I saw a TV show many years ago where the therapist simply set up a video camera in the dining room of a family to record, every day, the family dinner. After 2 or 3 weeks, the family forgot about the camera and reverted to their normal behaviors.
After a few months of this, the therapist took the videos and then showed each member of the family how they behaved. They were horrified, and it turned out to be excellent family therapy.
It's like the best way to teach someone to be a better public speaker is to record them speaking, and play it back to them.
No, but there is a concerted effort in the US to extend voting rights down to that age (albeit, I don't believe there's much overlap between the proponents of these two issues).
I'd actually prefer the mike in my phone, computer, etc., to not be that sensitive. I don't want it to be picking up background conversations, for example.
A failure to issue a warning is not a refutement of the standard. As I said, yes obviously you can force it. You can force just about anything you want in C/C++.
But if you do
int& r = *((int*)0);
You'll find it will warn, and tell you that what you're doing is illegal:
<source>:2:14: warning: binding dereferenced null pointer to reference has undefined behavior [-Wnull-dereference]
Same if you try to naively return nullptr on a method that returns a reference:
int& iref() {
return nullptr;
}
<source>: In function 'int& iref()':
<source>:6:12: error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type 'int&' from an rvalue of type 'std::nullptr_t'
This is not a valid program. The second line invokes undefined behavior. The compiler is legally allowed to replace the null dereference with code that sends your porn collection to your mother, and set the reference to 42.
If you get a null reference, this is by chance and not by design.
> The compiler is legally allowed to replace the null dereference with code that sends your porn collection to your mother, and set the reference to 42.
No, but they may optimize out assigning to the reference at all, since assigning to it requires dereferencing a provably null pointer, which means that any future code is effectively meaningless.
I've gotten into arguments about this in the past.
As you've shown, references can be null, but theyre not supposed to be and are assumed nearly universally to not be.
The argument comes down to when the undefined behavior occurs: is it at the deference to create the reference, or is it on the first memory access using the reference? The language pedants will say the former, but in practice, it's the latter.
In practice, you'll likely be able to invoke a member function on a null pointer or reference, as long as that member doesn't directly or indirectly access data members, or virtual functions of the type. Obligatory, I dont recommend doing this or relying upon this behavior, it's just behavior I've seen in my 2 decades of debugging C++.
It's mostly important in the context of codifying nullability. If a function returns a reference it's part of the contract that it doesn't return null. Similarly, if a parameter is a reference it's part of the contract that you can't pass it null.
It doesn't mean a method that takes or returns a pointer must allow null as a valid value, of course, Optional<> is better for that. But standards-enforced non-null is a very practically useful aspect of references that differ them from pointers.
> The argument comes down to when the undefined behavior occurs: is it at the deference to create the reference, or is it on the first memory access using the reference? The language pedants will say the former, but in practice, it's the latter.
The undefined behavior is always when the null reference is created. The issue will _usually_ manifest when you try to dereference the pointer, but the undefined behavior was creating the null reference in the first place.
So you think it "very unlikely" that someone more intelligent would make better decisions, and those decisions have better outcomes enabling someone to live in a pricier neighborhood?
Well first, we're talking about the zip code one is raised in not the zip code one ends up in later in life. Second, we're discussing the efficacy of IQ as an actual measure of intelligence. You're assuming IQ is a good measure of intelligence in order to prove IQ is a good measure of intelligence. Sure, zip codes are a proxy for IQ if we accept that IQs test something other than just intelligence.
Finally, the causal relationship you have set up between intelligence and quality of living situation, while undoubtedly true to _some_ extent, ignores everything we know about system racism, system sexism, our horrific healthcare system and a host of other factors that complicate this idea - at least in the US.
You need to be a specialist to be worth a high salary. The dumbest doctor is a smart guy. The worst MLB player was the superstar of his Little League. Many people with high incomes are not wealthy at all -- they have no money.
To be wealthy, you just need to have assets and not do dumb things. Wealthy people either inherited it or had a liquidity event. Nobody gets rich via income. There is some intelligence involved in the liquidity part, but also alot of luck. If you have inherited property in NYC in the last 40 years and didn't sell it, you are wealthy. If you operate a McDonald's franchise, you are wealthy, and probably are of average intelligence.
From page 8, only 1 in 5 is retired. Even so, claiming that retirement savings do not count as wealth seems rather odd.
You can choose to read the book and determine how it is done, and what you can choose to do to become a millionaire yourself, or you can choose to remain a victim of fate. Your choice.
> I think it's because intelligence doesn't help when it comes to earning money.
What evidence is there of that?
> The luck and social component is so strong that there is very little incentive for people to be intelligent.
People tend to make their own luck. For example, if you sit home and watch TV 6 hours a day, you are highly unlikely to get lucky. If you're out swinging the bat, you're far more likely to get a hit.
I see no reason that brain makeup would be any more a choice than eye color or height.
But even if it is, that just pushes the question back another stage. People make choices for reasons, based on their experience and predictions. Lucky to be someone who had the appropriate experiences and made appropriate predictions to choose drive and motivation. There should be no reason to doubt this unless you believe in some kind of external soul or intervening deity - a child who is hit every time they speak or move without being told to, will make different choices about "drive and motivation" as a child who is encouraged and praised when they do things of their own accord. It can't be otherwise, to suggest that people do things /without/ their environment affecting them at all is so absurd as to be instantly dismissible. The idea that infants might know what "drive and motivation" even are, without being taught, that everyone must learn that they are effective and valuable, independent of all experiences, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
Put simply, if what you say was true, /everyone would choose that/.
People are all born with different characteristics, sure. But this does not predestine them. You, with your brain, can choose your path. You can choose to take advantages of your inborn advantages, and train to overcome your inborn deficits. It's why you HAVE a brain.
You can CHOOSE. People do it every day.
To claim to be fated to be a victim of circumstance is choosing to be a loser. You'll not be what you could be.
Free will implies that if you make a decision (after a long process of deliberating) then roll back the universe to before the start of that process and run it again, you can make a different decision even though exactly nothing changed.
In deterministic universe, everything will run right on the same tracks, and your cognitive process influenced by its internal structure, its accumulated experience and current inputs, will arrive to the same conclusion. No free will here.
In non-deterministic universe, something will randomly happen differently and you will arrive to a different conclusion, but that is still not your doing. You don't control that atom decaying or not decaying and flipping your neuron or something. So no free will here either.
In dualistic universe, your "soul" will influence the decision differently, but that is merely moving the problem into soul realm. Depending on how much decision making your theology places into the brain and how much into the soul, the soul acts as a generator of randomness (it is is not influenced by materialistic inputs and experiences) or as a whole processing unit (if all thinking is done there). You don't control that either.
You can get up and go jogging and improve our health. Or you can turn on the TV. It's your choice. Just like you chose to write "What evidence is there of that?". You weren't fated to write that.
