Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harold and George Destroy the World

tomclancy.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 322 posts

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#271

Post by xyzzyz »

hirvi74 wrote: post #267
rayiner wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statistical validity != construct validity. Sure. But in science, we regularly postulate the existence of some construct, and confirm that construct by conducting many empirical tests that return results consistent with the existence of that construct. General intelligence is like that. We can’t see it directly. But we have myriad results that are statistically consistent with its existence.

Results consistent with the existence of a construct are not sufficient evidence for the existence of a construct. We can talk about statistical correlations till the Sun goes down, and I will not dispute that this ethereal 'g-factor' can infer minor to moderate predictions in some domains of people's lives at a population level. However, I have one question. What evidence is there that this 'g-factor' is actually re…

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by "is representative of general intelligence"? This is a very abstract statement. What does this mean in scientific, empirical terms? What kind of facts we would observe in the world where this is true? What empirical observations we'd make in the world where it's false?

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#272

Post by rayiner »

hirvi74 wrote: post #267
rayiner wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statistical validity != construct validity. Sure. But in science, we regularly postulate the existence of some construct, and confirm that construct by conducting many empirical tests that return results consistent with the existence of that construct. General intelligence is like that. We can’t see it directly. But we have myriad results that are statistically consistent with its existence.

Results consistent with the existence of a construct are not sufficient evidence for the existence of a construct. We can talk about statistical correlations till the Sun goes down, and I will not dispute that this ethereal 'g-factor' can infer minor to moderate predictions in some domains of people's lives at a population level. However, I have one question. What evidence is there that this 'g-factor' is actually re…

> I will not dispute that this ethereal 'g-factor' can infer minor to moderate predictions in some domains of people's lives at a population level

The U.S. military won’t hire people below an 83 IQ to peel potatoes, because experience shows that such people can’t effectively be trained. So it’s more than just “minor” predictions.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#273

Post by tclancy »

boogieknite wrote: post #84
Configure0251 wrote: post #9

No need to do a drive by on Predator Badlands like that, it's a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right. I agree with the author though, there's nothing nearly as emotionally deep or socio-politically engaging as One Battle After Another, and so it would make for poor choice as a double feature to run second in the pairing.

thank you! spoiler alert if anyone hasnt seen Predator Badlands Tom self owns himself quite a bit by dismissing a movie as drivel and then comparing it to dumb plots made by adult children. the entire point of the movie is to demonstrate how dumb and bad overt masculinity is. yes its oversimplified but its Predator. the audience is hormonal teenage boys who might think toxic masculinity is cool. the entire setup Tom…

I mean I owned myself in the writing, didn’t I? Ya dirty ai. Anyone else woulda gotten the upshot. Unless I am an ai too.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#274

Post by tclancy »

rayiner wrote: post #35

What’s childish is thinking that calling the Department of War by a euphemism changes what it is and always has been. The Department of “Defense” killed a bunch of people Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and countless minor actions. These bubbles of civilization we enjoy are built on adults killing a bunch of people, as necessary, to establish the order that allows more childish people to build social media…

What am I, twelve. Literally the point. My dad went to Vietnam because he felt obligated to do so because he was a much better American than he raised. I am not quite so slow as not to know what I said.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#275

Post by tclancy »

saaaaaam wrote: post #52
skyberrys wrote: post #27

Is this an attack on Captain Underpants of the silly novels? Or are we arguing that the global leaders are immature and don't think through their decisions? I admit I've only just started reading Captain Underpants but it doesn't seem like George and Harold are willing to do pranks to the extent of harming anyone. I do recognize childness in leadership occasionally. When I directly have to interface with it I adapt m…

I didn’t read it as an attack on the novels. I think it’s meant to be about Trump. Or football. Or something. I couldn’t really tell.

It’s post modern, y’know?

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#277

Post by tclancy »

Configure0251 wrote: post #9

No need to do a drive by on Predator Badlands like that, it's a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right. I agree with the author though, there's nothing nearly as emotionally deep or socio-politically engaging as One Battle After Another, and so it would make for poor choice as a double feature to run second in the pairing.

It’s something I do. I used to read good record reviews and buy both albums, love one and hate the other and then have to come back. I assume the Predator movie will be great based on what I’ve seen.

Just won’t be Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#278

Post by xp84 »

enoint wrote: post #194
xp84 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lest you think there’s one simple solution, my kid went to a school for one year that deliberately eliminated all that stuff - no set curriculum, no specific academic goals, and students get the majority of the vote on the rules and anything about the whole setup. They could learn about anything they want to, with no pressure. Most of the kids spent their whole days playing Xbox, Switch, or brainrot games like Roblox…

What about the minority?

There were a few kids, primarily among the handful of high school aged ones, who seemed to be doing some sort of work vaguely resembling schoolwork, doing some kind of reports on some topic, or a project writing some kind of video game mod.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#279

Post by boogieknite »

throwaway743 wrote: post #109
boogieknite wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thank you! spoiler alert if anyone hasnt seen Predator Badlands Tom self owns himself quite a bit by dismissing a movie as drivel and then comparing it to dumb plots made by adult children. the entire point of the movie is to demonstrate how dumb and bad overt masculinity is. yes its oversimplified but its Predator. the audience is hormonal teenage boys who might think toxic masculinity is cool. the entire setup Tom…

I see your take but I took it as "don't limit yourself to the confines of tradition and culture, open yourself up to others, go your own path, do the right thing, and make friends along the way to enrichen your life and meaning".

i agree. im certainly projecting having grown up in an overly macho competitive family and couldnt help but draw parallels

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#280

Post by ranyume »

skyberrys wrote: post #250
ranyume wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author seems to like the books, but somewhat downplays the children's world and nature. From my understanding of the author's article, It's a nature he believes adults shouldn't have and yet powerful people do. So he's bringing this up, comparing the children in Captain Underpants with these powerful people. And also he's reflecting on how media is created with a "childish mind". Personally, I don't think there's…

That's a good point. You articulate the difference between childish wonder and the sometimes innocent but still dangerous childish behaviors. The chance to experiment with your vision of the world is a good and valuable thing in both kids and adults. The childish behaviors that are more problematic are things like not fully considering the consequences of your actions. For instance a two year old might pick up a bumb…

While children have their own psychology, behavior and brain development cycle, I'd like to clarify that I'm being careful not to practice ageism, something deeply entrenched in our culture.

The things you listed are not a special innate properties of children past a certain age (maybe it's the passage from infant to child? I don't know). If you don't teach children how a bumble bee is dangerous, they'll never know, and adults either!. It's the same for not considering the consequences of actions. We adults know better because someone taught us and we learned via painful experiences, so it's our duty to guide them so they can avoid painful experiences (while not controlling them).

Post reply on HN