What do you mean by huge? Would $20k or $30k in savings have made a difference?
Not if you have savings.
No fantasy, extravagant is subjective, I've had many years where I saved 3o% to 35% of my income. Are those that earned my income and didn't save anything extravagant? Probably not by most standards, I'm not a high income earner. Would I feel sorry for them if they had a $20,000 obligation they couldn't meet. No, I'd be asking why were you wasting all that money. Spend less than you earn.
Anyway, I'm sorry for your friends, I hope things turn around for them.
I'm 73 and retired (I'd prefer not to be, but haven't yet been able to work out a way of not being retired). I've got pension income, which doesn't make me any more of a leach on society than anybody else who is retired and living on a pension.
Obamacare didn't exist much more than two years ago. These people were whacked further back than that and insurance doesn't restore your lost income from not being able to work. Actually the wife was in school then and had to drop out just a semester shy of earning a masters degree which they won't allow her to pick back up, statute of limitations sort of thing.
Sure it can. Savings won't cover extra bills forever.
I don't know how it will get better. I'm just hoping they can keep treading water.
The notable difference between the Kochs and Soros is that the Koch brother s lie, and George Soros tends to tell it like it is.
If you want to guess their moral status on the basis of the way they (or in the Koch's case the way their father, Fred C. Koch) made their money, you have to ignore a whole lot of objective reality - but you are a right-wing nitwit, so that's more or less built-in.
The two famous Koch brothers are the two of the four who won when they went to court over their interests in their father's business in the 1980's and 1990's.
You flatter yourself. It's ad simian. And there's nothing in the least childish about pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about and can't justify your point of view with any kind of rational argument.
Guesstimate all you like. Intelligence - as measured by IQ tests - isn't a single skill and there's no evidence that whatever is being measured and to uted as intelligence - essentially exam-passing capacity - is normally dist ributed (in the sense of conforming to the Gaussian bell curve).
The fact that you seem to be too stupid to have learned that is a strong su ggestion that you aren't very bright at all, and are probably one of the co mplacent idiots who bought "The Bell Curve" and believed the flattery it se rved up.
If you were remotely as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you would have known that there is real climate science (as published in peer review ed journals) and denialist propaganda that's fed into any media outlet that is too cheapskate to do real science reporting. Asking for "evidence" that this has been going on for years is roughly like insisting that somebody i dentifies Donald Trump as a contender for the Republican Party nomination a s a presidential candidate.
Estimates of intelligence are of course inherently flawed in that most peop le esimate most others as less intelligent than themselves most of the time .
a single skill and there's no evidence that whatever is being measured and touted as intelligence - essentially exam-passing capacity - is normally di stributed (in the sense of conforming to the Gaussian bell curve).
It's IQ that conforms to the bell curve, by definition, not exam passing ca pacity.
ld have known that there is real climate science (as published in peer revi ewed journals) and denialist propaganda that's fed into any media outlet th at is too cheapskate to do real science reporting. Asking for "evidence" th at this has been going on for years is roughly like insisting that somebody identifies Donald Trump as a contender for the Republican Party nomination as a presidential candidate.
but that really does not demonstrate intelligence.
Your own performance wouldn't convince anybody that you knew what you were talking about - you just retreat behind the Latin tag, claiming that the facts don't matter, presumably because you've never tried to understand them.
ople estimate most others as less intelligent than themselves most of the t ime.
Some of us have good reason to suppose that this true.
t a single skill and there's no evidence that whatever is being measured an d touted as intelligence - essentially exam-passing capacity - is normally distributed (in the sense of conforming to the Gaussian bell curve).
capacity.
In other words IQ is some mystical property that does conform to the bell c urve. It's utility it that it is cheap to measure and correlates with exam- passing capacity, so administrators take it seriously, but nobody else need s to and most probably shouldn't.
ould have known that there is real climate science (as published in peer re viewed journals) and denialist propaganda that's fed into any media outlet that is too cheapskate to do real science reporting. Asking for "evidence" that this has been going on for years is roughly like insisting that somebo dy identifies Donald Trump as a contender for the Republican Party nominati on as a presidential candidate.
