data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dcc09/dcc094c2b198832285e52655a885c2f7164b7095" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/098bc/098bccdc5e7eabe662da9cf2d6d9afed00bd3eca" alt=""
For or against won’t matter when he’s made king.
For or against won’t matter when he’s made king.
@mighty_orbot@retro.pizza
What I mean is, the link in a Lemmy community when viewed from a Lemmy instance works just fine. So it’s not broken at that level.
I can’t speak to how it comes across to Mastodon, or your particular method of access to that, as you showed in your screenshot. In general, instances running the Mbin software seem to work better to access both Lemmy and Mastodon, but overall communication between Mastodon and Lemmy seems not perfect, as you said.
I’m not sure if you’ll get this reply @mighty_orbot@retro.pizza, but here’s the link visible from Lemmy itself: https://tuta.com/blog/digital-fingerprinting-worse-than-cookies.
Your method of accessing this Lemmy community seems not to be working on your side somehow. You might try a different app - I’ve never used Mastodon so I don’t know what might work.
Oh how right/wrong they were… 😮
Isn’t intelligence somewhat like the word “good” - as in, someone must be “good at” something, rather than inherently. Are cars “good”? (sometimes but not always…) Are cats? Are people? e.g. regarding the latter, there are many tasks for which a computing device is much better than most people - e.g. sorting a list of >1000000 elements, within one second (and then doing that task, without pausing or slowing down or error, in perpetuity). So the term “good” is only definable given a known fitness landscape.
Which then becomes somewhat naive to try to extrapolate beyond that - bc then someone good at sports could be said to be “intelligent” (at performing their particular sport?), or someone with high emotional flexibility at adaptive to new circumstances, etc. Ironically enough, someone with good accounting skills (always thinking within the box, that being the whole point for them) would likely make a horrible scientist (who needs to think OUTSIDE of the box), and potentially though not guaranteed vice versa.
So intelligence must be reflective of… SOMETHING, blah blah hand waving meaning things that “I” am good at, basically. I know right, I have all the best-er-est words, I am such a jenius, and so on.
So yeah, they would be less “intelligent” at performing those tasks that are measured by the test. Corollary: people on average may legitimately have gotten more intelligent over time, depending on availability of schooling. Thus necessitating adjustment of the measurement system, if the real goal was not to measure “intelligence” and rather to provide some kind of separation among people based solely on that singular metric (which itself should be questioned, if the people doing so are wise rather than merely intelligent:-).