Disabling pasting just increases user error for those users copying from a password generator. What does make sense is to disable copying of the password field, so that people manually entering passwords can't just enter it, copy it, and then paste it. Those copying from another source such as a password generator can just paste twice, with little inconvenience.

That's utterly absurd.

Your logic (and in fact the whole way you go about thinking about these things) is flawed. The purpose of a confirmation box is to help assure that the user's action matches their intent. For users who enter passwords manually (which is the vast majority), the confirmation box achieves its purpose, regardless of whether paste is enabled. For users who enter via copy/paste, the confirmation box serves little purpose, but disabling paste increases user error for no good reason. The only thing that actually makes sense is to disable copying of the password box, so that any pasting would have to come from some other source, as a password manager. You have two basic errors here: 1) instead of analyzing cases for whether confirmation boxes are useful when paste is allowed, you identify a case in which it isn't and then wildly generalize, saying that they aren't helpful at all. 2) Rather than considering what the purpose of a confirmation box is, you only attend to its effect -- forcing people to type something twice -- and note that allowing paste potentially removes that effect ... quite overlooking the fact that, for passwords copied from another source such as a password manager, the confirmation box isn't necessary for its intended purpose (and disabling paste even acts against that purpose).

Because without some grasp of physics there's no way for cats to make the predictions they do. Duh.

Quote:

Sounds like a good way to swindle research funds.

Only to someone who knows nothing about the field science and how and why research is done.

I don't know a lot about QM, but a quick search for weak anthropic principle tells me that you are using a philosophical definition as counter-argument.

Um, no, I made the counterargument and then gave the definition of it.

But that doesn't imply that the universe is real.

Logic failure. I didn't say that it implies it ... I gave, as you said, a counterargument to the claim that we must be living in a simulation. An argument that P isn't necessary is not an argument that (not P) is necessary.

If anything, it says that we are simulations compatibles with the simulation that it is our universe.

No, it doesn't say that, which is exactly the point. We might or might not be within a simulation. The claim I am refuting is that, because of certain features of the universe, it must be a simulation. But there's no reason to accept that claim.

You're mouthing fossil fuel industry propaganda.

I know a lot about QM and I don't agree. Without the facts of physical law you mention, the inflationary Big Bang, the coalescence of matter into stars, and the arisal of organisms that can figure these things out would not occur. Therefore, such facts of physical law are logically necessary. This is the weak anthropic principle.

This is a ridiculous argument. There is no reason to think that such things aren't simply how the world is ... especially, since, without them, the laws of physics would not give rise to this world containing intelligent beings able to analyze it. The weak anthropic principle demolishes these "this must be a simulation" arguments.

Well, that's not "more to the point", because it's not me who was explaining why he failed the test questions, I was simply quoting his explanation. As I said, his moronic and dishonest explanation that his multiplication and division were "rusty" was "particularly amusing". As I wrote elsewhere,

Quote:

There's no division on these tests that even a halfwit can't do in their heads, and even if there were such problems, manual multiplication and division are trivial rote procedures that high IQ brains don't forget. People with 200 IQs can visualize in multiple dimensions; they don't struggle with arithmetic. If this person scored 200 on "official" tests, how did he manage that with such poor skills, and why did he do so much worse on a test that purportedly has scores inflated by 20%? These are the sorts of obvious questions that people with average IQs don't bother to ask.

> That means for every engineer with an IQ of 135, there is a developmentally disabled person with an IQ of 65. I don't see a lot of either walking around. I encounter plenty of people with IQs of 135, in programming and physics (occupationally), law (a former SO was a law professor who once told me "you're pretty smart, and you're not even a lawyer"), and Mensa (132 on Stanford-Binet, which has an SD of 16, is the minimal requirement for entry). > That means that an Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein with an IQ of 200+ comes along once or twice in 100 years over the whole world, Not really. I know two brothers, both of whom have over IQs over 200. One scored in the top 100 on the Putnam exam and got his PhD in algebraic topology from UCLA when he was 23. Through him I met a fellow who scored in the top 10 on the Putnam. IQ tests are child's play for people at that level. Mathematician Terence Tao and physicist Chris Herata purportly have IQs over 220, and Guinness listed Korean engineer Kim Ung Yong at 210 and Marilyn vos Savant at 228 (they no longer have a highest IQ category because of unreliability at those levels). Oh, and Einstein, while of course brilliant and deeply insightful, is estimated to have had an IQ about the same as Stephen Hawking's -- 160. IQ measures something, but it isn't the thing folks like that have. > so the poster who thinks his IQ is 200 has much to prove. Yeah, internal evidence strongly indicates that he's lying. It's particularly amusing that he claims that he missed the Mensa entrance by 1 point (despite other people claiming that Mensa scores are inflated by 20% so as to qualify more people and thus make more money -- bwahahah) because his multiplication and division were rusty, and making the age old excuse of people who fail odd-one-out tests that the correct answers are chosen arbitrarily.

> The score required is probably very different now Um, no. The qualification is and was 2 standard deviations above the mean, which is a score of 132 on the Stanford-Binet. What has changed is the questions and the scoring, which are modified over time to keep the mean at 100. That implies that the tests have gotten harder, because IQs are rising (the Flynn Effect). As for what IQ means aside from being a normalized score on an IQ test ... numerous studies show correlations between IQ scores and various other attributes, such as SAT scores, income, wealth, and so on.

