Thank you for all the follow up posts on this thread... It strikes me they're probably taking up as much, if not more, time just in the clarifications!
In 2000 came across a binary space partition algo that did this, but used a small scheme interpreter to codegen the c++ BSP code. Would love to find out the library name... have now forgotten it.
PopOS is awesome. It's what I use on my XY Thinkpad (repurposed Intel/hexa-core/12-HyperThreads/64GB/matte-screen/2TB(SSD+HDD)+256GbNVME/VGA/Trackpoint/USBC/laptop)! Nothing better imo, unless he[1] adds an E-Ink option!
Just wait until we get viable electric mo'bikes! I don't remember exactly, but I think Michael Cyzsz was working on transmissions before he passed away.
This company (and the founder) are just a bunch of mechanical geniuses. Other than in pure-electric, where they partnered with Rimac, they have driven so much innovation, especially with ICE: form-factors, alternatives to camshafts (free-valve), even drive-mechanisms, manufacturing techniques, wheels etc.
They're extremely humble and low-key about their inventions too, though they come out of seemingly nowhere, I don't think, for example, that anybody expected this latest innovation, because the consensus has been "manual is dead" since the new sports cars like Porsche, Ford Mustang and various others are ditching it for pure performance reasons (0-60 times).
The new manual looks amazing with its gated shifter, very Pagani Huayra-like. Their whole youtube channel (especially the invention videos, which are very humble for the sheer audacity of what they achieve) is interesting, but here's the link to the manual-automatic video.
Disclaimer: I am quite firmly in that camp now, although at first I considered them all nutters. Some thing has been driving global ill-health in our post-disease world (excluding viruses) from 1920 onwards... imho there's clearly a complex ætiology with factors such as:
- carbohydrate (especially fructose) vs animal-protein/-fat consumption
- types of fat (our bodies only contain certain kinds)
- xenœstrogen & hormones of all types not just phyto-œstrogens
- Vitamin D, Magnesium, ferritin, pre-eclampsia, anæmia (lack of hæme iron consumption)
- more recently the whole statin-cholesterol debacle, Goodhart's law in action
I heard the most bizarre & unexpected opinion first-hand from an obgyn. Prior to this I was firmly in the nurture camp of nature/nurture, but this obgyn's opinion on adoptions shocked me out of my complacency.
I am hoping Sapolsky's latest book may shed some light on the subject without the Wade/Murray "bell curve" implications.
Curious as to what you mean. I think you're implying that the personality makeup of the adopted child that comes from his/her biological parents is not to be underestimated? Is that really a questionable or controversial topic though?
The thought has occurred to me. I would describe both my wife and I as being stable mannered and not prone to rash decisions. Odds are a biological child of ours might resemble that personality.
I also acknowledge a child we adopt may have had biological parents with very different personalities than us, and therefore the child may be very different from us in personality.
At the same time, I don't believe that just because the child's biological parents might have been wild and crazy, the child is doomed to the same fate even with our care.
> At the same time, I don't believe that just because the child's biological parents might have been wild and crazy, the child is doomed to the same fate even with our care
Tell me you haven't read many behavioral genetics papers without telling me you haven't read many behavioral genetics papers :).
adoptee turned to hard drugs (opiods) in his teens. the opinion was: what do you expect, the father was an addict too. at the time I was shocked as I was so firmly in the nurture camp.
Addiction, and specifically OUD is complicated, but there is real evidence that genetics plays a sizeable role in the physiological dependence side of it.
However the main risk factor for trying and then abusing opioids, for example, is trauma, typically but not only in childhood. Basically, it’s both nature and nurture, as most things are. Where the percentages lie for both, I don’t think we know yet.
For instance parents who have genes that increase impulsivity are more likely to e beat their kids exposing them to trauma, the kids are more likely to do dumb things that expose themselves to trauma, and the kids are more likely to do impulsive things like try drugs.
So it's hard to disentangle what portion of the effects of trauma are direct and which are confounds.
