> we are more heading into a Cyberpunk future where corporations hold the real power
I believe we're more heading into an Idiocracy future where corporations also hold the real power (e.g. "Carl's Jr machine: Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr. believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother.")
We have seen this coming for a long time. The thing is that 30 years ago, we thought it was going to be a technologically sophisticated, slick ultra-IBM type corporation that managed everyone's lives. Now, it seems like it's going to be more like a television station's advertising department manages your life.
You mean, regarding the dystopic aspect? Of course the societies depicted in those novels are dystopic, but I mean that it's possible to have similar systems of societal control in place without their being taken to an extreme.
Yea totally, Sawyer filters fit them nicely too. They're VERY durable, as in I've got one bottle I've carried probably hundreds of miles by now over several trips and it's been dropped and squeezed thousands of times. Looks like a bear chewed it up, but it still does not leak.
Pro tip: you can replace the O-ring that comes with the filter for a durable rubber one used for garden hoses for a real nice fit on the smartwater bottles, and have some extras because the worst is if you lose that seal (or it is damaged) and you are out in the wilderness.
President Trump's experience with the World Wrestling Federation qualifies him as the literal embodiment of Idiocracy's Wrestler President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rc
We've banned this account for consistently violating the guidelines. If you'd like to use this site as intended, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
Short parents can have tall kids and vice-versa. Smart parents can have dumb kids and vice-versa. Genetic inheritance is complicated. Effective IQ can be downwardly influenced by factors such as nutrition. Reality is far too complex to be captured by your pithy sentence, or my pithy paragraph.
I think it's fair to say in some instances that a person would have had a higher IQ but for some thing, but the term "effective IQ" is semantic jibberish. The score simply is whatever the test says it is.
Fair enough, it was a term I just made up to concisely convey the notion you described: “were it not for these factors, the results of the test may have had substantive differences.” Perhaps I failed, but I think my failure was an unfortunate distraction from the main point which you seemed to apprehend anyway. So there’s that.
I believe we're more heading into an Idiocracy future where corporations also hold the real power (e.g. "Carl's Jr machine: Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr. believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother.")