Well... Actual you're the one who felt the urge to present your baseless and unfounded speculations to the public. When confronted with this it became quickly clear that you don't havr a clue how IQ-tests work and how the numbers csn be used. That's a clear sign of a low IQ. Sorry for you.
There is no discussion: you're not qualified and presumably not very intelligent (base level IQ or below). I had lost interest in your speculations already.
IQ tests are statistics and clearly defined. Your concepts are pseudoscientific nonsense at best and quite baseless. Where did you get the idea that IQ is 'declining'. IQ is always relative to a representive test group, at a certain time, within a certain population. Just statistics, nothing more. Study the info.
So you can't grasp what it reads. How can you then expect to discuss it?
Read the text on the page I gave.
"Nowadays psychologists continue to use Thurstone's deviation method. Any IQ score hence represents the relative position in comparison to the individuals that took part in the test calculations (called test sample) according to a normal distribution of intelligence". – hence gaussian distribution in which IQ 100 is average.
Are you really that misinformed? Decline? Have you not heard about the Flynn-effect?
Also:
"The level of intelligence, in other words the Intelligence Quotient, is always a comparison with the sample or group of individuals that took part in the creation of the test and is therefore always a relative measurement."
and
"Average IQ of a group is always 100"
Right... I'm beginning to see what your problem is: an inflated sense of your own capacities. The average I.Q. is still and always 100, per definition (read up on it).
Well... Actually there are climate change scientists and the scientific consensus amongst them is that greenhouse gases are causing the currently observed global warming and other changes of a delicate balance of our ecosystem. Apparently is bad, really bad and getting worse quickly because of various feedback loops. The paper I gave elsewhere in this discussion is one of many clearly showing this.
The average I.Q. of scientists is at least a standard deviation or two or even more, above the population average (which is 100 per definition).
Wait a moment, I'll stop you there at the start. Scientific consensus is where scientists agree about something (scientific). In this case human caused climate change. Of course there are always nay-sayers, who disagree even when scientific facts stare them right in the face. Lay people get confused easily by these people, so leave it to experts to correctly digest available scientific information and simply just listen to what they say and follow their instructions. They're the experts.
There is no such 'paper' that is peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Don't base your views on baseless speculations, a.k.a. conspiracy theories, a.k.a. misinformation, a.k.a. fake news. Scientific consensus on climate change due to human activity is crystal clear amongst actual climate scientists.
That used to be the case but now the delicate balance of our ecosystem has been destroyed by human activity, which will result in a massive extinction event. We are all doomed.
:ferris: vs :julia:
Rust vs Julia in scientific computing
Why I think that Julia doesn't solve the two-language problem and when Rust is the actual solution.
https://mo8it.com/blog/rust-vs-julia
The blog post is the base for my tiny talk at #RustSciComp23 which is now public:
Think of the recording as a trailer. The blog post has many more details and aspects that can not fit into 7 minutes ⏳️
I hope for discussions across both communities 🥰
#JuliaLang #RustLang

Well... Actually #Rust kinda sucks, so I'm going to check how #Julia has been advancing.
'Britains' is not a correct denomination for the intended country.