> That means for every engineer with an IQ of 135, there is a developmentally disabled person with an IQ of 65. I don't see a lot of either walking around. I encounter plenty of people with IQs of 135, in programming and physics (occupationally), law (a former SO was a law professor who once told me "you're pretty smart, and you're not even a lawyer"), and Mensa (132 on Stanford-Binet, which has an SD of 16, is the minimal requirement for entry). > That means that an Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein with an IQ of 200+ comes along once or twice in 100 years over the whole world, Not really. I know two brothers, both of whom have IQs over 200. One scored in the top 100 on the Putnam exam and got his PhD in algebraic topology from UCLA when he was 23. Through him I met a fellow who scored in the top 10 on the Putnam. IQ tests are child's play for people at that level. Mathematician Terence Tao and physicist Chris Herata purportly have IQs over 220, and Guinness listed Korean engineer Kim Ung Yong at 210 and Marilyn vos Savant at 228 (they no longer have a highest IQ category because of unreliability at those levels). Oh, and Einstein, while of course brilliant and deeply insightful, is estimated to have had an IQ about the same as Stephen Hawking's -- 160. IQ measures something, but it isn't the thing folks like that have. > so the poster who thinks his IQ is 200 has much to prove. Yeah, internal evidence strongly indicates that he's lying. It's particularly amusing that he claims that he missed the Mensa entrance by 1 point (despite other people claiming that Mensa scores are inflated by 20% so as to qualify more people and thus make more money -- bwahahah) because his multiplication and division were rusty, and making the age old excuse of people who fail odd-one-out tests that the correct answers are chosen arbitrarily.

here is some quantitative data that might actually give you some insight into your question: [^]

> Nobody knows, so what they do is give the test to a whole lot of people, and then by looking at the "average" of the number of correct answers, that determines what gets assigned as "100." You didn't understand the question. > Of course, that average has undoubtedly been going down as technology and our education systems dumb down people. Smart people know better than to mistake their beliefs for facts, and they certainly know better than to have no doubt about those beliefs. As it turns out, you are incorrect, and it has been necessary to make IQ tests harder over the years in order to keep the mean at 100: Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^]

> define things in at least three ways - eg a equilateral triangle is one that has all its sides the same length; has all its angles the same; is symmetric about the bisector of any of its angles The latter two aren't definitions, they are theorems. The definition of an equilateral triangle is a polygon with three interior angles (i.e., a triangle), the sides of which are equal in length (i.e., equilateral). There's a good "mental exercise" ... breaking things down into parts, seeing what the parts are, seeing their relationships, and attending to details.

Because of social sorting, you probably have not had extensive interactions with very many people with an IQ of 100. If you were to do so, you would probably find them to be relatively stupid. But why believe me, or anyone else responding to your question? Be a scientist, figure out how to identify some people with 100 IQs, and go interact with them and see for yourself.

It would be smart to think about what sort of answer you can expect to that question, and why you would or wouldn't accept the answer as factual. For instance, if I made some claim about the ability of people with 100 IQs to program in C#, how could I possibly prove it, and why would you choose to believe it ... other than being predisposed to doing so. BTW, the people making claims about Mensa and its tests are lying. The person claiming to score 185-200 on "official" tests has never done any such thing if he failed to qualify on a Mensa test, which has a much lower standard (132). Mensa test scores are most certainly are not inflated by 20% ... Mensa administers standardized Stanford-Binet and Weschler tests, using trained proctors, but also accepts proper documentation of results on other tests. The "Which of these things is not like the other?" questions do not have arbitrary answers ... that is a common excuse of people who fail, but there is an objectively right answer, with an explanation that most people accept when it is pointed out to them. And really, "I lost time on the math section because I hadn't done long multiplication/division by hand in years"? There's no division on these tests that even a halfwit can't do in their heads, and even if there were such problems, manual multiplication and division are trivial rote procedures that high IQ brains don't forget. People with 200 IQs can visualize in multiple dimensions; they don't struggle with arithmetic. If this person scored 200 on "official" tests, how did he manage that with such poor skills, and why did he do so much worse on a test that purportedly has scores inflated by 20%? These are the sorts of obvious questions that people with average IQs don't bother to ask. And no one in Mensa ever talks about their test scores, in part because they're smart enough to realize that they are likely to end up on the wrong end of the comparison. The chatter about bragging rights and Mensa wanting your money is sour grapes and largely downright stupid ... if Mensa were inflating scores in order to get more members to make more money, they would do away with the entry requirements altogether. And again, Mensa uses standardized proctored tests, the same ones used by psychologists. No, sorry, this is just the common phenomenon of random not terribly bright people lying on the internet.

That will go over some heads.

Those are totally different things. Getting 4 heads in a row is a random outcome that is exactly as likely as getting 4 tails in a row. This discovery is about non-random patterns in the differences between consecutive primes.

Perhaps you should try actually reading the article, which mentions other bases. The issue isn't the base, but that the differences between consecutive primes isn't entirely random.