Oh yeah, definitely. It's a complicated mess of variables, that I don't even know how one would begin to tease them apart, but that's also why I firmly come down on the side of "it's both" -- as not all trauma is directly from biological parents, for example.
yes, I agree with you. It's just at the time I was unaware that brain chemistry could be genetically dependent; although as you say that's pre-disposition, and the trigger can be trauma, and sometimes knowing you are adopted can be the source of that trauma, thus triggering the behaviour.
I can only speak from personal experience but that is what happened to my family. My brother is a sociopath who caused our family a lifetime of difficulty. The biological mother was drug addict and abusive before adoption and he became an addict. My sister also adopted from different family was less of a problem but also had some issues. My dad was very kind and not abusive and spent way too much trying to help. Who knows maybe it was environment and early abuse or something but nature stacked the deck I think in my family. The other issue with adoption is limited access to family medical history.
I don’t really understand your argument. Wearing dresses isn’t heritable, we know that because most women’s grandmothers wore dresses and most women wear jeans or casual wear.
Heritability isn’t proof that a trait is genetic, but it’s strong evidence once you start addressing confounding factors. As I recall, the IQ heritability research was done with twin studies.
This is like shocking to me we’re even debating this. I would have assumed it’s conventional wisdom.
Wearing dresses is heritable! Heritability is simply the ratio of genetically-caused variation to total variation for some trait across a population. Bad driving is heritable. So is risk aversion. So is musical taste. So is how much TV you watch. All of these: studied.
Traits can trivially be minimally heritable and totally genetically determined. The number of fingers on your hands is genetically determined by your Hox genes. But the variation in the number of fingers on your hand (more precisely: across the population) is overwhelmingly not genetically determined. Genetically determined, low heritability.
Traits can trivially be maximally heritable and not at all genetically determined. Whether or not you wear lipstick is largely decided by XY vs. XX. But there's no gene for wearing lipstick; if the cultural ball had broken a different way, we might all be wearing lipstick, or none of us. Genetically unencumbered, high heritability.
So: you haven't said anything. You're not even wrong. All you pointed out was that you can do a study and determine that population variations in intelligence (or bad driving, or social trust, or fear of dentists) are traceable to genetic variance. That doesn't mean that genes literally encode the outcome.
Heritability isn't "strong evidence". It's barely evidence at all. It's literally just a framing of the question, which your argument simply begs. Irresponsibly, at that. None of this should be news to you.
I don't even have to take a position on the blighted question of whether intelligence is genetically determined (or whether we can measure it meaningfully at all, or whether it's fixed at birth or fluid, or whether outcomes in intellectual performance are epigenetic). And I'm not. I'm just pointing out that your argument, the one I replied to, was literally vacuous.
> As I recall, the IQ heritability research was done with twin studies.
No, it wasn't. Such a set up is impossible because of lack of samples and sampling bias.
All that "IQ is X% heritable" means is that they ran a linear regression on a large data set and saw that the variance error in the regression reduced by X% when they plugged in parental IQ as a covariate in the regression.
This is a correlational study as causal studies are impossible. Correlational studies are inherently spurious and ignore lots of confounding factors. Nevertheless, we can say that what we routinely observe in real life - smart parents having smart kids, has been grounded in real data.
For getting effect of race on IQ you plug in race as a covariate. Typically, most of the race based IQ research remove parental IQ as a covariate. All of these regression based studies are dubious and there is no real way to correct it. A large data set of twins who were separated at birth could help, but there are caveats there as well.
As an aside, Jordan Peterson seems to love these race IQ regression models and likes to call them hard undeniable science. He immediately switched sides when talking about climate models and how these models can't be trusted, because the simple choice of covariate included creates absolutely unreliable and biased models.
We have relatively strong evidence for a significant degree of genetic determinism in athletic ability (at least for some sports). We do not for intelligence.
I find this topic very interesting. My observation (anecdata-lly, but I would love to see RCTs or perhaps a cleanly designed ANOVA study) is that these symptoms of infertility are particularly (world-wide) prevalent in people who have (usually undiagnosed) metabolic syndrome & low cholecalciferol.
In almost all South-east Asian countries in particular, I have noticed high levels of sucrose consumption so I am curious if Korea is the similar to SEA, or if either of these factors apply to either of you?
Koreans have famously long working hours, but as you are not there, those stress factors should likely not apply to you.
