Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
You are arguing against yourself here, if it's fundamentally not possible to measure it then speculation around what a measured value could and could not be used for is useless, especially in such absolutist terms.
If it is measurable then variation could and would exist, based on the external interactions with whatever phenomenon would affect this variable.
With the exception, of course, of it being some fundamental constant, which would be unusual in a scientific sense.
The rest i mostly agree with, though i might move around the cause and effect a bit on some of those, but it doesn't really change the outcome.
I take issue with the idea that a test can somehow measure intelligence. Standardized tests measure information and skills learned in class. When scores are lower is doesn't mean the students are dumber. It means the school system is failing to teach.
I agree that there is no universally accepted general definition of intelligence , there are some very specific subset that can be somewhat reliably measured but that's not even close to a general score.
Standardised tests measure the ability to pass the tests, last i checked it was mostly rote memorization more than applications of skills learned. ( my info could be out of date or incorrect on this )
That's not strictly true and it's also not a mutually exclusive scenario.
For a given metric of "dumbness" it is possible for it to go up and down independent of school teaching standards and approaches. or even a combination of the teachings standards + some other things
Also if you are going to argue that perceived "dumbness" can only be attributed to failing to teach , that assumes a usable metric for "dumbness" that can be measured.
I'm mostly agreeing with your points, i'm just not seeing how "can't measure smartness" and "smartness can only be falling due to teaching failures" can be posited simultaneously.
It doesn't measure intelligence, and this is a fortune article not a peer reviewed paper.
What it is, is that test scores are historically correlated with cognitive function. The depression of the measurable metric is assumed to be following the depression of an unmeasurable metric.
The alternate is, there's a divorce between these metrics and that disruption is caused by the things you said.