04a7-93b3-6fa527725858@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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: 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.