He wasn't being asked to demonstrate intelligence, just some basic knowledg e of the world. He failed.
Isn't it time for you to go die, worthless little double dipping parasite? You can't retire because you have no life, all you ever knew was your cushy little low skillset rote cad job at that bloated ibm cesspool...where all the job functions are super over specialized to bring them within reach of the bottom 30% of the intelligence pool.
a single skill and there's no evidence that whatever is being measured and touted as intelligence - essentially exam-passing capacity - is normally di stributed (in the sense of conforming to the Gaussian bell curve).
suggestion that you aren't very bright at all, and are probably one of the complacent idiots who bought "The Bell Curve" and believed the flattery it served up.
ld have known that there is real climate science (as published in peer revi ewed journals) and denialist propaganda that's fed into any media outlet th at is too cheapskate to do real science reporting. Asking for "evidence" th at this has been going on for years is roughly like insisting that somebody identifies Donald Trump as a contender for the Republican Party nomination as a presidential candidate.
On the other hand , IQ tests are designed to measure intelligence. Regardl ess of what you thunk, they are the best way to evaluate intelligence. And if you were more intelligent , you would realize that exam passing correla tes with being able to reason and make good decisions. The armed services have used them for years and find they work well.
What is it about usenet as a media that causes otherwise intelligent people to degenerate into grade school name calling form of arguments, on both sides of the political isle.
So why have you been wasting so much time guessing?
w
t a single skill and there's no evidence that whatever is being measured an d touted as intelligence - essentially exam-passing capacity - is normally distributed (in the sense of conforming to the Gaussian bell curve).
g suggestion that you aren't very bright at all, and are probably one of th e complacent idiots who bought "The Bell Curve" and believed the flattery i t served up.
ould have known that there is real climate science (as published in peer re viewed journals) and denialist propaganda that's fed into any media outlet that is too cheapskate to do real science reporting. Asking for "evidence" that this has been going on for years is roughly like insisting that somebo dy identifies Donald Trump as a contender for the Republican Party nominati on as a presidential candidate.
They are actually designed to measure something that correlates with intell igence - the word is quite a lot older than the original Binet test, devise d in 1905. The Complete Oxford dictionary cites it's use back in 1390.
As Binet said, case studies work better, but aren't as cheap.
ence.
They are the cheapest way of measuring something that correlates with intel ligence. Whatever it is they measure, it doesn't correlate all that well wi th what usually understood to be intelligence, rather better - but still no t all that well with exam-passing capacity.
rrelates with being able to reason and make good decisions. The armed ser vices have used them for years and find they work well.
Exam passing does correlate with the ability to reason and make good decisi ons - not all that closely, since passing exams is a specific skill in work ing under pressure and churning out just enough to satisfy the examiner - but, like intelligence testing, it's cheap - if not as cheap as intelligenc e tests - and close enough for government work.
If you want to get a reliable impression of somebodies intelligence you hav e to work with them for weeks on tasks that exercise intelligence in an are a that you understand tolerably well. Apprenticeship schemes work well for that, but they really aren't cheap and you don't get much throughput.
Taking IQ test results too seriously is a just as stupid as taking exam res ults seriously. Both are useful - if used with discretion - but we've all m et people who were good at passing examinations but not all that skilled at interpreting real world data.
It's an aisle (space between seating) rather than an isle (small chunk of l and surrounded by water).
And I suppose its related to the kind of insanity that prompts people to po st stuff that doesn't identify the particular bit of grade-school name-call ing that they are objecting to. "Right-wing nitwit" may sound like grade-sc hool name calling, but I didn't hear it in any the schools I went to, and i t does identify a a fairly coherent (if uniformly incoherent) bunch of peop le who post here.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.