Another point to note is that I have heard adoption is at least as difficult as IVF, emotionally & financially speaking, although there's less physical pain. At least IVF can point you to where the problem lies (the knowledge of that can be disconcerting) providing you perhaps avenues to mitigate/ameliorate those factors, which could improve your overall QoL and also lead to better health-outcomes.
I'm Korean born, but spent most of my life in the US. My wife is a much more recent immigrant so she is a product of the Korean education system as well as the Korean corporate world and all that entails.
We have some friends that have adopted, so are aware of the potential issues. Most of them seem perfectly fine, but one had some initial problems with the child adjusting to his new life. These were all toddlers (3-5 years old).
Probably because it comes through as tall claims based on anecdata? But I've lived in Europe, America, Asia, ME & Australia (also visited every SEA country) and the prevalence of male feminization & rich-people obesity (esp central adiposity) in certain regions is quite staggering.
And almost every single person I know personally with difficulty conceiving (various races, various countries, various diagnoses including ectopic/fibroids/undiagnosed) had some obvious-to-me metabolic-syndrome/cholecalciferol/ferritin issues going on, particularly Asian-sub-continentals in northern sun-starved climates who were not supplementing cholecalciferol.
Aside: How does one tell downvotes? I suppose I should look in the FAQ. IIRC only established members can downvote. Despite my account being from HN's 2007 inception, I do not have enough established-karma to have my own downvote button. So I generally don't bother about it, as it's a bit of a circular dead-end karma-spiral which I had thought the HN mechanics were supposed to avoid.
Downvotes: I'm so glad you asked, as I often wonder the same on "you're being downvotes because" comments. Eventually a post goes grey, but prior to that I have not been able to spot an indicator of downvotes happening. And I do have the downvote button.
There is a karma threshold for downvoting, you likely haven't reached it yet. It's in the FAQ.
However, as to HN culture, typically anyone complaining about downvotes will be further downvoted. It usually does not matter what the rest of the comment says, if you complain about downvotes, HN will give you a lot more of them. I like to think that it is a way for the community to remind individuals that these are all imaginary points anyway and to not be attached to one's karma number anymore than one is attached to the number of the nearest speed limit sign.
What do you mean by male feminisation? I get the impression from context that you're referring to biological differences but that could easily be interpreted as "man aren't real men these days and that's why they can't conceive".
I think they mean feminization in the biological sense: It's the reason fat men usually have visible breasts: the body has a pathway for converting cholesterol into estradiol[0], excessive cholesterol causes some feminization due to that.
This is exactly what I meant. Particularly visible in richer social strata in SEA, especially in the Philippines and to a lesser extent in Malaysia & Singapore. The amount of sucrose consumed in that first country beggars belief. Everything at breakfast is full of sucrose, even the pork & of course, bacon.
Also, I appreciate your use of the singular "they" :-)
The weirdest part of it all is I see censorship, gaslighting when you bring up contraception possibly having impact on fertility. All discourse around it is stopped. We can't even question it. But we do know that contraception in developed countries were pushed heavily and is it concidence that in countries that don't have access to it have unchanged birth rates?
Even without evidence of contraceptions impact on fertility, when you repeatedly disrupt a natural process such as through abortion, is it any surprise that most development countries have dwindling birth rates? Is it a surprise that a country like South Korea with high abortion rate have the lowest birth rate?
Correlation may not mean causation but the probability is high. What doesn't help is that we censor/cancel people for even mentioning that abortion/contraception have unknown impact on fertility and we are left guessing what else it could be: plastic? air pollution? marijuana? All of these have been without previous generation but what was absent then compared to today was the ready availability of contraceptives/abortion.
Women have more power and independence than anytime in history, they can have a career, they can be sexually active, they can abort their fetus or put in their body all sorts of ways to prevent pregnancy. Is it any surprise that they are now finding it difficult to conceive?
It’s been studied, I don’t know any links off the top of my head but they’ve consistently found that fertility returns to normal within a couple of months / menstrual cycles. The hard part is knowing when you are fertile: since there are only a few days each menstrual cycle when the egg is available to be fertilized if you’re just coming off contraception and don’t know your natural cycle length it’s easy to miss those days.
